Joe Carter tells us, “No, Your Kid Can’t Paint Like Jackson Pollock”.

If this is a good representation of paintings [sic] by Jackson Pollock, then my reply would be:

Thank God!

I wrote last Friday about "3rd rails" in American politics; programs like Social Security and Medicare that, no matter how wasteful, politicians can’t substantially deal with.  The reason is that the government has made promises, people have reordered their lives around those promises, and thus any attempt to change the conditions of those promises is met with vehement opposition.

This, then, is related to the eternal life of government programs.  Part of the reason some of these programs live on is because the promises made and the responsibility to live up to them and honor them.  The problem is, we have to honor them even if doing so bankrupts us (or, more specifically, future generations).  We have to honor them even if the money could be spent more efficiently another way, getting the same job done only with better results.  We are already saddled with debt because of some of these huge programs, but are also saddled with current and future promised payments that we can’t afford now, and thus will have to tell our children to make good on.

Is that moral?

Some have said that it’s immoral not to take care of the elderly and infirmed, but by doing it on the backs of our children and grandchildren, is that really the more moral route?  With the health care reform bill, we are making promises that future generations must pay for.  And we are making promises that they may not be able to afford at all after this generation has already spent their inheritance on previous promises made.

And, as I noted previously, no matter what you hear from any politician on how much this or that program will cost, it will cost more.  History is strewn with so many examples of this that anyone believing these numbers is utterly ignorant, willfully or otherwise. 

Making promises binds us to honor them, which is a good thing.  But making promises with an inefficient bureaucracy binds us to a millstone that will continue to take us down with its unsustainable load, and we can’t afford that.

Good morning.

1. Hmm, wishful thinking? That is, “that mass killings are remembered by history is a critical factor in deterring or enabling future perpetrators for enacting similar atrocities.” Cite? Evidence? Furthermore evidence that a “house bill” will have anything to do with “how anything is remembered” is to assume an inflated view of the effect of symbolic legislative actions (hint: nobody notices nor cares). More here.
2. Mr Obama and the left on the show trials.
3. Grandstanding (and a gymnast years later).
4. Panic and thought.
5. Green and profit.
6. I have “100% consistency” on that morality exam. (YNNN YNYN were my answers for what its worth).
7. Big box.
8. To the sun.
9. Letters evolving.
10. Heh.
11. Insincerity and the White House.
12. On Iran.
13. Somebody named Mr Chait admits do being amazingly dense.
14. Min. wage and unemployment.

The city of Chicago, in 1982, decided to forgo the Bill of Rights and banned law-abiding citizens from owning handguns. Otis McDonald, a 76 year-old resident of Chicago, appealed the law, claiming it left him vulnerable to criminals – criminals who, not surprisingly, ignore the gun ban. Currently, the Supreme Court is reviewing the appeal, with most analysts expecting a ruling on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

Starbucks will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to open-carry firearms while on their premises. Open-carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is not concealed. Were you aware that some states allow their law-abiding citizens to openly carry loaded firearms in certain public places?

On February 22nd, concealed carry of firearms, by law-abiding citizens, was reinstated in National Parks throughout the United States (subject to state laws concerning concealed carry). Concealed carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is hidden from view.

Are we seeing a trend?

Let’s assume that we all have the right to defend ourselves (the right to self-defense) if we, or our loved ones, are being attacked. Considering that the 2nd amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to be armed, does it follow that such a condition (of having the right to self-defense) is permissible outside the confines of one’s own home?

Note that the stories I linked to, above, pertain to the actions of law-abiding citizens. Restricting the actions of the people, by law, only limits the actions of those who choose to follow said law (i.e., law-abiding citizens). Criminals, by their very nature, have always ignored the law – hence, that’s why they are criminals.

If you take a look at virtually all mass-shootings, you will note that they occur in “gun-free” zones (e.g., schools, military installations). You think there’s a reason for that? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Chicago bans guns, the criminal mind will think, “easy pickin’s”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Starbucks allows open carry on its premises, the criminal mind will think, “um… not here, not now”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if concealed carry is allowed in National Parks, the criminal mind will think, “I wonder if that person is armed”?

As a gang-banger in Buffalo said, when asked what could be done to curtail the spike in homicides,

Buy a gun.

Yet gun hysteria remains.

New Mexico recently passed legislation regarding concealed carry in restaurants that served beer and wine. In a forum, at the New Mexico Independent, concerns were expressed over the fear of mixing alcohol and firearms. Yes, a good concern; and would restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying prevent law breakers from doing so? Forget the criminals, would we be safe from off-duty law enforcement officers in bars?

So, while al Qaeda praises the actions of the Fort Hood killer, we suspend a kindergartner for the dastardly crime of making a gun gesture with his hand. It’s time we take a rational look at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.