Lessons From Luby’s...and VA Tech

Today's Virginia Tech massacre, the largest shooting rampage in American history, offers up many of the same lessons that the Luby’s massacre (of 10-16-91) offered, but will we take them?

On that October day back in 1991 a beserk, unemployed man named George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger Pick-up through the window of Luby’s luncheonette in Kileen, Texas, bellowing, “This is what Bell County has done to me!”

He commenced to stalk the restaurant with a Glock 9mm and a Ruger p89. By the time he took his own life, he’d killed 23 and wounded 20 others.

At the time, Luby’s was the largest shooting rampage in American history, but unlike the Reagan shooting and the LIRR mass murders, that yielded more calls for gun control, an enlightened voice came through from the Luby’s massacre, as the daughter of two people killed at Luby’s, Suzanna Gratia Hupp (above left), ran for statewide office in Texas and won.

in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by that same Suzanna Gratia Hupp passed a law over the veto of former Governor Ann Richards that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre. Soon after, many states considered similar weapon permits for citizens.

The folly of gun control laws is that they ONLY disarm the law-abiding.

Thugs and outcasts will always find guns, whether they have to be stolen from military bases, police precincts and evidence rooms or simply made.

Guns are remarkably easy to make.

The idea of disarming everyone “except for the police and the military” is just as easy an idea to come across, but it’s not just easy, it’s simplistic.

Disarming the law-abiding is a net negative for everyone’s security.

In places where concealed handgun permits are regularly granted, there are actually, on average, fewer gun crimes than in places with the strictest gun control laws (Wash, D.C. & NYC).

Why did Suzanna Gratia Hupp take a very different lesson away from Luby’s than Caroline McCarthy, a widow of a LIRR shooting spree, conducted by illegal immigrant, Colin Ferguson?

Perhaps because while Suzanna Gratia Hupp was raised in the pro-gun culture of texas and Caroline Mcarthy was raised in the anti-gun culture of the northeast?

Perhaps, but there’s got to be something more. What could account for so many people in places like the northeast to support a policy that has failed in every appreciable measure?

Could it be that Suzanna Gratia Hupp simply has a lot more common sense?

The fact is that no law could ever stop a Colin Ferguson, or a George Hennard from getting guns and doing what they did, but a single armed passenger on that LIRR train, or in Luby’s on either of those days, may have made all the difference in the world.

That’s how lives are saved, by allowing law-abiding citizens to act.

Just as merely criminalizing murder doesn’t stop murders, criminalizing gun ownership doesn’t stop gun crimes.

You know what does?

Self-defense...and an armed populace.

Hypocrisy on Imus AND the Duke Lacrosse Hoax

<

Today, April 11th, 2007, some 395 days since it began, ALL the charges filed against David Evans, Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty (above bottom row) were dropped after the North Carolina DA looked at all the charges and evidence with “fresh eyes.”Now both Mike Nifong, facing disbarment and possibly Civil and criminal penalties, and Crystal Mangum (above top left), facing charges of filing a false police report, await their own fates in the matter.

Mike Nifong is the primary villain in that case, a vile “public servant,’ so greedy for another term as Raleigh-Durham, NC District Attorney, he was perfectly willing to attempt to railroad three innocent men for crimes that it was clear, since last April (the DNA evidence showed none of the Duke LAX players raped the accused, a year ago) they did not do.

This happens in the midst of another media circus over radio shock-jock, Don Imus’ (above top right) insensitive comments about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, a situation not without its fair share of hypocrisy, including Imus’ own groveling to an equally odious and offensive figure – Al sharpton.

Don Imus has long been an equal opportunity, universal offender – Jews, Catholics, gays, blacks have all been the butt of the Imus’ crew’s, often juvenile jokes, but as often happens, with such figures, one of those characterizations crossed the line and has become a cause celeb. In fact, I think Imus' recent outburst has gained the traction it has, not because of any perveived "sexism" or "racism," but because they were generally seen as bullying a group of women who really weren't public figures, who didn'thave a public forum from which to respond.

The hypocrisy is that while Imus, a satirist and well-known universal offender is pilloried for his off-color remarks, rappers and many comics who traffic in even more vile characterizations are not. The frightening prospect is whether this will embolden those both Left and Right who'd seek to silence those with whom they disagree.

If anything good is to come out of the Imus hypocrisy it well may be the eradication of that despicable double standard. If we’re going to enforce some civility standards on the entertainment industry, then we should soon see the eradication of hip hop, or at least the entertainment industry’s support for it.

Can anyone say “Disco sucks?”

Remember the 1980s backlash against disco music? Well, if the offense over the Imus comments is real, then we should soon see an anti-hip hop backlash that’ll make the “disco sucks” era look tame. At the time I reviled Disco, yeah, probably because I couldn't dance - I hated the BeeGees and reviled most "dance music," save for (gulp!) Donna Summer...yes, I always liked Donna Summer's voice...and looks too. Still, I must admit, that I despise rap even more. I find nothing socially redeeming about it at all. Hopefully this new found cry for public decency will expand.

If not, then the double standard that finds off-color, satirical stupidity by an Imus to be unacceptable, and the same by a “Fifty Cent” or a Chris Rock to be fine, has to be the next casualty.

The Imus Controversy?

One of America's original “shock jocks,” Don Imus, is in hot water again, this time over some ill-advised comments over the Rutgers women’s basketball team, calling them, among other things, “nappy headed hos” and “jigaboos and wannabees,” a reference to Spike Lee’s film, School Daze.

It’s not the first time that the Imus show has run into problems over racial insensitivity. A couple of years back, regular guest Sid Rosenberg contrasted the Williams’ sisters to Anna Kornikova, claiming that while Anna was the type of women you’d expect to see in a Playboy magazine centerfold, the Williams’s sisters were the type “you’d expect to see in the centerfold of National Geographic.”

Rosenberg was released for awhile and now works in a Florida radio station.

Imus, of course, is not the only entertainer, white or black who has dabbled in gross insensitivity and all of this leads inevitably to the question, “Should offensive remarks be punished, and if so, why?”

Personally, I think it’s a good thing that people can say offensive things. On the one hand it puts a lot of our petty bigotries (and we ALL have them) out there in the open, and on the other hand, the First Amendment exists solely to protect offensive, unpopular and controversial speech, with exceptions only for overtly threatening, reckless (“fire in a crowded theater”), slanderous and treasonous or seditious speech.

Ethnically insensitive speech is none of the above, so there can be no governmental sanctions against such speech.

Certainly there can and have been private sector sanctions against such offensive speech. John Rocker, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, Al Campanis and Bob Grant have all been fired for various offensive outbursts. But such sanctions are dangerous, because they lead to more hyper-sensitivity on the part of various segments of the public.

For instance, if humorist Don Imus can be fired for these comments, can there by any tolerance for anyone from another race making fun of whites, or Hispanics?

The answer is probably not, precisely because even if a majority of those groups can accept such comments as humorous, there will always be enough of a vocal minority within those groups to impact corporate decision making.

Sanctioning offensive speech is a double edged sword, as virtually every thought is ‘offensive” to some people.

John Edwards Ironic Impact on Breast Cancer

As a trial lawyer, John Edwards made his fortune suing OB-GYNs over junk science that connected cerebral palsy to problems with deliveries. The impact of those lawsuits is that insurance companies paid out billions in malpractice premiums (a relative pittance to each “victim” and reportedly over $400 million to John Edwards), causing malpractice premiums to skyrocket, along with physician prices – the REAL COSTS are always passed onto the consumer, to the point where in many states, few physicians delivered babies any more.

Recently Debbie Schlussel made a great point about John Edwards’ ironic impact on breast cancer, “Breast cancer is a devastating, frequently fatal disease--which also strikes men. But, the fact is that John Edwards' multi-millions in lawsuit verdicts contributed greatly to the cost of health care for the rest of us in America. The average woman doesn't have the gazillions Mrs. Edwards does to get every treatment (several NOT covered by HMOs) available that the rest of us can't afford. Her husbands' lawsuits didn't make those treatments more possible for the rest of us. Nope, those lawsuits made effective treatment more expensive and less available.

“Don't be fooled by this smokescreen book and John Edwards' pronouncements on Oprah about his and his wife's fight against breast cancer. When it comes to your fight, he made America's women more vulnerable.

“And so do the thousands of other medical malpractice plaintiffs' lawyers like him around America who voted for him and gave generously to his and Kerry's campaigns.”

Debbie Schlussel, March 22, 2007


Actions have consequences. When juries are unable to recognize junk science (there is NO established link between cerebral palsy and child-birth), it costs the public billions in (1) costs, as the costs of goods and services (like health care) rise in response to such actions, (2) higher taxes and (3) a reduction of those willing to offer those services in the future.

People who care about others look to promote prosperity, by decreasing regulation, reducing taxes and government spending/services and rewarding investment and jobs creation.

Many of those claiming to endorse “economic equality,” of “economic justice” are motivated by a resentment of the prosperity created by the investor class and seek to punish and restrict that prosperity. In some cases that's misguided, in others it's deliberately evil.

On Police & Online Predator Registries

Megan’s Law began the current era of police and online sex offender registries...and overall that’s been a good thing.

The idea, however, much like the “three strikes you’re out” legislation has been misused and by some, in a cynically deliberate way, in order to undermine support for such policies.

Instead of a general “sex offender registry,” there should be only a pedophile registry.

The idea of a nineteen year old boy charged with “statutory rape” being listed along side pederasts, is not only disturbing, but grossly unfair.

Moreover, it makes all “sex crimes” from the teenager convicted of statutory rape, to “inappropriate touching” to pedophilia...and there is NO moral equivalency between pedophilia and ANY other sex crime.

Megan’s Law should have limited those registries to pederasts, as they are a class by themselves and are THE primary predator that people look to protect their children from. Adding in scores of other “sex offenders” of lesser stature, only serves to make such registries useless to parents who would seek to protect their children.

Same with the “three strikes, you’re out” laws. Those should be limited to three felonies. It’s absurd and self-defeating to put people away for life for a third misdemeanor offense after an initial felony conviction.

Just as sex offender registries should be limited to PEDOPHILES ONLY, “three strikes laws” should be limited to FELONIES ONLY.

Otherwise we risk losing support for the very needed protections such laws were initially meant to provide.

Pedophilia is a crime in a class by itself and it should be treated a such.

Groups like “Perverted Justice” which operates online pedophile stings is doing a lot of good in bringing many online pederasts to justice, as demonstrated on the numerous Dateline programs on their effectiveness.

Of course, those online stings are currently being challenged by the ACLU, yes, the same ACLU whose former Virginia Chapter President was arrested for having a stockpile of kiddie-porn on his PC. So much for the objectivity and "ideological purity" of the ACLU.

Isn’t it Odd

That Liberals and mainstream media-types never fail to laud the Pope when they are in simpatico – against the wars in the Mid-East, against the death penalty, etc., but they conveniently ignore the many disagreements – over abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc.

The difference between the Pope and most of those who adhere to contemporary Liberal orthodoxy is that the Pope is, at least, consistent.

The Pope believes in the sanctity of life. Thus the death penalty, almost all wars, assisted suicide and abortion are all morally wrong, from that perspective.

I come from a very different perspective, one in which all human life is not sacred – I support the death penalty (on the grounds that some acts demand the forfeiture of one’s own life – murder, pedophilia, etc.), abortion (on the grounds that a would-be parent who doesn’t want a child, is, at that time, an unfit parent) and support ‘Right to Die” laws, so long as they are written in such a way as to require the consent and express the direct desires of the dying...and while all wars are regrettable, most of them have proven necessary, as that has often been the only effective way to deal with international aggression.

In that regard, I too hold to a consistent belief system.

In a long-awaited text, the Pope Benedict XVI, on March 13th, exhorted "Catholic politicians and legislators ... to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature."

"These values are not negotiable," he wrote, listing "respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death [and] the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman."

I do agree with the opposition to gay marriage, on the grounds that such Civil Unions have led to a diminishment of heterosexual marriage and an increase in illegitimacy in the countries in Europe where gay marriage has been legalized.

SEE:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia?mode=PF

<

<

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church over the "sanctity of all life," I do admire its moral consistency. Their views, in my opinion, are just not practical, probably because those who've forged them haven't really lived in the real world.

Well, THAT Ought to Do It!

According to dotmusic, Michael Jackson’s planning on building a 50 foot robotic version of himself that will traverse the desert outside Las Vegas firing laser beams from its eyes.

According to the Yahoo music site, “Michael Jackson is in discussions about creating a 50-foot robotic replica of himself to roam the Las Vegas desert, according to reports.

“The pop legend is currently understood to be living in the city, as he considers making a comeback after 2004's turbulent child sex case.”

See? It’s ideas like this that make Michael Jackson the “King of Pop!” Still, child-sex charges are only ONE of the things Michael Jackson has to make a comeback from. Sure, there’s that out in the forefront, followed by the skin bleaching, the plastic surgery addiction and the eerie Elizabeth Taylor/Dianna Ross adoration.

MJ is rightfully proud of the idea, exclaiming, "It would be in the desert sands. Laser beams would shoot out of it so it would be the first thing people flying in would see."

Somehow I still can’t help thinking that the idea may not be all that well thought-out. I mean it’s hard to figure how trying to make a “comeback from child sex charges” by building something guaranteed to scare children everywhere shitless, makes a lot of sense.

I guess I'm just a natural skeptic when it comes to 50 foot celebrity robotic replicas and all.

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/41620594