I don’t really have time for a write-up on this just yet, but I saw it and thought it interesting. Gallup poll:

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

See the results here.

CNN: Anheuser-Busch will stop alcoholic ‘energy’ drinks

Hmm… that always did seem like a really bad idea.

He’s a conservative, but not a Republican. I feel like that, too. I can’t honestly push my values out of the way in favor of the party nod. And they’re liars, too. Both parties.

After all, the Republicans said they stood for smaller government, but the size of our government grew enormously under a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress. Democrats said they stood for an end to the war in Iraq, but for better or worse, nearly two years after taking over Congress, they don’t even have a timetable for withdrawal.

What does he believe? Oh, I love and quite agree with this one:

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

My point? Friends, quit your belly aching. The Government couldn’t bring you happiness even if it tried. All we want the Government to do is protect our right to pursue it.

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

Read the rest of a conservative’s mantra here.

Wow. That was a close one. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional gun ban in our nation’s capital.

As I’m watching CNN, I’m becoming more and more convinced by the media bias. Instead of reporting on any kind of actual statistical facts that surround the presence of guns in a community vs. a community where guns are banned, they bring on a Chicago police officer whose son was killed around Mother’s day as he went shopping for a gift. Heartbreaking story, I know.

And I don’t mean to dimish the man’s pain at all, but let’s look at the whole news story here. Why did CNN bring him on and conveniently leave out any kind of data on the subject? They seem real quick to report data on anything that upholds their agenda, but in line with classic the current strain of liberalism, they’re right at home with using people’s emotions to change their opinion when facts don’t support the agenda.

Listen, it’s real sad when people die at the hands of a gun. But people: more often than not, it’s not the gun that’s the problem. It’s almost never an accidental shooting. Only in the rare case is it not intentional. In that light, I’d submit that the perpetrator would use whatever means they have. If they don’t have a gun, they’ll use a knife. And in Australia, they’ve banned those as well. Hasn’t really curbed the violence though. (Hell, even Australia’s Herald Sun Times has better coverage on the ruling than our own media.)

Quite rarely do we see stabbings in America. And liberals, being quite short minded as usual, are far too comfortable in their simple math. Lots of murders + Guns being used = Guns are the problem. Get rid of the guns, they philosophize, and you get rid of the problem. What’s the real problem? Lots of people who use violence to solve problems + A Gun Ban = Criminals move on to other means to weaponry.

I’m glad the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment. It means I can stop arguing with gun control loonies who have this misguided notion that if you deprive criminals of their weapons, they’ll just be sad and give up.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only proven deterrent to violent crime is a well-armed public.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem…That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” – Justice Scalia

Will Smith, on Obama and how he gives us the warm fuzzies.

Althouse: “Celebrities die in groups of threes.” Eesh. Probably.

I heard about this on my drive into Knoxville from Nashville today through the Phil Valentine radio show. Apparently there is a woman who owns and runs a business located on Music Row in Nashville. A Houston-based developer would like to build on it. She said she’d rather not sell it, at any price.

To any reasonable American with a respect for property rights, it seems that it would be an open and shut case, right? Not for Nashville and our Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency. Back in March, the MDHA agreed to acquire the property and resell it to the private Houston-based development firm, Lionstone.

From the Tennesseean article:

“We’re not having any conversation,” Cain said. “We’re hopeful that now she will meet with us.”

Well, tough shit buddy. This is America, and if someone doesn’t want to sell their land, they don’t have to. No matter how much “economic development” or “revitalization” is supposed to spring forth from the stolen ground.

I just heard about this today, and I don’t know the landowner, Joy Ford. Don’t know a thing about her. But if she rightfully owns the land, then I can’t see a clear-headed American disagreeing with her:

“This is private property,” she said. “It’s very painful to know that they’re trying to do this in America. There’s nothing we can do but fight.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court (strangely) upheld this time of abuse of eminent domain several years ago in the Kelo case, even Tennessee’s legislature responded with stronger wording to clarify the extent to which eminent domain can be used by the governments inside Tennessee. But not strong enough. As it stands right now, a government entity can issue proceedings and have a person or business’s property condemned on the basis of it being a “blight” on the community. That’s right. If a government agency that stands to rake in taxes through the sell of your land to a huge developer decides that your place is a bit shabby for the neighborhood… you’re gone.

In the City Paper:

Her son Carroll Ford said the effort to buy his mother’s property started with bullying, with any offer being immediately followed by, “We can just take your property.”

There’s also this:

Often times, it’s the last resort if the city can’t negotiate deal successfully with the property owner.

Alright. And exactly what requires a private property owner to cave in at some point? What if they don’t want to sell at all? Why should they be required to? If Nashville’s MDHA needs some blight, I can give them a tour of a big ole stretch of either Nolensville Road or Dickerson Road. Seriously MDHA, drop me a line.

I can honestly see myself getting involved with a sit-in on this kind of thing, if it’s required. Get the horns of the Tennessee Tax Revolt honkin’ again or something. It’s a slippery slope, folks.

Megan over at her corner of The Atlantic suggests that outrage has lost it’s meaning in the blogosphere. While there certainly is the opportunity to apply a check against the mainstream media, there is also the potential to have ideologues from any part of the political spectrum all group together and really just let the “other side” have it. And of course it happens. But to follow through with such polarizing rhetoric really requires a dedication to the art of ignoring facts or any kind of real debate.

Case in point, one of my closest friends is a liberal, and admittedly so. We routinely– to the chagrin of his wife I’m sure– have political “discussions” that are usually somewhat lengthy, but never end on bad terms. That’s because, while we disagree a solid portion of the time, we also take the time to listen to each other rather than spitting party talking points or throwing around the expected retort against the politician or issue on hand.

Even tonight, I mentioned how the Carter Administration employed a windfall profits tax on “Big Oil”. The results?

The law produced nowhere near the revenue it promised, made the country more reliant on foreign oil, and generated reams of red tape, according to a 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

This, of course is one of the brilliant “new” ideas that Obama is bringing to the table. Not new, of course, and certainly not a good idea, but it does play to the average American’s tendency towards stick-it-to-the-man-itis. My mention of it to my liberal friend produced a somewhat disappointed look accompanied by merely, “Yeah…”

But see, that is the result of real, honest dialogue, something so many in this country, news media, and yes, even blogosphere fail to appreciate. There are a lot of complex issues at which we should direct our attention. There won’t be many quick fixes. And as much as the two-party system seems to force the unintended consequence of seeing only two sides to every issue, we really need to stop and think. (Or maybe even actually read the legislation. Yeah Congress, I’m looking right at you.) And if you don’t know enough about an issue, don’t be afraid to ask someone, keep your mouth shut, and listen. Incessant rambling doesn’t well up any sense of respect in me for you. As Megan says,

It’s hard to generate intellectual respect for someone who believes that life is an exam composed entirely of multiple choice questions.

Developing story on CNN: “The U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned Zimbabwe’s government for strife that has marred a presidential runoff campaign.”

And of course, it means nothing. Rogue and despotic governments need do no more than smile and nod at the finger wagging of the impotent United Nations.

Looks like someone’s in bed with “Big Corn.”