Let’s talk, for a minute, about one of the key differences between a liberal and a conservative.

Your modern liberal believes you to be an ignorant child. You don’t know how to do anything properly on your own. You can’t spend your money properly, you don’t eat the proper foods, you’re keeping dangerous guns in your home or on your person, you’re not driving the right kind of car, you believe in patriarchal fairy tales, and most importantly, you think all the wrong things. You’re a stupid racist, even if you don’t know it. You’re not smart enough to grasp the intricacies of health care, immigration, or even the size of a soda. That’s why government needs to take care of all these things for you. You just sit back, vote for the Democratic Party without question, keep hating the rich, and keep handing over your paycheck in taxes so that we can pay for all these things. Well, we’re not actually paying for most of them. We’re just racking up debt to pay for them. Don’t worry about the debt, though. It’s a big number, and you’re too much of an idiot to understand the implications.

Your modern conservative, supposedly, believes you to be an individual. You know best how to make decisions in your life. You know best where your money ought to go. Should some of it go to the government to help it run? Of course…as long as that government is using your money in a responsible, sensible manner. If government is spending like it’s going out of style, then they first need to cut some of it before they demand that you pony up for their recklessness. While they’re at it, they need to remember that this nation is made up of sovereign states, and those states retain certain powers in order to serve their own interests. It’s a concept called “states’ rights”, and it’s a crucial part of the way this country was founded. We don’t need an all-powerful group of elitists telling us what to do, and how we should live. We are intelligent, hard-working individuals with the right to make our own decisions about what is best for our families and our lives.

…but you wouldn’t know that after eight years of being told that we were complete idiots to elect George W. Bush into office twice. Remember this?

Of course you do. You remember because it pissed you off. You remember thinking, “Who the hell do a bunch of subjects of the king, monitored every minute of every day by their masters who quiver once a Muslim so much as coughs in their direction, think they’re calling ‘dumb’?” Then you heard lefties all over America chime in, talking about how right those Brits were. Hey, only dumb people would vote for such a dumb war criminal for president! But then, we knew they were dumb to begin with. They cling to religion. They’re inbred rednecks. They don’t have proper education, especially since they have the gall not to believe that global warming is going to kill us all.

And then, one day…America got “Change”. Imagine that. After eight years of being told they were idiots, they were told they could redeem their idiocy by voting for the first black president, because that’s totally not racist at its roots. Yes. Those people who had listened to conservatives twice in a row then listened to liberals, and why wouldn’t they? We were heading into economic freefall, and the GOP had just signed a nice big bailout of hundreds of billions of dollars. Jobs were being lost, and the stock market was diving. So, the GOP brought out…John McCain. Was it any wonder that the American electorate was underwhelmed? The alternative was this young, charismatic, handsome man who said he could take Washington in a new direction.

So, they voted for him.

And, it appears…deep down, some “conservatives” thought exactly what was on the cover of the Daily Mirror posted above. Full circle. They could not see that, all of a sudden, they had become the very people they rightly despised. Now, as we stand on the precipice of either another Obama administration, or his ouster, it seems those deep-seated sentiments have boiled over. If the responses to Dyer’s question can be taken as a microcosm of Hot Air as a whole — or indeed, of conservatism as a whole — then it is a sad reflection of just how low we can sink.

So what? The American people are idiots when they vote for someone we disagree with, but not idiots when they vote the other way? Interesting how that’s the criterion for determining the collective intelligence of a nation, especially given that, historically, there have only been two real options. I repeat: the reasoning I just stated has long been the tool of the Left, who inherently believe in the stupidity of the masses. They are people who believe themselves to be intellectually and morally superior on all things. They see themselves as the wise ones, passing on their brilliance to the poor, empty-headed rubes who surround them. These people are called elitists.

Now, apparently…conservatives have formed their own elitist groupthink. Now, I’ve been noting this for some time, particularly with respect to figures such as Sarah Palin, or issues such as immigration. However, those elitists were typically of the David Brooks/Frum variety, claiming their arrogant condescension was a way to strengthen the GOP through the abolishing of conservative influence. In the Dyer comments, however, were many people I consider strong, clear-headed conservatives. Those strong, clear-headed conservatives were espousing some of the most anti-American inclinations I’ve ever seen from the Right.

Folks, let me remind you of something: we live in a world that is now inundated with data, (mis)information, and distractions. Never before in our history has our populace been so regularly bombarded with so many ideas and opinions. However, not all of that stimuli has been political. We’ve got jobs, and for many people, they have come to dominate our lives. We have relationships, hobbies, interests, and other ways in which we spend our time. We now have more options to fritter away our lives than ever. The vast majority of people do not have the time to pay as much attention to political issues or the State of the Union as much as we do.

And that’s not a fault, nor a flaw, nor a failing on their part. It’s no more a failing than when a car junkie rattles off the specs of the latest Mustang, and your eyes glaze over. It’s no more a flaw than when a music junkie can’t stop talking about the latest bluegrass sensation, and you’re ordering chasers with your beers in the hopes that intoxication will allow you to better feign interest.

America is a country made up of good, solid, thoughtful people, with some exceptions. Folks, I live in goddamned Madison, Wisconsin. I’m surrounded by some of the most pretentious, insufferable, self-absorbed people in the nation. Trust me, if the rest of the Republic were made up of these yo-yos, I’d have either moved or drunk myself to alcohol poisoning long ago. Yet, even in this town, I’ve found myself talking to one or more people, arguing a conservative viewpoint, and their response is simply “I never thought of it that way, but you have a point”.

This is how most Americans are. Just because they don’t devour Drudge on a daily basis doesn’t mean they are idiots. It means they haven’t found one of you to explain the intricacies of whatever issue is on the docket, or the merits of whatever candidate you support. Americans are intelligent, compassionate individuals who, you’ll forget, have voted more for Republicans than they have for Democrats in the last few decades. Don’t dismiss them as the Left so casually does. Talk to them. Give them food for thought. I truly believe that most people in this country, given the chance to chew over the choice between progressivism and conservatism, will pick the ideology of Reagan. Will there be lulls, especially after a “conservative” president “sacrificed free market principles to save the economy”? Of course. And after the American people have suffered under the auspices of collectivist policy, it will never take them long to remember what it was like, just a few years before.

I leave you with a bit of wisdom from Michael Caine:

Bruce Wayne: What have I done, Alfred? Everything my family… my father built…
Alfred Pennyworth: The Wayne legacy is more than bricks and mortar, sir.
Bruce Wayne: I wanted to save Gotham, I failed
Alfred Pennyworth: Why do we fall sir? So we might learn to pick ourselves up
Bruce Wayne: You still haven’t given up on me?
Alfred Pennyworth: Never

Give up, or go home, folks. What will you do?

All this and more at 4:00PM, Central Time, at Gryph’s Gripes.

Disclaimer: Gryphon202 and MadisonConservative accept no responsibility for any doubts you might have about Romney following the show.

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

- Thomas Paine, 1776

I have two items for the conservative movement, today. The first is a poem that I’m sure many here are familiar with. Nevertheless, it contains within it a message for the ages; a noble command that every patriotic American cannot ignore. The second is a video, made several years ago, as a mash-up of various political figures of the 1960s. It includes within it various excerpts of their speeches, given at a time when the nation was going through intense turmoil, not wholly unlike what we are experiencing now. I have often found the quotes of Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King, Jr., in particular, to be truly timeless and eternally applicable to the struggles all people face when their freedom is threatened.

I implore all of you to take a few minutes, read the poem, and listen the words of these charismatic leaders(eh, RFK maybe not so much), and then take another minute to let the messages sink in. I direct this especially to those of you who, understandably, find yourselves shaken…disillusioned…perhaps even awash in despair or abdication. No promises are made here that our future will be as bright as we may hope. It may be darker than we ever imagined…but imagine the darkness if we refuse to fight the forces that seek to enslave us.

Remember that the enemies we face believe us to be weak, and stupid, and unable to do anything for ourselves. They expect us to lay down. They expect us to break. I refuse. I will not surrender. I will never back down. To all of you who feel fear, know that you are not alone. All around you are those who love liberty and freedom, and many of them look to the future with uncertainty, as you do. If we can all find the will to stand with each other, shoulder to shoulder, tyranny can be defeated.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

- Dylan Thomas

In some places here you’ll pay an eye-watering £7.27 ($11.52) for a gallon of super unleaded. And prices throughout the rest of Europe are similarly high. But it is worth sparing a thought for the hard-pressed Norwegians who’ll pay £7.28 ($11.54) for a gallon of the regular stuff across their country.

If the price of oil was the only factor to dictate the expense of gas it wouldn’t be such a bitter pill. But it isn’t. The government decides how much we’re going to pay per gallon. Surprise, surprise, it also decides that the majority of it should be diverted to their coffers. So of our £6.22 average, £3.74 ($5.92), or a bit over 60%, ends up in the Treasury’s back pocket.

The government isn’t the only guilty party. Fuel producers take 36%, which goes some way to explaining Shell’s obscene £18.1bn ($28.6bn) profits from last year.

Isn’t that interesting? He blithely notes that more than half of the price they pay at the pump goes right back to their overlords, but when it comes to the actual oil companies, he can’t help but characterize the obscene profits that they make…at about half what the government does, for doing nothing whatsoever to produce that gasoline. As with the Occupy crowd, the problem is never the inefficient, bloated, cash-gulping bureaucracy, but in fact is the scurvy private enterprises that have the audacity to want to be successful in producing a high-demand product.

Additionally, like the Occupy crowd, his rationale consists of “it sucks for us, so it should suck for you”. He goes on to point out that Sweden pays even more at the pump. Yeah, that’s always the answer. If your situation is poor, make someone else’s just as poor as yours. Does he wish for lower prices? Of course not. Hell, he jumps onto the on-ramp to the “high prices are good because oil is bad” highway:

Fuel is a drug the U.S. has long since needed weaning off. Admittedly Americans have to cover greater distances than Europeans. But you don’t need a glorified double bed powered by a throbbing great V8 to do that. A sensibly-sized car with a two-liter turbo will do the job just as comfortably.

And with developing nations such as China, Brazil and India demanding ever more fuel, the planet can’t put up with anyone’s penchant for gas-guzzling monsters any more.

Oops. My bad. He doesn’t say that oil is the problem. He says “fuel” is the problem. Good to know that we’re on the way to cars powered by fairy dust. Oh, wait…that would be fuel, wouldn’t it? Okay, so the guy is as much of an idiot as every person who ever says “free health care”, or “free contraception”.

So, we should shut up about gas costing four dollars a gallon, which at a rate of ten gallons per refill, done twice a month, means at bare minimum eighty dollars a month out of your pocket…and is critical for most folks to get to work, as well as affecting the price of goods we buy, due to the author-admitted fact that America is ginormous…

…AND we should shut up and pay for all college students’ nine-dollar-a-month contraceptive pills so they can bone in financial freedom.

This is why I toke.

Wherever you are, Andrew, I only hope and wish that I can show a modicum of the strength and intensity and daring that you displayed on a daily basis.

And now…now I would like to present Andrew as I truly believe he would like to be remembered:

You will be sorely missed, sir. Godspeed.

Update: I just saw this incredible tribute by Representative Thaddeus McCotter, and wanted to share it as well. If it gets you down, watch Andrew tweak his nipples again.

“I have worked around the state with citizens who have just reacted to the extreme far right agenda of Scott Walker in a way I’ve never seen before,” Falk told POLITICO in an interview. “In Wisconsin, we don’t skew far left or skew far right. We just want good education, some health care, clean air and water and a decent job — very common sense values. The Governor Walker agenda has just torn the state apart.”

Yes, because budget surpluses, more jobs for teachers, and public employees actually paying a pittance for their Cadillac health insurance and pensions could only be attributed to “far right extremism”. Given that the majority of the state elected Walker into office, and proceeded to elect the pro-Walker SC Justice back into place last year, the state must just be overrun with far right extremists. It’s therefore understandable that Falk would fear such a movement in a state with no history of far left movements, or cities notable for being far left, or even acts of violence perpetrated by nutty leftists.

Honestly, we’re so moderate we make Mitt Romney look conservative. Severely so, even.

While I do believe that this case does, in fact, infringe on the rights of religious organizations whose employees and employers oppose contraception on religious grounds, I also oppose the notion purely from an employers’ rights standpoint. I see no reason why any employer should be forced to provide health insurance plans including contraception coverage, or, for that matter, health insurance at all. If they can’t afford it, or can’t afford a plan that satisfies their wants for their employees, the government should not be forcing them to do so. That’s one of the arguments at the heart of the opposition to ObamaCare.

However, I also apply my philosophy to what I see as other infringements on the freedoms of employers. One of those is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. It’s a bipartisan bill that has been floating around Congress now for several years. Its intent is to address the supposed problem of employers refusing to make significant accommodations for those with requests based on their religious observances or tenets. Some of these instances include men not being allowed to have beards at work, or insufficient rescheduling efforts to make it possible for an employee to take time off to attend to a holy day of some sort. Many of these claims have been taken to court, and often a judgment was found for the employer. The way things are now, employers are only required to make allowances for the religious beliefs of their employees if those allowances incur only a minimal cost to the employer. Under the WRFA, employers would have to now prove a “significant difficulty” to the courts, broadening the rules such that employers are now on the defensive.

A huge amount of religious organizations of all types have supported the bill, while civil rights groups like the ACLU have opposed it. I fall on the side of the latter. To me, the situation is very similar to the contraception mandate. With WRFA, you have the government forcing an employer to take on a cost in order to cater to what lawmakers want their employees to have, without taking into account the rights of the employers. With the contraception mandate, the situation is the same. There are a number of differences, obviously.

The difference that sticks out most to me, however, is that Rick Santorum opposes the contraception mandate…and introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. I consider both to be infringements on the rights of employers…both to be cases of big government overreach. It almost makes me think that Santorum is more concerned with keeping those with his religious beliefs happy than he is with preserving the freedoms of private businesses.

Then again, maybe I’m thinking that because I’m not a “traditional conservative“.

My primary lamentation of the piece is not the ridiculous, ostentatious questions posed by Lofton, nor even his actual fallback to the most childish name-calling on national television(I won’t even address the Godwin invocation), but that such behavior would come from someone working for the Washington Times.

What truly caught my attention and made me see the connection to the current discussion of Santorum’s worldview is that Zappa makes it a point to label himself as a conservative. Now clearly, Lofton also considers himself a conservative, but their disagreement illuminates exactly the distinction made by Santorum in a post I made recently. There seems to be a cavernous fissure between the kind of conservative who believes government should be prevented from engaging in social engineering, and the kind of conservative who believes government has a responsibility to protect children/families/society from what the consider “harmful influences”. Twenty-five years ago it was rock music, later it’s video games, later it’s McDonald’s, later it’s soft drinks, and on and on. Many libertarian-leaning conservatives noted the same kind of misgivings with Huckabee last time around, who had advocated increased taxes on tobacco products while governor of Arkansas, and who seemed to advocate government monitoring of citizens’ eating habits.

Again, I cite an interview recently featured on Fox Business’ show Freedom Watch, where Santorum made the following comment:

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.

Some questions need to be asked in this discussion. The first is whether the “traditional conservatism” that Santorum refers to aligns with the popular beliefs of those who consider themselves “social conservatives”. Some have pointed out that even the label “Christian Conservative” has a faction all its own. Again, is there any daylight between these labels?

If that alignment does not exist in a satisfactory fashion, how then is modern social conservatism to be defined? Some will probably finish this article with a single, valid thought: “Who cares? This election will be about the economy.” Fair enough, but a consensus on the size and scope of government is critical to the discussion of the economy, with the way the government has been bloated over the last decade, both by Republicans and Democrats. Is it not then crucial that a real debate be had on whether one of the principles of social conservatism should be limited government?

Clearly, the type of establishment Republican we get in champions like Mitt and Newt are seen as representative of big-government policy, and therefore not conservative. It seems to me that if we’re to make this distinction, we need a clear acknowledgment of how the size of government factors into social conservative ideology. Indeed, what common ground is held between social conservatism and the TEA Party movement, the latter of which many people, including myself, have found underrepresented in the late stages of this primary?

Also: By no means do I intend to imply that everyone who identifies themselves as social conservatives or Christian Conservatives are in favor of big government, or that they line up with people like Rick Santorum. I was making an observation from my own experience that, more often than not, those who identify themselves as social conservatives tend to see a benefit in government acting on their behalf if they believe the act is morally justified.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

- Rick Santorum

First off, the phrase “radical individualism” is something I expect to hear from a Saudi imam. Hell, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear it from leftists in this country. When I hear it from a Republican candidate for president, I sit blinking for a couple of minutes and then curl up in a ball under my desk, crying softly.

Secondly, I have to wonder: is Santorum insane, or even more out of touch with his base than any of the other candidates? This guy has the balls to whine about people wanting the government to leave them alone? Um, Ricky, I’m pretty sure the top issue for most conservatives is government overreach. There’s this thing called ObamaCare. Heard of it?

However, the true Emmy award winner of this piece is when he disputes the notion that “government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low”. You’re absolutely right, bud. I hope you get up on a podium tonight and deliver, in that notoriously whiny timbre of yours, admonishment to all those non-traditional conservatives who won’t shut up about lower taxes and less regulation. See how that flies in South Carolina.

Rick Santorum is a statist theocrat. I’ve said it before, and been challenged on it. I consider this quote to be a follow up to this endlessly disturbing piece from nine years ago. Rick Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views. He is as far removed from the Tea Party, and the concept of small-government conservatism, as Barack Obama.

But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day.

Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.

Every time I hear one of these rich liberal f**ksticks balk at the notion of donating to the treasury, they always couple it with “we all have to pay…everybody needs to pay their fair share…can’t allow people to choose..etc.”

It reminds me of when I was in school, and I would have gum or candy or something in class. A classmate would complain to the teacher that I had something, and they didn’t. Instead of just taking the gum or candy away from me, the teacher would always ask if I had enough for the rest of the class. I never understood it. No, obviously I didn’t have enough for them. This is my candy. If I wanted to share it, I would have brought more. I don’t want to share it, and I shouldn’t have to do so. They didn’t pay for it. They’re not my friends. Me having candy and them not having candy is not my problem. They’re free to ask, and I should be free to say yes or no.

The teacher was acting exactly like the government, trying to take what I have, divvy it up, and make it so small that nobody was happy. Basically, she was pandering to the rest of the kids by making them feel a little better about one student having a little less, and them a little more. Some students loved this. Now they vote Democrat. Other students disliked it. Now they vote Republican. I hated it. Now I don’t vote for anyone, because they’re all socialists or lunatics.

I hope that when I have kids, that their teachers pull the same s**t on them. Will make it a lot easier explaining socialism.

The primary argument that most Paul supporters seem to offer up is that Two First Names denies having written the material, and that his name was simply a branding on the newsletter. The fact that he was listed as editor on these publications weakens that argument from the start, but the real pressure point is from the Dallas Morning News, May 22nd, 1996:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.” [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character … come and talk to my neighbors.” [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter’s toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

How do you take statements like “95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” out of context, unless you’re addressing such assertions in a critique of those who make them? The links I provided above provide several more articles that back up this point, but I think one is sufficient to demonstrate that Paul, in fact, defended the statements made in these newsletters, with the same old lame political rhetoric employed by most modern liberals, after being caught saying stupid crap.

Now, let me pre-address a few expected counters to this.

You can’t trust the media! Fair enough, but how else are we to find out what Paul’s history was regarding these newsletters? We have to use what’s available.

He never actually says in the article that he wrote anything! His words are specific enough that he is defending the content. Regardless, his statement that “these aren’t my figures” also provides the implication that the interpretation of the figures are his own.

And now, the big counter I expect: He hasn’t said anything like that in recent years, so it doesn’t matter.

Then why not vote for Mitt Romney? I’ve heard the exact same argument from Romney supporters. Multiple times I’ve been told “he hasn’t changed his positions since 2005“. News flash: when you have to command people to ignore a politician’s history in order to defend duplicitous, reprehensible, or contradictory behavior, your candidate sucks.

Now, that isn’t a huge surprise, given the rest of the 2012 GOP roster. I’m without a candidate that I can support, sadly. From a domestic platform standpoint, Paul is pretty damned attractive as a small-government pro-liberty conservative. However, the main apprehension that I and most other conservatives find with the guy is his attitude towards Israel, and the propensity for attracting the support of groups like 9-11 truthers and white supremacists. Supporters have also argued that a politician can’t control who takes a liking to them, and for the most part, that’s true.

However, when you have newsletters that spew the same garbage that these Emmy Award winners live by, you’re defending them one minute, and pretending they don’t exist the next…how can we trust you?

As of today, November 1st, 2011, citizens of the State of Wisconsin can now apply for their concealed carry license at the website for the Wisconsin Department of Justice!

Here’s a quick lowdown on what you need to do:

1. Access this application, and either fill it out before you print it, or print it out and fill it out by hand. Please note that your printed application must print in its entirety. If borders, words, or signature lines are cut off, you’ll need to change your printer settings to scale the application to fit on the paper you are using. Make sure you fill in every relevant piece of information. Yes, even your race. Be sure to pay close attention to each question asked, and place an “X” in the appropriate column. Ensure that you have signed the application in three places.

2. Obtain a document showing your proof of training. The easiest to get should be a Hunter’s Safety Education certificate, which you can either get online, or from most Wal-Marts or sporting goods stores. If you didn’t go through Hunter’s Safety, you’ll need a certificate from another firearms training course, a copy of a concealed carry permit from another state, or a document showing military/law enforcement/security training in small arms.

3. Write a check for $50 to the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

4. Double and triple-check all of the above items. The DOJ can deny your permit based on the slightest of errors, and given that it’s based in Madison, I’m sure they’re hungry to deny as many as they can.

5. Mail the application, proof of training, and check to:

Wisconsin Department of Justice
Attn: Firearms Unit
PO Box 7130
Madison, WI, 53707-7130

If you send your application in before December, you will receive either your permit, or a notice of denial including a written explanation, within 45 days. After December 1st, the window closes to 21 days.

Remember that even if you get your concealed carry permit, it is still illegal for you to carry a firearm on almost any government property, or in any government building, such as police stations, courthouses, and municipal buildings. The 1000-foot school zone rule has been fixed, but you are still prohibited from carrying on school grounds. It is now legal to carry in establishments that serve alcohol, provided you do not drink. Please take the time to carefully go over the FAQ located here so that you are familiar with the boundaries of the law.

Additionally, the laws regarding long guns have not changed. If you are transporting a rifle or shotgun, it needs to be unloaded and encased.

Another important point to note, especially for those in Madison:

Can an employer prohibit employees from carrying concealed weapons on the job?

Yes. An employer may prohibit an employee from carrying a concealed weapon or a particular type of concealed weapon in the course of the employee‘s employment or during any part of the course of the employee‘s employment. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(15m)(a).

In other words, if your boss doesn’t want you carrying on the job, don’t do it. However, read the following very carefully:

Does that prohibition apply to my car or the employer’s parking lot?

No. An employer may not prohibit a person with a CCW license, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon, a particular type of concealed weapon, or ammunition or from storing a weapon, a particular type of weapon, or ammunition in the licensee‘s own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(15m)(b).

Take careful note of this. This part of the law allows you to carry concealed up to the point you exit your car at work, and your employer CANNOT lawfully forbid you from doing so. You may even want to bring it up to your employer if you have concerns.

Open carriers take note: it is now LEGAL for you to possess a loaded handgun in an automobile, provided that the weapon is never both concealed AND within reach, WITHOUT a concealed carry permit. However, it’s highly advisable, even if you are aren’t going to carry concealed, that you get your permit anyway. It will potentially save you legal hassles, and in this state, the laws are likely to be tested in the courts. Additionally, the actual amount of applications and licenses issued, as statistics, will be passed on to the governor and the media, so your participation in the program shows even more support for the Second Amendment rights of Wisconsin residents. Let’s make these numbers huge enough to knock the anti-gun media on their statist backsides!

Content warning: this is Howard Stern. There’s nothing particularly offensive in this broadcast, apart from Robin letting the “f” word slip once. Additionally, Paul Krugman and other sniveling cowardly slime might be offended at the sheer amount of warmongering neoconservative islamophobic nationalistic dialogue that is thrown around in this broadcast. As for everyone else…prepare to hear sentiments and attitudes that seem to have been lost to history. Intense support for Israel, condemnation of Palestine, speculation that it was Iraq, calls to get behind the president and hopes that he levels countries throughout the world, and even demands that we take their oil for ourselves. What a difference a decade makes.

The shame is that Stewart could have taken a moment to point out the ridiculous Obama halo covers that Newsweek has employed, but you can’t have everything. At the rate Obama is disintegrating, though, I will be curious to see how the Daily Show handles the upcoming twenty-ring circus that this election cycle will become. While Stewart is a lefty, on numerous occasions in the past, he’s found himself unable to resist taking many of our political foes to task for their dipstickery.

According to WISN, neither the West Allis police, nor the Milwaukee police have any comment. Little wonder, given that there are a history of these sorts of attacks in Milwaukee in recent times. It just happened over the Fourth of July, after the fireworks in Milwaukee.

In case you’re thinking that the concealed carry legalization coming in November will help to mitigate this, I should point out that specific text in the bill prohibits any sort of carry at certain types of major open events. I know for sure that carry, open or concealed, will be banned from Summerfest and the Summerfest grounds. I would not be surprised whatsoever that the State Fair is included in this mindless provision.

Just for garnish, there were also pro-union protesters trying to shout down Walker, as he was opening the fair.

Update: a caller on McKenna’s show just indicated that the attacks weren’t restricted to the State Fair, but were occurring well outside, on 84th Street going towards Adler. People being pulled off of motorcycles and being attacked in their cars.

Update: I’m trying to find links to other reports of these kinds of black mobs attacking people in Milwaukee over the last several years, because I’ve seen dribs and drabs in forums from time to time. In my research, I realized that if you want some more evidence of this trend, you need look no further than Milwaukee’s illustrious “Juneteenth” festival. Violence at that little gathering has been a regular event.

Update: A similar incident at Mayfair Mall from January, arising from a girl being accused of shoplifting. I could keep going on with these kinds of mob attacks, but I don’t think it’s really necessary. I just want to give a bit of illustration to the fact that this sort of thing is a chronic problem, and a problem that, naturally, the media has been doing their damnedest to keep quiet.

Update: Heh. An older black female caller to McKenna just voiced that while she disagreed with and didn’t like the concealed carry legalization, she advocated “shooting first and asking questions later”. I get the feeling that a number of others in Milwaukee will be taking that attitude before long.

Update: Whoa. WISN radio just reported that David Clarke, the Milwaukee County Sheriff, just criticized Milwaukee’s black leadership for not doing more to prevent this. If not for the fact that he is black himself, I’m sure he’d be beaten out of his job with the “racist” label. Still, good to see that at least he has the balls to make a public statement.

Update (Ed): The State Fair announced a curfew policy in effect immediately:

“1. All youth under the age of eighteen (18) years of age are required to be accompanied by a legal guardian (age 21+) to be admitted to the Wisconsin State Fair after 5:00 p.m.

2. Anyone 18 years or over may be asked to show a valid driver’s license or state identification card for proof of age in order to be admitted to the Wisconsin State Fair without a parent or guardian after 5:00 p.m.

3. Any young adult under 18 without a valid driver’s license or state identification card and not accompanied by a parent or guardian will not be admitted after 5:00 p.m.

4. Execpetions [sic] and challenges to this policy will be satisfied at the discretion of Fair Management.”

The Jounal-Sentinel gives a more detailed explanation of the events, and doesn’t shy away from the racial angle:

The trouble at the fair started around 7 p.m. Thursday in the midway area, where amusement rides are located, when fights broke out among black youths, said Tom Struebing, chief of the State Fair Police. Those fights did not appear to be racially motivated.

Then around the closing time of 11 p.m., witnesses told the Journal Sentinel, dozens to hundreds of black youths attacked white people as they left the fair, punching and kicking people and shaking and pounding on their vehicles.

At least 31 people were arrested – many for disorderly conduct – in connection with the incidents on the fairgrounds and on the streets outside. At least 11 people, seven of them police officers, were injured, officials said. Twenty-four people were arrested within the fairgrounds by State Fair Police. West Allis police arrested seven people, five of them juveniles, outside the fairgrounds.

Struebing said two injured officers were hospitalized; one was hit in the face with an improvised weapon, the other suffered a concussion.

From that description, it doesn’t sound organized but more like an angry mob turning outward after turning inward. It’s still ugly regardless.

The GOP-controlled Assembly approved the bill on a bipartisan vote of 68-27.
The Senate backed the bill last week on a 25-8 vote, and the measure now goes to Walker, who supports it, for his signature.
Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize the carrying of concealed guns.
The legislation would require those who want to carry concealed firearms to obtain permits. It would allow people to carry concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public buildings but not places like police stations and courthouses. Weapons also would be prohibited in buildings where posted notices bar them, and in places like Summerfest music festival at Milwaukee’s lakefront.

Ultimately, this is a victory with one casualty: Constitutional Carry. A couple of months ago, activists were energized at the concept that Wisconsin would join the rank of Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Hampshire in having pure Second Amendment freedom: open and concealed carry anywhere, without a permit. Sadly, this effort was undermined by local law enforcement and so-called “conservative” radio hosts like Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling on 620 WTMJ and 1130 WISN, with the help of milquetoast Jeff Wegner. They took the paranoid view that Constitutional Carry would lead to the cliche “wild west shootouts in the streets” that every anti-gun advocate talks about, yet somehow only materialize in places like Chicago, where they have the strictest gun laws. The chairman of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. claims he was refused airtime by Sykes himself, despite Sykes having called him out on the same show. Their damage to the fight to restore the rights of Wisconsin citizens will not go unforgotten.

Thankfully, it was Madison’s conservative host, Vicki McKenna, that kept the fight going even while Walker and members of the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly began to fold. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to keep them from deciding permits and minimal training would be necessary. The requirements are still significantly less stringent than a lot of states, but it was a blow to those who hoped that Wisconsin was taking a sharp turn to the right. Certain legal details regarding Castle Doctrine have yet to be hashed out, and the bill won’t even go into effect until four months after Walker signs it…but when it comes down to it, this is what many of us have been waiting years to come to fruition. Finally, the people of Wisconsin have the ability to defend their lives, their families, and their property.

A side note: unfortunately, the creation of the permit has further complicated the school zone issue, where in Wisconsin it is illegal to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school(which makes going through cities like Madison and Milwaukee into a sadistic game of hopscotch). While it is now legal to carry in your car without a permit, you MUST have a permit to carry within the school zone. It makes no-permit open carry both more accessible and more dangerous, in that you can now open carry in your car, but if you are pulled over in a school zone, you have to face the penalty for doing so. Basically it’s an attempt by some lawmakers to give the finger to open carriers, and impel them to buy the permits. Wisconsin liberals are a particularly potent kind of overlord.

At the Capitol on Monday, opposition grew against the governor’s order Friday to require the human papilloma- virus vaccine for girls starting in September 2008. Lawmakers who said their offices were inundated with angry calls and e-mails from constituents over the weekend rushed to file bills that would override the governor’s order, which they said revokes parental rights and could encourage young girls to be promiscuous. The governor, however, stood firm.

“Providing the HPV vaccine doesn’t promote sexual promiscuity any more than the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use,” Perry said Monday. “If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?”

I think this one will vary in concern value. Some people are very edgy about any kind of forced vaccinations, for reasons even beyond the concept of government-mandated medical procedures. Others may give this a pass. I continue for the sake of the latter:

The group’s proudest moment came last week when Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill that makes important changes in the use of contracts-for-deed, a form of home lending that withholds a title from buyers until they have fully paid their loan.

Passage of the law, which will make it possible for buyers to convert their loans to traditional mortgages, was this year’s top Texas legislative goal for ACORN, which represents 175,000 low- and moderate-income families in 51 U.S. cities.

But hey, that can’t be too big of a deal, right? After all, John McCain was cozy with them as well, and he got the nomination in 2008! Not the only thing that he seems to have in common with John McCain’s ideology, either:

Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance. This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.

This coming from the same guy who opposed Arizona’s immigration law. No, this is not an immediate “purity test” for conservatism. It’s a serious look at a person who seems awful close to asking us to elect them to be the leader of our country. Honestly, this governor from Texas looking to be president…seems a lot like the last governor from Texas looking to be president, in all the wrong ways.

Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness. Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their “personal habits.”

But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.

Basically, yes. What is wrong with this outlook? Is it not legal to smoke yourself to the point of nicotine poisoning? Is it not legal to drink yourself into an involuntary personal protein spill? Is it not legal to eat nothing but McDonald’s and put your life in peril? I’m sure many here have seen the inane documentary Super Size Me, where Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but McDonald’s every day(and also turns into a sedentary moronic lump), to demonstrate that McDonald’s(and certainly not inactivity) is killing America. Am I really the only one that hoped he had a heart attack and learned his lesson for being so foolish with his liberty? However, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the liberty to be so foolish, and that we shouldn’t have the liberty to say that he’s an idiot. Both of those things, however, seem to bother Gerson quite a bit.

Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.

Right. Gerson really cares about manners. That’s why he claims that the Tea Party hates immigrants, and refers to their opinions as childish. He’s just such a polite gentleman.

This was made possible by the fine men and women of our military. All of their sacrifices over the last decade let up to this moment. While some say this is not really a big deal…it is. This was our Hitler. We hungered to see this murderer brought to justice for years. He was the symbol of what we’ve been fighting since that terrible day in September.

It was also made possible by our intelligence community, who used information gleaned from prisoners at Gitmo in tracking down Bin Laden. And yes, it was also made possible by former President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama. He actually went so far as to turn down the prospect of bombing the place, in favor of going in on the ground and making sure that he spent his final seconds quivering in fear.

Today, some Americans have mixed feelings about what has happened. Some are saying that we shouldn’t be celebrating the death of a human being. Some are arguing over the ramifications of who was in the White House when this happened. Some are making other opinions we disagree with.

Right now, though…you know what’s important? That we are Americans, and we have the right to have those opinions. The man our brave warriors put down last night would have taken that right from us. He would gladly have put us all under the shackles of an Islamic caliphate.

No more. The despicable bastard is dead. God Bless The USA.

I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt [and shore up the Social Security Trust Fund].

My proposal would also allow us to entirely repeal the 55% federal inheritance tax. The inheritance tax is a particularly lousy tax because it can often be a double tax. If you put the money into trust for your children, you pay the inheritance tax upon your death. When the trust matures and your children go to use it, they’re taxed again. It’s the worst.

Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions. The 14.25% net-wroth tax would be offset by repeal of the 55% inheritance-tax liability.

Well, it’s the same person who said this:

I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.

Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.

And this:

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

All of these things were uttered by the same man. A man who, like Chris Christie, some conservatives are jumping for joy over, without knowing, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson arrived around noon Friday, speaking to the near-capacity crowd for about five minutes. From the second level of the Capitol rotunda, he led the crowd in chants including “Save the teachers. Save the children.” Protesters swayed as Jackson led them in a rendition of the song, “We Shall Overcome.”

“If we can find the money to bail out wealthy businessmen, we can bail out Madison, Wisconsin!” Jackson yelled, to thunderous applause from the crowd, many of them clad in Badger red.

Wait…wouldn’t a bailout of Madison mean more along the lines of, you know, saving them from bankruptcy? Like…Walker’s plan? Of course, the problem is that nobody at the protest needs to be “bailed out”. What they face is minor contributions from their paycheck towards their benefits, which most working people are used to. But then, Jesse Jackson has always been one to jump to the side of whoever feels entitled to something from the government, or, more specifically, the taxpayers.

Isn’t this guy’s career over yet? Maybe he can rip Walker’s nuts off.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told reporters Friday that two state troopers are on their way to Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller’s home in Monona.

Miller, who at this time is the only reported Democratic senator in Wisconsin — the other 13 are reportedly still in Illinois — will be escorted back to the Capitol if he is home when the troopers arrive, Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald added Miller would not be arrested, though.

Then what exactly are they going to do? What is the point of this? To try to intimidate him into reporting to the Senate floor? It’s meaningless without the threat of force. This goes back to what Ed was talking about. How can citizens compel their elected officials, or rather, their employees, to work? What, threat of maybe being voted out of office two years from now, at the earliest?

While the teachers who are pissing and moaning about having to pay 50% of the national average towards their health insurance and pensions cry that representation through unions is a “human right”, the majority of Wisconsin residents are wondering about their right to representation through their government. Representation by 14 people who claim to stand with Wisconsin residents…while sitting in Chicago.

Update: He wasn’t there. Sounds like he’s still “standing with his constituents”.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach told WisPolitics this afternoon Senate Dems left the state in an attempt to force Republicans to negotiate a compromise to proposed changes to the bargaining rights of public employees.

Erpenbach would not disclose where he was or how many of the Dem senators were with him. But he said he believed all 14 were already out of state by early this afternoon.

“We were left with no choice,” Erpenbach said.

No choice? You had a choice: vote yes or no, you sniveling coward. Oh, and this line is just golden:

“The question is when are the Republicans going to sit down seriously with the other side on this issue and try to work something out,” Erpenbach said. “When are we going to be reasonable about this and slow things down?”

You know, because jumping on a bus and leaving the state to avoid having to vote on legislation you dislike is completely reasonable. Are they also asking the bus driver to slow down?

Update: Erpenbach has confirmed that all 14 Senate Democrat cowards are together, and WIBA is saying they’re at the Clock Tower Resort in Rockford.

The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet.

At stake is who will have authority over the next wave of suffixes to supplement the venerable .com, .org, and .net. At least 115 proposals are expected this year, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web, and the application process could be finalized at a meeting in San Francisco next month.

The article points out the pointless dithering by the Bush administration for the last several years to deny the use of the .xxx domain, and this is equally pointless. However, given the Obama administration’s fetish for the power to shut down the internet entirely, as well as to deny private companies the ability to offer varying levels of service to their customers, this is just another coal on the fire. The White House is demonstrating that they are patently uncomfortable with the internet continuing to be a “wild frontier”. They want control, and they want as much of it as possible. Remember those geek friends of ours who marveled at how tech-savvy Obama was, and voted for him almost entirely on that basis? Enjoy the schadenfreude.

It’s getting pretty bad when Jon Stewart and his bunch make more sense than Ron Paul, and I’m actually defending Obama and Hillary.

In one of the last vestiges of collective living, Beijing’s coal plants pump heat to city apartments on a strict schedule, from November 15 to March 15, every year. Since the 1950s, the schedule has rarely changed, even if temperatures plummet before the appointed day.

After enduring record heat-waves this summer, with the mercury soaring to its highest mark in 60 years, and thick pollution in the fall (which the government blamed on “fog”), Beijingers are now suffering through the early onset of bitter cold. China’s state-run media reported October 18 as the city’s coldest autumn day since 1986, with temperatures peaking at 48 degrees and then dropping to 44.

“Quit whining, peasants!” says CBS. “Your pain is nothing compared to Mother Earth’s pain!”

There is one silver — or green — lining to weeks of goose bumps. Beijing’s power plants burn through 41,000 tons of coal every day to keep the city’s residents warm in winter. That energy is saved each day the government keeps the radiators turned off.

Today, another story of the wisdom of communist dictatorship bobbed up from the depths of their hideously polluted rivers:

An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken China’s one-child-per-family law.

Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiying’s house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital.

There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby.

I thought I’d save CBS the trouble of flourishing too much nobility, and write them a nice little caveat for their report on this.

There is a silver, or rather green lining, to forced abortion in China. Human beings, as well as contributing to overpopulation and the diminishing of sustainability, produce incredible amounts of carbon dioxide and other toxins that increase the problem of climate change. By slaughtering this parasite of Gaia, the Chinese government is helping to combat the cataclysmic impact of global warming.

In a complete reversal of decades of U.S. policy on geopolitics and strategic security, U.S. President Barack Obama has written to the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate seeking a termination of suspension of Arms Exports to China and to allow the sale of C-130 medium lift transport aircrafts to China. The letter by the President claims that this is in ‘American national interest’ and is for ‘oil spill cleanup’ efforts.

American national interest? You mean like knocking out the F-22 Raptor program and effectively demolishing our air superiority? You mean like gutting jobs at the Pentagon? You mean like treating our most important ally in the Middle East like dirt? I’m genuinely curious how Obama defines “American national interest”. And oil spill cleanup efforts? Isn’t it a little late, bud? Are you expecting the Chinese to come out to the gulf to clean up the ocean floor?

No doubt that some will point out that these C-130s can be used for humanitarian efforts. Sure, I’m guessing that’s China’s interest. Nothing else. Not a thing.

The versatile airframe has found uses in a variety of other roles, including as a gunship (AC-130), for airborne assault

Okay…maybe law enforcement.

A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do.

It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted its expensive device back, the student told Wired.com in an interview Wednesday.

…

Afifi considered selling the device on Craigslist before the FBI showed up. He was in his apartment Tuesday afternoon when a roommate told him “two sneaky-looking people” were near his car. Afifi, already heading out for an appointment, encountered a man and woman looking at his vehicle outside. The man asked if Afifi knew his registration tag was expired. When Afifi asked if it bothered him, the man just smiled. Afifi got into his car and headed for the parking lot exit when two SUVs pulled up with flashing lights carrying four police officers in bullet-proof vests.

The agent who initially spoke with Afifi identified himself then as Vincent and told Afifi, “We’re here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It’s federal property. It’s an expensive piece, and we need it right now.”

Afifi asked, “Are you the guys that put it there?” and the agent replied, “Yeah, I put it there.” He told Afifi, “We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate.”

Personally, if I found something like that on my car, I’d probably be calling the SWAT team to get it taken care of, not Midas. The most unfortunate part is the thug outfit he had to turn to:

Afifi’s attorney, who works for the civil liberties-focused Council on American Islamic Relations, said this kind of tracking is more egregious than the kind her office usually sees.

The real question: how much could he have gotten for it on Craigslist? Over/under $150?

Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.

Police seized his computer but could not access material on it as it had a 50-character encryption password.

Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday.

Drage was arrested when he was living in Freckleton, Lancashire, but later moved to Liverpool.

He was formally asked to disclose his password but failed to do so, which is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, police said.

Yes, he was taken down by a police unit going after kiddy porn. However, for this discussion, let’s remember that their case appears to hinge on accessing his private property. They’re unable to do so, and until they do, what they have seems to be minuscule if they’re willing to jail him for not handing them their evidence. Let’s also take into account that we’re talking about Britain, where rights are an afterthought as the cameras stare at your every move.

Not being a legal expert, I’m unsure what US law says about password-protected laptops, particularly with encryption. They have their own resources to crack them, of course, but what about in these more advanced cases where the accused has sufficient knowledge to throw up this kind of security? Do warrants apply to private computers, including encrypted materials? Suppose the accused were to throw a magnet on their hard drive(assuming it wasn’t a solid state drive)…could they be charged?

Most interestingly, if the guy were a Muslim, and claimed religious persecution, what would be the outcome?

Palin: What does Joe Miller look like?
Murkowski: What?
Palin: [overturns the small table in the room] What country are you from?
Murkowski: What?
Palin: “What” ain’t no country I ever heard of! They speak English in “What”?!
Murkowski: What?
Palin: English, motherf**ker! Do you speak it?!
Murkowski: Yes!
Palin: Then you know what I’m saying.
Murkowski: [gasping] Yes…
Palin:Describe what Joe Miller looks like!
Murkowski: What?
Palin: [points gun directly in Murkowski's face] Say “what” again. Say “what” again! I dare you! I double-dare you, motherf**ker! Say “what” one more goddamn time!
Murkowski: He-he’s white.
Palin: Go on!
Murkowski: He doesn’t like to shave.
Palin: Does he look like a b***h?
Murkowski: What?!
Palin: [shoots Murkowski in the shoulder, Murkowski screams] Does he look … like … a b***h?!
Murkowski: [in pain] No-o!
Palin: Then why’d you try to f**k him like a b***h, Murkowski?
Murkowski: [faintly] I didn’t!
Palin: Yes, you did! Yes, you did, Murkowski! You tried to f**k him. But Joe Miller don’t like to be f**ked by anybody except Mrs. Miller. You read the Bible, Murkowski?
Murkowski: [gasping for breath] Yes.
Palin: Well, there’s this passage I’ve got memorized, sort’a fits the occasion. Ezekiel 25:17? “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. [begins pacing about the room] And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers! And you will know my name is the Cuda [pulls out her gun and aims it at Murkowski] when I lay my vengeance upon thee!”
[Murkowski shrieks in horror as Palin and Allen West shoot her repeatedly]

A federal judge is allowing a negligence lawsuit to proceed against the publisher of the online virtual-world game Lineage II, amid allegations that a Hawaii man became so addicted he is “unable to function independently in usual daily activities such as getting up, getting dressed, bathing or communicating with family and friends.”

Craig Smallwood, the plaintiff, claims NCsoft of South Korea should pay unspecified monetary damages because of the addictive nature of the game. Smallwood claims to have played Lineage II for 20,000 hours between 2004 and 2009. Among other things, he alleges he would not have begun playing if he was aware “that he would become addicted to the game.”

Smallwood, who did not immediately respond for comment, alleged that the company “acted negligently in failing to warn or instruct or adequately warn or instruct plaintiff and other players of Lineage II of its dangerous and defective characteristics, and of the safe and proper method of using the game.”

This game costs fifteen dollars a month to play, much like other MMO(massively multiplayer online) games. In other words, you have to go out and spend money in order to play for longer than a month. You have to have your computer on, run the program, and log in. You have to put in effort to be a regular player of the game. Yet, somehow, mystical forces emanating from the tendrils of the eeevil game makers reached out and took care of all of that for this guy. Additionally, millions upon millions of other people play World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, and other games just like Lineage II without their lives falling to pieces.

I guess ethical companies make games that are so dull and boring that they push players away after they’ve plopped down their money. For the public good, you know.

Did she say World War 2 wasn’t based on real people?

First of all…it’s 2010. Video games have existed for nearly 40 years now. Video games with multiplayer capabilities like Medal of Honor have been around for about 15 years. And guess what? You’ve been able to play the bad guys for all of that time. Ever heard of CounterStrike? Came out in 1999, and was multiplayer-only. One side was the counter-terrorists, with teams such as Delta Force and the British SAS. Take a second and imagine what the other side was. Yes, terrorists. How else could the game be played if you didn’t have another side playing the opposition? Battlefield 1942, another popular multiplayer game, based on World War 2 battles. One side was an Allied power, and the other side…this is going to blow you away, I know…an Axis power. Yes, you played as the Nazis, the Italians, or the Japanese. Otherwise you’d have a couple dozen people running around shooting at thin air. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and its sequels were both immensely popular because of their multiplayer, where one side played…wait for it…terrorists.

News flash: they were all video games. They were all imaginary. They all required two sides. If one side was the heroes, the other was the villains. This concept is not new.

Did NOBODY at Fox ever play Cowboys and Indians as a kid? Oops, I’m sorry. That’s racist, isn’t it?

Regardless, I believe it’s time we moved on. We need to understand that the police are a major part of society, and we need to build new bridges to demonstrate forgiveness and understanding. It is with this in mind, that I propose the construction of an altar several feet from where the shooting occurred, at the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit station. This altar will be a tribute to California police officers, and will be sponsored by the Daryl Gates Memorial Foundation.

This tribute will foster further cultural connection between the police community, and the citizens who felt harmed by Grant’s death. Our organizers will include Stacey Koon, among other important members of the law enforcement community. We hope that by fostering better communication with the public, that healing can occur. Please join us on January 1st, 2011, the second anniversary of Grant’s shooting, to celebrate the opening of this heartfelt token of friendship.

P.S. If you have any comments or questions, or find yourself appalled at the notion, please explain why. Do you blame all California police officers for Oscar Grant’s death? Don’t police officers have rights, too? What are you, policeophobic? Admit it, you just hate all California police officers.

I think both sides of the abortion debate are lying and have been lying since the argument first arose. Anyone who wants to forbid abortion “except in cases of rape or incest” is, frankly, full of crap. And here’s why:

If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.

Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed. Because if you really and truly believed that an embryo was a full human being, then you wouldn’t allow it to be murdered simply because its father was a bad man.

When I was younger, I held the cookiecutter pro-life view Zombie targets here, and I often found myself pondering why rape and incest were allowable circumstances if abortion were truly murder. The exception for the mother’s life being in danger is free of this conundrum, which is probably why she avoids including it. Pro-lifers typically argue that the child should not be punished for the mother’s actions. It follows, then, that the father’s actions are no more a reason to deem an abortion “not murder”. Or, indeed, was the argument that murder was acceptable as a result of the father’s actions?

Zombie goes on, but sums the abortion issue up in a very fundamental way.

That is, unless there was a hidden rationale behind the abortion ban which had nothing to do with the belief that embryos are children. If the “pro-life” stance was sometimes nothing but a ruse, a false front to disguise the real reason for being anti-abortion, that would explain why some “pro-lifers” are willing to murder unborn babies under certain circumstances.

And I have always believed that the hidden rationale is obvious: It’s all about sex.

Many politicians and regular folks feel (accurately, in my opinion) that allowing unfettered legal access to abortion will encourage promiscuity among young people. That if we intentionally make sex consequence-free, then more casual sex will happen, and more sex will lead to more babies out of wedlock, which will lead to any number of well-documented social ills. And furthermore, many feel, pre-marital and extra-marital sex is fundamentally immoral, in that it is explicitly forbidden by the three main monotheistic religions and by many other faiths as well.

Well, partly. I would certainly agree that some of the religious reasoning against abortion is due to attitudes about sex and promiscuity. However, there are other points to consider. Many women who have had abortions have suffered traumatic after-effects, both physically and mentally, due to having abortions. Anyone truly concerned with women’s health would not overlook these instances.

Additionally, there’s the history behind abortion in America, most notably its connection to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Planned Parenthood, after all, was formerly the American Birth Control League. Margaret Sanger used this organization as a flagship in exerting active eugenics policies to minimize the black birth rate and population of the United States. That this organization not only still exists, but is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country today, should make any thinking person very wary of why they advocate abortion so freely, even when they’re not doing it illegally.

Regardless of the reasoning behind your opinion of abortion, when your chance comes to go to the ballot box to determine its legality, you need to focus on one concept: choice. You will either be for the choice to have an abortion, or against it. Over the years, like much of the English language, the term “pro-choice” has been perverted by pro-abortion female supremacists and liberals. In their context, it more clearly implies the advocacy and prolificacy of abortion, rather than the freedom to make that choice. Especially with outfits like PP pushing them, abortion is a huge business, only interested in your choice if it makes them a profit. These people need to be identified as the pro-abortion advocates they really are.

Meanwhile, the abortion debate needs to be reduced to whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice. Is it loaded? Perhaps, but it’s the undiluted truth if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, as I’m hoping, and the states get the chance to determine whether they want abortion to be legal. You’re either going to be for the choice to have an abortion, or against it. Just because you’re in favor of the choice doesn’t mean you personally want people to choose abortion. You can be against smoking, but that doesn’t mean you want it outlawed. The phrase “pro-choice” needs to be reclaimed, and the pro-abortion people need to be called what they are.