Right to Opine

Now that the liberal media has had its chance to fawn over Cronkite, let’s take a real look at his impact. In 1968 he made a little trip to Viet Nam in the midst of a rather nasty and controversial war. Our adversaries had initiated a major offensive around the time of the celebration of their new year—Tet. Cronkite came back and told the American people that we had lost the “Tet Offensive” and were, in effect, losing the war. In order to do that, he had to do one thing a responsible journalist never does: ignore the facts.

The truth is that, though it was costly, our valiant armed forces did in fact turn back the NV and VC attacks and by the time Cronkite returned to the US, our forces controlled *more* territory than before the offensive.

Cronkite somehow determined that his opinion of the war was more important than the facts, and millions of Americans tuned in to learn that we were losing…horribly losing…the war in Viet Nam. This report garnered him accolades from the left, which pushed ever harder for us to leave SE Asia entirely. As a result, quite literally millions of Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese were slaughtered when we withdrew our troops. If Cronkite had reported the FACTS instead of his opinions, things may have gone rather differently for those millions of people.

Cronkite faced the ultimate test of journalism…and failed miserably. His family should mourn him. Millions of Asians do not.

CNN reports an Iowa high school football coach was shot and killed in the school’s weight room. We all know, however, that this couldn’t possibly have really happened because guns aren’t allowed on campus and criminals obey gun laws.

No pun intended, but our federal government is spending almost $500K to determine just why men don’t like to wear condoms during sex. You have absolutely got to be kidding me! Seriously, have you ever worn one? Did you like it? Is this really that complicated?

CNN reports that authorites say the rifle used by James von Brunn to commit murder at the Holocaust Memorial Museum can’t be traced back to the original purchaser. What would be the point? The original purchaser didn’t commit this heinous act. Does it really matter who bought the gun? Other than returning the gun to the original owner? Why? It’s likely von Brunn purchased the gun legally and was the rightful owner (though not likely the original owner—it was manufactured between 1908-1928).

If a drunk driver kills someone, do we trace the car back to its original owner? Hunt down the 10 year old who bought the Louisville Slugger used by a street punk to bash the head of a mugging victim? Tracing guns used in crimes is equally absurd. The original owner didn’t commit this crime. Mr. von Brunn did.

In an unrelated note, a visitor to the museum displayed an all too common folly:

“We want to see the museum, and we trust the city of Washington to keep us safe,” he said. “Had we been in that lobby we could have been in the line of fire.”

Your trust, sir, would have been sadly misplaced as von Brunn clearly demonstrated. Had von Brunn chosen to open fire on the visitor, the city of Washington would have been helpless to protect him. Your personal protection is your responsibility. Except, of course, in DC where it’s virtually impossible to legally carry a handgun for self defense.

You have to watch National Geographic Channel to get this gem, but one of their recent shows demonstrates just why Ben R’s passes are devastating to opponents’ defenses.

As a Steelers fan, I must admit I’m torn about this show. It shows why my boy has won two Super Bowls in just a few years of NFL experience. But that’s a good thing and a bad, scary, thing. Ravens coaches…are you watching this? I hope not! Ignore it! It’s all just hyper-media BS and your defenses can’t possibly learn anything from it. Really. Please?

The European (Socialist) Union has decided to fine Intel Corp. for roughly $1.5 billion for “antitrust” activities. (No, I’m not going to provide easy links this time. Look it up.) This is problematic to traditional Americans on a number of levels.

Anti-trust and -monopoly laws were enacted in order to protect consumers against companies that garnered a corner on a market and then raised their prices. Yes, I italicized and bolded that word. For a number of years I was a big critic of Intel, not because of their success, but because they tried to cover up the mathematical issues with the first generations of their Pentium processors. (Said cover ups are well documented on the web if you do a little homework.) In recent years, however, Intel has done consumers a great benefit by providing processors which provide greater processing power with less electric power consumption at a lower cost.

Reread that last sentence. More power. Less electricity. Fewer $$ out of my wallet. Where, exactly, is the harm to consumers? Do you really understand that the average American company can now construct (out of off-the-shelf components) a computer that would rival the power of a multi-million dollar Cray supercomputer of just 10 years ago at a fraction of the cost? Intel is entirely responsible for that.

Disclaimer: I’m currently employed as a factory automation software engineer by a French/Italian semiconductor manufacturer who stands to benefit if Intel is punitively fined by the EU.

Back to that italicized, bolded word: raised. The fact is that as Intel has made their processors more powerful and simultaneously power-efficient (i.e., more miles less gas). If, in the process, they had garnered a corner on the market and raised prices, there might conceivably be a legal argument that they had violated some anti-trust laws. The fact is, however, that as Intel has made its processors more attractive for technological reasons, they have simultaneously made them cheaper. No matter how loudly AMD may scream that Intel is a monopoly (or whatever) the truth is that Intel has made its processors better and less expensive. (Are there specific applications for which AMD processors are better? Sure. But in general, Intel CPUs are cheaper for the same power.)

Second disclaimer: I’m a long-time Macintosh fan and have both an Intel-powered laptop and an old IBM/Motorola-powered G5 tower. My older G5 machine is used to perform video and audio processes that the current Intel CPUs still don’t match (Apple and Intel propaganda notwithstanding). The Intel laptop is used for the easy, daily stuff (where most consumers live) like email and FaceBook.

So let’s count it up. I’m a Mac fan who works for a company that would benefit from a big Intel fine. Not exactly a good profile for a defender of Intel, eh? But that’s what I am. Intel stands for everything that the lefties in Europe hate & that I love. Performance. Power. Low cost. Hyundai is going to beat BMW & Chrysler/GM/Ford in America for that very reason (they own that trifecta).

Aaargh! I got away from the main point again. The bolded, italicized word was, “raised.” The truth is that, wherever you live on this planet, Intel has made it possible for you to do things with your personal computer (whether you use Windows, Linux or OS X) that you could not have imagined doing just 10 years ago at a fraction of the cost. The only issue this raises is the opportunities for “the rest of us”.

Punish that at your peril.

Only about 50 students are expected to show up for a protest of Obama’s invitation to address the university’s commencement cermonies this year. Generously, that’s only 2% of the graduating class. Very sad note, considering the church which nominally supports the school opposes much of Obama’s social agenda including abortion “rights”.

Kudos to Mary Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor, who declined ND’s Laetare Medal (which honors a Catholic layperson who most personifies the ideals of the church) upon learning that Obama would be honored by the university at the same time. Ms. Glendon, your response only clarifies the fact that you deserve the recognition.

Try a Google search for “Notre Dame Mary Glendon” and you’ll find that the top 20 articles aren’t even from mainstream media sources. Our “media”, which are supposed to provide us with important news, give us more “data” about Carrie Prejean (who admittedly opposes both abortion and gay marriage but whose only real qualifications are two nice man-made globes) than about Ms. Glendon, who is a very serious and respected jurist. If you’re ever in doubt about the quality of your information, consider your sources.

The Senate has approved a credit card reform bill with an amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-OK) which would definitively allow states’ firearms laws to apply to national parks. Just last year over 6,000 felonies were committed in national parks, many of them rather violent (rape, robbery, and kidnapping). The federal government can’t possibly pay for the manpower to provide protection for park visitors. The Coburn amendment would change the current restriction (no handguns, period) so that individuals who are allowed to carry a handgun per state statute would be allowed to carry in national parks.

As a simple example, concealed carry permit holders are convicted of gun crimes at a far lower rate than the US population at large. (Gun grabbers can start their whining now, but it’s true.) Allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks would not only not make our parks less safe, it would allow us to legally provide the protection for ourselves and our families that our federal and state governments simply cannot.

Write your House representative and urge him to support passage of this bill with the Coburn amendment. You can find the contact info for your rep here (if you don’t know your ZIP+4 there’s a link on the page that will give you that number). If, like me, you’re a Republican represented by a rather liberal Democrat, let him know that passage of this bill with the amendment would demonstrate true Congressional bipartisan effort as promised by The Messiah. (OK, I didn’t use that exact terminology in my letter.) Conservatives aren’t thrilled with the credit card bill. Liberals aren’t thrilled (alright, they’re outright terrified) by the Coburn amendment. Passing the bill as is would go a long way toward mollifying the 70%+ of Americans who consider personal gun ownership a Constitutional right. (And ease up the market pressure on those Federal 230 grain Hydra-Shok rounds I prefer. 😉 )

A pair of thieves try to steal an orange grove owner’s SUV, which was parked in a barn on his property. When it appeared they were going to run him over he fired a handgun, killing the passenger. The CNN reporter displays apparent surprise that he won’t be charged with a crime. Fortunately for the victim (that would be the SUV owner for those who aren’t clear) Florida has strong Castle and “No Retreat” laws to protect him.

You have to love the gun-grabbing Brady Campaign’s spin on the incident:

The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted “no retreat” laws, which some call “shoot-first” laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.

“The shoot-first law is not needed,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. “This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander,” he said.

As is usual for this group, the statement is a deliberate lie and, as CNN so often does, the reporter let him get away with it.

First, “No Retreat” laws do not “extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.” Rather, they remove the requirement of retreat when a victim is in a place he has a legal right to be. The right to defend yourself in public existed prior to enactment of the “No Retreat” law, but previously you had to demonstrate that you had done everything in your power to flee the situation first. This gives a blatantly unfair advantage to criminals, who are often stronger and faster than their victims. Turning to flee gives the criminal time to close the distance with the victim and press the attack directly. Now victims can use that time, instead, to present a weapon for self defense. That change in law was most certainly needed. (Note that, in any case, this crime was perpetrated on the victim’s own property rather than in public.)

Second, Florida’s laws do not allow indiscriminate use of a handgun. In order to avoid prosecution, the victim must have reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Further, Florida has nothing on the books which would prevent prosecution for shooting bystanders. Gun owners are responsible for every bullet they fire, regardless of intent. In this case the criminals had a deadly weapon (the SUV) and were approaching the victim—a classic case of failure in the victim selection process which resulted in a dead criminal.

This headline (from the NY Times, of course) is indicative of one significant problem in our left-dominated education system:

Test Results Show Persistent Racial Gap in School Achievement

The article goes on to explain that under No Child Left Behind, the test scores of minority children have increased since 2004, but so have the scores of white students. So NCLB is a failure because all of our kids’ scores are improving? We can’t have that, now, can we? We really must do something that improves minority scores without improving whites’.

And the left accuses us of being racist. You really have to be a liberal to understand that logic.