Censorship Aussy Style

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child
pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access,"
Mr Wallace said.

And so, Australia starts down that slippery slope, as can be seen in this link. I know that "slippery slope" arguments have a bad history, but unless there is a logical stopping point, I don't see how they can be objected to.

The issue of course, is one we can all subscribe to; stopping child pornography. But the chosen mechanism, as usual, is State power, rather than individual actions. It's pretty clear that the proposers of this policy have something more in mind, but want to use the issue as a way to get their proposal past the public's natural skepticism.

Find another way.

Whenever the State wants to take away some of your rights, and uses an emotional issue like this one, the objectors always find themselves in the cross hairs. For the record, I absolutely abhor the exploitation of children. I think pedophiles should rot in prison for the rest of their lifetimes. That being said, the seriousness of the crimes being prevented do not justify the Government's creation of a law that gives bureaucrats carte blanche to later add something else to the list of subjects about which you have no need to know.

In the US, I used to think the Supreme Court would serve as the final defender of our natural rights. But I no longer think so. We got lucky with the Heller decision, with Kelo, not so much.

"What if what they want is to kill you?"

David Codrea of the War on Guns has a new outlet, the Cleveland Examiner. Go there now,and read the whole thing. Pretty hard hitting, it knocks the wind out of those who say to give the mugger what he wants. The money quote:

Contrary to your assertion, Ed, there is a way to fight back, and your
viewers would do well to know about it. Because while some will advise to just
“give them what they want,” a fair question might be “What if what they want is to kill you after they have the money?”

And go check out the War on Guns at the bottom of the page. It's ok, I'll wait while you do.

Dan Cooper, Zumbo Redux

There is controversy brewing in the gun blogs about a USA Today interview with Dan Cooper of Cooper Arms in Montana. Cooper supports the One in the interview. The company apparently has tried to spin Cooper's support of the Obamamessiah as really being an attempt during the primaries to defeat Hillary Clinton. Sebastian, of Snow Flakes in Hell has the goods on Mr. Cooper, however. Let the Zumbo-ation of Mr. Cooper begin.

I am reminded of a story about the run up to Prohibition in this country. Supposedly, the beer barons were led to believe that Prohibition would not affect their product, and so they went along and endorsed it. Only a few of those companies remain in business today, and good riddance to them. Smith and Wesson made a mistake, for which they are still paying, when they caved to the Clinton administration by putting those silly locks on all of their weapons. Zumbo paid dearly for his comments about AR pattern rifles (also known as Evil Black Rifles.) not being used for sport. Now it is Dan Cooper's turn to make an ass of himself and his company. By now, everyone should understand, who has even a cursory reading of the history of the Twentieth Century, that the Left will only accept capitulation. These guys want blood, our blood. The Communist machine about to be unleashed on us will eat us all. As Ben Franklin was reported to have said in similar circumstances, "Either we all hang together, or we shall surely hang apart."

Update: Of Arms and the Law is reporting that Dan Cooper has been asked to resign. That is the least they could do.

What's Up with Gas Prices

From mywaynews comes this report that the Lundberg survey indicates gasoline prices are down 53 cents in the last two weeks. Now, I am not complaining. Indeed, I am ecstatic. But one small question keeps rattling around in my brain: why? Who stands to benefit from the extreme run up in prices, and who is feeling the pinch now that prices have come down? Why isn't anyone apparently reporting on this? Am I the only one who is just a bit curious?

Is This Election the Last?

What are the consequences, this time, of a sweep of the elections? In other words, if the American public delivers a substantial House majority, a filibuster proof Senate, and the President, all of one party, what can we expect? More to the point, can it be good?

First up is a piece by Peter Robinson over at at Forbes.com. Go read the whole thing, but the reader's digest version follows:

"Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics--a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries. Sowell calls one worldview the "constrained vision." It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist
within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the
"unconstrained vision," instead sees human nature as capable of continual
improvement."

After explaining the effect these two visions of mankind had in terms of the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, he goes on...

What role have the two visions played in the campaign? Sen. John McCain, who is trailing, has by and large embraced the constrained vision; Sen. Barack Obama, who is leading, the unconstrained vision. Asked if Obama represents the purest expression of the unconstrained vision since Franklin Roosevelt, Sowell, himself an African-American, replies: "No. Since the beginning of American politics. This man [Obama] has been a left ideologue for 20 years."

He goes on then to outline, in frightening detail, one might expect from such a scenario for the Supreme Court, the War on Terror, and the economy. And the money quote:

Take it all together, Sowell believes, and this election will prove decisive. "There is such a thing as a point of no return," he says. If Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in the House and Senate, they will intervene in the economy and redistribute wealth. Yet their economic policies "will pale by comparison to what they will do in permitting countries to acquire nuclear weapons and turn them over to terrorists. Once that happens, we're at the point of no return. The next generation will live under that threat as far out as the eye can see."

The unconstrained vision is really an elitist vision," Sowell explains. "This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians

.

Next up, is a piece by Laura Hollis entitled "Don't Be a Media Dupe-Vote to WIN" over at Townhall.com. The quote here is:

"Further, you’re assuming that you’ll get another chance at an election. But what if you don’t? Last week, I said to a family
member that what really worried me about an Obama presidency is the risk that we’d get hit again by terrorists, or face some other catastrophe. “And on the heels of that,” I said, “what’s to stop Obama from ‘suspending’ elections? I can hear his sonorous voice now, proclaiming in the most presidential tones, that ‘we cannot afford the divisiveness and partisan bickering of national elections, when the current crisis demands that we be unified as a nation!’ And to those who’d challenge (legitimately) the constitutionality of such a move, our President Obama would simply quote the Great Liberator, Abraham Lincoln, who asked what would be gained if he ‘los[t] the nation, and yet preserve[d] the Constitution?’” And then what would you do?"

Go read the whole thing. Then ask yourself, would an Obama administration do such a thing? The truth is that I do not know. But millions of people are prepared to take that risk, if the polls are to be believed. Personally, I weep for my country.

The Obamamessiah Will Set Us Free

Jonah Goldberg has a piece titled "Racy Content" out today over at Townhall.com. Read the whole thing here

Just a teaser though:

Transcend means "to move beyond, to surpass." At least that's what I always
thought. But I'm beginning to wonder whether it means instead: "Much, much more of the same, only this time really stupid."

Exhibit A: the incessant, relentless, click-your-ruby-red-slippers-and-say-it-until-it-comes-true mantra that Barack Obama will magically cause America to "transcend race." One hears and reads this everywhere, but less as an argument than as a prayer, an expression of faith, a "from my lips to The One's ear" sort of thing.

I went down to vote early yesterday. Interestingly, of the 12 people working the polling station, 7 were black. So how can the Democrats, and ACRORN logically keep harping about how blacks are likely to be disenfranchised? Wouldn't it have been anybody who wasn't black? But, I have to say that the poll workers at my polling station were very professional. I do feel that my vote will be counted. Now we wait for the results.

Why this title

The title of this weblog is a reference to the last line of the poem "On His Blindness" by John Milton. Milton's exact quote is "They also server who only stand and wait." I too often feel blind to the full extent of why this or that is happening. I can't help but believe that much goes by for which I am simply not educated enough to understand. Never the less, I will try to pass on to the reader the best I can find on topics of daily interest from those more educated in these matters than I am, and together we will try to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Of course, I also hope to acquire some knowledge of this "blogger stuff" and to finally find out what the heck an RSS feed is.