I’m actually starting to feel semi-confident about the Obama administration. I mean… I was afraid he was actually going to make good on his promise of change, and that freaked me out because I don’t like the kind of change he talks about.

Now that he’s more or less assembling a cabinet consisting of a who’s-who of the Democratic establishment elite (also known as Everyone Who Ever Worked For Bill Clinton), I’m gaining confidence he might just be more of the same after all… which means a lot of posturing, chest-beating, blaming Republicans, and then getting nothing done other than making people realize everything Democrats do is either a) dangerous, b) worthless, or c) both.

Hey, how ’bout that Eric Holder pick for Attorney General?

About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, “You wouldn’t send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?”  Holder answered, “No, we don’t expect anything like that to happen.”  Then the Department did precisely that. The day after the seizure, Holder appeared again with Russert, who asked, “Why such a dramatic change in position?” “I’m not sure I’d call it a dramatic change,” Holder answered.  “We waited ’til five in the morning, just before dawn.” [SOURCE]

Just to refresh your memory:

Yes. Somebody who thought that was a good idea is Obama’s pick for Attorney General.

Oh, and the guy Obama is picking for White House counsel - Gregory Craig - has a distinguished list of clients:

• John Hinckley, the guy who attempted to assasinate President Reagan. Hinckley’s insanity defense? Courtesy of Craig.
• Ted Kennedy and William Kennedy Smith, who he advised on the Palm Beach rape case.
• Bill Clinton, who he defended against impeachment.
• Elian Gonzalez’s father, who (along with the Castro regime) wanted Elian back in Cuba
• Bolivian Minister of Defense Jose Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, who fled to the USA under accusations of human rights violations and the murder of dozens of civilians protesting the Bolivian government.
• Pedro Miguel González Pinzón, under indictment for the ambush killing of a US Army Sergeant and wounding of another.

Wow. I don’t know what else to say, but wow. Think he’s gonna go for the gold and bring back Janet Reno while he’s at it?

Man tries to pay bill with spider drawing.

Just trust me and click the link. It’s hilarious.

Via Uncle:

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

–snip–

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

–snip–

Well YOU DON’T SAY.

I am home sick today. Were I not pregnant, today would be a tough-it-out day for sure, but I’m a little concerned by the fact that this bug seems to be lodged lower in my throat than a usual head cold. (Plus, I sound like a 40-year smoker trying to be quiet in church.) After finally admitting to myself that yes, I probably do have a somewhat compromised immune system, and no, I don’t want an upper respiratory tract infection or pneumonia, I decided to stay home and attack this thing with both barrels.

And now, a piece I call Why I’ll Be Surviving the Zombiepocalypse; or, Take That, Virus:

1. Cheerios with milk.
2. Orange juice.
3. Pineapple juice.
4. Yogurt.
5. Vitamin C, Echinacea with Vitamin C, prenatal multivitamin, prenatal DHA
6. Gatorade.
7. Banana.
8. BACON!!!

Breakfast of champions, friends.

Now, if only I could find my copy of Glory Road, today’s bug-in preparations would be complete.

In case y’all didn’t notice this, I don’t let things go down the memory hole.

After my last response to Koji, his frat-brother running mate Joey Meehan jumped into the fray, deleting everything I’d written, everything Koji had written, and everything my friend Dan had written. He left intact, however, a couple of posts that added nothing to the discussion and instead served just to (lamely attempt to) insult me. Brilliant!

Then, Joey said:

Joey Meehan wrote at 7:33 pm:

Dan & Laurel,I am sorry if you two are taking offense to our standpoint on the issue. We feel that the college environment poses too many threats towards violence enough, let alone with firearms involved. We both understand that there are pros and cons for both sides of the argument; however, we have told you once what we are standing for and we would both appreciate it if you two would discontinue posting your concerns on this issue. This is not a myspace blog. If you have any other concerns with campus policy and our standpoints, please feel free to post another question. We encourage everyone to get involved. Thank you.

Joey Meehan

Joey,

I would expect transparency out of ASUI Senators, as well as ownership of prior statements. Thus, now that you have deleted the entirety of my exchange with Koji under the pretense of decluttering your group’s wall, I assume you won’t object to me posting a simple link to where I’ve copy and pasted everything Koji and I said:

[link to Facebook group]

Your constituents do have a right to know where you stand on this issue, do they not - as well as a right to see how Koji speaks to those who challenge him?

Chris - my apologies, next time I’ll try to use smaller words to make my points easier for you to understand.

Cheers and good evening, everyone!

Laurel, you exacerbate me with the exuberance of your vociferous. If such a misuscule issue is going to abhor your from voting for a candidate, then how can you muster the gumption to vote for anybody at all. My commendations for you would be to run for ASUI senate yourself, however from what I have read you have excessively proven you are far more contented to be a petulant, shortsighted, CRETIN!

Laurel, your response to me makes no sense…would you like to try and articulate a more coherent response, or should all of us just settle on the presumption that you are in fact “touched”? = )

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:42pmhey

i appreciate ur concern with the issue. stop leaving aggressive posts on our wall. for one it is disrespectful. were not trying to argue with u so u need to relax. for two it makes our group look like shit because we have two people talking shit back and forth on the wall. u dont see us throwing facts and opinions at you. show some respect.

—

Dan Ritter
Today at 7:56pm

The problem here Mr. Meehan is exactly what you just said…you aren’t throwing facts back at me. Koji, your boy, was making you look bad. I’m looking for reasonable people to represent me, not people who 1) dodge the question 2) complain that I’m being aggressive 3) have nothing constructive to say

—

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:57pm

then were not ur guys

Koji Moy wrote at 5:45 pm:

wow…is this an nra meeting?

Koji Moy wrote at 6:03 pm:

One question for both of you little lovebirds..
Would Virginia Tech allow the posession of concealed weapons on campus?
how about Northern Illinois University?
you may have legitimate points and clearly have deeply investigated this issue;however, i do not feel that there is a clear necessity to carry a weapon on campus. End of discussion

1. Wait, let me get this straight: If a man and a woman share common views, that means they’re “lovebirds?” Would you like to bring any other sexist allegations into this discussion, or are you done now?

2. Should I infer from your reference above to your status as a Delta Chi brother that this kind of discourse is condoned by your fraternity?

3. Do you believe it is appropriate to resort to ad hominem attacks against somebody who challenges your stance on something, especially when the people challenging you are those you are asking for a vote? You do realize you are insulting people you would serve as a representative, right?

4. Since you are missing the point completely: Both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have policies prohibiting carry on campus. And somehow, the murderers at both universities (and every other murderer who enters a “gun-free zone”) passed through the magic forcefield of said policies and killed people anyway. Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that criminals disobey laws… and those who would seek to carry legally in defense of themselves and those around them were disarmed?

5. Perhaps you are unaware, but this IS an issue that will be coming before the Idaho legislature again this year, and will almost certainly be discussed at the ASUI Senate. It is also being discussed, legislated and litigated across the country. (Allow me to point you at http://concealedcampus.org/ for more information.)

It is entirely inappropriate for someone seeking the office of ASUI senator to be both utterly ignorant on an issue and unwilling to conduct a discussion about it. Such an attitude is contrary to the whole point of representation, and dangerous to the legislative process.

I truly hope individuals on BOTH sides of the concealed carry issue will ask for higher standards from their ASUI Senators than you are offering with your candidacy.

In case you’re wondering what kind of training in logic and rhetoric modern college students are receiving, here’s a fun exchange with candidate for ASUI Senate, Koji Moy:

I am fully against the right of licensed individuals to legally carry concealed weapons on campus. For one reason, why would they need to? What serious threats do people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from? Last time i checked there were no elk or deer on campus so i really see no reason as to why anyone would like to bring a gun on campus, unless for malicious purposes.

I kid you not, the fourth point of his platform is:

4) Campus safety. Although we would both love to walk every girl home to assure their safety at night, a severe change must be made to campus safety. NO MORE rape and violence victims! We must find a solution to this devastating problem that is effecting our campus.

Absolutely zero cognitive connection, there.

I responded.

Koji,

I was just shown the following message, which was your response to your position on concealed carry on campus:

[QUOTE OF ABOVE MESSAGE - "I am fully against..."]

I’d like to know how you rationalize item #4 of your platform with your position on concealed carry. I am quite familiar with the safety concerns facing University of Idaho students, especially those of us who happen to be female. As a gun owner who trains in the use of firearms in self-defense, I am extremely disturbed by your failure to recognize rape and assault as “serious threats people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from.”

Your characterization of firearms as valid only for hunting game and/or malicious use shows a fundamental lack of understanding of safety and self-defense, as well as a lack of understanding of the time, training and thought gun owners put into their decision to carry.

Let me make this clear: I am disturbed not just because you disagree with me, but because your response uses reactionary language that shows you don’t really understand the depth of this issue. Because of your narrow-minded and misguided view on this issue, I have to urge the men and women of the University of Idaho who are genuinely concerned about campus safety to withhold their votes from you.

As I was replying, a friend was having a separate conversation with him (he hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said, yet) and sent me the following elaboration from Koji:

First of all, in the terrible unlikely case that we did infact allow people to carry weapons on campus, there would be far more havoc than before. Consider these situations:
1) A man walks behind you points his gun at you and orders you to do various things against your will. Just because you have a gun do you think you are going to stop him? If you shot him you would come under just as much punishment because he had the right to carry a gun on campus!
2) Before class a man comes armed with an automatic weapon and brings it out with intent to shoot. Are you going to stop that? Are you going to shoot him because once again you would come under scrutiny as its his right to have the gun just as much as its yours.

How about a better alternative. How about we make as much of an effort we can to inform women on effective ways to stay safe such as:
-never travel alone at night
-carry a can of pepper spray

Sooo I replied (publicly):

Okay, I have to respond yet again. Koji, you apparently do not understand the legal distinction between aggression and self-defense. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Using a weapon as part of an assault is a crime. A person who uses a firearm for illegal purposes is NOT on equal legal footing with someone who uses a firearm in self-defense. I cannot believe you really think those actions are one and the same!

Furthermore, I am flat-out offended by the idea your solution to campus safety for women is, essentially, CHAPERONES. I should not be required to have an escort after dark to ensure my safety on the University of Idaho campus - you’re honestly saying that, rather than allow me to take responsibility for my own self-defense, you’d suggest my best defense is a babysitter? How chauvinistic!

Regarding pepper spray: I have a female friend who is a police officer in Montana. She shared the story of undergoing OC spray training, where the officers are required to complete a series of combative tasks after being pepper sprayed. Her assessment of the training? The spray did NOT stop her from being able to move or to attack and defeat her targets. It just heightened her adrenaline and rage.

Pepper spray, when effective, is basically designed to allow a victim time to run away. How is that a valid defense for a handicapped person? How about a victim with asthma, which can become life-threatening if they inhale any of the overspray? Or how about a woman like me, who is currently eight months pregnant and not running anywhere very fast? All of the above are ideal victims to an attacker, because we present weak targets. And yet you’re more concerned with an attacker’s rights than my right to carry an equalizing weapon like a firearm?

Again: I am not disturbed merely by the fact we disagree on this issue, but because you are so willing to take extreme, authoritative positions on this issue without an understanding of basic foundational principles like legal self-defense vs. illegal brandishing.

I would hope a candidate for a legislative body would be more interested in educating themselves on laws than you have demonstrated yourself to be, Koji, especially before expressing a definitive opinion on them.

Koji,

Here are some sections of Idaho Code for your review:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400001.K - Murder defined
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400009.K - Justifiable homicide by any person
(Notice the distinction between the two.)

http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020001.K - Lawful resistance
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002.K - Resistance by threatened party
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002A.K - Legal jeopardy in cases of self-defense and defense of other threatened parties - which I think is important enough to quote in full:
“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.”

I also recommend your complete review of Title 18, Chapter 33, found here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/idstat/TOC/18033KTOC.html
Which details firearms laws in full, including the crime of weapon possession with malicious intent:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330001.K (again, distinct from legal carry)
the crime of brandishing:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330004.K
And detailed statutory explanations of both proper firearms handling and the punishments for failure to follow said laws.

For the statutes dealing with lawful concealed carry, see here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

These people vote in real elections too, you know. No wonder the Republic is in jeopardy.

EDIT: An update in the next post!

Neil Diamond rocks.

Yes, yes, I’m sure he donates money to The National Socialist Campaign for Taking Your Guns and Electing Communists and Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for Children, Too! or something, since he is a celebrity, but you know? I don’t wanna hear about it. Just let me have this one.

*listens to America*

(Mike: Don’t you dare come on here and talk about Phil Collins. Not even the same ballpark.)

Ended up away from home longer than I anticipated today, so I apologize for this coming in so late - but here’s a hearty thank you to all who served and still serve today. You are appreciated.