A Reminder About Media, Politics, and Concealed Carrry

The title is a bit far-reaching, maybe a bit convoluted, but I think a few points can be made without writing a book.

The issue I'm talking about is the Zimmerman/Trayvon shooting in Florida.

Regarding the media: NBC was guilty of editing the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was a KKK member at a rally. All the media outlets used the AP photo of a sweet looking 10yr old Trayvon instead of the 17yr old thug-wannabe at the time of his death. Most of the media misrepresented the "stand your ground" law in Florida not bothering to look it up before blathering away. And the media is orgasmic at the thought of another OJ-like trial to boost their ratings.

Regarding politics: The POTUS weighed in on the issue making a statement of how Trayvon looked like his son, if he were to have a son. Of course the traditional race baiters, (masters at their art), of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson made use of this tragedy. These master baiters managed to get their faces in the news once again beside the grieved family creating a weird notion of law where Zimmerman had to be arrested for "justice" to be served. Amazingly, the DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder after a 40day silence - and created the specter of political string-pulling by the Obama Administration.

Regarding concealed carry, I'm going to lay down some salient points or takeaways from this incident as they apply to me:

1. I am not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I do not arrest people. The gun I'm carrying is only to save my life, (or loved ones), in a situation that I can't otherwise get out of.
2. Pulling a gun is evidence of the intent to use lethal force. Waving a gun around is grounds for someone else to shoot me. Using the gun is evidence of intent to kill will either result in (a) a justified shoot or (b) charged with some form of murder (serious jail time). So other than putting it back in the safe, there is really only one other reason to pull my gun.
3. Using a gun will kill somebody (that's why it is called lethal force). If I am not willing to kill somebody, then I should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer. Unlawful use of pepper spray is misdemeanor assault in most states.
4. If I am involved in a shooting, (a) keep my mouth shut, (b) get a lawyer, (c) don't trust anybody, don't talk to anybody who isn't covered under non-testify immunity (wife, attorney, priest).
5. The Cops and DA are not my friends. And they may or may not do a thorough job investigating. And they can make an example of me. Even if I am found innocent, I'm am out a lot of money because of the DA's decision.

Carrying handgun is a highly desirable option for self-defense. And carrying a gun is serious business. Everyone who does so should think this through. Skip the myths and lies you see from Hollywood in movies and TV as they will get you killed and/or in a lot of trouble.

And now we all get to watch how it plays out with  Zimmerman's 2nd degree murder trial.

Framing the Debate on Healthcare Reform

I honestly think that getting an accurate picture of important events from the MSM is as futile as trying to tell time with a clock having only a second hand. But despite the low-brow nature of America's media, I think I've got a handle on the fundamental issues driving the Health Care debate.

I'm one of those people who think "top down" and very "left-brain" by training. It's what I do to get my job done. 2+2 = 4 every time. Not 3.5 or blue, but 4. It is a liability sometimes as I cannot engage in a "The View"-like discussion. I just shut up when confronted by noisy people who drift off on tangents either because they're flat stupid, or they lack the foundation for the discussion. So you won't catch me watching "The View" unless I'm in the mood for poking fun at really dumb discussions.

But most of the discussion on Health care reform has been conducted "The View" style. Very little analysis and/or critical thinking has been done by the MSM reporting on Congressional progress. Does the average American feel they have a grasp of the issues driving the President's health care reform? I think not. At least not the handful of people I've spoken with. Why? Because (a) The President has done a horrible job of communicating beyond vague generaltities - at some point he really needs to get past this "hopey changey" thing. (b) Congress is all over the map with thoughts on a plan. And (c) the MSM is still trying to deliver sound-bites and partisan cheer leading instead of in-depth reporting.

Ok, so here's my thoughts. They're really quite simple - so simple that if I'm wrong, well then I'm really wrong.

The debate is framed by two extreme ideological positions. I will use left and right deliberately, as I think they're accurate labels. Although I talk about them as though they are polar opposites, they aren't that far apart.

On the Left are those who believe that it is morally wrong that every Man, Woman and Child in the United States lacks access to free (or at least very affordable) health care. This group believes in "cover everyone first, costs be dammed". Some in this camp believe health care is a right.

On the right are those who believe that the cost of health care is out of control. They believe that if costs were in line with other expenses, (dozen eggs, gallon of gas, etc.), access to quality medical care would be within reach of every productive member of society. So this crowd believes "get the costs under control and access to medical care won't be an issue".

President Obama is on the Left. And the Congressional majority is charged with advancing the President's plan. If I'm correct, then you can see how there is great tension between the Left and the Right. President Obama is pushing maximum coverage with no plan for cost control, short of denying coverage (Sara Palin's "death panels" - the logical extreme). The Right has no clear champion and appears to be simply deconstructing the President's plan without offering a coherent alternative.

So there you have it, my view of the debate from the 100,000 foot level.

Al-Qaeda is attacking now

I think this blog is one of the few voices on Iraq that is at least somewhat rational. I pitty those citizens trying to make an informed decision based on the noise from the American press and Talking heads.

America is being played by Al-Qaeda and a liberal press. Al-Qaeda is trying to survive, and the liberal press wants a Democrat President at all costs. I wonder how long the MSM can keep up the farce? Can they keep it going till the 2008 elections?

Remember how Al-Qaeda got the Democrats elected last year? (Al-Qaeda's #2 man sent the video reminding the Dems in Dec 2006) I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda is still working hard at it.

What is becoming funny to me is that we think "attacking" the US requires bombs, planes and bullets.

It should be obvious

A sad day for our nation as we reflect on the deaths of students and teachers at Virginia Tech. I hate to point out the obvious, but it has to be done: The students died because they couldn't defend themselves. They were disarmed by school policy, and left to die at the hands of a man who chose not to obey the law. The school adminstration that disarmed the students, and the police were far too slow and impotent in responding to the crisis to prevent the loss of life. As I said, this should be obvious but sadly it is not.

Why do we allow stupid people to disarm the good guys? How long will we follow an idiotic path of gun control - a proven failure in multiple nations?

Osama's a gloating

I'm surprized they contained themselves for this long. Today ABC news is running a report that al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri released a tape in which he reminds Democrats that they are in power only because Al Qaeda got them elected.

I remember when folks thought Ann Coulter was a bit shrill for suggesting that the Democrats were tools of the terrorists......

Osama's defeat - triangulation

There's a brilliant bit of triangulation in the works, but most Americans can't see it. Ignorance of Islam and a mindless MSM, I suspect.

Islam is unified in core theology, but fractured organizationally into the two major divisions Sunni and Shiite, much the same as Protestant and Catholic in Christendom. Sharia law (Islamic legal system) has evolved slowly largely in response to Islam's decline in the face of Western civilization's gains. In general, the more "westernized" the application of Sharia law, the more prosperous the people in the 20th century. The Islamic world is seriously divided into the "haves" and "have nots".

The 1700's saw the birth of a fundamentalist movement known as Wahhabism, strong in Saudia Arabia, Quatar and W.Iraq. Appart from oil, Wahhabism would likely vanish.Wahhabism does not use Sharia law, as developed by Sunni and Shia legalists, but instead relys on interpeting the words of Mohammed directly for guidance. Wahhabists view Sunnis and Shia's as heretics. Wahhabists don't watch TV or listen to the radio - very isolated from ideas. Osama is a Wahhabist. Kind of like the Amish but without a penchant for slitting throats.

So we have two groups with bad blood who make up 99% of those involved. Then we have a 3rd group convinced the other two groups are going to hell, propped up by oil, that has provided the religious justification for hyper-violent organizations like Al-Qaeda.

Along comes Bush the younger who topples the dictatorship and forms a democratically elected republic in its place. A new model for the region offering an attractive alternative. A clear distinction between the opportunity of the "haves" versus the intellectual retreat of the "have nots". Bloody brilliant I would say.

Iraqi Muslims don't have to starting eating bacon or listening to Madonna to enjoy a 21st century democracy. But at some point they must realize that fighting over the Sunni, Shia and Wahhabist issues will just leave them dead and "have nots". Bacon and Madonna will continue. And a little girl will ask "Why don't we vacation in Afganistan Daddy?".

Osama's worry - economics

Some very smart people have noted that war is fundamentally about economics. Here are the Gross Domestic Products, in US dollars, of some select countries:


US = $13 trillion
China = $2.2 trillion
Russia = $1.6 trillion
Iran = $560 billion
Saudi Arabia = $330 billion
Egypt = $316 billion
Israel = $130 billion
Syria = $60 billion
Jordan = $26 billion
Lebanon = $18 billion

1% of US GDP = 130 billion

CBO estimates of Iraq war cost todate = $342 billion.

think: Osama been leading?

No Al-Qaeda attacks in the US since 911. Why? Is it because Al-Qaeda is being decimated by the US? Or is Osama leading us to believe we're on the right course?

Osama's been thinking

Al Qaeda has won a strategic victory by securing the one weapon proven to work against the American military - public opion.
Using the tools (MSM), Al Qaeda fed the American public violence at the proper beat rate to prevent anyone from getting positive news. We know that Iraq is the size of California. We know Irag has 26 million people. We know Baghdad is 5.7 million. Yet our collective OCD prevents us from seeing anything beyond the suburbs of Baghdad.
Keeping up the beat rate for another 2 years will be hard for Al Qaeda, but learning from Vietnam it is their only hope of chasing America away.