Decrying Direct Democracy

Everyone is thrilled pink that Obama called out those who lied about what was in the gun control bill. He said that the liars claimed that it created a “permanent registry,” when in actuality it contained a clause which prevented such a thing. But this whole discussion, in reality, makes very little sense. Not that that’s all that unusual in politics.

So, what was the real issue here? Who were the liars aiming their lies at?

Obama was saying that the Senators voted against the bill “because people lied about the bill.” So, did the Senators not read the bill they were voting on? Did they get the information upon which they based their votes from people outside the Senate who were talking about the bill? Seems to me it would be easier to read the bill.

Did the Senators call the NRA and ask the NRA to read the contents of the bill to them? They might have called the NRA and asked how they should vote, but that would not be consistent with Obama’s statement that they voted because someone lied about the content of the bill.

The only way Obama’s claim makes any sense is if the Senators are not reading the bills upon which they are voting and, additionally, are getting their information about those bills from gossip. In that case the criticism should not be the votes themselves, but the utterly idiotic manner of their decision making.

The unstated way in which it makes sense is if the liars lied to voters, who called their Senators and told them to vote against the bill. That’s called “direct democracy” or, perhaps “undue influence,” depending on which side you’re on. It’s also what Obama is trying to get his side to do in favor of the bill, and we can only presume that he is not also lying about it.

Good Move

It was mentioned on the news last night that just about every federal agency has agents at Boston Airoprt interviewing departing passengers. They are asking if they took pictures or videos anywhere or at any time during the marathon. If so they ask to download those images before the passenger boards his/her plane. Now that is good thinking.

Update: No, Bruce, I'm not being sarcastic. The Federal Bureau of Ineptitude sometimes gets things right. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, they can't help it.

Cowardly?

The President said yeaterday that the bombing in Boston was a "heinous and cowardly attack." Sigh. Every event that injures or kills Americans is a "cowardly attack." Why do we insist on calling everyone else cowards? What makes it cowardly to kill our people?

What is it when we kill people in the Middle East, and elsewhere, by remote control using drones and Hellfire missiles? Not cowardly, of course, right?

Boston Coverage

Watching the media cover the events in Boston yesterday was painful; at first because of the events themselves, and later due to the coverage. For the reports to be repeating themselves was understandable, since it was still during the workday and new viewers would be tuning in and seeking information. Much of the reporting was execrable, however, as most of the “reporters” are not trained journalists and were simply babbling nonsense.

NBC’s Brian Williams was particularly disgusting as he and some sidekick discussed the issue of there being two bombs, with the purpose of the second being to kill people who had come to the rescue of victims of the first one. “Those of us,” he said, “who have been exposed to this type of war zone are familiar with this tactic.” I wanted to bash his smug face in, and I am not a violent person.

First, Boston was not a “war zone,” it was the scene of a tragedy. Further, if the purpose of the second bomb was as he described, it would not have been set to go off in a matter of a few seconds after the first one, long before any rescuers could possibly have arrived, and it would not have been placed almost two blocks away, far from where any rescuers would be. The man is an egotistical idiot.

There were, we were told at first, seven or more “suspicious packages” found at the scene which were suspected to be undetonated bombs. Then there were five such objects. Then it was down to one, and there was doubt about that one. When in doubt, speculate. This morning there is no mention of any “suspicious packages” at all.

I turned the television off until the regular time for CBS Evening News and was treated to a thoroughly professional, cogent and intelligent summation of the day’s events in Boston. Impressive. They did apply the term “terrorist attack” a couple of times, which bothered me a little. That’s probably not terribly unreasonable, but I think it’s a bit premature. I think we need to know more before we start screaming “terrorist.”

The glaring lesson of yesterday, which is being entirely missed by everyone, is that taking off our shoes at airports, and all of the indignity and inconvenience that goes along with that, is an exercise in futility. Safety is an illusion.

The old saying about nations which give up liberty to achieve safety should read, “A nation which surrenders any liberty in order to achieve a little safety is peopled by idiots, for it surrenders something precious in pursuit of that which does not exist.”

Principles, Forsooth

The Obama loyalists, “Obamabots,” have found reasons to support or ignore everything Obama has done so far, but he seems to have overstepped with this proposal on the “chained cpi” for Social Security. Reminds me of the poem of years back.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Obama loyalists are okay with him killing people in foreign lands without even knowing who they are, and killing women and children in the process. They find excuses about “keeping us safe” for that.

They are okay with him maintaining Guantanamo Bay prison for the uncharged prisoners whom he has chosen not to kill. They find ways to blame Congress for that.

They are okay with him starting wars not only without Congressional approval, but against its expressed wishes. They find ways to pretend that Libya was not really a “war,” or that he was ordered to do it by the UN.

They are okay with “health care reform” that preserves drug company profits by design and has no “public option.” They make excuses about what “had to be done” to pass the “most important legislation” since FDR freed the slaves or something.

But let him propose to cut their Social Security and they rise up, howling in righteous indignation because he is “betraying their principles.”

When someone says “How dare you cut my Social Security?” he is not talking about principles. While Obama has been violating all sorts of principles that are core values of this nation these loyalists kept silent and/or made excuses and they are outraged and arguing principles only now that Obama is coming for their money. They get no sympathy from me.

New Gun Law Comment #1

The "bipartisan" gun control law regarding background checks allows mental health professionals to violate privacy requirements and put petients' names on the gun control list without their consent, and even without their knowledge. If this becomes law expect mental health professionals to join the ranks of the unemployed in droves.

Back Of The Line, Part 2

My commentary yesterday was prompted more by the mindlessness of the slogan, “go to the back of the line,” than by the actual issue of the disposition of persons who came to this country in violation of the law. Politicians make up these statements which mean nothing in reality, but people seem to buy them at face value. As with “We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks,” no one seems willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

As to “amnesty,” when we apply the Statute of Limitations, which we observe for all but the most heinous crimes, we effectively give the law breaker what he broke the law to get. Perhaps we should deal with illegal entry in the same manner; until the Statute of Limitations has run its course if we catch you we will deport you, after that time limit has expired you are cleared of that violation.

In which case there should be none of this “back of the line” nonsense. Persons who have been cleared in that manner have had their status normalized, and are not subject to further penalty. That is the whole purpose of the statute.

I don’t know what would be a reasonable time limit for that when applied to illegal entry. The waiting time for legal entry is typically on the order of magnitude of eight years, so that might seem to be a reasonable limitation.

This approach might well be to simple for Congress to wrap its collective head around, though.