perfidy

If you look just at the quote from the Guardian, there is sense there. Before the libervation, we had good reason to believe that Saddam was developing or had developed WMD. Compare the situation to North Korea. North Korea, despite its nastiness, does not either sit on, or threaten neighbors that sit on, a natural resource essential not merely for us, but for the entire free world. Which of two vile dictatorships do you target first? That is not shallow thinking, in my opinion. We seem to have a list of nations that we would like to do something about. It makes sense to prioritize that list based on a combination of immediate threat, geopolitical significance, and ease of operations against them.

Regarding Bush & co., I don't think he's much of a liar, which seems to be a common charge against him. (See what I did there? That was dry-witted understatement-- a clever writing device. I'm trying to use more of those. This digression is another one. Thank you, Mickey Kaus!) Bush has been remarkably consistent and on-message throughout his campaign and Presidency. The closest he comes to lying is handing down unfunded mandates (education, AIDS) for programs he talks up but doesn't really care about (I kind of have a problem with that. It's mealy-mouthed.). My big problem with Bush is that on the whole I don't agree with his outlook, most of his policies, or most of his leadership decisions not related to kicking Taliban ass.

Not coincidentally, I'm going to a meeting of Howard Dean supporters tonight.

I did just make that same point in an email-- that 'bureaucracy' has been taken to mean 'artifice'. I'm going to give this one 24 hours to marinade before I bring out the long, dull knives, but I dunno, man. Something smells here, and I remembered to shower today.

...to jump to conclusions. I would be interested in seeing the complete transcript. The Guardian mentions that recently Wolfowitz was quoted as saying, "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction." The transcript shows that the actual quote was,

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." (emphasis mine.)

Wolfowitz continues,

"there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

Not quite what the Guardian, and others, have tried to make it out to be. I would not be surprised to find that something similar was happening here.

[Moreover] The administration has been very clear about aims, and reasons, throughout this whole thing. The only thing that they obscure is actual plans, which would be foolish and irresponsible to reveal.

You mean, it really was all about the oooooil?

Geez.... Wolfowitz is on a kick...

[moreover] Look. I don't give a damn whether the war was really about oil, Barbie Dolls, or what. A tyrant is gone, yippee-ki-ay. However, I do feel that the folks in charge weren't as forthright as they could have been about all this. This kind of thing is doing us huge damage in the international scene. And while not every nation needs to be our friend, we can't go it completely alone, either. They're about to string Tony Blair up over there, and he's our number one homie! If that's how Bush leaves his friends to be treated...

Via Dave Barry, you CANNOT TELL ME that there are worse drivers than Boston drivers. You CANNOT.

In the comments to Mike's post, Judson accuses me of being a clueless suburbanite. Yes, I now live in an almost crime free neighborhood. And no, I would not choose to move to Mike's neighborhood, or to Anacostia in DC. But I have lived in bad neighborhoods. When I lived in Columbus, there were gun fights in the alley behind my house. A sixteen year old was killed in a drive-by at the stop and rob on the corner half a block from my front door while I lived there. And when I lived there, I had a gun. I would have recommended that everyone in that neighborhood get a gun. But personal experience is not the only justification for having an opinion, or why bother to have a civilization?

Relaxing gun restrictions will not have any effect on how many guns are in the hands of criminals. Criminals, being criminals, do not care about gun laws. Law abiding citizens, being law abiding, do. When you relax the laws, you allow the good people to own guns. In Virginia, no one has ever had a Concealed Carry permit revoked for using their weapon inappropriately. In Florida, out of thousands of permits, I believe two have been revoked - and one was revoked because the permit holder committed a non-violent felony, and had his permit pulled. Law abiding citizens do not shoot people just because they have guns. If they did, we would all be dead, because half the households in this country have guns. 

American society is not one of the most violent in the world - we don't even make the top ten in the industrialized world. (Study by University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.) England, at the top of the list, has a violent crime rate that has skyrocketed over the last decade. Which, coincidentally, is how long they've had a total ban on gun ownership. Then, think of the third world - Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, and the like. We are completely non-violent in comparison. (Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Everyone there is legally required to own not just a gun, but assault rifles.) 

I do not approve of violence. I think it is a terrible thing, as any sane man would. Of course it is the last resort. But the purpose of putting guns in the hands of citizens is to deter violence from criminals with guns. Arming citizens would do nothing to increase violence - they have no desire to commit crimes. I have two guns, but I am not about to go out shooting someone because of the evil influence of my guns. Only if they came into my home, or threatened my family, would I even consider using them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect people. Mostly, they clean up the mess after a crime has been committed. I don't want to wait for them. While a gun does not offer perfect safety, it certainly increases my chances. And it certainly increases the chances for Mrs. Buckethead. 

It is our responsibility, as citizens, to create a safe society. And if we aren't armed, the gangbangers and thugs aren't going to listen to the sweet voice of reason.

Geek Press points to this excellent Primer on Boston-area English. Excerpts:

• Westa Wihsta: Terra incognita; beyond the bounds of civilization. (For the uninitated, Worcester is about an hour west of Boston, which is about half an hour farther than most Bostonians would dream of driving without packing a lunch and reserving a hotel room).
• Irish Riviera: The South Shore, extending from Nantasket Beach as far south as Sandwich on the uppa Cape, with its cultural center in Scituate.
• Packie: Wheah you buy beah.
• PSDS:What you get when you want to wear earrings. Reuven Brauner submits the following similar examples: We saw BSNDS at the zoo in Franklin Park. We bought it at CS and Roebuck's. Mother always said, "Don't forget to wash behind your ES." The Boos and GS got to Mantle. PS are a juicy fruit. Crying causes TS. This car VS to the left.

Even more than people think, New England is home to about a million localized accents and vocabularies. If you know what you're doing, you can tell someone from Saco apart from someone from Kennebunk, and neither of them sound a THING like a Gloucesterman, much less an aging stylene from Revere. Get me drunk. Ask me to do my Noath Shoah thing. You'll love it! Entertainment! 

Further proof that "homeland" sometimes stretches no farther than a man's eye can see. 
 

Can you imagine what the founding fathers would think of federal taxation now. The taxes they saw as tyrannical were chump change compared to what we get saddled with. If someone lets you know a good work on that subject, pass it on to me. 

I am a law abiding citizen. Married, kid, dog cat, house, the very model of the upstanding citizen. (Now.) I have nothing to fear from the police. Yet every time I see a cop, I get a twinge of fear in the small of my back. Go figure.
 

John Lott, who wrote the book "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press) has studied the linkage between gun ownership, particularly in areas with shall issue concealed carry laws, and reduced crime rates. The more restrictive the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rates. Cities tend to have the most restrictive gun ownership laws, but not all cities. On the bad side, look at DC - which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, or what has happened to crime rates in England since the complete ban on weapon ownership. "The counter-argument might be that homicides won't disappear if guns are removed, and will still be accessible if they are banned. I say give it a try." It has been tried, and criminals still have guns, and citizens cannot protect themselves. This policy is a failure. If people in your neighborhood were armed, adnd were able to defend themselves, the criminals (who are not completely stupid) would change their behavior. Where gun restrictions are relaxed, this is what happens. 

And that is merely the pragmatic argument. Mike, I'm surprised at you - you would forfeit your right to defend yourself? You would meekly wait for the police to arrest the people who kill or rob you, long after it would do you any good? Guns allow you to defend yourself from the thugs in your neighborhood - even many of them. Despite your formidable infighting skills, only a gun would allow you to face down five or six drug addled violent teenagers. 

[Moreover] You can have my Kimber .45 Semi-Automatic when you pry it from my cold, dead, hand.