Monday, December 17, 2012

So the President Just Couldn't Resist



Murder is a horrible crime. And it is made so much worse when the victims are innocent children. The only way it could be made worse yet is when politicians then jump into the fray to use the pain and loving memories of the dead as political tools for desired policies.

The following data on crime is pulled from.

Manuel Eisner’s Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime.
And
FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

In 1791 when the second amendment was adopted, the homicide rate was 20 per 100K the general public was armed with single and double shot muzzle loading rifles and pistols. 

In 1836 the first revolver the Colt Paterson is invented. It is capable of firing 6 shots between reloading. In the hands of an expert it can be emptied in on a single target in less than a second.

In 1860 the Henry repeating rifle is invented. It can fire 16 rounds, 1 round every 2 seconds.

In 1902 the 1900 Colt .38 Auto, a semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine starts public sales. It holds 7 rounds, and is akin to the capability of any modern semi-automatic pistol.

In 1908 the Savage 99 introduces a removable magazine to the repeating rifle; Making reloading as swift as any modern rifle. 

In 1920 the Thompson Submachine Gun becomes the reason why automatic weapons become illegal in the us, as the detachable magazine joins the automatic rifle. Following restrictions on its automatic variant it will be available in semi-automatic variants to this day. The only thing separating this semi-automatic from modern ones is effective range. The Thompson was only good to about 100 yards.

In the 1940s Savages patent on the removable box magazine runs out. Removable magazines become popular on all types of rifles. 

In 1957 US Homicide rate hits its low water mark at 4.0 per 100k

Over the next 55 years to this day no improvements to weapon design have occurred to the significant level of the above ones that I have listed. 

When you look at the historical homicide rates three very large spikes and one smaller spike become apparent. The smaller spike occurs in the early 1900’s and can arguably be attributed to a number of things. One would be advancing weapons. Another would be the rise of gangs during prohibition. Regardless it is the smallest spike.

The first major spike occurs in the latter half of the 1700’s between 1750 and 1800.  The end of which corresponds with the end of the Revolutionary War

The second major spike occurs a decade prior to 1850 and peaks in the 1860’s the end of which corresponds with the end of the Civil War. 

The third spike starts its steady climb in 1963 and does not abate until 1980 and to this day we have not recovered the low of 4.0 we accomplished in 1957.  No war on American soil marks this period. No major advance in weapons available to the public marks this period. The only thing culturally that marks this entire period is the rise of radical progressivism. Clearly 1957 had issues, racism was one of them. But progressivism sought to throw out the baby with the bathwater and succeeded in a wholesale rejection of the common morality that had defined the United States.

Instead of letting the families grieve in peace like a decent human would, you want to take this time to lobby for corrective political action to address murder? Look your caucus square in the face. That is where it springs forth.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Get a Real Job



It has been emotionally very easy to climb on the Let.It.Burn train after the defeat we were handed. I myself have spent some time over the last few days tooting that engine’s horn. As emotionally satisfying as that may be, it's time to have a serious talk about what we do to improve our outlook in the long term. Let me state it bluntly. We need to moderate or face extinction as a political movement! Oh gosh! I see the Horde grabbing its longbows and crossbows, heading to their favorite hill and imagining Moose steaks for dinner. I fly the white flag and ask for your indulgence to at least hear what I have to say prior to assailing me with the pitchforks and the torches. It is not some sort of Rovian compassionate conservatism that shall save us by rubber stamping a lifestyle of permanent dependence. Nor is it wholesale importing the political problems of our neighbors, whose immigrant populations, if brought in too fast and if left unassimilated, would carry those problems with them in their own ironic effort to escape those very problems. And certainly we cannot as a society exist in freedom while simultaneously rejecting moral principal, and politically applied at its core, law exists to protect the innocent from the amoral actions of others. So while always a complex topic, abandoning the pro-life agenda is to cede the very notion that man can exist in a free society. And we certainly cannot be any sort of prosperous society while endorsing punitive taxation aimed at taking as much as possible from those who have already done the most to build the economy; The madness that is the Euro-zone permanent stagnations.

So with the various hot topic hills, so many of you I imagine retreated to the instant I of spoke of moderation, declared not the problem, then, what is, you might ask? Well I have found a deeply entrenched quasi political view that almost every conservative shares. It is held, not without any rational basis, but, our loss should cause us to seriously question that basis, as we have questioned all things since our defeat. What is so perplexing is that almost all of us strongly hold this position while only rarely speaking our beliefs out loud. It has been passed down, largely from father to son, for generations, and within conservative circles it acts as our own shibboleth and as a sort of status symbol within conservative beliefs. All of this while never actually talking about it: IT IS JUST UNDERSTOOD between us all and few words need ever be said. This is the core belief which I must assail. A belief we must radically examine if we want to survive very far into this century.

I was a small boy when it was put to me; I think as we mostly are when it is first explained. I was a budding musician of some talent as a youth. My step father explained as I was agonizing over some part for some minor school performance, that I was fretting far too much over something so very inconsequential and that my real worries should lie elsewhere, perhaps on mastering my math tables. He had no malice toward my passions, only as most parents, a deep concern for my future. And he knew like all parents know that that future was best served by having "real" skills that lead to a "real" job. I listened as a young man to the trials of his life, having three children of his own at one time, and trying to support them throughout his younger years. He talked often about what it took to just carve out a small piece of the American dream, and the virtue of stable income streams, that came to fruition above all from the tangible things that one produced. He was fond of saying, if you want to have a job, you need to make your employer more money than what it costs to pay you. 

All these things are so very very true. That I think is what caused us, as conservatives, to have internalized them to the point that they are a central part of our culture: "Get a real job" Wasn't I the aloof one in College, laughing quietly at my Journalism major counterparts and their sad choice of major. Now I get the sickening feeling they are laughing at me in a similar manner. Now I am not highlighting my personal past as some sort of regret fest, I Am STILL the captain of my ship, and can turn it whenever I have the whim, and pursue lost passions. No I talk about this because I think we need to talk about this part of our culture. This is what we need to moderate.

Ladies and Gentlemen we have ceded the ground of artistic expression, and the market of ideas, because we held them in low esteem. We saw them as high risk, low reward fields that the responsible man or woman would not pursue as a serious career choice. We all yearn to hear a good story but hold in low regard someone who pursues telling stories for a living. We yearn for good reliable news coverage, and would pay handsomely for it, yet tell our good sons and daughters that there is very little future in it. We all own an MP3 player so that we can at a whim buy new music...etc etc etc. Even our champions who have made it into the limelight can usually tell a story of how they were discouraged by their family. Rush Limbaugh for instance; Have you ever hear him discuss what his father thought about his career in radio? We pushed the good son and daughter away from these fields, telling them they weren't a good plan for the future, and the good son and daughter listened to us. Should we be surprised then to find the market of ideas dominated by those that reject our values? When we made the first requisite of entry rejecting our values, at least in part?

Today we look around surprised to see that Clint Eastwood has gotten very old, and John Wayne has been dead for decades. All in our current crop of actors can barely portray a "man" character very convincingly, and only rarely do we see a writer actually even try to write one. Instead we find ourselves, successful business owners, industrialists, rugged rural peoples, those of faith, military men and women, cast all too often as villains in the stories of our day. Should we be surprised?

We desperately need to moderate our position on the arts. And we have to do so at a very personal level, rejecting many ideas about what constitutes a responsible man and woman that we have held dear. Real jobs need to be inclusive of not just producing the tangible real world things that fulfill our basic needs and wants, but also, just as real, needs to be the job of producing the things that move the heart and soul. We cannot continue to look down our nose on the profession of artistic expression and expect to endure. This must change today. Look at your sons and daughters, and the long long fight that we could not win that they will inherit. Know that if they should prevail in the struggle for freedom, ideas have to change. Big ideas about freedom need to be written, painted, and composed once more, and so our view of their authors and our esteem of their profession must also change.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Hubris of Intellect

The first mistake of the Philosopher Kings is to imagine that their narrow philosophical model of man is accurate enough that they can design a structured and controlled society based upon it. When the reality of the diversity of the human condition proves their model too restrictive and their structure unworkable, they invariably resort to force, attempting to shoehorn humanity into what they think it should be.

Friday, August 31, 2012

I Said Over and Over During the Primary.




        I wouldn't support someone who I didn’t think would do the difficult things necessary to save this nation, as a free country, not one defined by totalitarianism or autocracy. This has been my principal for opposing Mitt Romney throughout the Primary. When it became clear that Mitt was going to be nominated, I continued to protest his record of statism, that Mitt had a ways to go before you convinced me to support him; That he would tackle the most difficult task to face a civilization, one that in the history of the western civilization has never been accomplished, that a free state devolved into an entitlement state, might turn back that tide without first falling into ruin and totalitarianism.



        Last night, Mitt, you convinced me that you will at least try. That’s all I can ask.




        As of today, I’m officially on team Romney.