Where Was That?

I just saw the movie V for Vendetta. I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed. I was expecting something a bit more like The Matrix. I was hoping for more action and the cool special effects. It is not that those make a great movie but they are elements of a great action movie. This was sold as an action movie. I was expecting an action movie. I did not get one.

Beyond the action - what little of it there was - the movie was still a disappointment. All of the actors were deadpan throughout the film, save for John Hurt's character who was overacting. His part was like a wet sponge in a very dry desert. That may be a British thing though.

"I'll be late for supper, dear. The parlament building is being blown up."

"That's terrible. Pick up some bread on the way home, please."

For a good example of how fear tactics are really being used by governments and other "leading institutions", just look at how global warming is sold. For a good yarn on that, read Crichton's State of Fear.

That is not the main point of this post though.

This is: Many of those making the movie are pointing to various Western governments and drawing parallels. Most notably, the governments of the United States and Great Britain are compared. (Just watch the extras.)

The movie suggests a past where Muslims and homosexuals were rounded up and exterminated. It portrays a country where having a Koran is a crime. This sounds all too familiar. There are places like this that exist today. There are countries whose governments have religious police, who persecute minority religions and homosexuals for that matter. Now where exactly are these countries?

I will give you a hint: Start with the above description by swapping Muslims with Christians or Jews and replace the Koran with any other holy book.

Of course Saudi Arabia probably does not have any historical bad guys as colorful as Guy Fawkes. Natalie Portman might look a little out of place in Sudan. And crowds would not line up to see the same movie were it set in Yemen.

But is that bad?

I have heard that Israel's response to the kidnapping of their soldiers is "disproportionate." What would a "proportionate" response be?

If they go an eye-for-an-eye, their state will be gone in no time. I would argue that for them, going an eye-for-an-eye would only exacerbate their problems. Just look at the exchange rate: one Israeli soldier for 1,000 arabs.*

I will not argue that the Israeli response is "proportionate." By all accounts it is not. Given their situation though, their response is the best way to ensure their longevity.



* Figures provided by the Hammas Bureau for Terrorist Affairs. Daily rates may vary.

An Advocate

In Washington D.C. guns are not allowed. In much of Illinois it is illegal to have a gun. IANSA believes that private gun ownership should be globally banned; that only government employees should own guns.

It is unfortunate that the U.S. judicial system has many laws that conflict with each other. Our Bill of Rights more or less guarantee us the ability to defend ourselves from goons, thugs, and our own government.

I read a report just recently of an Illinois police officer who stalked and raped women. This is not the first time I have heard of such things. It probably wont be the last.

Here is where I go out on a limb...

I advocate breaking carry laws in Illinois and Washington D.C. I understand that advocating people break laws is a Bad Thing. Since these laws are contrary to other laws, the only way to keep out of trouble is not to advocate anything.

Oh well. Perhaps trouble will be fun too.

Semantics Exchange

I am disgusted with the comparing "detainees" at GITMO or Palestinian's in Israeli jails to prisoners of war. "Prisoner of War" is an official status recognized by most governments around the world. A primary qualification is that the prisoner must be uniformed or having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. Others include that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, that they carried arms openly, and that their conduct prior to capture be in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

None of the detained at GITMO meet that criteria.

By both international law and treaty, spies, most snipers (gilly suits are not uniforms) , and covert operatives when captured are not given status as prisoners of war by these governments. This list includes the United States.

The Hamas operatives that kidnapped Cpl. Shalit from Israel were technically civilians. The Palestinian government, now realizing the reprisals from Israel are offereing a "prisoner exhange."

None of the Palestinian prisoners meet that criteria.

Here is the difference: Cpl. Shalit is a uniformed solder operating within the laws of land warfare. These laws are made to reduce the unnecessary suffering of combatants and noncombatants, protect the fundamental rights of those captured, regardless of them being military or civilian, prisoners of war, etc., and finally to help with the peace process. That last part makes the assumption that some day hostilities will end.

And now for the slippery slope... If Palestinians and their Syrian puppet masters wish to equate their kidnappings and executions with legitimate military actions, and if they wish to equate non-uniformed civilians and covert operatives with military personnel, then any Palestinian or Syrian, uniformed or not, is a "legitmate military target" and Israel is completely justified in destroying them.

Perishing from Earth

A recent article describing Sen. McCain's changing positions on a number of issues - gun issues in particular - made me think of something that Sen John Kerry mentioned when running for president.

He was talking about support of a new assault weapons ban and that police chiefs that he had met were asking him for it.

Alberto Gonzales also stated his support for a renewed weapons ban. He shared that his brother was a S.W.A.T. officer in Texas and that he would like one.

I understand that our police officers are citizens and their opinions are valid. What bothers me is that their opinions carry more weight with some politicians than other citizens'. Our country is not a nation of the police, by the police, and for the police.

In general, it bothers me that many politicians think it acceptable and even required to discuss restricting our liberties with select groups. It is especially repugnant given the nature of the legislation.

We have seen the same now with taxing political speech of churches and blogs. Who was consulted before McCain - Feingold passed?

Any time new laws are passed and new regulations are made, we need to ask and have answered in whose interest they are made.

Difficult Question Time

(I originally posted this at the Nation of Riflemen forum.)

Scenario: It is the middle of the night. You have awaken to the dogs barking. You hear your adolescent daughter scream. You dutifully grab your pistol. (Even if you do not have a pistol or daughter, let us say for the sake of the question that you do.) You head to your daughter's room and on the way there encounter an intruder. He realizes that you have a pistol and is very scared. He goes to his knees begging for his life, hands empty, asking you not to kill him. You daughter continues to scream from her room.

Question: What do you do with him?

Political Observation

Why is it that Zarqawi's death is labeled as "neither a Republican nor a Democratic victory" while anything bad that happens in Iraq is the fault of a Republican administration?

It is a typical spin used by politicians to take credit for anything good despite their involvement (or lack thereof) and to blame anything bad that happens on their opponents. The U.S. Democratic party does this all of the time but its effectiveness has long since worn.