I’d Like to See This Tried in Texas

Bruce has the skinny on an attempt to charge 20 dollars for your Sunday cookout, all to fight global warming, of course.   The best part is:

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Wow!  I almost feel like this has to be a joke.   Can people really be this stupid? Can they?  The people that came up with this need to emigrate to Texas, and try it there, where I’m sure the population would be happy to give this the response it deserves.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More VPC Nonsense
  2. New Scapegoat – Global Warming?
  3. Burning the Koran: Really Stupid

How They Think Outside of Philadelphia

Berks County is close to Philadelphia, but does not border it.  The County Seat is Reading.   But they have a Sheriff who, unlike John Street and Ed Rendell, can face reality:

Berks County Sheriff Barry J. Jozwiak asked a panel of state lawmakers in Reading on Thursday to shoot down any legislation that would limit handgun purchases, claiming it would not curb crime or gun violence.

That had to have given the Philadelphia pols, and Mayor McMahon a heart attack.  But it gets better:

Jozwiak, a Republican, said he opposed a bill that would limit people to buying one handgun per month.

Instead of passing new gun laws, Jozwiak said, police and judges should enforce existing laws.

“Gun control does not reduce crime,” Jozwiak said. “In fact, criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.”

Jozwiak even criticized a proposal that would require gun owners to notify police if their handguns were lost or stolen.

Supporters believe that would reduce instances of people buying guns, turning them over to criminals and then claiming that the gun was lost or stolen.

Jozwiak said such a law would punish honest, law-abiding gun owners who didn’t realize that their guns were missing.

Sheriff Jozwiak isn’t alone:

State Rep. Jim Cox, a Spring Township Republican, said he would not support the one-handgun-per-month legislation because it chips away at gun owners’ rights and could lead to more drastic restrictions.

“I want people to have the sheer, unadulterated ability to defend themselves,” Cox said. “If they want to go out and buy 20 weapons to protect themselves because there has been a crime wave in their neighborhood, I don’t want to restrict them.”

Why not?  You know the criminals don’t have any problems doing the same.   I’m glad to see once you get out of The City, politicians start having more sense.  The City of Philadelphia continues to make guns the scapegoats for their crime epidemic, rather than, you know, criminals.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Philadelphia’s Solution
  2. The Gun
  3. Philadelphia Politicians At It Again

Licsensing Rights

Cathy Young gives us a strong reminder of why free societies don’t license rights:

In March, Putin signed a decree merging two existing federal agencies—one for media oversight and the protection of culture, the other for telecommunications monitoring—into a single body, the Federal Service for the Oversight of Mass Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage. It is perhaps no accident that the Russian word for “oversight” used in the agency’s name, nadzor, has a somewhat sinister ring for a Russian speaker: It commonly refers to the supervision of a prisoner. The new agency, which will start its work in about three months, will oversee and license broadcasters, the print media, and websites.

Now, what’s the likelihood that broadcasters, print media and bloggers who have a rather unfavorable view toward Vladimir Putin are going to be able to get this license?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Sanctions?
  2. The 64,000 Dollar Question
  3. Coverage of the Situation In Georgia

Husband Shoots Wife’s Lover, Wife Charged

This is a quite interesting case, coming to us courtesy of Crime and Federalism:

ARLINGTON, Texas — Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup in the driveway.

Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson — thinking quickly, if not clearly — cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.

On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.

In a case likely to reinforce the state’s reputation for don’t-mess-with-Texas justice, the grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge on which he was arrested by police.

Seems to me it’s proper the husband isn’t facing charges.  I think any of us, given similar circumstances, would have done the same thing.  Every state, that I’m aware of, allows for use of deadly force to prevent rape.  The standard is whether a reasonable person would believe, given the circumstances, that a rape was taking place.   The actor need not be factually correct on that count.

But man, what a person this guy married.  I have to wonder if she, realizing her husband probably carried a firearm, knew what the result was going to be, and thought she could get away with it.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Try, try, again
  2. Is Marissa Alexander a Poster Child for SYG?
  3. What Was the Real Motivation Behind the Bloomberg Ricin Letters?

Torches and Pitchforks

Ann Althouse’s latest statement about her calling out feminist bloggers for appearing enthusiastically with Bill Clinton I’m sure is going to make the lefty blogosphere seeth with even more anger:

So I called attention to the fact that Jessica Valenti, positioned right in front of Clinton, did look a bit like that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I thought the photograph was set up in a way that was detrimental to the Clintons’ interests, and I thought that was funny and that it presented an opportunity for some painful satire. I made it quite nasty, and I did it deliberately. I’m not sorry I did it. I mean to castigate feminists and so-called feminists who cozy up to Clinton. They were surely justified in fighting back at me, and I can understand why they want to ruin me.

Maybe so, but why isn’t it legitimate to question why Bill Clinton gets a free pass from feminists when he is, by all accounts, a sleaze ball when it comes to women. Let’s face it guys, Bill Clinton is the kind of guy if you found out your wife, girlfriend or sister were working for, you probably wouldn’t exactly feel good about it. We all know the type.

I think it’s a legitimate question, just as it is asking Newt Gingrich why he was crucifying Clinton when he himself was involved in his own affair. Politicians are, probably more often than not, distasteful human beings. You’d think the left, of all people, would know that, and would be willing to talk about it civilly once they got over the initial anger at being called out on the double standard.

One if my big beefs with the left is their general unwillingness to have a dialog; someone strays off the reservation, and it’s time to bring out the torches and pitchforks. It’s not a way to build a lasting political movement. In our community, we need to be careful of that as well.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. So Gingrich is the New Anti-Mitt
  2. Like a Broken Record
  3. Gingrich Talking Tough to Republicans

Why Would You Talk?

Since this story is moving around, I thought I’d throw in my two cents. I just want to make it clear I’m not in any way advocating people not be careful with airline security, or not take it seriously. Anyone who goes through security with contraband and doesn’t get caught is extremely lucky, and you don’t want to depend on luck to stay out of trouble. It’s important to keep your wits about you as to your carry situation at all times, especially when crossing security checkpoints.

But let’s say, given that you’ve gotten past airport security with a gun you’d mistakenly forgotten you were carrying, why would you then turn yourself in? If it was me, and I somehow made it through TSA security with a pistol, I’d count my lucky stars, finish the flight, and get the hell out of dodge as fast as I could as soon as I landed.

It would be prudent at that point to contact an attorney to ask for advise on the situation, and also what to do now that you have to get the pistol back to where you came from, when its original journey was quite illegal.

I have sympathy for this woman, who made an honest mistake, and tried to do the right thing. I think the prosecutors would be wise to do the right thing on their part and not charge her. Otherwise, the next person who finds themselves in this situation would be wise to just keep their mouth shut. I mean, you wouldn’t be worried you were going to hijack the plane right? You can bet the terrorists won’t turn themselves in.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. What’s Our Responsibity?
  2. John Lott on Campus Firearms Policy
  3. Revolvers Don’t Use Casings

Britain’s Next Move

Wretchard has a good post up describing what he thinks the British need to do next. Basically, he believes Tony Blair needs to take things off the diplomatic track, and put the ball in the Ayatollahs’ court:

 …
Now that the diplomatic basketball has rimmed out, what Britain may consider doing now is what I suggested in the first place. Take the whole thing off the diplomatic track without initiating any overt hostilities.

Whitehall should withdraw the entire British diplomatic mission from Teheran and deal with the Ayatollahs through their representatives to the United Nations; they can expel every Iranian diplomat and official from the UK. And if possible, they should convince their European partners — for whatever they are worth — to do the same. Make the Ayatollahs beg for a diplomatic solution. Make them ask, “what’s next?” Make them beg the British to talk to them. At the minimum this will create uncertainty in Teheran. It forecloses nothing, even a return to diplomacy. And in that atmosphere of uncertainty, the naval force in the Gulf will becoming truly menacing. They should have done this from the first day, in my layman’s opinion. But hey, every day is the next day of the rest of our lives.

From the comments:

…
The Ayatollahs are counting on the British to stay inside the box, where they can be harried and finally destroyed at leisure, politically speaking. The first thing to do in this ambush is to break out of the kill zone. That kill zone destroyed Jimmy Carter. And the number one priority of Tony Blair should be to escape from it.

Teheran has by now decided to use the British sailors for a long term game. The task before the UK is to shift the fight onto ground where it can develop more power than its foe. It cannot do this within the strict and stylized confines of diplomacy….

Read the whole thing, and read some of the comments. It’s a mystery to me why the British went to the EU and UN when both those institutions have demonstrated, over and over, that they are feckless in the face of any international crisis. I worry that these institutions have become a religion for the European political establishment.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. A Desperate Move by the Antis
  2. Missile Shields and Deterrence
  3. Video of the Day: European Parliament

What We Really Did

Bitter and I actually attended a concert of the Philadelphia Orchestra this weekend, rather than getting hitched in Las Vegas. The performance was of Schumann’s Piano Concerto, a piece I’m pretty familiar with, and Schmidt’s Symphony No. 4, which I’ve never heard in my life. Before that we went out for some German at Ludwig’s Garden, one of my favored center-city venues. Ludwigs regularly serves game, and Bitter got some quite tasty venison.

A fact about me: I used to be an amateur classical pianist. I say used to, because it’s not like riding a bike. I haven’t played for 12 years. From age four to twenty one, I took lessons. Some things I played were Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 11 in A-major, Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No 14 in C# Major “Moonlight” (did all three movements), Several Chopin pieces, including Polonaise No. 1 Op. 40 in A-major “Military”. I can only play bits now, and not very well. Memory and fingerings fade. At twenty one, for some reason, I just lost interest in it.

I also decided I needed to spend some time to top off my beer reserves before we head to St. Louis, where in addition to attending the NRA convention, we have a VIP tour of the Anheiser-Busch brewery. I adjusted my British India Pale Ale recipe to an American IPA, and went through the whole process with Bitter. This IPA will even be called the “Bitter Bitch IPA”, or maybe just “Bitchy IPA”. I ran through the whole process with Bitter, ending with pitching the yeast a few minutes before she had to go home. With an original gravity of 1.067, this is sure to be a decent IPA. That will translate into about 6.7% ABV. Definitely something that will kick your ass if you drink too much of it. But I like my beer strong.

Hope you all had a good weekend too, and thanks for the many congratulations on our non-wedding. If we ever do have a real one, we’ll have to invite some of you to make up for it ;)

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Budweiser Brewery
  2. Out of Beer
  3. Weekend Blogging