In Seattle Democrats' latest assault on the Constitution, several state legislators are attempting to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and force current owners to submit to background checks.

Why? Because "there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state." Why? Because, according to Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire, "These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."

All types of guns are weapons of war. All guns can kill. And no, these guns cannot shoot 200 bullets a minute, not with accuracy, and not at a sustained rate before they break down.

(I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns. You'd think being informed would be a prerequisite for a position like that.)

So really, why? Rep. Ross Hunter and Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are proposing to ban semi-automatics "designed for military use" (which would be determined, no doubt, by subjecting the gun designers to Vulcan mind melds) that are "capable of rapid fire" (which is likely a synonym for either "automatic," or "semi-automatic") and "can hold more than 10 rounds," motivated in part by the slaying in October of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton, with a .223 semi-automatic rifle.

The "10 rounds" thing is a dumb ploy: it's meant simply to exclude hunting rifles, which are ballistically equivalent to "military" rifles (the .223 round that killed Brenton is used for hunting, and "military" rifles don't shoot the round differently, of course). And the difference in number of rounds isn't significant: no one can point to shooting incidents where the shooter used more than a few rounds, or didn't have time to swap magazines. They include this simply because they know they will lose the bill if hunters oppose it.

Of course, Brenton could have been killed with a rifle not covered under this ban: witnesses heard eight to 10 shots. But facts don't matter when people are dying!

Now, the text of the bill isn't up, but this would probably ban the sale of some hunting rifles, and certainly would ban the sale most semi-automatic handguns, because most of them can accept clips of more than 10 rounds, and were designed with military use in mind (for example, the classic 1911 was designed explicitly for use in war, and you could easily make the argument that all semi-automatic weapons were designed for military use, given that they all use concepts designed for military weapons).

My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.

While the first repeating rifle as we know it today didn't come along for 100 years, it was not for lack of trying: the problems of reloading quickly were well-considered by The Framers, and many people of the time wondered what it would take to be able to just pull the trigger multiple times without having to reload. (Indeed, in 1780, Bartolomeo Girandoni developed his first repeater, an air rifle.) And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if they could have had such practical weapons, they would have loved for the citizens to have them, that they might be used against the British.

Maybe Kohl-Welles and her colleagues can join Fascitelli in taking a gun education class.

Republican Congresswoman from Spokane, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, cosponsored a bill to make certain types of punishment and restraint illegal in schools.

She says in her piece on CNN.com, "It's difficult to believe, but there are no federal laws to prevent this from happening." I don't see how it is difficult to believe that there's no federal law regarding a purely state matter. While I have nothing against the aim of this legislation -- to restrict these particular practices -- it is nevertheless obvious that the law has no constitutional foundation, and further obvious that the citizens of each state -- being guaranteed a republican form of state government by the Constitution -- are fully capable of fixing the problem without federal legislation.

She never even attempts to say what justifies such an intrusion into the states. On her Facebook page -- I am on her friends list -- several people are congratulating her. They say the law is justified because "some states don't have these laws" and "states sometimes need a swift kick in the bumpus."

Last time I checked my Constitution, there was no clause that read, "the federal government can take over state functions if the states choose not to."

Even worse, many of these people are parrotting the Democratic deception that if you classify something as a "right," then that justifies federal intrusion. By that standard, almost any criminal statute can become a federal statute.

It's disheartening to see so many Republicans continuing -- in the face of the events of the last few years -- to jump on this bandwagon accelerating down the slippery slope toward tyranny.

I don't fault McMorris Rodgers' intentions, but it's obvious that good intentions are not good enough from a government. Following the Constitution and the important principles of limited government it is based on is the means by which our liberty is protected: it's what allows us to know we can speak freely, own property, purchase (or not purchase!) goods and services of our choice. McMorris Rodgers, through her misguided though well-intentioned sponsorship of this bill, is fighting against those liberty-protecting principles, and -- hopefully -- against the tide of change in her own party.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Senator Harry Reid said today, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all [the] Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He went on to compare it to women's suffrage and civil rights, too.

So according to Reid, any time anyone says any bill is bad and that you should slow down or start over, then you are like the defenders of slavery. I won't even bother to point out the many times Reid tried to "slow down" or "start over" something under Bush and a Republican Congress (nor that the Democrats were primarily the ones doing the blocking in all three of his examples).

And then when Reid was, rightfully and obviously, condemned for his insipid remarks, his spokesman actually attacks the people for pointing out the fact that what Senator Reid sayid was moronic: "It is hard to believe Senate Republicans are making these charges with a straight face."

Right. When you actually make the argument that any attempt to delay or block legislation amounts to trying to preseve slavery and hold back the rights of women and other minorities, it's hard to imagine people would actually criticize you for it.

So I don't know if he is dumb enough to believe this idiotic comparison, but the Senate Majority Leader is dumb enough to believe it's reasonable or helpful to say it, and then to defend it.

Ladies and gentlemen: your Democratic Party.

A man from Chicago, presumably Muslim, who travels the globe, is accused of being behind the Mumbai attacks a year ago.

Sound familiar?

It does to me. I'm no genius, but it sounds awfully familiar to me.

Let's get out the chalkboard.

The man's name is David Headley, and the connections to Obama are too questionable to not question, especially if you match up the letters in their names. I am not making up words here, these are their own names; names which, in at least one case, they chose for themselves.

Let's just take the first letter off of each name. O for Obama, H for Headley. "OH!" is an exclamation: this is important, this is big.

Next we take a B from Obama and EAD from Headley. You draw a "BEAD" on a target you're going to strike.

Then there's AM and EL. "AMEL" is an Arabic name, meaning "hard work." Curiouser and curiouser.

Finally, the last letter of each name, A and Y. "AY," as in, affirmative: yes, do proceed with the important attack we've been working hard for.

If you need it spelled out for you, there it is!

Do you need a dog: Dairyland Greyhound Racetrack, Kenosha, WI closing on Dec. 31, 2009. 900 Greyhounds need adopting, or will be euthanized. Great family dogs. They have been crated most of their lives and sleep ~18 hours a day. Dogs are tested for cat, small dog friendly and multiple dog homes. Please CROSS POST, we only have 6 weeks. P: 312.559.0887 Or Dairyland Race Track Adoption Center at (262) 612-8256

David Brooks: I think it is a suicide pact for the Republican Party, essentially taking a moderate Republican, dead-center in American politics, and saying, sorry, you are too liberal. That's crazy.

George Will: Newt [Gingrich] was just tone deaf as were the people who picked this woman, who is a candidate of, among other things, the Working Families Party, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Public Employees Union. She's for tax increases, same-sex marriage. She's for abolishing the right of secret ballot in union elections. There's already a party for people who think like that. It's called the Democratic Party.

I like David Brooks a lot. But when it comes to his perspective of where the Republican Party is, he is completely out to lunch. George Will, as usual, is correct.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was on Meet the Press with David Gregory today, and Gregory asked him, regarding the health insurance bills, "there is going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class through health care by taxes going up, by premiums going up. It will affect the middle-class."

Geithner responded, "You know, I don't think that's the way to look at it. The--our tax--our healthcare system today imposes enormous burdens not just on businesses, but on families. There are very high hidden costs to our current system. And the best way to add to our long-term deficits, and the best way to add to those burdens is not reform health care today."

Gregory: "But it doesn't answer the question about premiums going up with an individual mandate and taxes going up on so-called Cadillac plans and other parts of this bill as they're moving their way through the process that would increase taxes."

And then Geithner again: "Right. Again, I don't think that's the right way to think about it. I think you have to look at the entire system today and the cost that presents. And if you look at those..."

Gregory: "Well, why isn't that the right way to look at it if that's the reality of what the legislation would do?"

Geithner: "No."

No.

Seriously. This is what he said.

If you are firmly in the middle class, recognizing significantly increased health care costs due to the Democrats' plan -- even though this is the reality you face -- you shouldn't think about it that way.

Ignore reality. Trust in Obama, instead.

Now, maybe Geithner meant (and stated poorly) that is not the reality. A moment later Geithner apparently denied that the Democratic plan calls for tax hikes. If that is what he meant, he's a liar, of course, because everyone knows Gregory was exactly right: the proposed mandates and taxes on "Cadillac plans" will increase costs for many people at all income groups, except the poor.

I don't think Geithner was lying in that way: I think he was trying to reframe the issue to say, the tax cuts aren't the point; rather, look at how great this bill is (except for the parts you dislike)!

And if you choose to focus on the parts you dislike, well, "that's not the right way to think about it."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Obama said in his inaugural address that "we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." People cheered.

I didn't.

I like conflict and discord. Not incivility, but argument and debate, expressions of disagreement, which often become heated and passionate. A lack of conflict and discord means that everyone agrees, or -- much worse -- are somehow prevented from disagreeing, either by force of government, or a lack of personal desire or will. It's bad no matter the cause. We necessarily will disagree, and we must speak out about our disagreement, which will result in conflict and discord. Without that, we lose liberty -- and quickly -- no matter who is in power, left, or right.

Nancy Pelosi was right when she said she loved "disruptors" under Bush; but she was obviously self-serving when she said it, because she changed her tune about disrptions under Obama, calling it "un-American." It is people like this -- again, of any party -- we must be wary of losing our freedom to if we do not speak out, if we abandon "conflict and discord" in exchange for "unity of purpose."

One of the reasons I love Federalist 10 is because James Madison so clearly explains the importance of understanding dissent and disagreement in the framing of our new government.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

Far from Obama's "unity of purpose," Madison tells us we all inherently have difference of purpose, and that a "uniformity of interests" is not possible.

But many in our society don't accept the impracticability of this. They work hard to give us a "uniformity of interests." One of the obvious examples of this is Social Security. It doesn't make economic or policy sense in any way to give Warren Buffett a Social Security check; we have universal Social Security for one reason only: to give citizens the same passions and interests, that they might share the same opinions. That is: everyone is in Social Security, so most people support it.

If we cannot force people who have different and unequal faculties, and different degress and kinds of property, to share the same opinions, then these people will work on reducing those differences, that we might share the same opinions. That is obviously what the universality of Social Security is about, and it's also what the "health care reform" is largely about: forcing everyone (starting with individuals) into a government-run system like the health insurance exchange, and forcing everyone to have health insurance with individual mandates.

The initial reason behind it is fine, and something virtually everyone agrees with: people should have health care, and should have enough resources to live past retirement age. However, they take a leap many of us don't like, saying government should provide those things to people who don't have them. And because so many of us don't share their opinion, they try to force us into the system in order to slowly change our opinions to supporting the system.

And yes, it is as sinister as it sounds. Individual mandates are not about taking care of YOU if something happens to you, they are about two things: the first is taking your money to give to other people, but no less important is that by putting you into the system, you will be more likely to support its continuation and expansion.

We see this again and again. We see it in forced unionization. We see it in Medicare. We see it in public schooling. We see it in Rep. Rangel's vision for reinstatement of the military draft. Wherever you see government creating a system and trying to force everyone into it, forcing people to have the same interests, encouraging them to share the opinion of continuing and expanding the system is a big reason why.

This is separate from, though related to, the Democrats' push to literally silence the opposition, whether it's pushing out an entire news network they dislike, or trying to enforce "fairness" on broadcast radio stations (which most of the top Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed support for, just in the last year or two).

This silencing and undermining of dissent is more along the lines of Madison's first remedy to faction, the abolishing the liberty essential to political life. But it's all about the same thing: the Democrats want to remove the causes of faction, so Obama can have his "unity of purpose," and they do this as they long have done: by trying to destroy our liberty; and by pushing us to share the same opinions, by giving us the same interests.

I have two things to tell the Democrats (and the Republicans and others who engage in similar behaviors). First, you should embrace faction. It is how we protect liberty, it is how we ensure justice, it is how we progress as a civilization. It is not without problems, but it represents far more good than harm. Its effects can, and should, be controlled, which is why we have a republic and not a democracy. Read the rest of Federalist 10 if you don't understand.

Second, and more practically, perhaps, it won't work. It never does. It only creates more factiousness, and make its effects harder to control.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Remember a couple of years ago, when a bunch of us ridiculed the notion that Forbes named Washington State in the top five best states for business?

Some of their criteria was laughable, and their analysis moreso. We knew what most businesses knew: that on the most important points to businesses (business costs and quality of life), Washington State failed. And on other factors like "regulatory climate" and "outlook" we incredibly scored well: to the former, Washington scored highly because we employ people to help guide businesses through the regulatory morass; but that doesn't diminish the fact that there are massive regulatory roadblocks in the first place; to the latter, well, our "outlook" -- which includes ever-increasing spending, even in the face of a recession -- is the reason why we're facing significant tax increases, if Gregoire and the Democrats get their way.

So, now, Boeing is leaving. Rep. Dan Kristiansen (R-39) probably has the best answer as to why, in a press release yesterday:

It's extremely disappointing that Boeing has chosen South Carolina over Washington, but not surprising at all. Boeing has been very critical of our state's difficult regulatory atmosphere. At the end of the day, it has to be able to compete successfully on an international scale, especially against Airbus. Instead of providing a level playing field, Washington has consistently put up barriers that make it difficult not only for Boeing to compete, but also for other employers throughout our state.

It's been no secret that other states have been courting Boeing for years. Boeing has tried to make it work here. However, it has gotten to a point with unemployment insurance issues, regulatory burdens, business and occupation taxes, and recently, the governor being willing to consider tax increases, that Washington is no longer a place where Boeing can be competitive.

In South Carolina, it took only days for Boeing to get the permits it needs to move forward with the second 787 plant. In Washington, it would take years. That's one of many examples in which our state has not been helpful and has stood in the way of the ability for Boeing to successfully compete here.

When Boeing decided several years ago to move its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, many of my House Republican colleagues and I warned that unless the Legislature was willing to make reforms to improve the state's business climate, we may see further departures. The governor and the majority party have been in denial about concerns of job providers and now our predictions are unfortunately coming true.

We must also remember this is not just about Boeing. Many other employers rely on Boeing and its workforce to support their companies. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Washington are indirectly related to Boeing and are affected. I've been very critical not only about how our state has treated Boeing, but all employers in Washington. Even when the Legislature made concessions to Boeing in 2003 to secure the Dreamliner in our state, I also said we should extend those tax relief benefits to all businesses. Unfortunately, very little has been done in the Legislature to make Washington attractive for business.

Today's announcement needs to be a wake-up call to our political leaders in Washington to create a more competitive business climate before we lose more employers to other states.

Rep. Mike Hope weighed in, too:

To call today's announcement by Boeing disappointing is a gross understatement. Governor Gregoire and the majority party in the Legislature ignored the warning signs, and the price of Washington's terrible business climate will be the loss of thousands of family jobs. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent, this is a painful blow for Snohomish County and the entire state.

When Boeing's decision was on the line, the governor of South Carolina wasted no time in calling a special legislative session to adopt a package of upfront grants and tax breaks. I have to ask our governor, 'Why were you sitting on the sidelines? Why aren't we in session to demonstrate an equally strong commitment to keeping the aerospace industry vibrant and growing in Washington?

Governor Gregoire claims that this was a negotiation between the Union and Boeing. I strongly disagree. This was a negotiation between Boeing, the State of South Carolina, and the State of Washington -- and we lost. We lost because the business climate in our state needs immediate and dramatic improvement.

Consistently, my Republican colleagues and I have fought to address the most serious obstacles to making our state more competitive, starting with our enormously expensive workers' compensation system. But our efforts were ignored, and proposals to help employers and to create a more competitive business climate were rejected.

The governor said she thinks the company 'made the wrong decision.' On that point we agree, but she has also failed to be the leader we needed at one of the most critical times in our state's history.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I was watching "Law & Order" last week, an episode about an abortion doctor being murdered by a protestor. The twist was that the protestor was trying to prevent the abortion of a specific child, who was in his third-trimester, who had no terminal illness, who put the mother in no danger, and was therefore (according to New York law) going to be aborted illegally.

So in the course of this case, they find out the same doctor once killed a newborn baby after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. The doctor asked the mother if she wanted him to finish the "abortion" and she said yes, so he stuck scissors in the base of its skull. Everyone in the show was, of course, aghast that such a thing could happen, and the prosecution tried to keep this from the court because it would obviously bias the jury against the doctor.

What they didn't mention in the show, however, is that Obama fought hard to protect the ability of mothers and doctors to perform this procedure. I think it's worth remembering that our President literally believes it is OK to kill live, born, baby humans. (Perhaps he has changed his mind since, but all we know is that he later lied to cover up his positions, which means he regrets people knowing his positions, not that he has changed his mind.)

Oddly, this is a fact that can prejudice a jury against a doctor, but apparently not an electorate against a candidate for President.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The Congress passed a law that, when signed by President Obama, will make ia a federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation or "gender identity."

The "Human Rights" Campaign said, "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."

A few thoughts.

First, you cannot end hate through legislation.

Second, government has no business even trying to get people to stop hating. That's none of its business. Literally. Indeed, its duty is to protect our right to hate, and our faculties that lead us to whatever opinions we might have, including hate.

Third, this law is unconstitutional by the Tenth Amendment. I find it astonishing that anyone thinks this needs to be a federal law, which is utterly insulting to the state legislatures, which are, in fact, perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether this should be a crime.

Fourth, this law also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. In our judicial system, motive and intent are two different things, and motive is not a crime. This law makes it a crime. That is why people, correctly, compare it to Thought Police. Some say, but this is different, because the result of the crime is to intimidate a whole class of people; but if that is the case, then you need to show that the person had intent to produce that result ... else you really are just punishing motive, which we don't do. Laws like this are really an end run around the prosecution's burden of proof.

I would be perfectly willing to support a (state) law that said someone intending to, through a violent act, terrorize or intimidate a group of people, is committing a felony. But that would require evidence, which -- despite being constitutionally required -- is an unattractive prospect to many. So instead, they just tell us that some for assaulting people are worse than others, and get around that pesky "evidence" thing. And we're supposed to just nod in approval, because if you don't, well, you are a dirty hatemonger.

It's a sad day in America, that we incorrectly think we need such a paternalistic law, and that we are willing to toss aside civil liberties to get it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Back before Obama even started publicly running for the presidency, I remember a speech he gave in which he said all Americans should put aside their disagreements and come together. I liked what he had to say, but I couldn't shake the feeling that by "come together" he meant "agree with me."

When he gave his State of the Union address, it was the same thing, but more obvious. He said he wanted us to put aside our "petty grievances" and have "unity of purpose," and that we should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations;" that if we believed, due to "worn-out dogmas," that our government is too big (and therefore, in our opinion, takes away too much of our liberty), then we are focusing on "childish things" and our "stale political arguments" no longer apply.

Translation: if you disagree with Obama, if you don't share his "purpose" or agenda -- even for principled reasons shared by most of the founders of this country -- then you are not part of us.

A lot of people didn't hear that subtext, or didn't want to. But it's proven to be more than just words. Obama has asked Americans to report people who disagree with his health care plan to the White House; he redefines "disagreement" as "spreading misinformation," of course, to make it sound good (not that misinformation doesn't exist, but it's on both sides, clearly; and further, the White House has no business being the arbiter of what is, and isn't, true).

He attacked the Tea Parties, which brought millions of Americans together in opposition to his plans, as merely astroturfing.

He later said in his health care reform speech he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plans, instead choosing to question their motives as purely political.

He refused to do an interview with Fox News Channel only because of FNC's political leanings.

Now his two top advisors are saying that FNC is "not really news," which was said only to incite a culture war, drawing a divide between millions of Americans in a cynical attempt to throw his detractors overboard and to keep the Good Ship Obama afloat. He's already said he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plan, so why not alienate them intentionally, if it will shore up his base? (And by the way, where's the rest of the media attacking Obama for attacking Fox? It used to be that the media took such attacks personally, even if not directed at themselves.)

If Bush had done any of these things, the left would have gone completely nuts over it. But when Obama does it, that's perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.

Bush caused division in this country by unapologetically pushing an agenda that much of the country disagreed with, even hated. Obama -- who is guilty of the same thing, of course -- is causing even more division in this country by actively pursuing it, in order to exploit it for political gains.

James Madison said in Federalist 10 that one of the "two methods of removing the causes of faction" is "by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." He adds, "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is ... an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government."

The only "unity of purpose" we can expect Americans to share is that of securing individual liberty, and maintaining the government that so secures it. Obama surely knows he cannot force everyone to have a "unity of purpose" in creating new and massive government programs; so, instead, he is pretending that if you don't share in that purpose -- an individual right which government is designed to protect -- then you are the enemy.

I submit that a President so disdainful of expressions of liberty is the problem, and not the people with such expressions, whatever they may be.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

When I try to print high-bit data to STDERR from mod_perl 1.x and perl 5.10.0 -- sometimes, not always -- the process hangs and sucks up 100% CPU. I wonder if updating perl to 5.10.1 might help.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

In Washington State we have a public records law that assumes that, unless there's a really good reason not to, the people have a right to documents created and owned by the government, because those things belong to the public, and they have a right to know what is going on.

So whenever the government refuses to release documents, or heavily redacts them, I look for a really good reason why ... and if I can't find one, it makes me angry. It's literally telling the public it does not have a right to know.

So it is with Governor Gregoire's response to a request for documents about the judicial appointment process. At least this time she didn't invent an illegal excuse for not releasing the documents, but this is almost as bad. An exemption for public employment applications does not rationally cover an appointment to a vacated elected office, and if attorney-client privilege covers it all, then it can cover everything the governor does.

She should just reply, "I don't want to give it to you, and I don't have or need an excuse" and at least be honest about it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I don't actually have anything to say. Kathleen is due any day, and I'm looking forward to a few weeks of staying home, getting poor sleep, and changing diapers.
But mostly I'm testing to see if journal saving works properly.