Good People Carrying Dangerous Things

There was a pro self-defense talk at Virginia Tech the other day, where a student protester had this gem of an insight into what just might happen if guns were allowed on campus:

I still think a lot of it was slanted and very rights-oriented, and did not fully address the idea of what having guns on campus is going to mean for safety in classrooms and the environment in general of Virginia Tech.

Yeah, like 33 people might get murdered next time instead of only 32. Incredible.

Indeed, as John Lott never tires of pointing out, would-be mass murderers aren't unaware of the fact that bureaucrat-inspired "Gun-Free Zones" are perfectly suited to their evil ways since the gathered public have been conveniently dis-armed on their way in.

And add to that the reality that even courageous and lightning-fast police response times are simply too slow to do much good in actually stopping the murderer in his act; considering how quickly these multiple-victim shootings come to their grotesque end, all they can do is count the bodies.

"Dial 911 and die," as they say.

So the future of public massacre defense is precisely this: Lots of good people carrying very dangerous things.

Ishmael? I Thought it was Isaac!

Learned something new today. My co-worker friend in Islamabad sent me a wikipedia link explaining why they will be out of the office near Christmastime-- Eid ul-Adha. So being the fair-minded and respectful citizen of the world that I am I clicked open the url to see what it is they'd be celebrating, and right there, first sentence in, I learned that Islam believes Ishmael was actually the son that Abraham was called on to sacrifice.

Interesting.

[And here's some further discussion I had with that friend:]

"Thanks for the link... I never knew that Islam believes Ishmael to be the son that Abraham was called on to sacrifice. Very interesting!"

"Yes, Abraham was a Messenger of God & since he was so pious & close to God that He decided to test Abraham of his greatness. Abraham got indications in dream that God has ordered him to sacrifice his most loving son. He told his son the whole story & his son accepted his fathers order being the order of God ultimately.

When Abraham was closed his eyes & was done with having a sharp knife over his son & then opened his eyes, he saw that it was just a sheep that was sacrificed & his son was sitting aside safely. God just wanted to test Abraham's nerves & he totally fit to that.

Thanks."

They Put the UN in Funeral

"Four years, 200,000 dead and two million displaced people later, the United Nations has finally authorized a peacekeeping contingent for Sudan's Darfur region. Good intentions and eternal hope aside, this latest mission looks ready-made to continue the U.N.'s sorry record on stopping Genocide.
The 26,000 troops-- a combination of the current 7,000-strong African Union force and a new U.N. brigade-- will be stretched to cover an area the size of France. But the bigger handicap of the "hybrid" force is its mandate, watered down by China and Russia, which blocked tougher action. This is what happens when "consensus" is given higher priority than achieving actual security on the ground.
The resolution approved Tuesday by a unanimous vote of the Security Council goes out of its way to respect Sudanese sovereignty. Fine as that goes, except that Khartoum has consistently invoked "sovereignty" to prevent peacekeepers from interfering in the mass murder of Darfur's black Africans. The composition of the force itself will be done "in consultation" with Sudan, which has insisted that it stay strictly African-- a limitation that, if accepted, would ensure that troops will be difficult to mobilize. African countries have hesitated to fill out the ranks of other African Union missions, and the first troop offers yesterday came from France, Denmark and Indonesia.
In any case, the troops' ability to use force will be severely limited by another concession to Sudan. The soldiers will not be allowed to seize weapons from the government-supported Janjaweed killers, the Darfur rebels fighting against Khartoum, or other wandering thugs toting guns. Instead, they will "monitor whether any arms or related material are present in Darfur." If they find any? Oh well.
The resolution also removes sticks to get Sudan to cease hostilities and let the U.N. troops and humanitarian groups do their work. As originally worded, backsliding would have triggered the threat of sanctions. No more. China's ambassador to the U.N., Wang Guangya, said the resolution was intended to "authorize the launch of a hybrid operation, rather than exert pressure or impose sanctions," according to a U.N.'s summary of delegations' statements. More accurately, the resolution is intended to suggest the U.N. is finally doing something about Darfur and thus shield China from growing criticism that it is protecting Khartoum. In the 1990s slaughterhouses of Rwanda and Bosnia, the road to genocide was paved by U.N. peacekeepers. Blue helmets armed with weak mandates stood by powerless or were even exploited by the ethnic cleansers to enable their killing sprees. After watching nearly a million Rwandans murdered in 1994, the West realized that the U.N. mission in Bosnia was also doomed to failure. NATO countries finally stepped in to stop Bosnia's war with the credible use of force and diplomatic pressure.
Now the same U.N. mistakes may be repeated in Sudan. Khartoum won't tolerate a potent force in the absence of outside pressure-- and China and Russia won't permit the U.N. to apply that pressure. Liberal moralists calling on the world to "do something" in Sudan while also putting faith in the U.N. above all else need to face up to this contradiction. Otherwise, there will be more Rwandas, and Darfurs."
--Wall Street Journal Editorial, August 2, 2007

Spot the Nut

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

[W]hat country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

“I’ll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help. I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I’m being serious."
--Senator Joe Biden, in response to a question on gun control at the CNN/YouTube debate

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Save Darfur! But Not Yet!

Watching the Democratic CNN/YouTube Presidential debate tonight, I can't help but get the distinct impression that these candidates get all hot and bothered by talking about thinking about starting to draft plans to begin conversations to solve the pressing issues of our day, but God forbid something actually gets done for a change.

Take Darfur as a case in point. One of them-- I think it was Senator Dodd-- went so far as to actually classify the atrocities correctly as genocide, but then he immediately followed this grotesque reality with lightweight niceties like "sanctions" being the solution. Yep, nothing coaxes murderous gangs out of their evil like a little economic hardship. This and all the other high and brave rhetoric about getting the U.N. and China involved and restoring America's "moral superiority" in the world such that Africa "wants us" to come help sounds so perfectly like the ineffectual rubbish that's being presently pitched as pop-solutions by the American Idol set.

Indeed, Green Day saw it as a grand display of activism to play some absurd John Lennon song on Idol that would rouse the masses to stand in solidarity against the carnage; well, not to actually stand, but to at least sign a statement at InstantKarma.org that says "My Name is ___, and as a citizen of the world I demand an end to the killing and mass atrocities in Darfur, Sudan," but in all caps to communicate just how strongly this online petition disapproves of such unenlightened behavior. But like Mark Steyn said somewhere regarding the U.N.'s "grave concern" about Darfur-- "That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" -- heavy on the graves, less so on the concern."

Michael Ledeen gets all of this exactly right:

On a hot sabbath, I am prompted to say that Darfur is a catastrophe that could and should be solved in an hour or so. The killers largely operate from helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft. We could destroy them all in an hour or so. But that would be "wrong," because it would violate the current hymnal.
Go tell the victims. Explain why sanctions are better, because it makes the Western politicians feel pious. Even though black Africans are being slaughtered. And while you're at it, tell the starving people of Zimbabwe why their killer and oppressor, Robert Mugabe, is left untouched by the entire outside world. Explain why St Nelson Mandela doesn't give a damn, while you're at it.
The Middle East is tough. These African horrors are relatively easy to fix. But nobody does a damn thing except talk about sanctions...and then largely fail to enact and/or enforce them.
When did Western leaders become vulgar Marxists? These evils do not have economic causes and are unlikely to be defeated by economic means (remember the Iraqi sanctions?). They have political causes and can be defeated by superior fire power.
Somebody? Anybody?

And Steyn, in response to this observation, also bemoans the impotent-yet-culturally-aware inanities being proffered:

Michael Ledeen's Darfur post from yesterday has stuck in my mind all day. It's one of the saddest things I've read on this site, and it's entirely correct: the killers largely operate from helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft. We could destroy them all in an hour or so. But that would be "wrong," because it would violate the current hymnal.
Go tell the victims. Explain why sanctions are better, because it makes the Western politicians feel pious. Recently I interviewed Don Cheadle, who starred in that marvelous film Hotel Rwanda a year or two back. He's now written a book about Darfur. Very nice fellow. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that the big lesson of Rwanda is that the thugs understand very clearly that whenever the west starts working through the UN it sends the message: We're not serious.
Indeed, we're so unserious we're going to "solve" this problem through a process which gives mass murderers the one thing you need if you want to kill hundreds of thousands of people - time.
So Cheadle's book proposes all kinds of things you the citizen can do for Darfur - write your Congressman, send a letter to the local paper, etc. There's a lot of it about. A week or two back, the following caught my eye:
On Sunday, April 29, Salt Lake Saves Darfur invites the greater Salt Lake community of compassion to join with us as we honor the fallen and suffering Darfuris in a day of films, discussion and dance with a Sudanese dance troupe.
Very nice. But wouldn't it make more sense to try the Ledeen solution and save the Sudanese dance troupe for the post-victory party? "Salt Lake Saves Darfur" looks like doing wonders for "the greater Salt Lake community of compassion" but rather less for the people of Darfur. There is a grotesque narcissism in the determination of the Save Darfur campaign to embrace every strategy except the one that would actually save Darfur while there's anyone still left to save. The reality seems to be that these groups prefer to go the ineffectual dance-troupe route because it makes them - the "community of compassion" - the focus of things.

In any event, I'm still curious as to how exactly it's so easily assumed to be an unequivocally good and self-evident moral imperative for the U.S. to "get involved" in Darfur when to do so elsewhere is breathlessly decried as "imperialism" and "blood for oil" and whatnot. Why, for example, is Christopher Hitchens shouted down as a neocon for making a moral argument for intervention in Iraq when to make the same argument in favor of the Darfuris is de rigeur?

Spec'ing Out A Morality In Their Moleskins

I had the recent pleasure of a hearty exchange with the fearless pursuers of truth, in the name of Science and Reason, and all for the sake of the children at renown militant atheist Richard Dawkins's blog. The fun can be had here, with yours burly arriving at the top of page 5.

And heck, while you're at it you might as well go straight to the big leagues and check out Alvin Plantinga's review of Dawkins's recent book, The God Delusion, and also Doug Wilson's razing of the same (start at the bottom).

Oh yeah, and you really should read this online debate between Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, if only to appreciate the prettiness of the pdf (and the ickiness of Hitchens playing dumb). (HT: Phil Gons for the pdf'd version.)

Above All Earthly Pow'rs

Please do yourself a favor and read this interview with David Wells (the DW that thinks and writes, not pitch). His words are especially and ironically "relevant" in light of the recent WSJ front-page story about the stir and splits that conversions to the "Purpose-Driven" church model are causing. It seems to me that when a church locally or the Church broadly decides that it's a good and proper thing to engineer its liturgy with the pleasure and comfort of the "seeker" as it's primary objective, that nothing but danger can possibly lie ahead. There are most certainly rocks under that Slip N' Slide.

And since I know that for you, kind reader, buying books is a matter of which and not whether (y'know, that line-item in your budget that's right below "Tithe" and above "Rent"), you should do yourself the further service of buying Wells's recent book, "Above All Earthly Pow'rs," which is available from your new favorite online bookstore.

He Is Risen, Indeed!

Maybe I'm just getting too acclimated to life here in Charlottesville "Following Truth Wherever it Leads, and it Always Leads Left!" Virginia, but every time I see this bumper sticker I can't help but to rejoin with "Christ is risen, indeed!"

I guess the fact that that is my instinctive response suggests that I'm making progress towards cultivating an enjoyment of the incremental victories; that if they are going to affirm the central truth of the Apostles' Creed-- the resurrected isness of Christ-- for the sake of bolstering their blue politics, then I say God bless 'em. Hey, if the Lord has spoken through the mouth of an ass before, why can't He do it again!