Oh, HELL No!

Real ID 2.0, anyone?

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Can you think of a better way to unite large numbers of conservatives and liberals than this? I mean, Real ID has states passing laws making it illegal for state agencies to comply with parts of the RealID Act. Why?

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

Potentially controversial? What planet were they living on when Real ID was being debated? Do they really think Americans have changed enough that quickly for this to not stir up a rain of fecal matter?

Also, unless there's a central database that the information is checked against every time the card is read, I predict it will take less than six months for criminals to crack the code on the cards and start making fakes that read with biometrics matching whoever they decide to give the card to. Less than a year to spoof it, if there is a database (unless some .gov idiot leaks the whole bloody database on a 'lost' laptop, sooner).

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Exactly. Just like social security numbers were only supposed to be used for Social Security purposes. It will spread to everything.

(h/t A Conservative Shemale)

Repeal of Virginia's restaurant CHP ban passes

According to the VCDL Blog, SB334, repealing the ban on concealed carry in restaurants, passed the House today unchanged with a vote of 72 to 27! It should be in front of the Governor McDonnell in a week or so. He has indicated in the past that he would sign such a bill, so it's pretty much a done deal.

More Climategate, and other things

Jenn over at A Conservative Shemale gives us a great multi-subject post today, starting with more problems for the whole global warming/cooling/climate-change thingamabob:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

[...]

“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

They didn't "allow fully for temperature change over the last 2,000 years." Doesn't that cover the entire period where any man-made climate change would actually have occurred? That's some "mistake"!

She then links us to an article where the AGW pushers are trying to defend their claims.

[N]one of that gets at the question du jour, which is how big a role humans are playing. Until later on. Lashof and Deans say it’s a big one, and their source for saying so is a government report compiled by the nation’s top science, defense, and diplomatic agencies—NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State (none of which have been marred in scandal)—over the course of two decades, through four presidential administrations.

Notice their source is a government report - they don't say where the agencies got their data for the report. Remember, most of the problems cropping up recently in the whole AGW theory are about problems with the data. It doesn't matter how "nonpartisan" the report is if it's based on corrupted, compromised, cherry-picked, or imaginary data.

She also hits on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, taking us to an article about a study showing that other militaries have found allowing openly gay soldiers to continue to serve has not been disruptive even with rapid transitions.

A comprehensive new study on foreign militaries that have made transitions to allowing openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of the change is not disruptive. The finding is in direct opposition to the stated views of Pentagon leaders, who say repealing a ban on openly gay men and women in the United States armed forces should take a year or more.

Remember, a lot of the people pushing for a "slow" repeal of DADT are the ones who don't want it repealed in the first place - or would prefer to go back to the complete ban that existed before DADT.

She has more, too, but you should go to her blog to read it all.

Bread and Circuses

Jay G, who is MArooned in the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts, brings us word of the sorry state of public interest, noting that with all the important issues facing the U.S. today, the top headline is Tiger Woods' apology.

As long as we've got our bread-and-circuses, we'll ignore the signposts saying "Hell: 200 miles" all along the way. Distract us with a salacious story of a talented sportsman brought down by his reproductive organs, we'll forget all about the evil in the world, all the crazy, all the many ways our government fails again and again to do what it is supposed to do.

It gets discouraging when you realize that the vast majority of your fellow Americans know the cast of "Dancing with the Stars" but can't name their own Representative...

One of the signs leading up to the fall of Rome was the distraction of the people from important issues and events through the use of rewards and entertainment. This is the origin of the phrase "bread and circuses."

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)

Roman politicians would attempt to secure votes with cheap food and entertainment, rather than by pursuing sound policy. Eventually the great Republic (and then Empire) declined and fell.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. The state of the U.S. is starting to look pretty familiar in some ways.

The Elephant in the Room

NPR had a couple of stories this morning on airport security and the underwear bomber. While both had some interesting information, I found myself getting angrier the longer I listened. Why? Because they kept ignoring the real breakdown in the whole system. They were going on and on about how the intelligence agencies are "inundated" and suffering from information overload. They went on about the full body scanners that wouldn't have caught this guy even if they had been used. I got mad, because they kept ignoring the real question:

How did a lone traveler, who paid cash and had no luggage for an international flight, get on a plane without additional screening?

See, either of those factors alone are generally considered suspicious, and should warrant additional scrutiny. Both together should be a red flag to screeners that this person should be thoroughly investigated before being allowed on the plane. Add in his religion and national origin, and you should have a Big Giant Red Flag signaling that this person should not get on a plane without a strip search and maybe a body cavity search, too.

This was not a failure of the Watch Lists, or the CIA/NSA/FBI or any other intelligence agency. This was not about the failure to use the full body scanners that were at the airport where he boarded. Yes there were failures at all those levels, but they were all irrelevant in this case. This was a failure on the part of the TSA to recognize basic signs of a suicide bomber. This was a failure to use basic security procedures that would have caught this twit in the absence of all the information that the CIA/NSA/FBI/TLA had. Basic procedures that would have stopped him without relying on all the high-tech gizmos that may or may not work.

It just shows that, as many others have pointed out recently, this administration is fundamentally unserious about real security.

Scanners

Jenn over at A Conservative Shemale points out the the super-duper high-tech body scanners everyone is shouting about in the aftermath of the underwear bomber apparently would not have actually done any good, even if they had been used.

I guess it’s time to state the obvious- There is no one perfect system. We need a defense in depth strategy that is going to have to include some form of profiling.

I'm really starting to like her. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders.

The high-tech stuff does have it's place, but as she said, there is no one perfect system. Consider the body scanners. One weakness - if I understand the system right - is that it doesn't penetrate skin. Now imagine a really fat terrorist, and what he could hide in his folds. (I apologize profusely for that disturbing mental image.) We absolutely need a defense in depth strategy, and it is going to have to include some form of profiling.

The problem is that people hear "profiling" and think "ZOMG, we're going to strip search anyone who looks middle-eastern! Religious persecution!" and immediately shut their brains down and fight it, regardless of what profiles are actually used. So, of course, no politician who cares about getting re-elected (which is pretty much all of them) would ever dream of allowing profiling to happen on their watch.

But profiling does not automatically mean using race or religion based profiles. The underwear bomber would have been caught with a simple profile that had no references to race, religion, or even gender - he paid cash for his ticket (already a red flag), and he had no luggage for an international flight. Either one of those facts should have triggered additional scrutiny and a more intensive search before boarding, both together should have had him pulled aside for a detailed interview and background check.

But, you know, religion and race shouldn't be ignored when creating those profiles, either. If John Smith goes to Pakistan and comes back as Muhammad Abdullah, it should raise suspicions. Abdul Khadar from Terroristan should be asked more than just "did you leave your luggage unattended," and should go through a little more scrutiny than just walking through a metal detector with his shoes off before boarding the plane. Along the same lines, Joe and Jane Jones from Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, traveling with their two year old daughter and three month old infant, are very likely not terrorists, and probably don't need to be strip searched.

As long as you don't let yourself be blinded by the profiles, or allow them to be abused, they can be extremely effective. Just ask the Israelis.

The mind boggles...

at this insanity.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime. [emphasis mine]

I have my doubts as to whether that attitude would withstand the test of reality, but the fact that this waste of carbon would even spout such insanity means it's possible. In fact, it seems like he's a True Believer in the "Progressive" agenda:

An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

So, not only would he rather see his own children dead than sully himself by using an evil gun to defend them, but he would also follow the "Progressive" doctrine of "equal opportunity must mean equal outcomes" and see all the children dead rather than allow any who can to "unfairly" use their resourcefulness to survive when others might not be able to.

Why is this idiot allowed to teach? Has anyone looked at how he grades his students? If he believes this strongly that "Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful," does he give every student the same grade? Does he grade based on performance, or based on his own little "Progressive" agenda? After all, it's not "fair" for students who work harder or are innately more talented in whatever subject he teaches to be rewarded for their work/ability when the less motivated or less gifted don't do as well.

If this twit had his way, we'd still be reading by candlelight because Edison would have learned as a child that hard work and resourcefulness shouldn't be rewarded, and he would never have bothered trying.

Any teacher who states his belief that resourcefulness and intelligence shouldn't be rewarded because it's not "fair" should immediately be banned from teaching anything for life.

(h/t SayUncle)

Update 2009-12-29:

It's been opined, at Uncle's, at comments in the original source, and by Jenn at A Conservative Shemale (thanks for reading!) that the letter was actually intended as satire. On reflection, I think there's a good chance that they're right. A comment at Uncle's actually links to another letter by the same person

Satire or not, I think the main points of my post here still stand on their own, and anyone who that seems to support that idea. On the other hand, I've actually met people who think like that, and it's written believably enough that I just can't bring myself to dismiss the possibility that it's real.does think like that still should be banned from teaching for life.

Climate Change Summit

I saw this article on Yahoo today, about how it doesn't look good for the Climate Change Summit. Funnily, I don't see any mention of the evidence that recently surfaced about the massive scientific fraud that's gone into the whole climate change scheme.

It's as if the media is ignoring any evidence that doesn't support the idea of man-made climate change. Somewhat ironic, isn't it.

Cash for Clunkers = Fail: Part 2

More unintended consequences of Cash for Clunkers hits another part of the auto industry - salvage yards.

Last summer's Cash for Clunkers program has clogged auto salvage yards with a glut of trade-ins that are too damaged to drive but too good to be sent directly to scrap.

The less glamorous side of the auto industry is having trouble digesting the byproducts of the buying frenzy that put nearly 700,000 new automobiles on the nation's roads -- and took the same number off.

The future of millions of usable auto parts is in limbo as a critical deadline looms this winter under the federal program, which had unexpected success on the front end and its funding tripled to $3 billion.

Several salvage yards in the Roanoke and New River valleys are filled with valuable alternators, starters, air conditioning compressors, wheels, body parts, seats and other major interior parts.

But they are still connected to the 1,500 or so used automobiles traded in through the less-than-eight-week program that expired in August.

And many may go to waste if a federal deadline to conclude the program is not extended.

Apparently, there is a six month deadline for salvage yards to strip usable parts from the cars before they must be crushed or shredded. The problem? There were more cars traded than the salvage yards can deal with.

"There is absolutely no way that we can process these vehicles and recycle anywhere near their potential," he said.

He said the volume of trade-ins flooding the salvage industry is three times what the industry expected when it agreed to support the program and to process the trades within six months. With only four months left on many of the clunkers he bought, he's so far only covered his costs to buy the vehicles for about $225 apiece and get them towed to his facility.

Were these normal trade-ins, the unwanted vehicles could simply be sold to new owners. In this case, the engines were destroyed under a federal mandate to take relatively low-mpg vehicles off the road.

But virtually every trade is loaded with fully functional parts. This represents an opportunity that the auto recycling industry wants to tap -- if given enough time.

As it stands now, however, salvage yards say they can't possibly process the vehicles received under the clunker program by their deadline.

If the yards don't get an extension, the vehicles will have to be scrapped before there is a chance to take off all of the parts, cutting short the program's potential economic and environmental effect, Cunningham said.

The way they normally operate seems to be one factor:

While the obvious solution to the problem at hand might seem to be to strip the clunkers and put the parts on a shelf until a buyer comes along, few shops have the time and storage capacity for such a harvest.

They often keep their autos whole or mostly whole and remove a bumper, rearview mirror or the like when someone asks for them.

That makes sense. Most salvage yards are small operations - lots of land, but only a few employees - and stripping a vehicle for parts is pretty labor intensive.

And, of course, the biggest flaw in the whole program is still there, too.

According to Cunningham, "the real clunker junker smoker" is still going down the highway because its owner could not afford the payments for a new car.

What got traded in for the most part were "very nice cars, very above-average. I had Lexuses being traded in," he said. "Eighty percent of the cars that were traded in, easily, would have went straight into the wholesale market to be resold with absolutely no problem getting rid of them."

But without functioning engines and engine replacement forbidden by the guidelines, the industry has turned to what it calls parting the vehicles out.

Salvage yards are finding there's plenty of demand, but they need time for purchasers to show up. Many highlight their inventories on the Web and wait for a potential customer -- a mechanic or do-it-yourselfer -- to come through the door, call or send an e-mail.

People who could afford to own a Lexus were trading them in on the taxpayer's dime? Total. Fail.

Some other unintended side-effects?

Since 84 percent of the trades were SUVs or trucks, a supply glut could depress prices, he said.

In addition, taking 700,000 vehicles out of service is likely to somewhat reduce the demand for the very parts salvage yards now have in ample supply, he added.

Besides, the program didn't do what it was supposed to do, anyway.

According to Cross-Sell, a Lexington, Ky., automotive market analysis company, sales for August and September jumped 16 percent in the New River Valley and 3 percent in the Roanoke Valley, compared with last year.

However, the help was only temporary. Deep declines in sales continued at the program's close. For the first 10 months of the year, sales of new automobiles are down 21.5 percent in the New River Valley and 24 percent in the Roanoke Valley.

I'd like to see a graph of those figures. I bet August and September are just an insignificant bump on a steadily downward line.

Fail.

Cognitive disconnect

Heard on NPR this morning - an Obama supporter talking about Sarah Palin.

"She's a little wet behind the ears, but I think she could make a great president someday."

The mind boggles at the disconnect. I hope her vote for Obama had nothing to do with Palin and only reflected her views on other issues.

Obama's Priorities

You should watch the video here. Then you should be angry. Very angry.

At a (presumably) emergency press conference convened to address the Fort Hood shootings, our illustrious President spends the first 2 minutes congratulating people about the conference he's at (based on the comments at the site, it's a Native American conference), and giving a "shout out" to someone in the audience.

That really is a full 2 minutes from the time stamp on the video. A full 2 minutes before he even mentions the tragedy at Fort Hood, at a press conference called specifically for that issue. His friends and cronies are more important to him.

How very presidential. And of course the MSM seems to be ignoring this hideous insensitivity. No mention of it anywhere, and they're apparently editing out that first 2 minutes when they replay the video.

Be angry - and remember this in 2012.

H/T to Ace of Spades HQ, by way of a comment at Patterico's Pontifications, by way of SayUncle.

Election Day 2009!

Don't forget to Vote today!

I find my self distressingly underprepared for today's election. Part of it may have to do with how much I have going on at the moment. Not only do I work a full-time job as a paralegal, I'm also taking a legal research class at the local community college. I'm an active member of the local rescue squad, and in addition to 8 hours of duty a week, I'm putting together a training on fractures and crush injuries because the state's training budget is dead. The real distraction, though, is that I'm in the process of buying my first house. I don't want to jinx it (knock on wood), so I won't say anymore except that it's more time consuming and nerve wracking than I thought.

A little quick research, though, and I think I've figured out most of my votes:

Governor: One of my main issues this year is Virginia's stupid ban on concealed carry in restaurants. Both candidates have indicated their support for repealing the ban, but my impression is that Bob McDonnell is stronger on other gun rights issues, so he gets my vote.

Lt. Gov.: While I'm definitely in a "throw the bums out" mood when it comes to incumbents, Bob Bolling is the only candidate who bothered to respond to the VCDL candidate survey, so he gets my vote.

Attorney General: Just like the candidates for Lt. Gov., Ken Cuccenilli is the only candidate who bothered to respond to the VCDL candidate survey, so he gets my vote.

Delegate: My candidates for Delegate are Paul Cornett (Independent) and James Shuler (Democrat, incumbent). Like I said before, I'm definitely in a "throw the bums out" mood when it comes to incumbents, and I'm not that fond of Democrats either. Ordinarily, an incumbent Dem running against a new Independent would be the last person I'd vote for. Unfortunately, there's a few problems here. The first one being that I haven't been able to find any information on Cornett except for a few newspaper articles. He's a Virgina Tech student (a senior), and the impression I get from the articles is that he seems to be running because he can, not because he disagrees with any of Shuler's positions. While I don't really trust newspapers, I just can't find any other information about him. Neither candidate responded to the VCDL survey, but I do know that Shuler voted for the repeal of the restaurant CHP ban last year, and also voted to override the Governor's veto of it. That, plus the lack of information on his opponent, means he gets my vote.

Town Council: This is the one I'm the least prepared for. There are 9 candidates for 4 positions on the council, and this is where the "throw the bums out" strategy will come into play the most. Blacksburg has a long history of bad decisions when it comes to attracting businesses to the town. The debacle with the (possible) Wally World at the "First and Main" project was probably the worst. I expect that issue drove off several business that may have been considering moving into town, and the way they drove off Sonic just reinforced the perception. (I don't have links handy, but I'm sure if you Google "Blacksburg Wal-mart" and "Blacksburg Sonic" you'll get the whole story.) First and Main actually has a big banner by the main road saying "[Candidate X] voted against Sonic" - it's that kind of issue in this town. I know one candidate personally, and not only do I agree with a good number of his opinions, I know for a fact that he will change his position if he's shown evidence that he's wrong. That's very important, and yet another reason to vote for him. For the rest, incumbents will be out, but I really don't know enough about the rest. If I can find the Roanoke Times article where they gave their endorsements, that will guide me too - to vote against anyone they endorsed.

Well, that's my thought process (such as it was this year). Again, don't forget to vote!

WTF???!!!

This is ridiculous.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

He hasn't actually accomplished anything! None of these "initiatives" have actually had any success yet! Then there's this:

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

Less than two weeks! So he was nominated before he even could have accomplished anything! WTF? Even the AP admits he hasn't actually accomplished what he's being recognized for:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. [emphasis mine]
[...]
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Looks like there may have been some Bush Derangement Syndrome involved, too:

The award appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

I say again, WTF?

Cash for Clunkers = Fail

Apparently, the "cash for clunkers" program has had some unfortunate side effects.

While most dealers are grateful for the boost, they're paying for it now with fewer customers. The government rebates drew people into the market who otherwise would have kept driving their clunkers due to uncertainty over the sputtering economy. Those customers might have made their purchases later in the year.

"It was good while it lasted," said Phil Warren, sales manager at Toyota Direct in Columbus, Ohio. "Now we're a little bit concerned about what happens next. The program may have just taken a lot of people out of the market."

Making matters worse, many dealers depleted their stocks with clunker sales, and automakers have been slow to ramp up production to replenish the lots. Grahl says Ford has built the cars he ordered but mysteriously hasn't shipped them. So the selection isn't very good for people who do want to buy.

Gee, it's almost like government interference unbalances the free market or something.

As a result, U.S. sales of cars and light trucks rose to 1.3 million in August, a roughly 30 percent increase from July. But now that the clunkers program is over, industry analysts expect poor September sales, even lower than the July rate.

And then, of course, there is the usual government efficiency.

Kesel, like many dealers, still hasn't been paid for most of his clunker sales.

"Most dealers are in a cash-flow crunch because of the federal government not paying up on this," he said.

Show me the Money!

The bailout money, that is. Seems that nobody can figure out where it all went.

WASHINGTON — Although hundreds of well-trained eyes are watching over the $700 billion that Congress last year decided to spend bailing out the nation's financial sector, it's still difficult to answer some of the most basic questions about where the money went.

Despite a new oversight panel, a new special inspector general, the existing Government Accountability Office and eight other inspectors general, those charged with minding the store say they don't have all the weapons they need. Ten months into the Troubled Asset Relief Program, some members of Congress say that some oversight of bailout dollars has been so lacking that it's essentially worthless.

Everybody who's surprised about this, raise your hand.

Why?

Did you really think such a massive outlay to private companies that were going under because of bad financial practices was not going to be misappropriated and hidden?

Did you really think that the same government "oversight" that failed to notice these companies artificially inflated values and financial reports would be able to keep track of all that money once these same companies got hold of it?

Do we really want the same government that couldn't keep track of the massive TARP funding to be in charge of our health care?

Obama gets his first Supreme Court pick

Justice David Souter is retiring at the end of this term in June.

This likely doesn't change much. He's been one of the reliably liberal justices, and Obama will likely choose another liberal. On the other hand, justices often end up surprising even the presidents who chose them.

The Dems now have (or they should by that point) a filibuster proof majority if the votes break down along party lines, so he'll probably get whoever he wants unless there's something seriously wrong with whoever he nominates (like they haven't paid their taxes, or som... Oh. Right.).

Souter joined both dissenting opinions in Heller v. DC, and I'd be willing to bet that one of Obama's "acid tests" for any nominee will be about guns, so from a gun rights perspective there's little hope for a positive change,* and we're probably looking at the same thing for most other key "conservative" issues, too. By the same token, there's not much risk for a negative change, either. Barring any surprises, this does not seem to be a game-changing vacancy.


* I did not do that on purpose. On the other hand, I left it there when I noticed it. [bugs bunny voice]Ain't I a stinker?[/bugs bunny voice]

Our Governor's Hypocrisy (Updated)

As expected, Governor Kaine has vetoed SB1035, which would lift the ban on concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Remember, CHP holders are some of the most peaceable and law-abiding citizens there are. We voluntarily undergo training and an extensive background check to obtain a CHP. We voluntarily submit information on our homes to the state, and agree to keep that information up to date. Where such statistics are tracked, CHP holders have a much lower rate of committing crimes than the general population, and a crime rate that is even lower than that of the police. Yet the mere fact that we would carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol, even while being prohibited from actually consuming alcohol, somehow puts the public "at risk."

But open carry in restaurants that serve alcohol is allowed in Virginia. How is requiring me to expose my firearm when I go into these restaurants better? Keep in mind that, in Virginia, there are no "bars." There are only restaurants "for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board."

Many "bars" are open during the day in order to meet their required percentage of food sales, and function primarily as restaurants during that time. Many restaurants have an ABC license just so they can serve someone a beer or some wine with their dinner. Virginia law makes no distinction between the two. It is quite often difficult to know if a restaurant has an ABC license until you sit down and realize that there are drinks listed on the menu.

Just as an example, there is a little BBQ restaurant in downtown Blacksburg. You order your food at the counter, and wait until they call your name to pick it up, and you sit at a picnic table inside (that's right, they don't have real seating, just a couple of picnic tables). Would you expect a place like that to have a license to serve alcohol? (Of course you do, since I'm using it as an example. But would you if I wasn't?) Yet walk in while you're carrying concealed, and it's a class 1 misdemeanor. And remember, "ignorance is no excuse." Is this the second restaurant you've done this at? Now it's a felony, and you can never (legally) own a gun again.

But where's the hypocrisy? Well, in his veto, he makes this comment:

"Allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, the employees, and our public safety officers at risk."

He dares to say this, laying the danger on "concealed weapons" and not the people carrying them, yet last year he signed a bill allowing Commonwealth's Attorneys and Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys to carry concealed, without needing a permit, without requiring any training and exempting them from the restaurant ban.

You see, in Governor Kaine's mind, Commonwealth's Attorneys are special. It's not really the weapons he has a problem with (regardless of what he says), it's weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens that he has a problem with.

Tyranny is as tyranny does.

Update:

There's a good discussion going on about this over at SayUncle's. Sailorcurt has pointed out to me that the law allowing Commonwealth's Attorneys to carry in restaurants allows them to drink while carrying concealed (as long as they aren't "intoxicated," which is only vaguely and subjectively defined in Virginia law - Sec. 4.1-100 contains the only definition I could find.) SB1035 would have explicitly prohibited CHP holders from consuming any alcohol. Yet another example of how Governor Kaine believes his "Only Ones" are better than the rest of us.

The War on (Some) Drugs

I've never weighed in on the War on (Some) Drugs before, but this story got my interest. My personal view is that we should have learned our lesson with Prohibition. Every time they ban something, they create a new business.* (Not to mention the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause that supports - and is supported by - the War.)

Kalifornia is considering a bill to legalize marijuana and regulate (and tax) it like alcohol. Of course, some people think it's the worst idea since the end of Prohibition. One objector says the easy availability of the drug will lead to a surge in its use, much like what happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states.

I have news for him: it's already very available. In fact, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray (someone who ought to know) responds by saying "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried."

He seems to realize that bans on things just don't work. He also says that legalizing marijuana would save the state a billion dollars a year in court costs alone. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So, let's try to reduce those harms and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried." [emphasis mine]

I think he gets it.

* This is a rough quote from a book in the Vlad Taltos series by Steven Brust. I just can't remember which book.

The Politics Test

It's fun and interesting! Thanks Breda!

You are a Social Liberal (83% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (78% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

More PSH from the Roanoke Times

The Roanoke Times has an editorial up about the restaurant ban repeal. They spout their usual fear mongering and distrust again, and their contempt for CHP holders is blatantly obvious.

Their blog for the column has a good discussion going, mostly by pro-gun supporters. I encourage people to go read and comment.

Sadly, they are right about one thing. The governor will probably veto this bill again, just like last year.