Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for September 30th, 2009

In this CNBC debate, I argue that more regulatory power for government is a bad idea. I need to learn to interrupt, though, since Christian is very effective using that tactic to get more air time.

Read Full Post »

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
______________________________________________________________________________

Liberal’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!

+ Does the man look poor or oppressed?
+ Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
+ Could we run away?
+ What does my wife think? What about the kids?
+ Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
+ What does the law say about this situation?
+ Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
+ Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
+ Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
+ If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
______________________________________________________________________________

Conservative’s Answer:

BANG!
______________________________________________________________________________

Texan’s Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click (sounds of reloading).

Wife: “Sweetheart, he looks like he’s still moving. What do you kids think?”
Son:  “Mom’s right Dad, I saw it too…”

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?”

Read Full Post »

The French are upset that Roman Polanski, the fugitive child rapist, has been detained by Swiss authorities at the request of the U.S. government. The Justice Department wants Polanski extradited because he fled America for France to avoid jail time. Other people have properly condemned the French government for wanting to defend this sleazeball, who anally raped a 13-year old girl, but I have a different complaint. French politicians are the leading agitators for the OECD campaign against so-called tax havens. According to Sarkozy and company, low-tax jurisdictions should be obliged to enforce the punitive tax laws of OECD member nations. Yet France refused to send Polanski back to America because it did not feel any need to help enforce America’s laws against molesting and raping children. I’m glad Polanski was dumb enough to travel to Switzerland. I’m glad the Swiss authorities had the moral decency to detain Polanski. And I’m overjoyed the French are getting a taste of the medicine their trying to impose on others.

P.S. The last sentence is a horribly flawed comparison on my part. It is a good thing when nations cooperate to investigate and prosecute criminals who violate the rules of all civilized societies. It is not a good thing, however, for high-tax nations to try to impose their tax laws on economic activity that takes place in low-tax jurisdictions. In other words, France is trying to coerce international cooperation where it is not appropriate, but is fighting international cooperation to protect child rape. Amazing.

P.P.S. The French also give protection to murderers who escape America. The French government position (shared by all European Union nations!) is that it will not extradite murderers to the United States if they might face the death penalty.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: