Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

So at least that ally is not so willing to humiliate us on our president’s breach of protocols:

“Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

A senior White House official (read: Axelrod or Emanuel) assured Politico this morning that no Japanese observers “would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan.” Consider that spin exploded, thanks to ABC.

One can only hope that our sheer strength (military and economic) is enough to get us through the remaining 3 years—and that our allies will continue to have faith in us, even when we are “led” by amateurs, and that our allies will trust our political process to remove that amateur from the position where he can cause most damage … at the earliest opportunity.

After all, the respect that we get from our allies (Japan or otherwise) come from how that respect benefits our allies, not from all the niceties that appeal to liberal sensibilities.

As much as Glenn Beck might get frustrated, as seen in:

GLENN: He has gotten so much flack from his friends because, you know, they buy into, “Oh, he’s a fascist.” I don’t care what you do with your life. Honor the Constitution. Limited government. Maximum amount of freedom. Throw them all out. Get people who understand the founding fathers. Libertarians are eating each other alive. And it doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any sense. But see, there’s no, there’s no structure to it. And I’m fine with that. But that’s why libertarians lose is because there’s no, there’s no system. There’s no system. And so there’s no one to defend. And so the, both parties, when they start to grind down on you, you have the entire system against you, and it’s quite amazing. It’s quite amazing.

So here’s Cartman. Now, this is South Park, and I’m flattered. But remember these guys are libertarians. Here’s South Park. …

STU: Everyone’s got their role in society and South Park’s is to make fun of everyone that’s around.

GLENN: And everybody. It was Tom Cruise and Scientology and Jesus is know was a full episode.

STU: It’s on everything, global warming.

GLENN: Global warming. So it is a compliment. I have to watch it, although it is I have to tell you, it would be nice to have somebody, somebody that wasn’t that just had the facts right.

(via HotAir.com)

As much as I like Glenn Beck (although I haven’t watched him in a while, along with the Factor, mostly due to lack of time; I don’t count anyway, as far as Nielson ratings go), I am glad that South Park did a piece on him—if they didn’t, I couldn’t trust them any more.

After all, they are entertainers before they are libertarians (or any other political ideologues). Their job is to make fun of people, make obscene humor, and comment on current events (by way of doing either of the two above). If they chose not to make fun of someone or went easy on someone just because he was a libertarian, well, then we would know that we can’t get good libertarian jokes from South Park.

We can all benefit from understanding that there is some part of what we do that is independent of our ideologies or beliefs. Comics shouldn’t be afraid of making fun of someone out of reverence (see: SNL and Obama); scientists shouldn’t misrepresent science because existing results are unfavorable to left-wing (or sometimes right-wing) agenda; and journalists shouldn’t let their political viewpoint affect what they cover and how they cover it.

Because otherwise I can’t understand their argument at all:

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit on ACORN’s behalf Thursday in Brooklyn federal court. It claims the law was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.

First off, I am not sure if any part of Constitution says that acts mentioning individual organizations are wrong. It does say something about taxes having to be uniform and all (and probably something about due process which may be relevant), but none of them apply. The Congress did not pass a law ordering ACORN officers jailed (which would be overstepping their Constitutional bounds, since that belongs to the judiciary). The Congress passed a law saying that they aren’t going to waste money on a corrupt organization—and since it is the Congress who has the power to spend (or not to), it seems entirely constitutional to me, whether they mention specific organizations or not.

But then, I am not a constitutional scholar, like Mr. Barack Obama, and unlike ACORN, I don’t have Obama representing me, so I’m probably saying something wrong. I should be re-reading the wonderful document that is our Constitution later today though, specifically looking for things that warrants such constitutional claims at all.

In any case, this is very comforting:

The group’s CEO, Bertha Lewis, says she underestimated the impact of the Congressional action. She says state, local and most private funds have been cut off as well.

Specifically in going on fishing expeditions where it has absolutely nothing to do with security on airplanes:

Thanks to Steve Bierfeldt’s courageous stand in Missouri several months ago (and in the face of an ACLU lawsuit), the TSA now has to abide by two newly declared rules:

The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety….

Even though the congress and the office of president continue to treat the Constitution as “not a serious” document, it’s good to see that some part of the federal bureaucracy thinks that the Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on.

Too bad it had to take a lot of bad publicity and a lawsuit to goad them into taking this official position, but, hey, it’s TSA. I’ll take whatever improvements I can get.

In the New Hampshire state constitution:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

Wow. Compared to this, the implicit acquiesce to such right inherent in the Second Amendment (or the Declaration of Independence) seems weak. I guess there is a reason they say, “Live free or die”—only if all other states could follow this example and say that governments can be overthrown and should be overthrown, should it ever become too oppressive (with the People having the sole power to determine when it has become too oppressive).

Is it because they are born into this blessing that they take it for granted?:

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

A Muslim first and American second? There are millions of people like me in this country who weren’t born American—but who were lucky enough to get here, and who, when they were finally eligible, decided to American first and nothing else (at least if they weren’t filthy liars when they swore “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen,” and if they were lying, then by that fact alone they are not American citizens). Any natural-born American harboring such sentiments is spitting on the face of every new American. Any natural-born American putting their religion or any other country before this country (mind you, there is a slight distinction between the government and the country—you can love the country while hating what the government does, as long as you remain loyal opposition) doesn’t deserve to be eligible for presidency—which new Americans, no matter how distinguished and loyal they are, cannot be.

If it hadn’t been for the Constitution, the only punishment befitting traitors and criminals like Hasan would be to strip his American citizenship and deport him to one of those sandy deserts that he loves so much. But, Constitution not having given any governmental institution the power to strip someone of his citizenship, we would have to settle for death row. It is too lenient for him, but the Constitution only has limits on cruel punishments, not leniency.

Update: ‘couldn’t be said better. Those who defend Hasan not only insult today’s living New Americans but also spit on the graves of the patriots of last century who have made sacrifices we couldn’t even fathom. You are an American in name only (if that at all) if you can bring yourself to defend Hasan on such grounds.

XKCD has a great suggestion on how to violate laws of nature (causality) by violating laws of society (murder):

But I feel that he’s asking the wrong question here: “How many siblings do you have?” The question he should really be asking isn’t how many siblings. It’s whether this phenomena is limited only to siblings, or whether it’ll work with other close relatives or friends. It would be a scientific bonanza if this phenomenon can be reproduced with friends—siblings and relatives you eventually run out of, but friends, well, if you do run out of friends, you can always make more.

This is why I don’t trust the religious right:

I’m not terribly surprised by that outcome. The USCCB isn’t exactly a hotbed of libertarian thought. The only surprise in this chapter of ObamaCare is that the bishops stood so strongly against the bill in the first place. Most of them believe in a collective health-care approach rather than a free market, with a few notable exceptions. That’s one reason to remember that their wisdom generally remains limited to the spiritual rather than the temporal in terms of political thought.

Their goal is different from ours. Their goal is to impose their interpretation of the scripture (which may or may not be correct; I contend that they are … mistaken in substantial details, especially with regard to how charity work should be done) on the rest of the society. Our goal is individual liberty—defending institutions which are set up to defend this ultimate goal, and tearing down institutions which erode them.

From time to time, we may form alliances of convenience. But that’s all that is. They are ready to betray our conservative values the moment they think they can get something germane to their own goals accomplished, as they have now. We should never forget that.

This is why I am determined and resolved to learn how to use a gun (and get a carry permit):

That is a good lesson to remember. The attacker in this case gave little consideration to his personal security, by all accounts, and was not going to stop until someone stopped him. Munley understood this and went against every human survival instinct to pursue a confrontation with a murderous lunatic — and nearly got killed for her efforts. Her heroism saved lives at Fort Hood.

I refuse to be a victim. Because we do not live in an ideal world, there will always be those who want to victimize us, be it a madman or the government (but I repeat myself), and I need to make sure that I can win—if it ever comes down to the contest of brute force.

Update (12/26, h/t: Elliott): my point exactly. Americans are not born victims—that’s why Founders enshrined the right to defend oneself in the Second Amendment. Absent statist drive for power, I don’t see why anyone would strive to make any place (airports, airplane, etc.) constitution-free zone and designate everyone in that area victim. Regulations—after all, for something as potentially dangerous as guns and cars, we do want to make sure that people using them are properly trained and do not intend to harm others—I can understand. Blanket bans, I cannot.

I didn’t know that. And somehow it didn’t really make into national news either, like when Vermont’s legislature approved same-sex marriage.

In any case, the new law seems to be … adequate compromise between the two sides:

Beginning Jan. 1, New Hampshire law will allow gay marriage, but will also offer legal protections to churches and clergy who choose not to perform gay marriages.

After the press conference, Binnie spokesman Colin Maynard said Binnie wanted to focus on economic issues. When pressed to clarify Binnie’s stance on gay marriage, Maynard said Binnie supports New Hampshire’s law because it allows churches to do what they are comfortable with.

It’s a precarious protection (for religious beliefs that do not harm other people), but, well, until the day we can get the government out of marriage business altogether, I guess this is the best we can hope for.