DaveLoneRanger's personal blog

When Men Were Men

2009-12-10T20:31:00.000-08:00

What's with men nowadays?

I've often asked myself that. And there's a plethora of paths to explore on the subject -- even just to arrive at the conclusion that something's wrong!

What I mean is this. The feminist "equality" demand outsmarted its own goals. In the eagerness to stick it to the Men by proving "anything you can do I can do better," women insisted men stop being men in order to let the ladies have a go at it.

Paradoxically, the feminist movement praised and pummeled men. It (they) insisted that men were pigs and dogs and blowhards. Then it (they) insisted that women can do the same thing, only better. Huh?

I'm not for one second suggesting support for unequal wages, discrimination, or removal of suffrage. I'm pointing out that feminism subverted the original design for men and women that was instituted in the Bible. But whether you like it or not, you have to decide what you're going to do with those verses where God declares man the head of the household. (Inevitably, there will be disagreements between two separate-but-equal partners in a marriage...somebody's got to make the final decision.) It has nothing to do with reducing a woman to irrelevance.
After all, in a perfect paradise, God looked down, frowned, said "Something's missing" and completed perfection by creating woman.

My friend Scott Ott passed along this Dockers "man-infesto" that got me thinking about this:

It was pretty rocking awesome when I saw it. And it got me thinking fondly of an era that maybe never truly was, but of which even the ideal is fading. Chivalry, manners, being a gentleman to a lady.

When walking down the street with a lady, who remembers what is the proper thing for a gentleman to do? Whatever happened to removing your hat in a lady's presence, or standing up when a lady entered or left the room?

For that matter, what happened to men wearing hats? Watch any given black and white movie, it was once standard for a man to wear a dress hat. Now, you can't even find hats like that in the stores. Used to, you couldn't get away with wearing blue jeans in church. Now, it's par for the course.

Society changes and life goes on, this I know. But I find myself (as ever) wanting to go against the tide and return to the era not only of being courtly and mannerly to ladies, nor simply wearing certain antiquated clothing accessories, but returning to an even older code of true and genuine chivalry, of respect and maybe even a little reverence for womanhood.

The Furlough Disclaimer

2009-12-10T19:41:00.000-08:00

I doubt I have many consistent readers on this blog anymore. Maybe a few enemies who were watching, and one or two distant yawners. For each of you, I'm sorry for the long interval between posts. Life has a way of getting insanely busy insanely fast. I've launched two websites (each of which has or will be featured in major pro-gun magazines), became employed with the Federal Government™, became employed with a conservative director who has made major headlines news twice, had contact with some of the most distinguished news agencies and personalities in the business, and seen multiple other dreams take huge leaps forward.

Even though I have an archive of "draft" post ideas to post, you probably shouldn't expect a ton of them to show up in the next few months. Maybe one day I'll have all the time in the world for my fingers and my mind to dance all the dances they've been dreaming up.

Do Not Ever - Not Ever! - Forget.

2009-09-10T22:00:00.000-07:00

Eight years ago, devourers took possession of American ingenuity and, like dead viruses that hijack living cells, used them as the instruments of hell.

They robbed the world of life, of peace and of safety.

The left a hole not just in buildings, but in our souls. Do you remember?

The flames of their hatred and malice were turned to flames that consumed our fellow Americans, and indelibly scarred our beloved homeland.

They inflicted on us and on our country the terror and torment they chose to live under for generations.

They forced the country's leaders into impossible choices between protection and liberty.

They injected the abhorrent poison of fear, strife and war into every free-born man, woman and child.

They forced the bloodshed of the bravest men and women the world has ever seen. They tore fathers and mothers away from their children...many would not return. They thrust the knife of loneliness, heartache and separation into their hearts.

Did they fully understand what they did? Maybe not. It took long even for us to understand fully what they did. For a time, Americans could only hold each other and pray for the nightmare to end.

As with old foes that ally against a common enemy, the terror and fear united us...for a time. But partisanship did not take long to reemerge. Even today, September 11, 2001 is exploited on every side for political gain. Spectres and parasites who would before have been in danger to voice their loathsome hate and glee in the face of tragedy eventually began working their toxic division on the people.

Every life changed that day has a story to tell that could bring tears...and no life was left unchanged. Our time line of history was sliced that day...our world would never be the same. Tragedy removes the walls we build around ourselves, the barriers that cause us to focus too often on all that is insignificant in life. 9/11 was a rude awakening but it was an awakening.

But we built our walls back up. So many of us have returned to apathy and slumber. We've seen the ribbons, heard the songs, read "Freedom Isn't Free" so often, and argued about the vices and virtues of war for so long hat many of us have gone back to sleep. Most of us have forgotten what we're fighting for.

I would never wish on you to live or re-live the horror of that day. But we cannot wait for another attack to wake us up again. So I'm asking you to return to that day. Go back. Remember. Go to YouTube and watch the videos. Tell the children who were too young to remember what happened. Pray for our country. Go find a soldier and thank them.

We can't ever forget that freedom truly isn't free...and how much it costs. We must never forget.

Never. Forget.

A Soldier's Epitaph

2009-08-22T22:11:00.000-07:00

Soldier’s Epitaph: A Flame Speaks

He lies asleep in hollowed ground
A gentle heart stilled by nature’s hands
Once eloquent lips emit no sound
Yet eternal flames breathe these commands:

"Remove evil as the dawn consumes the night
Overcome hatred with love
Bathe all mankind in freedom’s light
Seeking always guidance from above."

Ever Have One of Those Days?

2009-08-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

Shadows of the Heart

2009-07-19T22:23:00.000-07:00

(The entry title is my own, given of this work by Ella Wilcox entitled "In The Crowd")

How happy they are, in all seeming,
How gay, or how smilingly proud,
How brightly their faces are beaming,
These people who make up the crowd!
How they bow, how they bend, how they flutter,
How they look at each other and smile,
How they glow, and what bon mots they utter!
But a strange thought has found me the while!

It is odd, but I stand here and fancy
These people who now play a part,
All forced by some strange necromancy
To speak, and to act, from the heart.
What a hush would come over the laughter!
What a silence would fall on the mirth!
And then what a wail would sweep after,
As the night-wind sweeps over the earth!

If the secrets held under and hidden
In the intricate hearts of the crowd
Were suddenly called to, and bidden
To rise up and cry out aloud,
How strange one would look to another!
Old friends of long standing and years -
Own brothers would not know each other,
Robed new in their sorrows and fears.

From broadcloth, and velvet, and laces,
Would echo the groans of despair,
And there would be blanching of faces
And wringing of hands and of hair.
That man with his record of honour,
That lady down there with the rose,
That girl with Spring's freshness upon her,
Who knoweth the secrets of those?

Smile on, O ye maskers, smile sweetly!
Step lightly, bow low and laugh loud!
Though the world is deceived and completely,
I know ye, O sad-hearted crowd!
I watch you with infinite pity:
But play on, play ever your part,
Be gleeful, be joyful, be witty!
'Tis better than showing the heart.

Absolute Power (Corrupts Absolutely)

2009-07-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

From Yahoo News: Report: Bush surveillance program was massive

"The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal.

The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."

Batman: Beautiful, isn't it?

Lucius: Beautiful, unethical, dangerous. You've turned every cell phone in Gotham into a microphone.

Batman: And a high-frequency generator-receiver.

Lucius: You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city. With half the city feeding you sonar, you can image all of Gotham. This is wrong.

Batman: I've gotta find this man, Lucius.

Lucius: At what cost?

Batman: The database is null-key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person.

Lucius: This is too much power for one person.

Batman: That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it.

Lucius: Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description.

Batman: This is an audio sample. If he talks within range of any phone in the city...you can triangulate his position.

Lucius: I'll help you this one time. But consider this my resignation. As long as this machine is at Wayne Enterprises, I won't be.

To President George W. Bush,

Mr. President, I am bearing closely in mind that the news media loathes you and would seek to destroy you and your legacy. I will not accept this rumor unquestionably, since I know that it is the result of a hostile news media and an administration that his hostile to you.

I am grateful to everything you did for this country in eight years. I am one of no large number of people who continues to revere, admire and respect you and the things you stood for and accomplished in office. You shouldered or were charged with so many grave responsibilities, many of which you did not deserve.

You presided over a dark day in history, the likes of which had not been seen in this country in decades. The devourers and destroyers made great headway on September 11 by striking terror into our hearts, and you stood strong when we looked to you...you gave us strength.

You were not perfect, as no president is. People make mistakes, and you made some humdingers. Some were hammered on mercilessly by friend and foe alike, people who could do no better and who might do far worse. Some were heeded little, even though they were of greater importance.

But sir...if this report is true, I am greatly disturbed.

It's not a matter of trust, sir. I don't doubt that such a program is much safer in your hands than in the hands of someone else, such as our current president. That's not it. It's that you set the precedent. You opened a door that, once opened, is very difficult to close. It truly is too much power for one person.

The problem is, any powers that you took, that anyone takes, in the name of safety are soon enough in the hands of a those who believes in the power of the State, not of the individual. That is the problem with taking great liberty in the power and control of government, sir. Though the goals be just, the overarching problem you create is not; you leave the means of control in the hands of your successor, who can, by the same power you used, undo the good you did, and expand greater power and control.

The secrecy is also troubling. I understand well the need to fight terrorists on levels which the civilian cannot see. You told us many of the victories in this war would occur behind the scenes, underground, in quiet shadows of secret dealings. But still, would we tolerate this level of spying with our current president?

This was originally why America was founded sir, as well you know. That's what makes us so different! Other countries were founded in history, sir, history and culture. Ours was founded on philosophy, on ideals. It was conceived in liberty.

If these whispers are true, it is those liberties that took great harm by your actions. I fear for the empty machinery and vessels of control which you created for good, but which you now have no control over.

It may be late now sir, but for you, for me, for future generations of people who will be trusted with the task of governance, we must all at least remember this one truth:

The mightiest expression of power is not using it.

Yours with great respect,
-D.

Two Outcomes (When Wolves Invade)

2009-07-09T22:16:00.000-07:00

If there's one thing that comes close to the sheer terror of being victimized, it's observing someone else being victimized.

I was reminded of this again today when, after uploading my latest armed citizen video, and decided to search YouTube for other armed citizen videos. It turns out mine dominate the search list (and even score well on Google if you search "armed citizen"!) and have even been compiled into playlists by other YouTubers. One of the videos (911 Caller Without Gun in Home Invasion) was of a woman who was NOT an armed citizen, and only by the grace of God did she live to regret it.

Having injured herself in a car accident, and with her husband away, this woman was incapacitated when an intruder began beating on her door. She quickly dials 911, and in the time it takes police to rush to her aid (a mere five minutes), a drunken intruder forced the door, located her and began to rape her. Police were finally able to make it to the scene, and it took five deputies to secure him.

The fear and panic seeped through the speakers when hearing this. Every sheepdog instinct, every fibre in my being, wanted to be there, to protect the woman and pulverize the criminal who dared to assault her. But just as I could not be there, the police could not either, not for five minutes. As it happens, five minutes can be the rest of your life in a violent situation.

Contrast this to the video I made (Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work - turns out it's been duplicated by several viewers!), which contains the same terror, panic and fear, but also the will to survive. Rather than waiting for the police, the terrified woman was able to use a gun to neutralize the attacker.

When I see these videos...when I see the horrible things that can and do happen, and the need to protect and preserve innocent life, it is incomprehensible to me that there are those that still advocate disarming the Citizen.

Why You Should Never Talk to the Police

2009-07-07T21:30:00.000-07:00

A fellow sheepdog friend of mine posted two video lectures he found online regarding how -- or how NOT -- to deal with law enforcement in the event that you are charged with a crime, detained for questioning, or even interviewed as part of an investigation.

Even if you, like me, never expect to encounter police officers in a hostile situation, these are important videos to watch. This is especially true for law-abiding citizens who carry concealed or open weapons in self-defense.

And let me state plainly for the record, this is not in any way oppositional to police officers. They are brave men and women who risk their lives to promote general safety. I have gotten along with any and every law enforcement officer I have had the pleasure of meeting. (Of course, I have never been so much as ticketed for speeding either.) This is not any sort of anti-police sentiment whatsoever. This is simply sound legal counsel for anyone who may come in contact with law enforcement at some point in the future.

On the Use and Power of Stories

2009-07-03T23:28:00.000-07:00

I've never been a fan of that apple-pie-and-porch-swing rendition of the Bible known as The Message, but if there's one utility it does serve, it's converting the sometimes archaic wording and images of the Bible into modern-day terms.

Sometimes the fact that the world of about 26 AD is so foreign and puzzling to us that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus appealed to incredibly contemporary and commonplace images like farming, taxes, shepherding, lamps and fruit trees for illustration. It takes scholars who studied the era to tell us that the "weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth" descriptions of hell were analogous to the burning trash heap outside Jerusalem, or to underscore the significance of the prodigal son's father running to his son (IE, socially inappropriate for men to run like that).

Of course, Jesus "cheated"; being one with the omniscient Designer before time, these analogies for life were built in before humans walked the earth to see them.

Sometimes I wonder how that ordinary would translate over into today. Did the angels of the Bible carry swords because that was their preferred method, or because that was the weapon of the day? Would angels today carry guns if they appeared today? It sounds a little goofy, but it's a fair question. (And I believe angels do still appear today, though perhaps not to where we recognize them.) It sounds anachronistic, but that's the whole point; Christ was entirely modern for his day. And really, while being deep and profound, He was also extremely ordinary, which is what kept some from believing, because they had sensationalist images of their messiah that held them back.

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would be if He came in today's world rather than two thousand years ago. Would there be parables about cars, eBay, Wal-Mart?

In his book "Eli", Bill Myers attempts to dramatize an alternate world in which the messiah comes in a modern-day world. He is born in the back of a laundromat rather than a stable, and worshiped by hippies rather than shepherds. In his introduction, Myers makes no apologies about exploring this notion with the firm knowledge that nothing in our world would be as it is now without Christ's arrival as it was. And the whole question is really a moot point anyway, because we are told that Christ came to earth "in the fullness of time", meaning that an omniscient God saw all possibilities, factors and variables and elected that point in time to enact His plan of redemption. Some who look back at the timeline of history note that with Rome's expanded highway system, the prominence of Jerusalem in merchant travel, and civilization being just prior to an expansion across continents, it makes perfect sense to start the seeds of salvation at just the right time.

Returning to the notion of stories...some time ago, I was talking about one of my favorite topics, the Lord of the Rings series, and a friend suggested that it and the fantasy genre was not altogether useful, and perhaps even harmful. I disagreed, asserting that a story is the most powerful and instrumental of teaching tools. I base this in part on the methods that Jesus Himself used, but also in my own experience.

People love to hear stories, or to read them, or to watch them, and without necessarily trying, we can learn and be taught so much by them.

"In order to comprehend the experience one is living in," wrote author Walter Wangerin, "he must, by imagination and by intellect, be lifted out of it. He must be given to see it whole; but since he can never wholly gaze upon his own life while he lives it, he gazes upon the life that, in symbol, comprehends his own. Art presents such lives, such symbols. Myth especially - persisting as a mother of truth through countless generations and for many disparate cultures, coming therefore with the approval not of a single people but of people - myth presents, myth IS, such a symbol, shorn and unadorned, refined and true. And when the one who gazes upon that myth suddenly, in dreadful recognition, cries out, "There I am! That is me!" then the marvelous translation has occurred; he is lifted out of himself to see himself wholly."

The Corps-à-corps of Hypocrisy

2009-07-01T21:15:00.000-07:00

Oh dear, another scandal is rocking the front pages.

Or rather, was, until Michael Jackson died. You know, I think Mark Sanford might have had a hand in that...

This time, yet another politician got caught with his pants down, South Carolina's Governor Sanford. And this latest sets into motion a time-honored string of actions in the political sphere, the inevitable clash of party values.

Republicans/conservatives (in general) smack their foreheads at the flagrant and incompetent dealings of one of their own, and then retort that if he were a Democrat, he would be propped up, supported and even venerated by many on the left who continue to support philandering heroes such as Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards and Barney Frank.

They are also upset that Democrats suddenly seem to care...a good portion of liberal philosophy is based on moral relativism, looser moral standards and greater tolerance of loose sexual behavior. Yet, when they smell scandal in the air, they suddenly sprout massive "moral" implants and become deeply troubled by a candidate's conduct and question his capacity to continue to serve.

Like most implants, these morals may look good on the surface, but are strikingly and absurdly fake.

Democrats, meanwhile, are busy accusing Republicans -- the party of family values and standards -- of hypocrisy because of the many Republicans who have been caught cheating.

"We thought you were the party of values!" the proverbial Democrat Donkey jeers.

"We thought you didn't care about their private lives!" the Republican Elephant shoots back.

"We thought you DID!" the Donkey returns.

And so it goes.

But Republicans take their own to task more than the Democrats do, that much is certain. While Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, Larry Craig and Mark Foley have all been collectively spanked by their party and sent to bed without supper, the Clintons, Jacksons and Kennedies of the world continue to rock on with full support from their party.

In the end, both parties live up to their standards.

But what to do when one party has a whimsical affair with values for the sole purpose of beating the other party over the head with them? The question remains...who is the real hypocrite?

A Little Fun With Solicitors

2009-06-29T19:27:00.000-07:00

Late one night, I'm on Yahoo instant messenger when I get a message from a stranger. I figure it's just some other "webcam" nut doing a hit-and-run, but this one is different, and keeps saying hi. I think for a moment that maybe it's someone I know, and actually ask. Come to find out, it's just someone selling something. The chance for anonymous interaction with a salesperson is just too delicious to pass up, and the following hilarity ensued:

“samantha”: Hi
“samantha”: How are you?
“samantha”: Hello Friend this is Samantha
Dave: Samantha who.
“samantha”: Well friend i am a webmaster
“samantha”: We offer various seo services such as directory submission article submission for your site at FREE of cost
Dave: Why are you writing to me.
“samantha”: We also design logos baners templates icons headers at FREE of cost
“samantha”: Well you own a blog right?
“samantha”: http://www.daveloneranger.blogspot.com
Dave: I am not in a position to say.
“samantha”: I visited your blog site and it was pretty cool
“samantha”: Why Dave?
Dave: Because...They might find out.
“samantha”: What
“samantha”: It will help increase your site traffic
Dave: Please...if They knew I was talking to you...
“samantha”: Hey come on dont get scared
“samantha”: I am just offering these seo services at FREE of cost
Dave: I know, and that's great, but I really want to keep my ears. I saw what happened to the last one.
“samantha”: What happened?
Dave: I can't...I mustn't.
Dave: There's just too much jello at stake.
“samantha”: Ok
Dave: You're a doll, thanks for caring. Return to your life, and I shall return to "mine"...
“samantha”: Ok fine

[Real names redacted]

Note to "Samantha": If you really read this blog and are just some freelancer trying to make a start in the world, then I hope you'll forgive a bit of fun. But I'm not stupid; you don't spend your time cruising Yahoo IM just to offer "free" services, and we both know that my blog is not going to lift you into career web design, so really, you were the one taking up my time.

Next time, my overlord commanders suggest you just have some jello.

Music - The Other Superpower

2009-06-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

It was the last semester of my senior year, and I only needed three classes to graduate. (Actually four, but the fourth was easily done away via a CLEP test.) So I've got room for some recreational classes, and I mention it to a friend in London, who knows I've always wanted to learn music. "Take piano," she says.

Schwing! Light bulb goes on.

If you graphed my interest in music, it's been an upward spike since around 2001. It actually started with Alan Jackson's September 11th-themed Where Were You? (When the World Stopped Turning). The melody wasn't particularly gripping but the words hit home. I started flipping on country music stations a little more frequently. (It's Kentucky...there's at least three of them.) Soon enough, I began hearing songs about me, that I could identify with or that entertained. I sometimes checked out the contemporary/pop stations too and found a few that were interesting. Once Celtic Woman hit the airwaves in 2005, my interests opened up to the (sometimes ambiguous) Celtic genre. Things took an operatic/classical bent when I listened to some of my sister's Josh Groban albums. Thanks to Pandora, all sorts of other classical influences began to trickle in, such as Paul Cardall, Jim Brickman and Tim Janis. Soundtracks filtered in early, probably starting with the Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack by Howard Shore.

Within Temptation took me down an interesting, slightly darker path, upon which I expound some here. Somehow, their epic choral symphonic blend made the metal side not only bearable but enjoyable. (It's also a great way to bring one to the battle mindset in preparation for Krav Maga.)

Once Phil Collins hit a common denominator with "On My Way" (one of only a few songs I enjoyed during my tenure behind the jewelry counter at Kohl's) and songs from Tarzan ("You'll Be In My Heart"), I looked more closely into his music. The guy mostly sang about life, love and loss (often a combination of the three) and he had a jazzy, sad sort of sound that appealed to me. "Can't Stop Loving You" is probably one of my favorite songs across any genre. As it turns out when I purchased more of his music, they call it "rock." Never thought of myself as a rock music type for one very important reason; I'm not. But then, neither is most of his music.

So excepting rap, 99% of heavy metal, and most other unwholesome, uncouth, ear-bleeding music, my interests have been increasingly broadening.

But I digress...back to the part where I get in on the act.

Years before, I took piano classes from a grandmotherly instructor who was accustomed to teaching 6-year-olds, so there was doubtless a significant teaching gap. That's probably why I retained virtually none of my lessons. My sister on the other hand took to it, and in good time was playing well. Whenever she sat down to play, I was torn between listening with enjoyment and listening with envy.

It was reading the music that was most daunting. It seemed I could never glance at ten lines on a page with dots scribbled in at various intervals and translate them into 88 keys. It was like learning to read all over again. And if each note is a word, eventually you progress to "reading" several "words" at the same time and in rapid order! Nevertheless, as she plays, it's sounding better and better to hear music from Lord of the Rings pour out of the piano I'm sitting next to.

So, long story short, this business student is motivated by the time he walks into his first piano class.

Motivated or not, he's also at a disadvantage. Most of these students are music majors who have had a solid background in music theory. (And who also don't cut their hair. What's with that?)

As the semester progresses, I realize that there are a lot of things I don't plan on needing a lot, like how to identify half/quarter/eighth notes, timing, etc. (Reason being I don't plan on teaching myself a melody from scratch. There's tons of music I'm already intimately familiar with, and as it happens, I have a great ear for tunes.)

There were plenty of times I was still lost, but I made quick progress, and even the teacher seemed impressed. My semester project became Josh Groban's February Song. I only make it through the first two or three pages, and a miniature recital (just for my classmates, a daunting eight or nine of them!) found my knees shaking and a foot squarely on the pedal the whole way through. (The bass on the piano was also, as my teacher described, "muddy" which was disappointing because much of the song is bass notes.)

The semester's over now, of course, but I'm armed with a new (if somewhat faltering) superpower...I can pick my way through music on the piano.

Since then, I've been like a kid at the buffet, delighted and overwhelmed by the possibilities and taking some of every dish. I began making copies of my sister's sheet music, rifling through stacks of old sheet music at home, and even purchasing some online. Here's a brief list:

So She Dances (Josh Groban)

The Dance (Garth Brooks)

Live to Love (Paul Cardall)

Caledonia (Celtic Woman)

February Song (Josh Groban...of course)

People Ain't No Good (Nick Cave)

Watermark (Enya)

On Your Shore (Enya)

From Where I Am (Enya)

Fallen Embers (Enya)

Against All Odds (Phil Collins)

Evening Falls (Enya)

Remember When It Rained (Josh Groban)

Sanctuary (Secret Garden)

Our Farewell (Within Temptation)

Sanctuary (Secret Garden)

Hymn to Hope (Secret Garden)

A Day Without Rain (Enya)

Send Me A Song (Celtic Woman)

Moonlight Sonata - 1st Movement (Beethoven)

Eowyn's Theme/Rohan - Howard Shore

And there's plenty more...there's sheets from Sound of Music, Lord of the Rings, Prince of Egypt, Narnia, tons of Christmas music, and plenty of transcribed music from the internet, including portions of Murray Gold's magical Doctor Who themes.

Unfortunately, the buffet analogy I just used a moment ago holds true for the consumption of the buffet dishes...I'm taking bites out of each one and not finishing. And I'm still envious of my sister, who can hammer out a poignant "Face of Boe" rendition with skill and ease I still lack.

Still, this is a skill I plan on furthering if not mastering. The good news is, this buffet is endless, isn't fattening, and may even lend itself to making my own dishes in the future.

Considering that I've only been at it for about six months, I daresay I'm..."On My Way"

Junk DNA: Reverting to Junk Science

2009-06-18T22:27:00.000-07:00

Anyone who reads this blog (all two of you) knows that I love Doctor Who. Whenever I try to recount the plot of an episode I've seen, I'm left realizing that to the uninitiated, the show sounds absolutely nuts. (Unless we're talking about the rogue episode "Love & Monsters" then I'd agree, not one of their better ones.)

But I must register a complaint about the episode I've most lately seen, "The Lazarus Experiment". You see, for once when the Doctor blurted out an explanation (regarding the mutated scorpion-like monster with a human face clawing and trying to consume him and his companion) I understood him. The idea was that the beast was a man who'd put himself through a machine to alter his DNA and make him young again, but the Doctor notes that in doing so, he activated so-called "junk DNA" in his code.

Supposedly, scientists think that we still have non-coding portions of DNA in our genes, and since they consider us products of millions of years of speciation, they think our genetic code is like a refrigerator that's been neglected for weeks; chock-full of useless leftovers.

Star Trek and other shows have played off this idea, suggesting (at least in fiction) that by mutating the genes, they can somehow reactivate so-called extinct portions of the code and revert the human back to an evolutionary ancestor. Star Trek: The Next Generation had an episode based on this folly, where members of the crew were (re)turned into various primordial creatures.

The idea of junk DNA is based on one and only one scientific fact; scientists haven't identified or don't yet understand the functions for between 90% and 98% of our genetic code. Given their assumptions about evolution, they automatically assume that absence of identified function is an identified absence of function and brand it "junk DNA" and unworthy of further research.

But they're so wrong.

Back when I was arguing this topic more heavily, I set up an RSS feed for news articles that talked about junk DNA; it was an area of special interest because any scientist who stepped past his or her preconceived notions were constantly debunking this idea of junk by finding function for portions of the genome that they didn't know existed.

Examples:

A list of assorted articles from 2007 about finding function in DNA

Article admitting evolutionary assumptions about DNA get in the way of research (Also notes finding function)

Some nice headlines from March '09 about junk DNA

(Trust me, the above merely scratches the surface. There are some archives here and here on the subject. A visit to junkdna.com might prove enlightening as well.)

In fact, I predicted to myself after starting this blog entry that I could return to my RSS feed and find very recent functions of "junk DNA" uncovered. My prediction was validated...

'Junk' DNA Proves To Be Highly Valuable (Science Magazine, June 2009)
So-called junk DNA may not be junk at all (May 2009)

Doctor Who episodes are always absurd, but always delightfully entertaining. A bulwark of creative genius engineers those plots, and the resulting strangeness just smacks of that peculiar strangeness that truth often has. But sometimes the suspension of disbelief is a fine line for me, and when the Doctor offers an explanation that even I know is scientifically false, it jars that suspension just slightly.

Laughter, the Best Medicine

2009-06-06T22:16:00.000-07:00

I tend to live my life by the saying "if you can laugh your way through anything, you can laugh your way through everything." That doesn't mean not taking things seriously, or being goofy and stupid all the time. It just means learning not to take everything so abominably serious. It means to take stock of a situation and, with the knowledge that you'll laugh about it in the future, going ahead and laughing about it in the present.

You might try it some time.

It is easy enough to be pleasant
When life flows by like a song,
But the man worth while is the one who will smile
When everything goes dead wrong.
For the test of the heart is trouble,
And it always comes with the years,
And the smile that is worth the praises of earth
Is the smile that shines through tears.

It is easy enough to be prudent
When nothing tempts you to stray,
When without or within no voice of sin
Is luring your soul away;
But it's only a negative virtue
Until it is tried by fire,
And the life that is worth the honour on earth
Is the one that resists desire.

By the cynic, the sad, the fallen,
Who had no strength for the strife,
The world's highway is cumbered to-day -
They make up the sum of life;
But the virtue that conquers passion,
And the sorrow that hides in a smile -
It is these that are worth the homage on earth,
For we find them but once in a while.

Report: Successes & Failures in Louisiana's 2008 Session

2009-06-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

The following is a final paper I submitted for a political science class in spring 2009.

Louisiana:
A report on Gubernatorial Successes & Failures in the 2008 Legislative Session

By David Burnett
Introduction

Louisiana has been chosen as the focus of this paper because because there are a number of distinct features about the state which make it unique in the country. It is the only state to have been ruled by the Spanish and the French at the same time, the influences of which continue to dominate the political culture. Louisiana’s economy is largely petrochemical and agricultural. Historically, it has largely been both Democrat and black, yet has voted for Republican candidates on the national level. Additionally, several unique and unconventional circumstances have occurred in the past five years which have altered the state – and arguably, the national – political landscape significantly. Most notably, hurricanes Rita and Katrina devastated the state, and temporarily put Louisiana on a national stage, front and center.

This paper focuses on the actions of the newly-elected Governor Jindal in Louisiana, his focus on ethics, education and public health, the extent of his power and authority in the state and his use of it in two special legislative sessions and the 2008 General Assembly.

Background: Climate

One of Louisiana’s foremost distinctions is its adherence to Napoleonic Code rather than English Common Law. This concept has far-reaching consequences; it effectively negates the concept of legal precedent in its judicial governance, which creates a need for specialized law study in the state, and affects property and family rights laws. This oddity sets the state apart from every other of the 49 states in the Union.[1] The strong French and Spanish influences responsible for the Napoleonic or “Civil Law” code are also a factor in Louisiana’s districts being known as “parishes” instead of counties.

The state is also one of the southern-most, and its position near the Gulf of Mexico means it is heavily involved in the seafood and oil industries. Louisiana managed approximately $40.2 billion in exports in 2008, with nearly $16 billion (38%) in agricultural exports, with petroleum and coal products second at $10 billion (24%).[2]

Louisiana is among the top ten states for total African American residents, and is third in the nation for black residents per capita.[3] As of 2009, approximately 30% of registered voters were black, with only about 3% of them registered as Republicans, compared with about 65% of registered voters being white, 24% of whom are registered as Republicans.[4]

The state struggles with various low rankings. It ranks 50 out of 51 in citizens with education levels of high school degrees or higher.[5] It is number 2 for number of poor citizens, with 19.4% of the state living below the poverty line.[6] As of March 2009, it ranked 7th for unemployment.[7] According to Statemaster.com’s summary for the state, Louisiana “leads the nation in homicides per capita, the per capita number of state and federal prisoners in jail, as well as relatively high levels of aggravated assaults and violent crimes,” also noting high sexually transmitted disease rates, low healthcare rates, and rates of child deaths.[8]

Background: Politics

In 2005, a category three hurricane came ashore from the Gulf of Mexico and wreaked havoc on Louisiana and its surrounding neighbors. After dams, levees and sea walls failed, inhabitants who failed to heed the orders to leave were stranded, and some lost their lives, and causing roughly $81 billion in damage to property.[9] The matter quickly became political as victims, politicians and media hosts sought to place blame. Louisiana’s Governor Kathleen Blanco, New Orleans’ mayor Ray Nagin, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and President Bush all faced public relations troubles due to action or inaction taken in the hurricane’s aftermath.

Michael Brown, the head of FEMA was fired.[10] Mayor Ray Nagin rebounded to win reelection,[11] but lost many former supporters. President Bush’s approval numbers continued to slip after his handling of the disaster, ranking among the lowest in departure approval ratings when he left office.[12]

Following the hurricanes, the state lost more than a million residents as citizens fled to other states. A full third of these citizens never returned.[13] Many of the remaining inhabitants relocated; the population of Baton Rouge doubled in size after Katrina, threatening to divide the formidable New Orleans parish control in Louisiana’s General Assembly. This change may also impact future redistricting, dividing voting blocs crucial to the Democrat party.[14] While these population shifts certainly affect the state demographics and voting numbers, the shift in population also indicates the loss of at least one seat in congress, as well as a decrease in federal funding.

Oddly enough, despite this population exodus, Louisiana reported its highest voter turnout ever in the 2008 presidential election.[15] This may possibly be attributed to the high percentage of blacks living in Louisiana and presumably voting for a black candidate, although Mayor Ray Nagin’s voting support as a function of race has been volatile.[16]

Following on the scandals of disaster management, Governor Kathleen Blanco did not even try to seek reelection.[17] which cleared the way for Congressman Bobby Jindal to win election.[18] Though Jindal had sought the office in 2003, he was narrowly defeated in a runoff against Kathleen Blanco. His victory in 2008 was the result of defeating eleven other contenders in the nonpartisan primary.

Jindal’s victory came with many firsts; the first Indian-American to hold a governorship, the youngest governor in the United States, and the first to win an open gubernatorial election since Louisiana’s nonpartisan primary system was installed. [19]

Jindal made good on his promise to call a special session of the legislature, concentrating heavily on ethics reforms for the state. Specifically, Jindal called for vast new accountability and disclosure requirements for the personal finances of legislators, judges and most other elected officials, as well as greater transparency in lobbyist finances. Jindal sought to crack down on corruption by eliminating taxpayer-funded pensions for corrupt officials, and to remove the ability for politicians to use public funds to pay/hire family members. He also sought to limit campaign finance, and disclosure of any third-party ad sponsorship.

These goals were far from token; the language was written very specifically with the intent of preventing legislators from tampering with it. And just in case legislative support was not sufficient, Jindal toured the state to gain support for his agenda. [20] Weeks later, the General Assembly voted to pass the measures on financial disclosure (albeit in weakened form), conflict of interest with state contracts, and lobbyist transparency. He did not succeed with removing public funding of pensions for convicted politicians, nor in preventing family members from being hired. The session victories, however, were called a “home run” by the governor.[21]

Governor Jindal then called a second special session just a month later to deal with financial spending proposals, tax incentives and tax breaks. Spending proposals included millions on highway and infrastructure improvements, clean-up from past hurricanes and protection from future ones, tax deductions for families with children in private schools, and to remove a sales tax on business utilities.[22],[23] Of the second session, Jindal stated that the legislature had batted a thousand. – a total spending package of $1.1 billion was passed, as well as nearly all of Jindal’s session goals.[24]

With the regular session occurring just days after the close of the second special session, Governor Bobby Jindal had clearly taken control of the legislative scene even before the traditional session had begun.

Regular Session Priorities

With these successes pocketed, Governor Jindal took the stage for the session-opening speech in which he outlined his priorities for the regular session. Education and jobs were a prime focus; Jindal iterated his goal to create a Louisiana where “every young person has an opportunity to get a high-paying job, start a great career, get a quality education, access the best health care, and raise a family in a safe community.”

In accordance with these goals, Jindal sought to bridge what he called a training gap between available jobs and available workers, and educate the growing population to fill jobs in coming years. The elaborated goals (those with any defined measure of success) are split into three general categories – labor and jobs, education, and welfare/public safety.

The following are specific and semi-specific goals stated by Governor Jindal pertaining to labor and the job force:

Prioritize community and technical programs to meet the demands of employers.

Establish “centers of excellence” on college campuses

Invest $10 million annually to fund training programs

Transform workforce development efforts; establish the "Louisiana Fast Start Program" for quick response to workforce opportunities and challenges in the state.

A “Day One Guarantee” that workers could begin work on the first day of employment

Maximize the role of business in workforce training programs and tear down the current structure to build a re-designed, well-coordinated system geared toward a 21st century workforce.

Replace the existing Department of Labor

$4.5 million for skills training

The following are elaborated goals pertaining to education reforms and improvements:

High school redesign – early participation in schools

$4 million for early enrollment programs

$2.5 million for LA4 program

Establish a Teacher Bill of Rights

$70 million in teacher pay raises

$8.5 million into the Recovery School District

Towards the end of his speech, the governor made some mention of sundry public health and safety goals, such as:

Mental healthcare - $89 million in additional mental healthcare ($26 million - $60 million)

Creating a Louisiana Health Care Consumers Right To Know Act

Decreasing Non-emergency use of emergency rooms

Tighter restrictions on sexual predators, including doubling or tripling offender sentences, as well as making permanent the label of sex offender

$6.5 million for an additional 50 Louisiana State Police Officers and will increase patrol trooper strength to 657 across the state.[25]

The Legislature

Louisiana’s legislature composition is currently held by a Democrat majority in both houses. The Senate has 39 total members, 15 of which are Republican. The House has 105 members, 50 of which are Republicans.[26] Therefore, Governor Jindal was working with a legislature controlled by a slim majority of the oppositional party in both wings. (A potential factor in this control may be term limits installed in 1995 which threaten a number of established and long-standing Democrat officials; thus paring a Democrat majority down from an overall gauge of state-mandated values to a simple vote count.[27])

An asset in Jindal’s camp, therefore, was the appointment of Jim Tucker as the Speaker of the House. Tucker, the first Republican since Reconstruction, made overtures of bipartisanship in committee appointments, but describes himself as a Reagan Republican[28], and therefore doubtless an ally for Governor Jindal’s Republican agenda.

2008 Session Successes

Governor Jindal chose to implement many of his expressed priorities through his budget, which came to the Assembly as House Bill 1.[29] (This paper will progress by goals fulfilled, in sequential order as listed above.) Among them was the promised workforce/labor achievements: $3 million was invested in the promised “Fast Start” program, and multiple other labor programs.

However, many of Jindal’s goals were fulfilled in one sweep with HB1104, which created the Louisiana Workforce Commission, replacing the existing Department of Labor and making good on Jindal’s promise to revise the workforce policy and appropriating $10 million dollars worth in training programs. The budget approved contained the promised $4.5 million investment in skills training.

Dual and early enrollment incentives in the form of $4.5 million to the Department of Education were included in HB1, but provisions were also in SB482 regarding private and homeschoolers.

On education, the Teacher Bill of Rights was passed.[30] Teacher salaries, however, were more difficult to gauge. The accomplishment touted was a $1,000 average increase in teacher pay. To determine whether this was close to the $70 million increase required consulting and comparing the 2007 and 2008 teacher salary totals multiplied by number of teachers. In 2007, the total salaries (without additional compensation) amounted to approximately $2,088,820,347. In 2008, the amount was $2,196,937,470, a difference of $108,117,123.[31] Therefore, we may safely be able to conclude that budgeted salaries for public teachers was comfortably increased.

Likewise, as planned, the Recovery School District received the additional $8.5 million from the budget (HB1).

Multiple bills addressed perceived weaknesses in healthcare programs. SB182, SB155, HB930, HB366, SB228 and others augmented healthcare in Louisiana in multiple ways. Most notably, SB287 created the Healthcare Consumer’s Right to Know Act.

The final goal listed was a $6.5 million increase in funding for, and to increase the numbers of troopers and police officers. This too found passage in HB1, the budget bill.

However, not all objectives needed a legislative stamp of approval. Jindal’s “Day One Guarantee” was accepted and implemented by college networks directly.[32]

2008 Session Failures

Jindal’s pledge to increase funding for the LA4 program (an early childhood development initiative) seems to have been sidelined in the budget. Although the program is spoken of in HB1, no funding increases are discussed.

The goal of establishing “Centers of Excellence” on college campuses was also not addressed.

Somewhat less of a failure, but certainly not a success, was HB155, which “Urges and requests the Department of Health and Hospitals to study the development and implementation of civil commitment procedures for the treatment of sexually violent predators and child sexual predators.” There is no immediate and measureable outcome from forming a committee.

While classification as success or failure is debatable, the governor used a line-item veto option to reject 258 provisions in the budget, the most in Louisiana history and more than double the previous number of vetoes.[33] as well as creating controversy by vetoing SB672 regarding legislator pay raise.

Public Response

Public approval data has been difficult to find for Governor Jindal. Two data points were uncovered: a 77% approval of Jindal at the start of the session (7% disapproving), and a 59% approval afterward (36% disapproving).[34] No further explanation or elaboration of these approval numbers could be located.

A new poll released during the compilation of this report, however, indicates that Jindal’s approval number rests at 67%[35] which indicates that, despite being down 10% from the previous session, the governor still has a solid approval base going into the second legislative session.

Of note, legislators passed SB296, presumably in response to Governor Jindal’s two special sessions, which called for a vote on a constitutional amendment that all “extraordinary” session proclamations be issued five days before the session commences. The amendment was voted on and passed comfortably with 60% of the vote.

There were six other constitutional amendments put forth to the public, two of which passed. The successful measures addressed term limits for public boards and commissions, and provisions for rapid replacement of legislators called up to active duty. Amendments which were defeated related to severance taxes, property sales and confiscations, and retirement investment.[36] (Louisiana’s constitution is frequently amended; since its 1974 incarnation, 28 of the past 33 elections have seen one or more amendments proposed.[37])

Conclusion

The Governor’s specific proposals are only means to an end; not an end themselves. Though the Governor saw many of his legislative goals met, time will tell whether or not his true goals of repairing and improving labor, education and public welfare will be met. Since the session only ended ten months ago, it seems both overly difficult and overly hasty to gauge the success of these long-term projects. However, it is clear that Louisiana’s freshman governor has made a splash in the state and instigated many overhauls to the state government. His successes in Louisiana politics have even caught the eye of some national Republicans who have mentioned his name as a presidential or vice-presidential contender in the 2012 elections.

It is clear from the goals listed and the corresponding number of them directly addressed in the legislature (most of them successfully) that Governor Jindal had many favorable aspects that granted him significant sway in the 2008 General Assembly, but one of the strongest factors could well be the “honeymoon” period of his governorship, in addition to the fact that Louisiana was both desperate and ripe for change in leadership after its previous leaders scandalized. The governor seems to have recovered a comfortable share of public approval, but his gubernatorial authority will likely see more difficult testing in the 2009 legislative session.

Citations:

[1] Engber, Daniel. 2005. “Louisiana's Napoleon Complex: The French influence on Pelican state jurisprudence” Slate.com, September 12.
http://www.slate.com/id/2126126/ (April 29, 2009)

[2] World Trade Center of New Orleans. 2008. “Louisiana Exports by Industry”
http://www.wtcno.org/tradestats/industry-naics.htm (May 1, 2009)

[3] Statemaster.com. “Total Black Population (per capita) (most recent) by state”
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_tot_bla_pop_percap-total-black-population-per-capita (April 29, 2009)

[4] Louisiana Secretary of State. 2009. “Registration Statistics – Statewide”
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/RegistrationStatisticsStatewide/tabid/758/Default.aspx (May 1, 2009)

[5] Statemaster.com. “High school diploma or higher, by percentage (most recent) by state”
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_hig_sch_dip_or_hig_by_per-high-school-diploma-higher-percentage (April 29, 2009)

[6] Statemaster.com. 2004. “Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months (For Whom Poverty Status is Determined)”
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level (April 30, 2009)

[7] Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2009. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics: Unemployment Rates for States”
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm (April 30, 2009)

[8] Statemaster.com. “Louisiana Background Stats”
http://www.statemaster.com/state/LA-louisiana/bac-background (April 27, 2009)

[9] National Hurricane Center. 2005. “Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Katrina”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf (April 28, 2009)

[10] Mills, Jim and Sarah Herndon. 2005. “FEMA Chief Brown Resigns” Fox News, September 13 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169169,00.html (April 28, 2009)

[11] Corley, Cheryl. 2006. “Nagin Re-Elected as Mayor of New Orleans” NPR, May 21. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5420659 (April 28, 2009)

[12] CBS News. 2009. “Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent” January 16.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml (April 28, 2009)

[13] U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. “2005 American Community Survey Gulf Coast Area Data Profiles”
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/gulf_coast/tables/tab1_katrina04000US22v.htm (May 1, 2009)

[14] Alford, Jeremy. 2005. “CENSUS; Population Loss Altering Louisiana Political Landscape” The New York Times, October 4.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E6DF1130F937A35753C1A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all (May 1, 2009)

[15] US Election Atlas. 2008. “Presidential General Election Data by state (% of Voting Age Population)”
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS (May 1, 2009)

[16] Nossiter, Adam. 2006. “Vote For Mayor Points To Change In New Orleans” The New York Times, April 24.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E0DD123FF937A15757C0A9609C8B63 (May 1, 2009)

[17] Cillizza, Chris. 2007. “Louisiana Governor Announces She Won't Seek Reelection” The Washington Post, March 21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001437.html (April 28, 2009)

[18] Fox News. 2007. “GOP Congressman Bobby Jindal Wins Louisiana Governor's Race” October 21.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303782,00.html (April 28, 2009)

[19] Moller, Jan. 2007. “Jindal Wins” The Times-Picayune, October 21.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1192947730119780.xml&coll=1 (April 28, 2009)

[20] Barrow, Bill and Jan Moller. 2008. “Jindal's special session agenda is heavy on ethics” The Times-Picayune, February 1.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/jindals_special_session_agenda.html (April 28, 2009)

[21] Shuler, Marsha and Mark Ballard. 2008. “Jindal praises session” The Advocate, February 27.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/16014137.html (April 29, 2009)

[22] Barrow, Bill. 2008. “Jindal announces agenda for second special session of legislature” The Times-Picayune, March 4.
http://blog.nola.com/updates/2008/03/bill_barrow.html (May 1, 2009)

[23] Louisiana Office of the Governor. 2008. “Governor Jindal's Second Special Session Speech” March 8.
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=105 (May 1, 2009)

[24] Anderson, Ed and Robert Travis Scott. 2008. “Jindal 'bats a thousand' at session” The Times-Picayune, March 14.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/jindal_bats_a_thousand_at_sess.html (April 28, 2009)

[25] Louisiana Office of the Governor. 2008. “Governor Jindal's Regular Session Opening Speech” March 31.
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=134 (April 28, 2009)

[26] National Council of State Legislatures. 2008. “Louisiana Partisan Composition - Election Results”
http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/profile.cfm?yearsel=2008&statesel=LA (April 28, 2009)

[27] Cross, Dr.. 2008. “Term Limits and Representation in the Louisiana Legislature” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, Jan 09.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/2/4/5/p212457_index.html#citation (April 28, 2009)

[28] McCant, Shelia. 2008. “A Bit of History in Louisiana Speaker's Ascent” National Conference of State Legislatures
http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2008/08SLJulAug08_Learning-Online_Extra.htm (April 28, 2009)

[29] To prevent onerous links and footnotes to bill texts, all bills hereinafter referred to can be located by number at the Louisiana 2008 Regular Session Summary Page:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/archive/08rs/apprdate.htm

[30] Louisiana Department of Education. 2008. “Department Of Education Issues Statement Regarding Signing Of ‘Teachers’ Bill Of Rights’”
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/comm/pressrelease.aspx?PR=1048 (April 28, 2009)

[31] Louisiana Department of Education. 2007, 2008. “Planning, Analysis, and Information: Budgeted Average Salaries”
http://www.doe.state.la.us/LDE/pair/1486.html (April 30, 2009)

[32] Louisiana Office of the Governor. 2008. “Governor Bobby Jindal Announces Immediate Implementation of "Day 1 Guarantee," Key Part of Comprehensive Workforce Development Reforms” May 14. http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=219 (April 29, 2009)

[33] Louisiana Office of the Governor. 2008. “258 Vetoes of More Than $16 Million in HB 1, Most Vetoes in LA History” July 14.
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&catID=2&articleID=337&navID=12 (April 27, 2009)

[34] Niemi, Richard, Thad Beyle and Lee Sigelman. 2008. “State Governors 1958-2008 Database”
http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/jars.html (April 29, 2009)

[35] Barrow, Bill. 2009. “New poll: Jindal, Landrieu remain popular; Vitter slips since scandal” The Times-Picayune, April 29.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/04/new_poll_jindal_landrieu_remai.html (April 30, 2009)

[36] Louisiana Secretary of State. 2008. “Louisiana Secretary of State Official Election Results Results for Election Date: 11/04/08”
http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcms4&rqsdta=110408 (April 30, 2009)

[37] Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. 2008. “Guide to the Proposed Constitutional Amendments November 4, 2008”
http://www.la-par.org/Publications/PDF/ConstAmends2008.pdf (May 1, 2009)

© David Burnett 2009. All Rights Reserved. Contact the author for use, reference or citation.

All content of this paper, excepting quotations and where noted, are the original, intellectual property of David Burnett. This paper exists in paper and digital form with a university professor as well as in database form, and the contents thereof can be cross-referenced by other professors both inside and outside the state of Kentucky, to guard against plagiarism. Anyone using materials from this paper, or submitting the paper itself without permission or citation, is subject to disciplinary action by their educational institution.

On Colleges and Graduation

2009-06-05T18:15:00.000-07:00

A dozen thoughts scamper through my mind as I hold my graduation cap and gown, including Business & Economics tassel, and a blue cord for high grade achievement.

Who invented these gowns, and then decided that a graduate was not properly attired without one? They do, after all, look a bit absurd. (Bill Cosby’s routine with Theo’s flat-top graduation cap comes to mind.) But nevertheless…I earned this uniform, and by jove, I’m going to wear it. I’ve been through more than 40 classes to get this gear, and now that I’ve got it…oh dear, is this me getting a little nostalgic?

I start to look around the halls I hated and maybe even feared when I first started, and now that compulsory attendance is through, I’m almost starting to feel fond about them. And I’m thinking a hundred different thoughts about how this school is so messed up. How can the university expect to achieve their coveted Top 20 status, when they can’t even make the sink knobs turn the same direction? Every single sink is different; some knobs both turn left, some both right, and all manner of combinations in between. Seriously, what’s with that? It’s like a game of odds to see if you’ll actually see water on your first try. And what about those doorless stalls? I wouldn’t go near them, and I haven’t seen anyone who does. (To say nothing of the graffiti.)

What’s with that?

I ask that question about a hundred other things on this campus. What’s with the people who come to the “free speech” zone and preach their hateful version of Christianity all day long? It gave me multiple opportunities to plant seeds of the true Gospel, but it was still unpleasant and in bad taste.

And what’s with denying students the right to meaningful self-defense on campus? Why am I a responsible citizen licensed by my state to carry a concealed firearm for protection, but upon crossing an invisible barrier onto a college campus, I’m suddenly breaching an academic code of conduct and subject to expulsion? “Knock on wood” never was a good security policy.

I’m also thinking back to the multiplicity of ways in which I’m different than when I started. In a ton of ways, we graduates are radically different than the whippersnappers we wouldn’t admit to being when we started. In other ways, we just spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to get a little slip of paper saying we’re smart, educated, and ready for a job. Of course in reality, when interviewing for a job, that degree is only going to be part of the equation. We still have to impress them with skill sets we never learned in college.

Along that line, it occurs to me that college really doesn’t do a good job of preparing you for the “real world.” Really, it’s a farce; never again are you going to be in a classroom after four or five months of learning, required to regurgitate the culmination of those five months in the proper order on the paper in front of you, else you will not succeed.

For that matter, college spends the first two years or so teaching you material that you’ll seldom need, just to ensure that you’re a “well-rounded” individual, yet they teach you very little about practical life skills. In my ideal world, you would learn a little of everything. Medicine and first aid, finances and mechanics, car repair, electronics, cooking, CPR and so forth. In short, as author Robert Heinlein put it, “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

I can’t help but think about the grades I didn’t get. Dr. Cho’s awful political science class, where out of 90 examinees, only 10 got an A and 60% of the class got a C or lower. Or Dr. Yu’s class, where despite not speaking intelligible English, he also managed to fail utterly at genuine instruction of students. I sure wish he’d focused more on regression analysis. That was almost fun. (A mate in the econ department, and a data set from a professor in Florida helped me pass.) Still, it was cool to have the lead SEC football kicker in the class with me. That Finance 300 class was an absolute beast too…the first time I ever failed a test.

I remember Dr. Dahlstrom’s class, and how much like a politician he looked on stage, and how our final exam review was interrupted by a student proposing to his girlfriend. I could tell stories about half the professors, instructors and teaching assistants in the business department, and probably most of the political science professors. I’m still friends with many of them.

The classes I enjoyed the most are the ones that sparked creative streaks in my mind, to the point where I was furiously jotting down notes to myself for later; thoughts about blog entries, articles, arguments, philosophies, new insights on debate points I’ve shared, and so forth. Big Questions. They weren’t always related to the class material, but the class was clearly igniting the animus of the brain. In particular, my debate class of my final year. The professor had a way of plucking out abstract concepts of argumentation and rhetoric and crystallizing them inside a concrete frame of discussion, like a scientist putting an actual specimen under the microscope for investigation.

During my junior year, I was suddenly catapulted into some measure of public figure status, when I joined forces with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The idea was novel and not always well-received, but it led to local TV and radio appearances, a newspaper article about me in one of the state’s biggest papers, a position conducting media interviews, live radio appearances (at least one to a nationwide audience), a small amount of notoriety on campus, a conference in Washington DC, legislative efforts across multiple states, and eventually, a spot on the Board of Directors. That’s all been awesome, and it’s barely the beginning.

I’m also relieved. Mostly because, thanks to the fact that I transferred from the community college to the university just as the two were engaging in a corporate divorce, I had multiple loose ends to sew up…including proving to the college that I actually did take English 101. (One would think that when I take 200 level English courses for which ENG101 is prereq, it would be no great leap to assume I took 101.) I had to take some Microsoft Office certifications during that last year, approve a writing sample for a 2nd Tier English Writing Requirement, a CLEP test for sociology, and all sorts of fun details…on top of law school applications.

But transcending all the individual thoughts is the idea that I’ve actually done it. I’ve survived that beast men call “college” and I’ve conquered it. Better than that, I’ve excelled, and in a business program that required its fair share of difficult math classes.

Yet, I notice when you read the biographies of important figures past or present, the college degree – this great four-year struggle to get educated, enlightened and experienced in the Ways of the World – is mentioned only in passing, if it’s mentioned at all. Despite all the emphasis placed on this sacred education, in the end it’s little more than a springboard out into the Real World.

Fortunately, through various different experiences detailed in this blog entry and others, I feel myself more than capable of taking on the adventures that lie ahead. One of which may simply be to reenter the academic environment at a higher level…law school.

Bring it on.

"Many a venture herebefore
Hath fallen such as this;
May He that bore the grown of thorn
Bring us unto His bliss."

Here Comes Da Judge

2009-06-03T21:09:00.000-07:00

In the Disney/Pixar film Ratatouie, a food critic notes “In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment.”

The experience of judging high school debate was a learning curve from the beginning, but while it was a contest of nerves and wit for these high school students, it was an exercise in self-measurement and semi-formal jurisprudence for me.

It became readily apparent that most of these kids exhibited more dedication and skill for their age than most, and were more versed in presentation and argumentation than was I. And here they were at my university, quasi-experts in their given subject matter, most of them having traveled hundreds of miles and championed other debates. And they’re placing their rhetorical talents and future success in the matches under my purview; it’s up to me to issue a ruling on the best between the two teams.

Like most adults, underneath I’m questioning if I’m competent and capable of living up to the role. Kevin, a school counselor from New York and my cohort during the informal orientation, seemed to be pushing back the same doubts. But there’s not a lot of room for doubts here; I’m wearing a suit, for heaven’s sake. Like most adults, I’ve got to suck it up and act like I know what I’m doing.

Back up for plot exposition: I’m here because I signed up for a one credit hour class at the University of Kentucky, billed as a debate class. After not even being present for the first class (due to mislabeling; it wasn’t my fault), I made contact with the professor who explained that really, it was just a way for members of his college debate team to earn college credit for all of their work. However, he was willing to put a custom curriculum together so that I could still earn the credit, and after hearing some of my previous experience with argumentation, he thought I might make a good judge for the Tournament of Champions event taking place near the end of the semester. As it turns out, UK hosts the thing, and it's quite the to-do in the world of debating. It seems to be the famous event no one's ever heard of.

So on a somewhat drippy Saturday morning, I’m on a campus which would normally be deserted, but is instead a hive of activity with students and their coaches.

Kevin and I follow one of the debate coordinators to a basement room to watch her judge one of the first debates. The topic is not particularly interesting to me; whether or not the Employee Free Choice Act was good for the American people. While we watch, two teams of two each take positions. The first two present cases individually, with rebuttals, then in a two-person crossfire, then the other two members, second rebuttals, then a second two-person crossfire, and finally a grand crossfire. One student mentions a violation of a constitutional amendment in his presentation. Somewhat familiar with the document, I grab my pocket copy out of my laptop bag and consult it, finding no basis for the claim. I mention this privately to the judge, who responds that I may be right, but it’s the other team’s job to point this out.

The judge also introduces us to her informal system of judging each person and each team, using a diagram to fit each candidate in their own box. (I tried my own method for the first debate I judged, but quickly found hers worked better.)

The judge issues her verdict, and we file out of the room to make way for the next judge and students. The opponents, as will be the case for most of the rest of the debates, were hotly contesting the points during crossfire, and one could infer that they were bitter ideological enemies, until the debate ends and each member shakes hands (which, by the way, was against medical advice, thanks to scares about “swine flu”, which has yet to wipe out the human race) and makes chatty comments back and forth.

So that’s it, then. I head back to the debate office (once the site of most of the my informal classroom discussions on argumentation, it’s now grand central for judges) and pick up a ballot with my name on it, and the names of the kids I’m about to judge. Whoa.

I also find that I’m one of only a few natives to the area; everyone else is asking where the student center is, or where this building or that building is, or where restaurants are, and I get to draw on my knowledge of the area to help people.

I find my way to the classroom where my first debate is taking place. ("Finding my way" because after all, it’s not like I go to every building on campus; there are large portions I’ve never been to.) I rather pictured more of an audience. Instead, in most cases, I’m alone in the room with the two teams. This first time, one or two coaches were there for support. Hmm.

The teams commence their debate, and I begin scrawling notes to myself. Like any debate, there are good points and there are weak ones. Soon enough, it’s over, and I finish making notes. Though I allowed no prejudices to influence my vote, a winner began emerging even as the debate went on. Whether or not I agree with the Employee Free Choice Act is irrelevant; I have to judge based on who argued their side most effectively. Nothing external that I know (even a statement I know to be false that goes unchallenged by the other side) can factor in.

After hearing the ups and downs from five or six different teams, I soon became well-versed indeed in its merits! Politically, I do not agree with it. Yet, three of the four opinions I “handed down” went to the pro side. (IE, "the EFCA is good for the American people.")

Feedback is strictly at the discretion of the judge. I am usually the type that gives feedback, but while I was still finishing my notes, one of the team members asked “Sir, do you give feedback?”

Note to self: Get used to being called “sir.”

I said I would when I finished writing my notes and filling out the ballot, and offer my feedback and constructive criticism. I ask if they want to know who I will be marking as the winner, and both sides do. If disappointed at the outcome, neither side shows it, but it’s early in the debate stages, so a loss is not a crushing blow yet.

I have a large gap between the next debate. (Should have brought my laptop, but instead I spend time chatting with another judge or two, and reading from Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, which is an awesome read by the way.) I judge the next debate, once again offering feedback. One student mentions that few judges actually make comments on the presentation style; only the substance. (I had made comments such as, “when you present, your posture is hunched over to look at your notes. You might be more effective, authoritative and project your voice more if you stood erect” or “your crossfire sounded a bit hostile there, you may want to dial it back a bit to create a more positive image.”) I didn’t know this, but I thought it only made sense to offer as many tips as I could to these guys. As if they needed much; I later learned that many of these students had been accepted to such prestigious schools as Harvard, MIT, Stanford or Yale.

One’s faith about the younger generation is slightly uplifted.

Sunday, I leave church and return directly to campus. One of the debate coordinators hands me a ballot and tells me I’m “in for a treat” and says he picked me to judge this debate because I was such a good sport the previous day. (I was?) But it was a treat. The two teams packed multiple good points on both sides into their time-limited presentations, questioned precisely the weaknesses of points I had silently noted, and picked apart different definitions with legal precision. At the end, I congratulated both teams, told both what the debate coordinator had told me, and said that I had not been disappointed. (Most amusing in this debate was the argument about how Friedman changed his mind on EFCA. Both teams realized only after the debate that they were talking about two different Friedmans, Thomas and Milton.)

Here though, a potential conflict could have existed. Judging is a zero-sum game. Even if both teams (who, let’s face it, don’t really care about EFCA) had presented excellently, as these two had, I had to brand one the winner and one the loser. As luck would have it, I’ve already been informed that both teams are doing well in the tournament (no surprise) and will progress no matter what the outcome of this match. Whew.

Now everyone is biting their nails; the first round progressions are being posted, and everyone is anxious to know. I’m fortunate not to be under any pressure.

Once again, I have a long period between times, so this time I go find a free computer to browse on until my next debate.

There’s one last elimination debate to judge, and it turns out to be a humdinger. Everyone is murmuring about it. Two teams from the same school have been randomly matched up in the computer, which apparently makes things dicey. Both teams are happy to debate against each other, but the coaches want to make sure that purely objective judges are in place. This is an elimination round, so three are needed. Turns out I fit the bill of being 100% objective, so Kevin, some fellow from Florida and I are it. The room is small, but packed. The same format holds, and many of the same arguments, testimonies and experts are kicked back and forth. The end result is that, for the first time, I vote with the con side of the debate. Kevin sides with the other side, and the fellow from Florida reluctantly agrees with my vote. The losing team is slightly irate, feeling that they dominated the debate, and even makes some attempt to dispute the point with me.

But this was no 51/49 split; I felt one side outperformed the other by a comfortable margin. In the end, there was no right or wrong. Just my opinion, and once given, it was all that counted. High school debate or not, that seems like a lot of power.

Welcome to being a judge.

More Good News (May Edition)

2009-05-07T09:30:00.000-07:00

New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve

Bernanke: Economy should grow again later in 2009

All Stress Test Banks Are Solvent

More Good Economic News

2009-04-09T22:46:00.000-07:00

It looks like I'm on track for my prediction of recovery. In fact, even gloomy old CNN had an article that said recovery could be on the horizon. (It's to be expected since most media outlets lean to the left and want Barack Obama to succeed.)

I still remain unconvinced that the President has taken any actions that will have stimulated growth in the economy in such a short term, but it's a fuzzy line. Either way, we have new economic reports out:

Wells Fargo earnings surprise sends market higher (Still a negative spin, but as far as I can tell, Wells Fargo received taxpayer money only under the ill-advised Bush administration bailout)

New jobless claims fall more than expected to 654K

Trade deficit falls for 7th straight month in Feb

You know what? I have a sure fire way to get this economy turned around. Spread the word everywhere that the economy is going to rebound. Use the good news I've been posting. When someone talks about the economy being bad, say flippantly and with confidence that it will recover. If you can talk an economy down, you can jolly well talk it up. Try it in your own small way and see what happens. A ripple effect in the consumer confidence level just could result.

More Good News

2009-03-25T19:12:00.000-07:00

New home sales rise 4.7 percent in February

Durable goods orders rise unexpectedly in February

Obama's Withdrawal Problems

2009-03-25T18:05:00.000-07:00

President Obama (brief operational pause to add "Obama" to the customized Firefox dictionary) has a slight problem in his budding presidency...I don't know how else to describe it, except to say he's going through withdrawal.

Annette Nazareth, Treasury Department Deputy, withdrawn.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Surgeon General, withdrawn.

Tom Daschle, Health & Human Services secretary, withdrawn.

Gov. Bill Richardson, Commerce Secretary, withdrawn.

Sen. Judd Gregg, Commerce Secretary, withdrawn.

Nancy Killefer, Chief Performance Officer, withdrawn.

Charles Freeman, National Intelligence Council chair, withdrawn.

Jon Cannon, Deputy Administrator for the EPA, withdrawn.

This list doesn't include the should-have-withdrawns, including Hilda Solis (current Secretary of Labor) and Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury), both of whom had issues with paying taxes.

The power of appointments is one of the President's most important powers. These are the leaders who will shape public policy, and many of whom will have the President's ear for the next four years. Why then is there so much trouble finding clean candidates for these key posts, and why does the common theme of being accurate and timely with taxes run so clearly? Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had nominated so many would-be crooks?

Holy Good News, Batman!

2009-03-20T23:57:00.000-07:00

There's been some interesting bits of good news about the economy lately:

January Retail Sales Higher Than Expected

February Retail Sales Hold Steady, Despite Expectations

New-home construction logs unexpected gain

Stocks record 5th gain in six sessions

New jobless claims fall more than expected to 646K

This leads to an interesting question with various schools of thought.

The question: When and how much of it is Barack Obama's fault, and at what point can he fully take responsibility (credit AND blame) for the economy without claiming the mistakes of his predecessor?

Many rank-and-file Republicans are doing exactly what the Democrats did with Bush; hoping the economy doesn't do well, talking down positive reports, hyping negative ones. They would say that much economic woe (like the stock market fall, which can't be hailed as Bush's fault, as it responds to short-term stimuli) is Obama's fault, while any economic gain can't be to Obama's credit because his policies haven't had anything other than token effect on morale.

Democrats, naturally, want every success to be Obama's, and failure to be Bush's.

To me, it makes sense that a lot of long-term factors can't yet be Obama's fault (for example, he can't claim credit for January retail sales) and the stock market is short-term enough to blame/credit him. I don't have an answer to the question, but it can go either way, depending on how the economy progresses.

Obama's Cold Awakening

2009-03-20T23:54:00.000-07:00

President Obama and his friends on the left are suddenly finding out that mass consolidation of power is no easy task in a country where its leaders still rule by the just consent of the governed. So far, the President has had to backpedal on several issues, and has even come to part with his own party on some issues.

For starters, the Department of Defense backtracked on an attempt to curtail ammunition by tightening restrictions on recycled brass.

The President's pick for Attorney-General made good on his intent to reintroduce the phony "assault weapons ban" and found opposition from 65 House Democrats and some in the Senate.

Then the President was contemplating charging veterans for their own healthcare. Public outcry forced a U-turn on that move as well.

The President may not even have Democrats on his side for his budget

This bonus fracas is another example, but slightly different. The President and rank Democrats feigned outrage when they claimed to just be finding out that bailed out banking institution AIG was issuing large bonuses to their executives. This orchestrated fury despite explicit language that allowed unrestricted bonuses. But now, even more truths coming to light are making this administration look bad. Michelle Malkin notes that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner reported the bonuses to Congress long before they claimed to.

Senator Chris Dodd, the architect of the bonus protection clause, now states that officials in the Obama administration specifically asked that provision to go in!

Despite all this, rank Democrats have cobbled together a bill that would tax the bonuses away from the executives.

There's a slight problem with this. Actually, a HUGE problem with this, and it's likely the reason why the president asked the bonus protection to remain in there. By creating outrage, the president and Congress can have public support to tax away the bonus money from these "greedy" executives. The unsuspecting public cannot help but agree that the pilots of a bank that had to come calling for public assistance don't deserve millions of dollars in bonuses. The problem is that this sets up even more power for the government.

In the rush to demand government do the "right thing", there's a little technicality that most people overlook - to the delight of politicians. It's the question of whether or not the power was ever the government's to begin with. People lack the long-term vision to see that if you give the government the power to do the "right" thing (TAX those bonuses away from those abominable fat cats and give them to starving children on the street - and make haste!) that they forget they've just given the government the discretionary power of arbitrary taxation of private individuals. That, my friends, is a power far too great for any government to wield. Oh, it may not be Barack Obama. But ten, twelve, fifteen years down the road, we install a more radical president who has other plans about the direction this country should go. Yet he has the tools of vast power granted him by precedent because the American people agreed with Obama that the "right" thing needed to be done.

I am reminded of the "First they came" poem, and with your permission, will adapt it to this situation:

First, they taxed away the bloated paychecks of corporate executives. I said nothing - I was not an executive.

Then they came after rich investors, but I said nothing, because I was not a rich investor.

Next they taxed the comfortable salaries of doctors and lawyers. I was neither, so I said nothing.

When they decided to tax me...there was no one else left to speak out for me.

Obama's Economy Blitz

2009-03-15T21:41:00.000-07:00

You'll recall I predicted the economy would recover this year, 2009, likely by late spring/early summer. Now, more qualified voices than mine are adding limited agreement; Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a rare interview, states that the recession will probably end this year.

Meanwhile, the President is putting forth a PR full-court press on the economy. After two months of talking down the economy, and stating that we were nearing days as dire as the Great Depression, President Obama told business leaders that the economy is not nearly as bad as it sounds.

In fact, echoing words that were jeered when first asserted by his opponent John McCain, Obama's economic advisor Christina Romer affirmed that "of course" the fundamentals of the US economy were "sound."

Meanwhile, the President's approval numbers are holding relatively steady at about 60%; but his disapproval numbers have been steadily creeping upwards.

When asked about that dip below 60%, the President noted that these numbers were like the stock market, and vary from week to week.

Perhaps this is an appropriate analogy; consider the chart of the DOW Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) with appropriate labels added by myself:

Now, many have argued correctly that the President cannot immediately be assigned blame for the fledgling economy. Yet, there are long-term and short-term indicators, and at some point, Obama must take both credit and blame. (Does anyone doubt he would be taking credit now if the stock market was soaring?) No, the market is affected by just one day's events. The President has been in office for eight weeks now. At some point, he has to own this market. Given that there's been a 2,000+ point drop since he took power that wasn't clearly indicated by the data -- and that includes his promised plan of salvation via the stimulus -- clearly investors are not comfortable with Obama's current performance.

However, as I told Republicans when Bush was president, don't hitch your wagon to the market; if you take credit when she's up, you'd better be prepared to take blame when she's down.

Bogus Study Claims More Conserv Pervs

2009-03-14T19:06:00.000-07:00

From ABC News: Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers

This study, published in its original form here, originates from Ben Edelman, an assistant professor of business at Harvard Business School. His credentials look to be impeccable, but certain conclusions from the study are bunk, and others didn't take a PhD from Harvard to figure it out.

First, Edelman's research indicates that urban areas show the most paid subscriptions to pornography websites. Is that any big revelation? Young singles and people with greater disposable income are much more likely to live in urban areas.

Second, Edleman notices marriage decreases porn subscription purchases significantly - again, no surprise there. Why buy a menu when you can go to the restaurant?

Edelman then notes that in regions reporting the highest number of church attendances, subscription rates do not decrease. According to the paper, however, "a statistically significantly smaller proportion of subscriptions begin on Sundays, compared with other regions." Well, duh. A community that reports the most church-goers -- even assuming these church-goers are the same ones buying subscriptions -- will not have as many purchases on a Sunday. Activities are different, and if anything else, guilt and facade of righteousness will keep subscribers at bay for the day.

It is certainly possible that the subjects of this survey are actually self-described "Christians" (nothing in the survey confirms it) but anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of research from the Barna group knows that few people claiming Christianity actually profess any strong values or ethics consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Edelman's final analysis is where it gets most interesting. Writes he:

Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality.

Doesn't it make sense that in a court system where the vast majority of decisions are reactive rather than proactive, it naturally follows that such laws would exist where pornography is already a problem? Edelman fails to differentiate between "problem" (cause) and "solution" (effect), and concludes that the states are just as "bad" as other states because they've shown a greater propensity to restrict access to pornography, when in fact the opposite is true.

In the 27 states where “defense of marriage” amendments have been adopted (making same-sex marriage, and/or civil unions unconstitutional), subscriptions to this adult entertainment service are weakly more prevalent than in other states.

Regardless of his results about pornography, no distinction is made between heterosexual-themed and homosexual-themed content - this could easily reflect negative attitudes towards homosexuals by either hypocritical/struggling religious persons, or by secularists who see no problem with pornography but still oppose homosexuality. Subscribing to porn sites says nothing about positions on homosexuality.

[S]ubscriptions are also more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality.

It is here that Edelman makes his biggest error. By applying the characteristics of his sample to the characteristics of all members of the state, he commits a grave logical error (known as "composition") which may seem easy in statistics, but is seldom warranted unless there is great uniformity between data sets being compared. (Edelman uses Pew research for his population statistics.) His point is supposed to be that conservatives are just as likely to buy porn subscriptions as liberals.

Even more galling, Edelman tells ABC that "some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by." This statement is utterly devoid of evidence, and presumably not backed up by either statistical or anecdotal evidence within the paper, since he presents none. This is his normative opinion of the way things are.

Now, granted, I will allow that his claim may in fact be quite true. Christians still struggle against the sinful flesh. But when one is presenting one's self as the author of a study that used scientific methods and statistical research, one cannot use it as a platform to tout intuitive or normative views of society.

Edelmon's methods for determining religiosity are expressed as follows:
In states where more people agree that “Even today miracles are performed by the power of God” and “I never doubt the existence of God,” there are more subscriptions to this service. Subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where more people agree that “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage” and “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behavior.”

None of these are an indication of religious devotion, conviction or ongoing practice of an individual's faith.

Edelman concludes:

"On the whole, these adult entertainment subscription patterns show a remarkable consistency: all but eleven states have between two and three subscribers to this service per thousand broadband households, and all but four have between 1.5 and 3.5. With interest in online adult entertainment relatively constant across regions, there’s little sign of a major divide."

Again, the good professor demonstrates an appalling discrepancy in his reasoning by assuming that because perverts exist equally in states known to be "red states" (IE, having more religious values, or voted for a conservative candidate) the conservative individuals within those states must themselves be partakers of pornography.

Edelman's methodology itself is questionable. He worked off of multiple data sets, but primarily Pew (for state demographic information) and information from a consulting firm, which gave him an anonymous list of credit card information that included zip codes. There is a hideous error lurking here; Edleman's data pool is already polluted. He was not conducting a purely random study of persons in given regions to determine their propensity towards pay-to-play sin online. He was working from a pool where involvement with pornography was a foregone conclusion. Does it surprise him that perverts are equally distributed across the continental United States? Can the fact that lustful citizens have equal representation in most states really take anyone by surprise? This study says absolutely nothing about the likelihood of "red staters" or "blue staters" to buy porn. ABC News' jubilant conclusion (in brief, "conservs are pervs too!") is once again pure media bias oozing through.

Another site made other more polarized observations about the article (I do not advise clicking on the link as the author seems to be under the impression that pixelating a pornographic image makes it okay), noting:

[T]he study tracked only paid porn services and completely overlooked the vast quantity of free porn consumed online. That decision, it seems to us, immediately throws all the survey’s results into question. ... While we think it’s quite possible that conservatives buy more porn, we’re also think it’s quite possible that liberals actually consume more porn. The difference, we think, is that conservatives pay for it, but liberals don’t. After all, why would anyone think that the same people who want free healthcare, free welfare and free mortgages wouldn’t also want free porn.

...

According to Edelman’s study, some of the factors that influence porn purchases include age (people over 65 consume less, people 15-24 consume more), education (those with college educations tend to consume more porn), and location (urban residents consume more porn).

Every demographic study shows that Democrat voters skew younger than Republicans. Shouldn’t we then assume that Democrats consume more porn?

We’re always told that Democrats are more educated than Republicans. Shouldn’t we then assume that Democrats consume more porn?

Democrats dominate urban areas and Republicans dominate everywhere else. Shouldn’t we then assume that Democrats consume more porn?

In conclusion, it's ironic to see once again that to secular progressives, the exclusive cardinal sin in a world of relativism is hypocrisy. If you consulted Prof. Edelman's opinion on the subject of porn, I'm sure he would be unwilling to describe it as sinful or harmful, and hasten to add that he only viewed it as the subject of research for his study. (Scientists just love to claim objective research -- and probably tax deductions -- on "research" like this.) Still further, isn't it ironic that Edelman and the left as a whole have been pushing this so-called sexual "liberation" for decades? Starting with the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1970's, standards have declined, pornography has become mainstream, boundaries on public content have been increasingly loosened...all of the lasciviousness and prurience the left has wanted. (With it has come a new wave of fathers abandoning responsibility, increased diseases, teen pregnancy and abortion, but that's beside the point.) Why, as tolerance continually conforms to liberal standards, do liberals then mock their opponents for falling prey? Should they not embrace the "enlightenment" of their would-be enemies? Or do they, like the devil, enjoy beating their enemies over the head with their own standards?

Urinal-otta Trouble, Mister!

2009-02-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

One of the first rules of male restroom etiquette is, do not talk to each other in the bathroom. This holds true even if an elderly man suddenly clutches his chest and collapses at the blow dryer.

There are, however, a few "mavericks" that were never taught this rule. I chalk this up to the decaying state of fatherhood in our country.

Here are a few excerpts of "urinal chat" I have personally experienced that I swear I am not making up:

"Time to empty this pot and a half of coffee I had this morning!"

"Sometimes, a fellow just has to take a whiz, don't he?"

(In a relieved manner) "Whoof, heh heh."

Now tell me folks, what is a guy supposed to do?

**Update**
New special church edition update:

"If the pastor had gone on much longer, I'd have been sitting in a wet seat."

Ebony and Irony

2009-02-07T20:47:00.000-08:00

President Obama recently made several statements against corporate salaries he considered to be too high (salaries that are above his pay grade, perhaps?), and issued an executive order to cap them, declaring that "for top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste – it's a bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it as President."

He will not tolerate it.

Pardon me, Mr. President, but since when did executive salaries become the estate of the White House, to the point where what you will and will not tolerate becomes any of the government's business?

I'll answer my own question, because this is where the irony comes in. In formal logic, a statement may be incorrect but still logically sound. Here, there is another standard of "incorrect" (IE, morally and economically wrong) but still logically consistent with the state of affairs. Since these businesses took bailout funds, the government is now entitled to meddle in their business conduct. How's that for fine print? This is certainly one of the more foreboding aspects of the Bush legacy.

And here's a little gravy...Wells Fargo canceled a luxury trip for some of its executives after there was a short-lived public outcry that the company was spending some of the $25 billion ($25,000,000,000) on playtime. Yet just days later, it was revealed that members of Congress were engaging in trips to luxury resorts. Partaking in the trip were both Democrats and Republicans, but they explained. It was imperative to strengthen their working relationships with lobbyists and each other, they said. One bold little Congressman even had the nerve to insist that they were dwelling on the economy "from morning till night."

That clears it right up.

Medieval Catholicism

2009-01-31T23:02:00.000-08:00

Thanks to my recent trip to DC to attend the March for Life, I've gotten a crash course in Catholicism -- and I can't say it's all been very positive. Now I'll admit, I haven't had a ton of experience with Catholic services before. I know they're extremely liturgical, and place a lot of significance in symbols and tokens. A friend of mine knowingly informed me that during the march, I would encounter a lot of medieval Catholicism. He pegged it.

I was somewhat surprised to see at least two different portable shrines being carried in a style like the Ark of the Covenant.

As one of their denizens followed along with a megaphone, I picked up a few words to some of the endless (and dare I say somewhat mindless?) liturgies that he repeated ad nauseam during the march. He ended his "hail Mary" the exact same way each time..."blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." Except, he prolonged the last part of the word each time, pronouncing it "Jeezuuuus". Then from out of the crowd, dozens of marchers mumbled what was apparently the response. (Do you think it could be some sort of code...?) It seems that most of the March is, in fact, comprised of Catholics.

I found this interesting, considering that according to a study by the Barna Research group, half of Catholics are registered Democrat, and voted for Barack Obama in numbers greater than for McCain.

After the March, I had a free day to tour on Friday. (I recommend the Smithsonian Museum of American History, they've revamped their displays.) Saturday, I attended the Students for Life conference at the Catholic University in DC. Here's where it really gets Catholic...they have their own Notre Dame there. Several among my group broke away during the day to go see it and later on I supposed that, already exposed as the non-Catholic maverick that I was (and dang proud of it) I may as well go see it as well.

"Do we have time?" a bus mate asked, wanting to go see it as well. "We'll make time," I retorted. (Why are people always asking questions that no one can actually answer but them?)

So, a short walk from the Pryzbyla Center, we find the Basilica. (Cue Alan Menken's reverent but foreboding theme to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" here.) Its proper title is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (de Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm).

And yes, it is impressive. It is certainly an august monument, but I can't help wonder, to what? Christian churches may not be altogether different. They invest truckloads of cash (usually borrowed, or as they like to call it, "building in faith") in state-of-the-art sound systems, carpets, pews and stained glass windows. I don't know where the balance is, but it would seem apparent that the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (de Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm) crosses the line.

There were splendid and massive frescoes, paintings, displays, statutes and bas-relief carvings. There was a massive pipe organ towards the back. There were numerous vestibules off of the main chamber to give homage to the various and sundry saints and "Our Ladies" of the Catholic history. I nearly broke out into peals of laughter (I managed to channel it into muted chortling) because of the number of different saints and titles that were displayed, reminding me of the silly role-playing games with dozens of characters and +1 abilities.

There were automated cash machines accompanying stands of lit candles.

$4 bucks a pop, bucko. (And none of those automated lighters! You're on your honor!) I'm still not sure how it worked, and I wasn't about to stuff $4 into the machine to find out.

This poor fellow seemed to have been poorly-placed, as there were far fewer candles burning:

(Perhaps if the attending priests took a lesson in merchandising?)

It once again served to remind me that a lot of Catholicism is sadly mechanistic. (I heard one fellow explain that he went to Mass earlier that day, so he wouldn't "have" to go on Sunday...as if the time to worship God was just an obligation to be fulfilled.)

When we first entered, my compatriots (whom I'd instructed to alert me in case I started violating any unwritten rules of etiquette) dipped into the bowls of water near the doors and made the sign of the cross. ("Nyeehh...what's up, doc?") Later when on the bus, one of them flashed a small travel shampoo type bottle: "Holy water, anyone?" Now what do you say to that? "Uh, no thanks, I'm good!" What the heck is holy water, anyway? Water blessed by a priest? Why not just bless the whole globe and be done with it? Or are there spatial limits on a priest's +2 blessing-casting abilities? Can he bless a whole pallet of bottled water? That would make shipping a bit easier...

I couldn't help but be amused by this massive painting of Jesus on one of the ceilings. Apparently the Savior has taken to wearing orange Buddhist robes, signaling "touchdown" and learned to shoot flames out of his halo! (A nifty talent if I do say so myself.)

You may accuse me of being irreverent. Far from it. I am deeply devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ, my savior. But when one sees silly drawings of him, I find no evidence that laughing at them displeases him, especially when I know the true savior. ("And you, sir, are no savior...")

I also couldn't help but think that this massive edifice was a waste. How many starving families could have been fed with the money used to build that place? I mentioned a balance earlier, and it's true that there is one. Sure, you can't refuse to build a house of worship simply because people elsewhere are less fortunate. Christ told us we would always have the poor with us. But again, it occurs to me that wherever the balance is, it doesn't take a fine line to see that this building crossed it.

Having taken my till of photos, and still biting back some laughter, I plunged out the double doors, inadvertently causing a loud bang which was not without some contempt. How fitting.

Catholicism has a lot in common with Christianity, and I don't mean to imply that if one shares the Catholic faith, then one does not have the gospel. Nevertheless, from the Catholics I have talked to, there are serious and sometimes irreconcilable differences.

I looked for, and found, A Biblical Refutation of Roman Catholicism, which touches on many more of the finer criticisms of the denomination than my time or skill allow, but a few thoughts did occur to me here.

First, it bothered me that some of the Catholic prayers and pleas I heard requested for the intercession of sainted figures in the church, such as the "blessed Mother Mary" or Our Lady of Guadalupe or others. This is in direct ignorance, if not violation, of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Furthermore, the practice of calling a Catholic priest "father" is in violation of Matthew 23:9, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

I also notice, both through anecdotal and statistical evidence, that Catholics seem far looser with their morals. While there, I observed actions such as swearing and drinking, things not befitting the kingdom of God. According to Barna Research:

Among the 16 moral behaviors examined, Catholics were notably more likely to not say mean things about people behind their back, and were more likely to engage in recycling. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet and were more likely to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets.

But after all, why not? If you can just go to confessional the next day, what harm is there in sinning? (Even if Paul makes it clear in Romans that we must never continue to sin in order that God's grace may increase on us.)

There are also conflicting views on authority, tradition, Papal infallibility (Pope Benedict once allowed that persons not believing in Christ may be destined for heaven, which one Catholic explained away as saying he was speaking outside of the church itself, and his word wasn't infallible then) and other matters which, as I said, pose irreconcilable differences. It was a nice group of people to travel with, and the experience in DC was great fun, but I do worry about those who think they are saved but aren't.

Cardboard Constables (Could Someone Explain This To Me?)

2009-01-31T19:12:00.001-08:00

From The Telegraph: Police spend £20,000 on cardboard officers

West Midlands police said it had ordered 80 cardboard constables at a cost of just over £10,000. In Derbyshire, £6,650 was spent over the past two years on a "substantial number" of cut-outs.

"The theory is that it creates the impression at first glance of a capable guardian being on site, which hopefully also reduces the perception of fear of crime," said a Derbyshire police spokesman.

A survey using the Freedom of Information Act revealed that 13 forces in England and Wales have used cardboard officers.

Essex police said it spent £760 on eight cut-outs. They have been deployed in petrol stations, to deter drivers from speeding away without paying for their fuel, and also in shops to discourage shoplifting.

The force would not reveal precisely where the cut-outs have been placed because "to release locations is likely to jeopardise the success of the trials".

Can someone explain to me how these corrugated coppers are going to "reduce the perception of fear of crime"? Do they mean fear on the part of the police? If so, isn't it ironic that they're putting fake police on the beat in order to make the bad guys think they're not afraid of them?

Anyone who gives these decoys a second look isn't going to be fooled for very long. It's like leaving a police car in a parking lot. It doesn't take much looking to figure out there's not an actual police officer nearby. And what about those car alarms? Does anyone hear one of them go off and actually think "Oh no, someone is breaking into a car!" In reality, they're used far more often to locate a car in the parking lot than anything else.

A Study in Spin

2009-01-30T15:40:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo News: Q4 GDP down 3.8 percent, biggest drop since 1982

The economy shrank at its fastest pace in nearly 27 years in the fourth quarter, government data showed, sinking deeper into recession as consumers and business cut spending.

The Commerce Department on Friday said gross domestic product, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, plummeted at a 3.8 percent annual rate, the lowest pace since the first quarter of 1982, when output contracted 6.4 percent. GDP fell 0.5 percent in the third quarter. These were the first consecutive declines in GDP since the fourth quarter of 1990 and the first three months of 1991.

I've already tried to point out that recessions aren't worth this much panic, but I find it interesting that these articles focus on the negative, when the exact same story could be presented with more positives emphasized. For example, in situations of recent sluggish growth (this forum offers a snapshot of a 2004 example) where growth was "slower than expected," which is presented as a bad thing.

This report shows that the economy actually shrank at a slower rate than predicted (5.5% forecast versus the 3.8% actual rate) and yet, it's still cast as worst drop in 27 years. Same facts, different spin.

Meanwhile, inflation is at historic lows and according to the Wall Street Journal, wages and benefits are up. Furthermore, the GDP actually still retained a net increase of 1.8%, which means the economy didn't actually shrink at all, it just slowed its growth. This sluggish growth is the worst since...oh. Just eight years ago.

Unemployment seems to be the biggest fear right now. I've had several liberal friends (and certainly heard plenty of media reports) that are very worried about the latest unemployment numbers, but at the same time almost gleeful that their dislike of President Bush is exonerated. (I note with some disdain that they never gave credit to him when unemployment held steady during most of his administration.)

But how well does unemployment function as a gauge of the economy? Well, first of all, unemployment is a lagging indicator, which means that the economy, good or bad, is usually a few months ahead of the unemployment numbers. Second, as noted by economist John Lott, a massive drop in unemployment during the summer of 2008 was due to a change in unemployment insurance benefits, as signed by President Bush. Lott also writes that the stimulus package only extends unemployment benefits until December 2009...after which, politically expedient maneuvering comes into play.

So now we're talking about injecting (redistributing) $800 billion of taxpayer money into the economy under guise of a "stimulus package," ostensibly because the economy is one of the worst in decades. Ironically, Bill Clinton claimed the same thing in 1992 and wanted a $16 billion stimulus package. Republicans refused to back down, and the effort died in the Senate. Seems our economy managed to survive.

The stimulus package is an estimated $800 billion. That's just a $100,000,000,000 more than the $700 billion I wrote about a few months back.

I'd certainly like more hard data to prove once and for all that government stimulus (stimuli?) won't work, but with the plethora of other factors that change every time we have one, I suppose such research will never be conclusive anyway. This article from the Independence Institute did provide some interesting answers to my question about where the money would come from, and it doesn't look positive. This article offers some classic reasons why government bailouts won't work.

The problem is that the actual battle being fought is about perception. I loathe moral relativism, but let's face it, when it comes to the economy, truth doesn't matter, perception does. The perception (fostered by grim media reports and artificial inflation of gas prices) is that this is one of the worst economies ever. (Ahem. Chronocentrism, anyone?) Once people think that, they start to spend less, which causes businesses to sell less, which causes them to buy less, then they lay people off. Then the fun starts to circle the globe. It's not even data-driven, it's merely perception. (Disagree with me? Ask a Wall Street investor how much the market is based on data and how much is on perception.)

Based on this premise, I am going to make a prediction. Since President Obama is immune from any criticism about the economy because anything done takes a while to filter down, after about five or six months, we'll begin to see more positive stories. Come April, the first-quarter summary will probably not be that great, but will still show signs of promise. As spring comes, news about more jobs and economic progress will start to be broadcast. The sun will shine, the birds will chirp and soon this whole recession business will just be another page in history.

How will this prove my point? Why can't I just allow for the fact that maybe President Obama will get something right? How do I know that the recovery will be perception-based and not stimulus-based?

Easy. Because the stimulus package won't be injected into the economy for two years.

Does Recycling Fuel Global Warming?

2009-01-30T14:04:00.000-08:00

From The Telegraph: Recycling 'could be adding to global warming'

Peter Jones suggested that an "urgent" review of Labour's policy on recycling was needed to make sure the collection, transportation and processing of recyclable material was not causing a net increase in greenhouse gases.

Mr Jones, a former director of the waste firm Biffa and now an adviser to environment ministers and the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, also dismissed kerbside recycling collections in many areas as "stupid" because they mixed together different materials, rendering them useless for recycling.

He suggested that much of the country's waste should simply be burnt to generate electricity.

"It might be that the global warming impact of putting material through an incinerator five miles down the road is actually less than recycling it 3,000 miles away," he said.

Like the failed acid rain solution, I can't help but be amused at the bitter irony of these good-hearted citizens, spurred to action by environmental alarmists, try to do their part to save the world for future generations, and are then told they're only making things even worse.

Oh...It's Humorous Alright

2009-01-19T14:34:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's actually fun to read through End User License Agreements or guidelines for internet forums. Here's the legal notice from one forum I recently joined:

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. This is not only humorous, but legal actions can be taken against you

If you correctly interpreted and rephrased that last sentence I emphasized, it would say "In addition to being humorous, legal action can be taken against you."

Some people don't pay any more attention to writing those things than you do reading them.

Ha ha.

Concealed Carry II: Continuing Education

2009-01-17T16:14:00.000-08:00

I took a fantastic "Concealed Carry II" course recently, taught by a a 20 years+ veteran, deputy sheriff, firearms instructor, and weapons expert. He's also a fantastic communicator.

The course he taught was four hours of classroom instruction, four hours on the range. I initially thought I might be bored for the classroom time (having been in a variety of classrooms before), but the experience went by quickly and informatively. I picked up a lot of great points to use both in personal carry and to help explain further to people why I support concealed carry. Eventually, I had to borrow a pen from someone and begin writing down the multiple points on a sheet for later.

Here are a few that I've transcribed:

- You can't miss fast enough to win.

- People who call 911 when there is a shooter are calling for a trained person with a gun. (Recognizing this helps remove that over-exaggerated barrier between the police and armed citizens that people have.)

- Only around 30 people die by snake bites annually, yet no one thinks you strange to take a snake bite kit into the woods with you. Likewise, the odds of getting hit by lightning are extremely low, but a lot of businesses have them. Why is carrying a firearm for protection different, especially given how many more shootings occur than snakebites?

- Police can only shoot someone for the same reasons an armed citizen can; in self-defense, or defense of others. (Mind you, they can brandish their weapons sooner without legal repercussions, but when it comes to shooting, the rules are the same.)

- Owning a piano doesn't make you a pianist; owning a gun doesn't make you a murderer. (BUT, it also doesn't make you an effective armed citizen.)

- CRIMINALS ARE NOT LIKE US. People often make the mistake of transference - assuming someone's feelings about murder, rape, not causing pain, etc. are similar. Consequently, this is why you hear things like "I can't believe they did that" or "I couldn't believe what I was seeing." This causes a paralysis of sorts, and leads to behavior that would be rational between two similar human beings, but is irrational when one human being has no regard for life.

- The best way to win a gunfight is never to get into one.

- An armed citizen will almost certainly NOT be tried by a "jury of your peers" if and when a defensive shooting comes down to court. You have a concealed carry permit (presumably) and were carrying and used your weapon in self-defense. Less than 3% of my state is licensed to carry. Not all of them carry. Most of the jury members do not understand the concealed carry mindset, and the lawyers who selected the jurors didn't do their job right if they let someone with a CCDWL through. You will be an oddball and a freak to them. That's something to remember.

- If you use your firearm for self-defense and are not found guilty of a crime, you can still be sued by the victim or the victim's family. The standard of proof for a lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence) is more lenient than a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) so be careful.

- Compared to all of the ambiguous shooting scenarios that citizens may face with in the daily routine, a multiple victim public shooting scenario at college is one of the most clear-cut situations in terms of situation awareness and target acquisition.

- In a gunfight, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. A victory means you walk away with what you already had, your life.

- Hope is not a method.

- BE CAREFUL when dealing with the police. If you are suspected of a crime, police will not be your best friend. 90% of the people they deal with are crooks and crackheads. Comply with them and tell them the truth, but you'll be asked for your story several times, so if you're not sure of the details, SAY SO. The instructor mentioned that everything goes weird when you're pumped with adrenaline and fighting for your life. People were asked how many shots they fired in a shootout, and they answered "four or five" and evidence showed they emptied their 12-15 round magazine.

- Don't use bad language when talking about the perp. Even if the cop is your friend, s/he can be subpoenaed and testify that, for example, yes the shooter did call the deceased an uncouth name, and that won't help.

- Comply with the police officer, but avoid getting into detail as much as possible until you can talk with an attorney. Tell them "Officer, I want to and will comply with you 100%, but in the presence of an attorney." This should put an end to the questioning because by law, you have the right to remain silent and consult with an attorney, without inference of guilt. If an officer should not try to press you to forfeit that right.

- If/when you need to call 911, it WILL be taped, so be careful what you say. Do not lie. The instructor advised saying the following: "I was attacked, I feared for my life, I fired in self-defense." (And probably "send police and an ambulance.") Each component listed meets a requirement police and attorneys will be looking for.

And finally:

- There is a lawyer attached to every bullet you fire.

Those are just some of the bites of wisdom I gleaned from his lecture. It was very enlightening, and if there are concealed carry II classes available in your area, I highly recommend them. Additional training is always a good thing.

And by the way, I understand that bragging rights are important among competitive gun owners, so I should note that there was a live fire test at the end (three rounds of drawing from concealment and firing two shots, three rounds of firing two shots one-handed and three rounds of firing two shots with simulated malfunction/clip replacement).

I passed with the highest marks.

Corruption Is Non-Partisan

2009-01-17T15:09:00.000-08:00

Captain Renault: "I am shocked, shocked to learn that gambling is going on in this place!"

Croupier: "Your winnings, sir?"

Captain Renault: "Oh, thank you, thank you very much."

- Casablanca, 1942

Ah, corruption. The bane of a politician, and the grist of the newspapers that cover them. It goes hand-in-glove with politics, and while it goes on all the time, people continue to be surprised (or at least act like it) when it surfaces. It can break a politician's career, and make a journalist's career all in the same article. Or, it can simply further the careers of both, as in the case of Bill Clinton and Matt Drudge.

Let's talk about it as a campaign strategy for a moment. Accusing a candidate or standing official of corruption may be a good short-term strategy for removing them from office (or at least depleting their political capital) but I am very weary of people who suggest that "Democrats/Republicans are the party of corruption". Don't be stupid; they're all corrupt.

The latest scandal to hit the fan is Illinois Governor Blagojevich, blatantly and literally trying to sell the senate seat recently vacated by President-Election Obama, to the highest bidder. Obviously, this is one of the more shameless examples, but it's nothing new. My former Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky, was plagued for years by scandals of patronage and favoritism with jobs and positions. (I worked on a few of his campaigns, and had other exposure to the extent of his corruption.)

Congressman Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, has been indicted for corruption, bribery, failure to report gifts, etc. On the other end, Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana, has been indicted for accepting bribes. Comically, the "frozen assets" were discovered inside boxes of food in his freezer after Hurricane Katrina.

People even think the bizarre arrest of Republican Larry Craig for offering suggestive signals towards an undercover investigator in a bathroom was unique. Guess what? It happened before. Walter Jenkins, an aide to President Johnson in the 60's, was arrested for very similar behavior at a YMCA in downtown DC. (Johnson still won, but Jenkins had to resign.)

If you have the twisted appetite for more of these stories, Wikipedia has a fairly long list to browse.

I've worked on a good many campaigns, and I can safely say that no matter who the candidate is, their workers are classless. I've seen workers insult their own candidate, drink on the beat, mock voters, slur opponents, and discuss underhanded strategies such as stealing signs.

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Now don't start telling me that a candidate is not responsible for their workers. It's true to a certain extent. But were I to become a candidate, some ground rules would very quickly and firmly be set in place to head off misconduct, whether in public or private.

Something needs to be done...the extent of political malfeasance does little to encourage voters exercising the freedom that others died to give them.

Self-Defense Happens

2009-01-16T23:22:00.000-08:00

If there's anything the gun defense blog has proved, it's that the self-defense that is continually advocated, defended and statistically proven actually happens.

Texas reported a rise in justifiable homicides in 2008, which reflects the national numbers which show that justifiable homicides are at their highest in more than a decade.

Homicide is never a good thing, but if it comes down to "convicted felon" versus "innocent homeowner", call me crazy, but I'm rooting for the homeowner.

Debating Tip #2: Learn From History

2009-01-15T22:03:00.000-08:00

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow." - Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

It's a classic cliche; "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." I recently saw an advertisement for the inauguration of President-Elect Obama, with the slogan "history only happens once" splashed across his face. Technically, that's true, but anyone who studies history knows that there's seldom anything new in politics. It's all just rebranded and repackaged.

"Your problem is that you are economists and lawyers and you assume people are rational. I'm a historian and I know they're not!" - Bob Cottrell

This dovetails nicely with the recent point I made about recessions, and the importance of historical context there.

Let's take another example though. Hurricane Katrina, and/or Hurricane Ike. As these storms approached and wreaked havoc in several countries before smacking Galveston, Texas (and during the aftermath) people were using these hurricanes to say that the weather was getting stronger than ever, and that the climate was changing because nothing like this had ever been seen before. In other words, being chronocentric. Records only go back so far anyway, but as the NYPost noted at the time, Galveston was ambushed with a similar storm more than a hundred years before.

Similar arguments can be (and are) made about global warming now. The ice is melting sooner than it ever has, the weather is getting warmer than it ever has, and so forth. Yet plenty of hard science indicates that we have seen far more extreme weather patterns in the past. (As old-earth scientists will say, the distant past.)

So if you're in a debate (either formally or informally) and someone extends some form of chronocentric hyperbole ("worst president ever" is a good recent example, but also alarmists of any type), it's good idea to back up and calmly put things in perspective.

The Randomness of Media Coverage

2009-01-15T21:17:00.000-08:00

From the South Bend Tribune: National media seek out South Bend woman

Sandra Hochstedler, the 70-year-old woman who held an intruder at gunpoint earlier this week, is out of the hospital and making the media rounds.

On Sunday evening, as Hochstedler was hauling firewood from her garage into her home, a man reportedly came running at her from the street and chased her inside.

She grabbed her gun and dialed 911, she said, and after the man burst through her living room window she held him at gunpoint until police arrived, threatening to shoot him dead if he moved.

The story was immediately picked up by local media outlets, and soon, the national media came calling as well.

Besides Inside Edition, Hochstedler said she has been contacted by ABC News, Good Morning America, and the Fox News morning show Fox and Friends.

Although flattered, Hochstedler said she is still a bit baffled by all of the attention.

"It takes my breath away," she said her newfound celebrity, "because I'm like, 'What? How did it get national attention? What is the big deal about? Doesn't everyone try to protect their home?"

To answer Ms. Hochstedler's question, yes of course people protect their homes. All the time. But the media needs a man-bites-skunk story -- and that only if there's video involved.

A senior citizen who shoots a crook is a great angle. But one wonders how the media missed the 87-year-old who defended herself with a gun in Arkansas, the 61-year-old who defended himself with a gun in Arizona, or the 93-year-old who defended himself with a gun in Ohio, or the 80-year-old who defended himself and his family with a gun in Texas.

One wonders, why is the coverage so arbitrary?

Pro-defense people I speak with often lament that the national media seldom covers these sorts of incidents, and that perhaps, if they would, people would see a brighter side to firearms. (See John Lott's book The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong.)

I don't have an easy solution besides the obvious; that the media is largely biased towards one political persuasion, and therefore has no qualms against disguising the evidence and reporting only what they consider to be news. I consider it an injustice that one citizen's actions are treated as an exception, when it is actually very much the rule.

Kudos to you, Ms. Hochstedler. Be assured, no matter how unusual the media considers you, that you are backed by a family of thousands.

The Doctor Forever

2009-01-15T10:45:00.001-08:00

"Everyone knows that everyone dies. And nobody knows it like the doctor. But I do think that all the skies in all the worlds might just turn dark, if he ever accepts it."

Every so often, there's something so sensational and so...cool, that I can't help but take a second to rant about it. Today, it's Doctor Who.

No other show I have seen, no other fictional character I have ever known has been such a cacophonous montage of impact. Doctor Who, (actually, he's only known as "The Doctor") can make your mind bend, your spirit soar and your heart break all in the same episode - sometimes in the same instant.

You'll have to pardon me, I am fresh off the "Silence in the Library" / "Forest of the Dead" two-parter from Series 4, but these two confusing, pulsing, freakishly frightening, ingenious episodes inspired me to try to transcribe why I love the show so much to begin with. Unfortunately, the episodes I just watched leave me grasping for words; raving about how great it was, but woefully incapable of explaining why. I suppose anything truly worthwhile does that to you.

Moreso recently, I've been turning on the TV (and, thanks to this past Christmas, the DVDs) and turn 40 minutes over to the Doctor. What ends up happening is I wind up feeling exactly like the Doctor's companions...wanting to shout "I hate you, d'ya know that?!" at the same time I'm marveling at the brilliance and cleverness.

In reality, my feelings are towards the writers and various multitudes responsible for bringing the Doctor to the small screen. I want to attack them and applaud them all at once for compiling happiness and heartbreak, love and confusion and hope and fear into one delicious jumble of a plot, keeping you on the edge of your seat right up to the end. I'm often left wondering mid-episode how on earth they can finish an episode when they only have 15 minutes left, much less have it make sense, and unless they go for the torturous two-parter, it always does.

The next thing I'm often left wondering is..."how could you do that to us??" Perhaps it takes extreme suspension of disbelief to enter the world of Doctor Who so completely that you're left with a heartbreaking bitter sweetness at the end of so many episodes. The majority of episodes I've seen so far leave you as sad as a teardrop, but, as my sister aptly summarized, it's not the kind of sadness that makes you wish you hadn't participated. You know how some things, extremely rare things, are beautiful enough to make you cry? I think it stands to reason that the flip side is something that is so sad it is beautiful. I further posit that while these two concepts exist independently of each other, they are most often found together, and perhaps most often in drama. Lord of the Rings exemplifies this sort of sentiment also; there are moments of pain and sadness so exquisite and rare, even if in drama, that you would not have missed it for the world, because it is beautiful despite hurting.

More importantly, it takes you beyond. Beyond yourself, beyond your conceptions of drama, life, the universe, everything. That's what Doctor Who lends itself to.

The Doctor inspires me. I know, he's fictional, he's a role played by an actor. (Actually several.) I'm still not sure how to reconcile that, but he does. He inspires the already-existent desire to be the nightmare of evil, the one guy that stands firm when everyone else won't.

"The Doctor showed me a better way of living your life. That you don't just give up. You don't just let things happen. You make a stand. You say no. You have the guts to do what's right when everyone else just runs away." - Rose Tyler

Thanks to Doctor Who, I know why most living beasts rightfully fear the dark, who it really is when you see movement in the mirror out of the corner of your eye and what really happens to statues when you're not looking. And there's now no doubt in my mind about who is superior in the Star Trek vs. Doctor Who debate.

Take a second some time and see for yourself, won't you?

"Some days are special. Some days are so, so blessed. Some days, nobody dies at all. Now and then, every once in a very long while, every day in a million days, when the wind stands fair and the Doctor comes to call...everybody lives."

Irish Armed Citizens

2009-01-07T07:44:00.000-08:00

From the Kilkenny People: Burglar greeted with pensioner's shotgun

AN attempted robbery at a house on Broguemakers' Hill, Kilkenny City at 4.30am on Christmas morning was foiled by the sprightly 68-year-old home owner. The quick-thinking resident awoke to the sound of a ladder being placed against the back wall of his home.
Slipping out of bed, he grabbed his legally-held shotgun and tip-toed downstairs in his bare feet, dressed only in a pyjamas. He silently opened the back door and found the burglar wearing a balaclava standing on the ladder.

Using rough language in an attempt to impress the intruder, the old-age pensioner pointed the gun and told the intruder to get down and f... off or he would have his head blown off.

The burglar, whose speech was slurred due to drink or drugs, held his hands in front of him and said “take it easy with that gun, I’m only looking for a few dollars”.

He was put off the property at gunpoint and the gardai were contacted.

Yeah. Looks like they got 'em in Ireland too.

Homeschooling On The Rise

2009-01-07T07:22:00.000-08:00

From USA Today: Home schooling grows

The ranks of America's home-schooled children have continued a steady climb over the past five years, and new research suggests broader reasons for the appeal.

The number of home-schooled kids hit 1.5 million in 2007, up 74% from when the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics started keeping track in 1999, and up 36% since 2003. The percentage of the school-age population that was home-schooled increased from 2.2% in 2003 to 2.9% in 2007. "There's no reason to believe it would not keep going up," says Gail Mulligan, a statistician at the center.

I just recently found a couple of websites that provide some interesting quotes about education:

35 Thought Provoking Education Quotes

Quotes About Unschooling

To some extent, as I pursue my degree(s) in higher education, I can't help but be amazed at all the stupidity to be found among its halls. While the diverse classes do give me a well-rounded background, there is a massive majority of material I learned simply to fulfill the college's requirements, and which I will never, ever need. The stress of midterm and final exams is an artificial construct of unworldly proportions; college is supposed to prepare you for the real world, but there are few places in the real world where four months of lectures coalesce and culminate in one written performance, on which so much of your grade depends.

And I'm opting for another three years of graduate school!

Part of me longs for the days of apprenticeship, where you actually learned the trade hands-on from someone who already knew it.

Recession Obsession

2008-12-28T14:55:00.000-08:00

Being a business student, there's a certain criteria one is taught by professors for determining a recession: two or more quarters of declining (or, "contracting") real GDP. As a matter of fact, by that definition, we still haven't technically confirmed the existence of a recession. (That is, we haven't confirmed it by measuring fourth quarter GDP, though third quarter results are declining, and it strains credulity to think this quarter will rebound.)

The media and the public began using the term "recession" long before it was actually applicable, which I tried to correct when possible. (Does anyone remember early 2001 when Democrats accused the newly-inaugurated President Bush of "talking down the economy" by using the word "recession" before it had been adequately measured and established?)

I generally try to sun on the rainy parades of alarmists, especially when they want it to rain (Such as trying to explain to alarmists that the sun will actually not fry us in our own atmospheric gases) and it looks like I have a chance again...and who knows, maybe even a little credibility.

So we're told we crossed the magic line of an actual recession a few miles back. I slept through it, but okay, what the hey. I'm still a student, and not frightfully impacted by a recession, being that I'm not yet working and therefore not in danger of a cut in wages or being laid off.

But people need to just chill about this for a minute. The thing to do is try to look at things from a historical perspective.

Take a look at the data from the National Bureau of Economic Research's page on US economic recessions. If you do that, you'll realize that every decade for the past 100 years has had a recession!

People tend to be chronocentric (acting as if the era they were born in is the only significant one, which, by the way, also leads people to ignorant assumptions of "worst president ever" -- without ever comparing the current president's actions and policies to those of, say, Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover!) and neglect historical context. Granted, there were plenty of things that happened before my day too, but was the stock market crash of 1929 really so long ago? Was World War II so long ago? The oil crisis of the 1970's? Mild recessions in the 80's and 90's? The massive but short-lived shockwaves of September 11?

Each recession has had its causes, and we've come out of each one of them. Almost every US president has fought against one. And by the way, in reality presidents are seldom to blame for them.

So please, people. Calm down.

Further links:
A History of Recessions
Bush’s Legacy May End Up Better Than You Think
National Bureau of Economic Research
US Bureau of Labor and Statistics
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
Gas Price Trends
Wikipedia: List of Recessions

Krav Maga

2008-12-17T21:53:00.000-08:00

Okay, so like it or not, I am in many ways "The Gun Guy." I'm fortunate to live in a state where the gun laws are even more relaxed than Texas (we have open carry, as well as legal carry of a firearm in the glove box without needing a license, among other things), but still, there will be times when I do not or cannot carry my weapon with me.

Then what?

I recently asked a Secret Service officer what his preferred method of hand-to-hand combat was. "My gun," he replied dryly. This is the same agent who, when asked if I could carry my weapon with me on the bus as we campaigned for the United States Senator, gave a stern "absolutely not." (I managed to make friends with him as the day progressed. And I didn't bring my gun.)

As a student, a large portion of my time is spent on a college campus, where I can be penalized for carrying defensively. (If I did my job of concealment, they would never know, but I tend to follow the rules while seeking to change them, so I don't carry on campus.) And again, there will be times when I can't utilize a firearm.

Enter, Krav Maga:

Krav Maga is the official self defense system of the Israeli Defense Forces, and has been taught to hundreds of law enforcement agencies and thousands of civilians in the United States.

Krav Maga is a simple, effective self defense system that emphasizes instinctive movements, practical techniques, and realistic training scenarios.

So why Krav Maga? Well, first of all, it's extremely practical. So am I. I had absolutely 100% worthless karate lessons when I was younger, which focused on doing a fight move exactly the same way every single time. The abiding memories from that are freezing cold feet (from doing exercises barefoot on a gym floor in winter) and playing foosball with the other kids during the break.

I checked out a martial arts class or two on campus, and couldn't stand the ceremonial aspects of it all. This whole "high and noble art", "respect your opponent" and "bow to the arena of combat before you leave to go to the bathroom" all had me raising an eyebrow; I wanted to learn how to throw a punch, or land a kick...to emerge the victor if someone had the bad judgment to consider me an easy target. In fact, the motive for checking those classes out in the first place was because weeks before, I'd been walking in downtown Chicago with some friends and family when some deranged nut came up and threw his arm around a female member of our group. It was crude and offensive though not violent, but still, I locked up. I would not have been able to fight effectively if I had to. I hated myself for it afterwards, and decided I needed more than my intimidating size in a fight; I needed to learn a few fighting basics. The Karate class's emphasis on grace, poise and regimented motion turned me off to the whole thing for some time.

A friend in New Zealand recommended Krav Maga to me, and it sounded good, but there was as yet no local outlet for the discipline, and my class schedule didn't help. I finally saw an article in the local paper about an area Krav Maga class opening up, and I went for it. I didn't bring exercise gear but, never the passive spectator, I jumped right in and participated in my regular jeans and everyday shoes.

Who knew jump rope could be so grueling? And these push-ups and sit-ups were taxing me far beyond my normal limits. By the time we were through, I was puffing, sweating...and loving it.

That was in June. I've recently become eligible to test up to level 2.

This stuff is intense, and like I said, extremely practical. Not only do you learn how to punch (kick, knee, elbow, etc.) and utilize the body mechanics to maximize the power and impact, but by virtue of holding the "tombstone" pad while your partner goes through the exercises, you learn what it's like to take a punch or kick. The pad absorbs the worst, but you absorb the impact. And sometimes, it's tooth-jarring.

I've enjoyed plenty of injuries as a result of it. I was limping for more than a week after one grueling workout a few months ago. I've sustained multiple cuts, sprains and abrasions, and usually see a minor bloodletting at least once every two weeks.

As I type, I have an abrasion on my elbow (more of a friction burn, really), a cut on one of my fingers from where the little finger bent over and sliced it, bruises on my forearms from external defense exercises, a rather large bruise on my right leg from where the punching pad didn't quite catch a kick the right way and a scrape on my neck from strangling exercises.

But hey, scars and bruises are badges of honor, and I'm proud to have purchased them with hours of hard work and training. And, in addition to being far more skilled to fight, I've built up endurance and lost about 13 pounds.

But hey, it's bound to happen when you have current and former military/law enforcement as instructors. One is a drill sergeant that trains state police full time. One flies a helicopter for the city police, and one of them is a trooper.

In short, the kind of people you want showing you how to fight.

Krav makes no bones about being brutal. It's not a martial art, and there is no sparring. You can't do clean sparring with this. This is self-defense training. The situation is, you've been attacked, so you respond with enough force to neutralize the threat posed to your life. Since most attackers are men, guess what? That means hitting or kicking a man where it hurts the most. Some may protest that this isn't honorable, but this is a guy who just attacked you and wants to have his way with you. How much honor does he deserve?

I'm a big advocate of being prepared for emergencies -- of saying "never" rather than "never again." That's why I recommend people learn how to defend themselves, both armed and disarmed, and why I commend Krav Maga classes to your attention.

If nothing else, you'll get fit.

Defying Stereotypes

2008-12-16T13:48:00.000-08:00

Stereotypes are funny things. People rant on and on about them and how they're prejudicial and shouldn't be formed ... yet they so often harbor their own, and laugh at the exaggerated stereotypes that make up the fodder for late-night comedians.

For example, an overwhelming stereotype right now (it's more of a paradigm) is the idea that President Bush is stupid, and near-universally despised. Joking about him, lampooning his behavior and openly deriding him is pretty typical conversation in politics. Now, this isn't about Bush, that's not where I'm going with this. I'm just noting that, in theory, people eschew stereotypes, but in practice, there are all kinds of stereotypes that are considered acceptable.

Enter me. To a lot of people, I've suddenly become "the gun guy." People I talk to online? "How's the gun thing going?" People I don't see too often on campus? "How's the gun thing going?"

Sure, it's only natural for people to go back to a point of common identification to relate to someone they don't know very well, so I can't pass too much blame. It just gets a little old after a while.

Case in point: I was speaking with a leader of a violence prevention group recently and was explaining some of the "better violence prevention through legalization of concealed carry on campus" efforts. Afterwards, I made a comment about the memorabilia for a noted stage play that decorated the office. The person was surprised, and (perhaps caught off-guard) even mentioned that my interest or knowledge in a theatrical production seemed incongruous with being a "gun guy."

Arg.

I can't complain too much. After all, I played with toy guns as a little boy, watched reruns of western serials on TV all the time, and eventually graduated to my first .22 rifle that my grandfather gave me. I got my first handgun a short week or two after turning 21, and then early this summer I purchased a Glock. I have the concealed carry permit, I've taken an additional class or two, and I've shot competitively (managing to outshoot even a few of the more experienced shooters). I have been researching, documenting and defending armed self-defense for years, I'm a board member for a nationwide gun rights organization, I've personally met (and am now known by) many of the key players from both sides of the debate, and I've enjoyed contact with the foremost pro-gun lobby, the NRA.

There's only so much I can do to mitigate the "gun guy" image. And I suppose the fact that I wear a "cowboy hat" doesn't help.

Still in all, I'm not just about guns. I am not constrained to that topic ... or even politics itself. I engage in politics because it's arguably where human beings can have the most widespread impact for good on the most people. And, because it's fun. But just because someone is avid about something doesn't mean they want to talk about it 24/7. I think a political science professor whose class I recently graduated would probably agree; my car was on the way back to his office, so we usually wound up walking together for a bit, and while politics came up sometimes, mostly the talk centered on good movies.

I even sing now and again in the car.

So, beware stereotyping, especially those "okay" subconscious ones.

The Slippery Slope

2008-12-16T12:26:00.000-08:00

I've written about British politics and culture before (here, here and here) and expressed that there is a lot to like and a lot to dislike about both. That's the disclaimer, since I received some comments from an offended Brit (unpublished due to profanity); there's plenty to like about England.

That being said, here's a picture that a friend of mine posted on Facebook, which came from this blog which got it from this forum:

For those of you that can't see it, the sign reads:

Sale of Knives and Bladed Articles
The Sale of these products is governed by the Offensive Weapon Act 1996 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006)
It is a criminal offence to sell these products to any person under the age of 18.

I often tend to try to avoid the slippery slope argument simply because it is so overused, and consequently so easy to deny as panic and hype. However, this is a clear picture to me of what happens when the object, rather than the person, is criminalized.

Politicians often suggest that simply criminalizing guns will fix gun violence in America (or anywhere). Naive people at anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign continually argue that we have to tighten the rules and make it harder for the criminals to get guns. Somehow, they seem to lack the cognitive ability to recognize that a criminal is not going to take elaborate steps to ensure that his or her weapon of choice was obtained through legal channels!

The government has criminalized numerous types of narcotics and tightly-regulated various other prescription pain killers. Yet police make hundreds of drug arrests and multiple drug busts every day. No matter how hard the government tries, they will never be able to remove drugs from the streets. People will smuggle them, hide them, manufacture them, steal them.

Contrast that with weapons. In the first place, weapons serve valuable functions for the everyday citizen, chiefly for defense, protection, hunting and recreation. (Making a similar argument for drugs is far weaker.)

Second, a weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen effectively neutralizes the advantage a criminal has by being armed. (It's a matter of record, guns are used for protection all the time.) Now, I've met Paul Helmke, one of the head honchos for the leading anti-gun organization in America. Even he recognizes that a law-abiding citizen with a gun isn't a problem. He just has a hard time recognizing that a criminal won't care how he or she obtains the weapon of choice. That may be understandable, since the criminal mind is so far removed from how regular citizens think and act. But we can't make the silly mistake of transferring our value system to them, and pass actual laws on the belief that murderers, rapists and kidnappers will stop buying guns if it becomes illegal.

The British government fails to recognize that punishing the offender, rather than the object (and by proxy, the law-abiding citizen!) is a failed form of instituting civil society.

And by the way, I'm not Britain's only critic on the subject. British actor Ray Winstone recently lambasted his government for the same thing, and went so far as to suggest he's ready to leave the country.

"It breaks my heart to think about leaving the country but I hate what's been done to it. Kids on the streets in gangs with knives, all this lawless behaviour and what are we doing? Nothing. ... I wouldn't mind if we actually see something being done with all the money they take off in taxes. But I don't see more police ... what I see is no one on the streets and then a legal system that doesn't support the coppers when things finally get to court. There are criminals getting off every day in this country."

Maybe they should start thinking back to the source of criminal behavior first place. (Hint: It's not in an inanimate hunk of metal.)

**Edit 12/25/08**

For more, check out the NRA's article about the gun laws and resulting crime trends in Great Britain.

Lessons From Mumbai: Sheep and Sheepdogs

2008-12-04T14:04:00.000-08:00

From the Belfast Telegraph: Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

"There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

...

I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Hundreds killed by less than a dozen perpetrators. I keep looking for signs that hearken back to the simple yet powerful words uttered by Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings, as the dark lord Sauron had begun spreading his evil rule: "But there were some who resisted..."

This same phrase stuck in my mind (and left a lump in my throat) when I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.

Here, when ten cowardly terrorists mowed down innocent civilians, no one could or would shoot back. In fact, reports indicate that defenseless citizens could either throw rocks, run away or play dead. The Daily Mail reports that one man (ironically an actor who had portrayed a bomber on television) was shoved down by a good Samaritan and, lying still while being sprayed by the blood of other victims, was mistaken for dead and survived.

The amount of time required to mobilize effective police response in this case is horrible, especially if you're a hostage or victim. The Wall Street Journal has an amazing account of the shooting in which they note that gun permits are very difficult to obtain in India.

Someone tell me why it's so improbable that terrorists would do this somewhere else? There are multiple venues that will be crowded this Christmas season; if we're serious about anticipating and preventing terror attacks, we have to think like them. Think high victims, high public attention.

This is the kind of thing that armed citizens everywhere in America exist for.

A friend on Free Republic passed along an essay, On Sheep and Sheep Dogs, which I consider worth reproducing in part below:

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

...

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

...

We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

...

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

...

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs from the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Wow.

Guinness Records Discontinued Shooting Records in 1981 (Including Annie Oakley)

2008-12-04T13:15:00.000-08:00

Trick/Quick Draw Shootist Bob Munden used to display his impressive skills with handguns on an old show called American Shooter that aired on Saturday mornings, on TNT if memory serves correctly. (Apparently reconstituted as a different show called Shooting USA on the Outdoor Channel.)

I went to check out his website recently, and found an interesting footnote at the bottom of one of his pages:

"In 1981, the year most shooting records disappeared from the Guinness Book, I called David Boehm of the Sterling Publishing Company and asked why. He told me that there is a committee that approves books to be used in school libraries across the nation. The committee informed Mr. Boehm that it would only approve the Guinness Book for continued use as a reference book in school libraries if gun records were removed. To protect the Guinness Book from a black list, that's what the publishing company felt it had to do. If you look at recent editions of the Guinness Book of World Records, you will notice that most gun records by shooters using real firearms (not gimmicked with things like light-weight aluminum barrels,) are no longer listed, including those set by the famous Annie Oakley, Ed McGivern, Tom Frye and myself. It is a shame that a small group of people on that education committee, people who probably grew up in cities away from the shooting sports millions of Americans and citizens of many other nations appreciate and enjoy, can have the power to effectively erase history."

With the exception of the Olympics, official shooting records are a thing of the past for Guinness. Funny, last time I picked up one of those World Records books, there were all sorts of records that shouldn't be appropriate for children in a library...

Still Think I'm Crazy To Carry in Church?

2008-11-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

From The Boston Globe: Police: Wife shot and killed at New Jersey church

Two killed and one wounded in this incident, apparently motivated by some domestic dispute. The point is, two innocent and uninvolved people were shot, and dozens more affected by the shooting. There was another church shooting not too long ago, either.

Are the odds extremely low that it will happen at the church I attend? Sure. The odds were also extremely low at those two churches.

Whether it happens or not, the odds are extremely high that the outcome can be affected by an armed thug running into something he didn't expect: a church member who can shoot back.

WSJ: Treatment of Bush Is Disgrace

2008-11-28T09:13:00.001-08:00

From the Wall Street Journal: The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

...

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Interestingly, the author interned with President Bush's 2004 election opponent, John Kerry.

Celebrating Androgyny?

2008-11-13T15:01:00.000-08:00

I saw the following advertisement on Facebook several days ago:

Somebody tell me...is that a male or female?

Lose Like Men

2008-11-11T21:26:00.001-08:00

You don’t need me to tell you this past election was historic, that’s been said enough. Young people like myself have no recollection of a country blighted by racism, and so perhaps don’t fully appreciate the significance of electing a black man. Racism is a dying institution, and good riddance. However, we must be careful not to allow “reverse racism” to creep in. Let’s remember that favoring someone because of skin color is wrong, no matter what that color is.

In 2006, I wrote out my thoughts about the Republican defeat at the polls on my blog. If I removed the date-specific material, I could republish much of it today and still be relevant. But there is plenty more to add. This election has taught me a lot about who people in my party are – and it’s not a pretty sight.

I was like a lot of conservatives and had no great passion for a John McCain presidency. Was the long-time thorn in the Republicans’ side now going to lead the party? But consider the alternative! We truly were condemned either way. In the end, even the plucky Alaska Governor Sarah Palin couldn’t save us, and McCain lost, lost fair and square.

It didn’t take long for Republicans to morph into the depressed Democrats of 2000 and 2004. “He’s not my president!” snorted countless indignant Republicans on forums. “Who wants to join me in moving to Canada?” said others. “January 20, 2013” signs – the day the next presidential term begins – began showing up as a number to be anticipated by conservatives. Images of Obama in horns appeared. All are exact mirrors of the woebegone Democrats who were inconsolable after George W. Bush won. Twice. Republicans were getting a taste of that sentiment, and reacting the same way.

Then things got ugly. Officials with the McCain campaign began vomiting their (undoubtedly pent-up) vitriol and blame at the very person who brought energy to the campaign, Governor Palin. Prominent conservative voices such as Peggy Noonan and Scott Ott were quickly savaged for offering positive thoughts for the future. “IS there one?” seemed the derisive response.

Sometimes, politics really is just two parties trying to do different things the same way.

Well I have a message for you miserable Republicans. SNAP OUT OF IT. Buck up. Grow up. Try being a gracious loser and remember who you are. Don’t copy the foolish sulking of defeated Democrats; there is no room for that in a party that is supposed to be exceptional. And above all, accept that as long as you are an American citizen, Barack Obama is going to be your president for the next four years.

I have a message for you Democrats too: It’s your turn now. It’s up to you, the ball is in your court. No more blaming Bush for everything. You haven’t had a chance like this in 12 years, and now you have it. Take some responsibility for what goes on, good and bad. But beware the dangers of placing all of your trust in one man, for people will always let you down, and Constitutionally, the power still belongs to the People.

Power is cyclical in this country, and I daresay President-Elect Obama won because of John McCain, not in spite of him. There are other elections to come, and plenty to do in the meantime. I mean this sincerely, enjoy your hard-earned victory.

And finally, to the army of I-told-you-so’ers ready to diagram why we lost, put away your chalk boards, we already know. We didn’t have a real conservative in John McCain, and we’re paying for some major PR mistakes in the past several years. But, as former Clinton adviser Dick Morris notes, if Republicans had to pick an election to lose, this was it. Rather than start pointing fingers and firing off your pouting accusations, let’s focus on pulling together, rebuilding and try being conservatives again . I was talking with a friend about the election results, and mentioned having stern words for the sore losers in the party the next day. My friend disagreed.

“The election was the spanking,” he said in a very fatherly, inspiring way. “It’s time for the hug and for the hope.”

Indeed.

An Election Irony

2008-11-08T15:42:00.000-08:00

I was going through some old papers yesterday, and found a four-year-old LIFE magazine supplement that I found rather ironic:

The lady on the right is Tina Fey, the Saturday Night Live comedian who so squarely nailed the role of Sarah Palin for the show's skits. The fellow on the right, of course...John McCain...

Interestingly, it occurred to me to wonder who Tina Fey voted for? Job security (four to eight years if John McCain won, and maybe even another eight if Sarah Palin ran on her own!) or her personal politics?

My Day in Court

2008-11-06T15:48:00.000-08:00

As I entered Courtroom 3 of the District Court, my first observation was how crowded the room was. Here were all manner of misdemeanor violators, summoned to appear at 10am for their hearing. Attorneys were present for many, and clearly distinguishable from the crowd in their jackets and ties. It seems to reflect poorly on the individuals present that few bothered to dress more formally out of respect for the law. Perhaps that lack of respect is why they are there to begin with.

As I locate a seat near the front, a felony hearing is taking place. It later becomes apparent how fortunate I was to catch the tail end of these proceedings, as most of the rest of the docket is routine to all of the actors in the court except the defendants.

The man accused is young, dressed in prison clothes and slouching in his seat, not appearing to take much notice of the hearing. The charge is theft by unlawful taking. The prosecutor is questioning a police officer. For him, it is routine. He is careful to ask questions to establish the officer’s personal knowledge of the matter, and to confirm jurisdiction by establishing through testimony that the incident took place in Fayette county. The suspect is accused of taking a DeWalt drill and a violin (among other items not mentioned) and pawning them, and the prosecutor has pawn tickets to prove it. Judge Bell finds cause on the testimony and evidence, and the defendant is taken away.

The next person is unmistakably of Hispanic origin, and a translator is required. He is accused of driving with expired registration, no license, a forged social security card, and admitted to being in the country illegally. This too requires testimony from an officer, but his defense makes no argument, and the man is removed.

The next case is delayed because the defendant in question (not in custody) did not show. The judge issues a warrant for arrest. He will do this at least a dozen more times in the next two hours.

The next and perhaps final “interesting” case was delayed for a full five to ten minutes as the prosecutors and judge were waiting on an officer, a captain with the Fayette County Police, to arrive for testimony. The judge is mildly annoyed after several minutes, noting that he expects the procedure to be very simple, and orders one of the courtroom officers to locate the man. The defendant, a convicted sex offender, is brought in. His feet are not visible below the bar, but the jingle and hobbled walk make it clear he is in shackles. He is accused of moving addresses without notifying his parole officer, and to a location less than 1,000 feet from a daycare facility, no less. The prosecutor proceeds to prove through testimony that the man was actually living at the residence, while the defense makes an argument that he was not. The judge finds cause, but because of poor acoustics, his ruling is inaudible. This seems to be an interesting case, so I catch up with the man’s attorney, Mr. Sam Cox, who explains that the proceeding was only a preliminary hearing, and that the judge bound the case to a grand jury.

The Judge recesses for five minutes, during which time suited attorneys take their place along the right wall to represent the various pending misdemeanor charges. A new prosecutor also steps in. As the judge reenters (and in my detached observation, I nearly forget to rise!) the attorneys step forward. Without fail, they plead guilty, contingent to the prosecutor’s recommendation. These are misdemeanors, so the recommendations are not harsh. The offenses range from operating without a license, to driving with a suspended license, driving under the influence, shoplifting and evading police, terroristic threatening, domestic abuse, the occasional drug charge (the majority of which are first offenses which can be expunged with community service) and at least one count each of harboring a vicious animal or prostitution. The prosecutor is often willing to cut deals, seldom recommending jail time exceeding two weeks, instead probating the sentence over twelve or twenty-four months. The Judge instructs them that this means they must “stay out of trouble.” The majority of penalties, however, are fines. On a few occasions, the judge agrees to a structured serving of incarceration, including letting one man spend three weekends and a half-day in jail, in order to work. One man, accused of DUI, protests that his sentence is carried out over the holidays, and asks for an easier ruling. The judge responds that it would have been easier not to drive under the influence at all, and sustains the ruling.

The interpreter is called in at least five or six more times, and each time the offense is similar; a driving or drug infraction. Some defendants have made an attempt to beat the insurance charge by getting insurance afterwards, but the judge does not buy it. It seems strange that the immigration status of these individuals is not questioned.

Only one defendant challenges a charge, pleading guilty to an expired registration, no insurance and intoxication, but contests the charges of probation violation and harassing communications. He is given a jury trial, and taken into custody on the other charges. He mildly protests to the judge, something about foot shackles, which the judge sternly responds that “That’s not my problem. I can do whatever I want.”

One man appears for numerous offenses, and his attorney asks for a competency test, and to review the other charges. The judge denies the request, wanting to “keep it sane.” He later remarks that he’s seen that guy multiple times.

Judge Bell is not overweening in the way he wields his authority, but he is clearly both confident and comfortable in the dozens of rulings he hands down, and takes his role very seriously. At times, he seems like a parent as he mulls over requests for leniency, and often betrays reluctance in granting it. The attorney for the woman who engaged in prostitution pled for leniency because of her multiple medical issues, and asks that they get help “to see if we can keep this woman from killing herself.” The presence of her two adult children in the court certainly seem to help, the judge grants the request.

For the attorneys on both sides, this is all very habitual. The prosecutors have stacks of paper inches thick, with only a few pages each devoted to defendants. Only once was there a deviation from the fill-in-the-blank script they seemed to be following, when a confused defendant (whose case had been dismissed!) mistook her attorney’s gesture to leave as a signal to approach the prosecutor. The prosecutor tried to ignore her, particularly as his next case was being called. He finally protested to the judge, who declared “Madam, I don’t know what you’re doing, but…get out of here.”

With a court full of defendants, habitual is a good thing. Almost every proceeding is smooth and quick; defense attorneys are more interested in plea-bargaining (clearly, no one, including the defendants themselves, feel it worthwhile to claim innocence) and the overwhelming number of successes by the prosecutor seems a testament to the selective process for who to charge.

The supply of attorney-involved defendants is exhausted, at which time the judge then instructs the rest of the courtroom (populated by people with minor offenses … and one observer) what to do, what’s going to happen, and where to line up. These are the smallest of the offenses, and no attorneys are needed. No one is taken into custody, and there is certainly a difference between the people who have only to pay some fines and leave versus the hopeless and ashamed expressions of the detained individuals who were ushered in wearing jail clothes.

Sound and identification of the charges were two difficulties in the court. Despite having a microphone system and speakers in the court, there was no sound amplification. Some defendants even make a futile effort to speak into them. Fortunately, the prosecutor’s announcement of the recommended sentence is very clear and methodical, and the judge identifies each charge when asking how a defendant pleads.

Court is undoubtedly an imposing place, and it does truly seem that it is only those who don’t take the law seriously that end up there. The intimidation seems to be on purpose; the judge frequently remarked that if the fines were paid on time, or if the defendant behaved, “you don’t have to come back.” The message is clear; court is a place for the average law-abiding citizen to avoid.

For me as a prospective law student, it may be just the opposite.

© David Burnett 2008. All Rights Reserved.

All content of this paper, excepting quotations and where noted, are my original, intellectual property. This paper exists in paper and digital form with two university professor as well as on the internet, and the contents thereof can be cross-referenced by other professors both inside and outside the state of Kentucky, to guard against plagiarism. Anyone using materials from this paper, or submitting the paper itself without permission or citation, is subject to disciplinary action by the educational institution in question.

Specific judge, county and suspect names have been removed from the internet version of this paper.

The Good Gas News

2008-10-23T13:38:00.000-07:00

Amid all the other economic "turmoils" that we're being told to panic over, there's a little variable that's getting lost in the shuffle...one that everyone was throwing a complete fit over just weeks ago.

Analysts were saying oil could double to $200 per gallon, gas prices could reach $5 per gallon easily, and it could be a social crisis of unbounded impact.

Now, quietly, with very little attention being focused on it, gas prices have fallen more than a dollar and a half, or more than 30%!

Gas is now $2.49 in my area, and according to the Dallas Morning News, it is below $2 in parts of Texas. (Price not seen since 2005, according to the GasPrices.com chart.)

AAA calls the drop "unprecedented," MarketWatch.com attributes the change to good old market forces and the Business Journal anticipates even steeper price decreases.

But of course, CNN's ready to drop cold water on the good news; Cheaper gas not the answer, their website declares. (Sub-sub text: "Obama is"?)

**Update 11/6/08**
Gas is now down to $1.87/gallon in my area. Surreal.

Soundtrack Geekdom Pt. 2 - More Soundtrack Additions

2008-10-21T15:19:00.000-07:00

I wrote before about how the music program Ruckus has been giving me the freedom to explore and preview more and more selections of music. In my desire to enhance my understanding, appreciation and recognition of individual composers and their styles, I've been downloading and previewing past soundtracks from several of the artists I've mentioned before. Here's a rundown of some of the latest acquisitions:

Amazing Grace (David Arnold)
Independence Day (David Arnold)
A Dark Knight (James Newton Howard & Hans Zimmer)
Hulk (Danny Elfman)
Star Trek (Jerry Goldsmith & Dennis McCarthy)
Eastern Promises (Howard Shore)
The Last Mimzy (Howard Shore)
A History of Violence (Howard Shore)
Titanic (James Horner)
Braveheart (James Horner)
Apollo 13 (James Horner)
We Were Soldiers (Nick Glennie-Smith)
Bug (Brian Tyler)
Gladiator (Lisa Gerrard & Hans Zimmer)
Hidalgo (James Newton Howard)

I've learned a few new things about the artists:

I've learned that David Arnold will have to step things up a notch for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I have confidence that he can.

I learned that Howard Shore can somehow simultaneously craft new and unique tracks for movies, and yet still retain a very Lord of the Rings-esque sound to his work.

I decided that James Horner favors slower compositions that really make you feel a moment rather than push and pull you on an orchestral roller coaster.

I learned that no matter how well Brian Tyler scored Children of Dune, he couldn't rescue a movie like Bug.

And I learned that once again, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are in a class all their own.

So there you have it, I'm well on the way from being a soundtrack conessouir to being a soundtrack analyst. Let me know if you need soundtrack consultancy!

Oh It Must Be CD Season - Upcoming Releases

2008-10-21T12:29:00.000-07:00

It seems to be the season where albums - good ones - start dropping like the autumn leaves. (In my area, the leaves are dropping because they're dry, not because of the season, but that's beside the point.)

I logged in to Facebook's iLike the other day and found several album pre-order notices posted by artists I've favorited.

But first, the new releases.

Within Temptation recently released Black Symphony, which is little more than a series of live performances of their previous hits. And unfortunately, due to studio post-recording wizardry, live performance recordings seldom live up to the original studio mix. For some reason, lead singer Sharon den Adel's voice sounds deeper, rawer and huskier in the album. They also butchered one of their all-time best songs, "Somewhere" by including a duet singer (who, in the DVD for the concert, isn't wearing pants). Nevertheless, there is one awesome exception; the beginning track. Titled "Ouverature," the haunting symphonic tune was well worth downloading the entire album on Ruckus. The second benefit is that, in promotion for the new CD, Within Temptation re-released two of their previous albums, Mother Earth and The Silent Force.

Celtic Thunder recently released their second album, Act II, evidently further attempts make good on the current Celtic fad that seems to be sweeping the country, if not the world. (For the record, I liked Celtic before Celtic was cool.) Their sound is admittedly more neo-pop, and you can scarcely argue the point with songs such as "Desperado," "I Wanna Know What Love Is" and "Puppy Love" in their repertoire. It seems that the stylish "kilts" were added to ward off criticisms of not being authentically Celtic (they look more like formal skirts to me, hardly a kilt-like pattern) but nevertheless, the latest album sports some classy tunes. A Bird Without Wings is very stylishly delivered by the group's "boy wonder" Damian McGinty, as well as other songs like "I Wanna Know What Love Is," the interesting "That's A Woman" ballad, a very archaic rendition of "Heartland" and a not-too-shabby takeoff on Caledonia, which was a good effort, but couldn't overcome the immortalized rendition by Lisa Kelly of Celtic Woman.

Speaking of which...

Celtic Woman is releasing a best-of album soon, featuring hits from their previous collections and one brand-new song, "The Call" which is already accessible on Facebook. It seems a bit cheeky to release a best-of after only two actual albums, but "The Call" illustrates that arranger David Downes and the current members of the group still have it, and gives us a foretaste of what their next album will be like. (Hopefully.)

(Note, this album is not to be confused with former member Hayley Westenra's album, River of Dreams, releasing the same day.)

Brad Paisley shows no sign of stopping, and a track listing from Amazon indicates the usual blend of creative titles, puns, guest artists, humorous as well as serious songs, and at least one gospel tune. I still can't get over how cool "Throttleneck" was from Paisley's previous album, 5th Gear.

Secret Garden, the greatest musical group no one has ever seems to have heard of, is a lavish mixture of bittersweet instrumentals, lively Irish melodies, and soothing lyrical wonders. Continental Music's website describes Secret Garden thus:

Secret Garden creates a musical tapestry that includes textures, colours and emotions ranging from the amazing magnitude of musical experiences that Norwegian born composer / keyboard master Rolf Lovland and Irish violinist extraordinary Fionnuala Sherry, share between them. In concert, these attractive performers and their band create an extraordinary musical "garden" that sweep audiences away on lyrical, mystical adventure that ranges from the romantically serene to the wildly explosive.

As it says, the music is composed primarily by Rolf Løvland (with Fionnuala Sherry soulfully manning the violin) and was inspirational enough for famed singer Barbara Streisand to pen lyrics to, and re-release the song "I've Dreamed of You" after singing it at her wedding. Now the latest, "Inside I'm Singing", other artists take a whack at pairing the beautiful compositions with lyrics of their own. It isn't quite the same, but the album still contains some great songs, like "If Came The Hour" and "Song for a Stormy Night" as well as at least one original instrumental. Alas, the album has yet to release officially in the United States, and I'm only able to comment on existing tracks because of a website I found where you can stream (not download!) the album.

Next up, the Christmas goodies:

Enya has quietly carved her own permanent niche in the classical/vocal/new age genre, with a voice that would barely disturb a feather, often multiplied a thousand-fold to create an ethereal ambiance. It is somewhat exciting to see her album is not just Christmas, but winter. Too often, music that applies to winter gets reshelved just after Christmas, when the season still has months left to go. (Consequently, I leave songs like Winter Wonderland or Sleigh Ride on my MP3 player well after Christmas.) Hopefully with Enya's album, there will be more applicable music to leave in the hopper.

Mannheim Steamroller has become a Christmas staple in millions of homes, and it's always a treat to bring back their CDs come Christmas time, but from the snippets I've heard, this latest offering isn't exactly on par with their previous work. Of course, I won't be tuning in to any Christmas music until around Thanksgiving (earlier if the retailers and radio markets have their say...), but I fear my new favorite for enlivened contemporary songs mixed with sentimental holiday cheer may be Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

Sarah Brightman's been on an interesting curve lately, and her latest album, Symphony, seems to be a departure from her previous work. I say this in a good way of course; Brightman's former operatic days (looking back in retrospective) seem...well, operatic. The focus is not so much on an interesting and varied melody as it is on the power and strength of the voice performing off of a more linear tune. Symphony blatantly started off on a "Gothic" note with the power sounds of "Fleurs du Mal" before quickly stepping back down into more classical yet more thematic and variable songs like Symphony, Canto Della Terra, Sarai Qui, and the upbeat, made-for-exercise Running. Now Brightman's coming out with A Winter Symphony, and if it's anything like the album's mainstream namesake, it will be another great classical Christmas/winter album to add to the shuffle.

So there you have it, those are the albums I'm looking forward to, and a glimpse of my insights into current really good artists. I of course recommend pretty much all of the aforementioned albums and artists.

I've also been discovering the music of a guy named Tim Janis, but that's another post for another time.

**Update October 30**

On the prowl for more Christmas music at Amazon, I ran across a new album, A Lovely Way To Spend Christmas, from bubbly blond Kristin Chenoweth, best known for her role in the original cast of Wicked. Chenoweth is blond enough to appear stupid, and intelligent enough to carry it off with wit and humor, and while I likely wouldn't purchase the entire album on Amazon's MP3 downloader, there are definitely some choice tracks to pick from.

**Update November 6, 2008**

Just when you think things can't get better...! The serenely haunting Loreena McKennitt is releasing a full-length Christmas album too. It's going to be one heck of a Christmas this year.

Debate Strategy #1

2008-10-18T20:52:00.000-07:00

"If you are going to debate, you must realize it won't be all fools and halfwits so easily refuted. Sooner or later, you will find someone who will rebut your position (or, seem to) with devastating effectiveness. They will rip apart your position, gut your arguments and eviscerate your responses. If you have taken a stand on the right side of an issue, you should not let this stop you. Instead, delve deeper into the arguments and logic, and search for better answers. If you learn you are wrong, good. If you find you are right, but learn new ways to prove it, even better. This is continuing growth and development as a rhetorician. In this, you cannot lose."

I've written several times now about global warming. Unfortunately, now that I represent a gun rights organization, my chief political labors focus on those goals, and my other interests (such as global warming, creationism and so forth) take a back seat.

But every now and again, I enjoy seeing articles that fly in the face of conventional wisdom. For instance, this article from the Anchorage Daily News entitled Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather.

I sent this article to a classmate of mine who thinks I'm a nice guy, "despite being conservative." He responded that increased precipitation is a prediction of global warming. I then asked him, if both the waxing and waning of glaciers proves global warming, how could anthropogenic global warming be disproved? He didn't really have an answer for that.

So, debate tip number one: Always take the time to determine how a person's argument could be falsified. If it cannot (IE, glaciers melting/growing) then they do not hold a legitimate point of view, because one of the requirements of a theory is that it CAN be falsified. Otherwise, there's really no point in debating it. And don't be afraid to ask them, "what would you accept as evidence that would change your mind?" Most people, if you're having a good-natured (or even hostile) debate, won't mind telling you what would change their mind.

Thus, you are given the opportunity to select the appropriate weapon before you even begin the debate.

How Much Is $700 Billion?

2008-10-17T19:56:00.001-07:00

$700,000,000,000.

It's a big number, but everyone was so concerned with who was supporting or opposing it, and panicking about potential bank failures (that and we're used to large sums of money being thrown around by the government) that no one stopped to ask how big it was. I decided to ask Google, and ran across an article that broke things down:

It is one third of the total amount of money received by the federal government in 2007, including social security, income tax, corporate tax, and all other receipts.

It is $140 billion more than has been spent on the Iraq war since the invasion.

It is $120 billion more than that spent on social security benefits.

It is almost 3 billion nonrefundable bus fares from Durham to San Francisco, leaving tomorrow.

It is nine times the amount spent on education in 2007.

It could pay for 2,000 McDonald's apple pies for every single American.

It is 35 times the amount spent on all foreign aid in most years.

It is more zeros than the calculator that comes with my computer allows.

It is 7,000 times bigger than the Sierra club’s yearly budget.

According to some estimates, it is three times what it would cost, over 10 years, to reduce oil dependency by 20%.

Its over twice the amount of all money given to all charitable organizations in the United States in any given year.

It is more than $100 for every person in the world.

I did some calculating myself, to add to those numbers. $700 billion is approximately 1/14th of the national debt.

If I started giving you $100 every second, it would take you about 222 years to accumulate $700 billion. (31,556,926 seconds in a year times $100, then divide $700 billion by that number.)

It is 4,666 times larger than an estimated total of all the websites on the internet.

It takes ten million $100 dollar bills just to reach a billion, so it would take 7,000,000,000 $100 dollar bills, which would weigh about 6800 TONS.

If you spent a million dollars a day, it would take you 1,917 years to spend $700 billion.

You would have to have 661 MILES of hundred dollar bills stacked up to get $700 billion. (Based on calculations about Bill Gates' 20 billion here.)

Your federal government hard at play with your hard-earned money.

Aww, why so sad?

**Update 10/28/08**
The Washington Post has a nice breakdown of the allocation

TIME Magazine Questions Need for Experience (For Obama)

2008-10-11T21:32:00.000-07:00

From TIME Magazine: Does Experience Matter in a President?

There's something egglike about the concept of experience as a qualification for the highest office. At first blush, the idea appears to be something you can get your hands around. Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to cajole the Congress, understanding when to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when to call on the National Security Council — that sort of thing. But bear down even slightly, and the notion of experience is liable to crack and run all over. If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along. Lyndon Johnson, for example: his experience as a master legislator no doubt helped as he steered his historic civil rights and welfare agenda to passage. By the end of two years as President, however, "he was out of gas," recalls Johnson aide Harry McPherson. The longer Johnson was in the Oval Office, the more feckless his presidency became.

...

An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé.

This article, of course, was written in February 2008, before Sarah Palin and her "inexperience" became an issue. It is doubtful that they would take such a favorable view of inexperience now.

It's notable that Governor Palin herself has been forthright about how she's an outsider in politics. She has no experience in DC politics - deficit spending, patronage or raising taxes. Her record in Alaska is quite the opposite.

Lack of experience does not always mean a poor leader, and when we look at past presidents, we find they also had similar 'lack of experience.'

Take Woodrow Wilson for example. He held a governorship for only two years before running for president.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a state senator for two years, and a governor for four before becoming president.

Teddy Roosevelt, who has already been compared to Gov. Palin, was a state senator for a few years, and governor for two years before entering the presidential arena.

Historically, our better presidents come with executive experience, not senatorial experience anyway.

Associated Press Pushes Church "Double-Standard" on Palin

2008-10-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

From the Associated Press via the Lexington Herald-Leader: Palin a challenge to So. Baptist view of women

Within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, a woman may not lead a church or a home. But prominent Southern Baptists see nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president - or perhaps even commander-in-chief someday.

In other words: A woman can run the White House, just not her own house.

I found this attempt at a wedge to be rather amusing coming from the AP -- as I do almost all attempts by self-admitted "outsiders" of the Christian faith to highlight supposed hypocrisy within it.

The flurry of attacks against the plucky Alaska governor are certainly to be expected in a political race, but their desperate nature (and things like this article) reveal how uncomfortable the Democrats are with someone who is comfortable actually being a woman. A large wing of the Democrat party is made up of radical feminists who spend their entire lives shrieking that they are as good as men are, if not better, and then going the extra mile to prove themselves thus. It's a bitter irony that this only indicates a lack of comfort on their part; trying to prove yourself to, and live up to, someone or some standard is a clear indicator of what you aspire to be. Thus, feminists show they aspire to be equal to or greater than the very thing they condemn and despise.

Along comes Gov. Palin, who has no problem showing up to political meetings with her newborn son on her shoulder, or cradling him after the Vice-Presidential debate. She's clearly comfortable in her own skin, being a lady with all elegance and grace, being a mother with poise and enthusiasm, and being a politician at the same time. The irrational fear and paranoid accusations show that these feminist types simply don't comprehend who Palin is and how she can harmonize all three functions at once.

As for alleged incompatibility with Christian faith, the article claims:

A prohibition on pastoral leadership by women, affirmed within the last several years, is based on the Bible verse 1 Timothy 2:12 in which the Apostle Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man." Regarding family life, Southern Baptists cite Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."

Of course, in a typical effort to cast Christians as the suppressors of women, the author left out the proper context:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

The Apostle Paul spends three verses encouraging woman to honor the hierarchical system set in place (and comparing it to the relationship between Christ and the church), and then spends eight verses exhorting men to love their wives as self-sacrificially as Christ loved us. In other words, to the point of death.

The problem comes in thinking that submission is the same as weakness. In fact, Christ demonstrated that the goal of the most powerful "man" (Christ, the divine made human) on earth was to submit Himself utterly - and then encourage us to do the same. (Matthew 16:24)

As a spokesperson within the SBC notes, "There's no disconnect or inconsistency whatsoever. We don't go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage."

The author would do well to remind himself of the important role of women in the Bible...particularly Deborah, a judge in Israel. Meaning, a woman who held authority over other men of the time.

The author wraps up by trying to underscore further supposed double-standards from a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary pastor, Daniel Akin, by contrasting a sermon on stay-at-home wives with the opinion on Sarah Palin. Of course, for someone who likely does not adhere to a Christian faith, this begs the question, what's wrong with hypocrisy to begin with?

Dave Goes HGTV

2008-09-20T21:37:00.000-07:00

Before:

Steps required:

- Removing all furniture (some of which is already removed from the above photo)
- Cutting/removing carpet
- Cutting/removing carpet padding
- Prying up/removing carpet tack strips
- Removing remaining shreds of padding, pulling up staples
- Removing trim around edge of room
- Laying down laminate flooring planks
- Replacing trim (using nail gun)
- Replacing furniture

After:

And all in one weekend.

Why yes. Now that you mention it, I DO rock.

Humor for the Weekend

2008-09-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort, and the access of the memory makes your floppy disk abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.

If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking icon puts your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted cause the index doesn't hash, then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash!

If the label on the cable on the table at your house says the network is connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel to another protocol that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall, and your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse, then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang 'cuz sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang!

When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy in the disk and the macro code instructions cause unnecessary risk, then you'll have to flash the memory and you'll want to RAM your ROM. Quickly turn the sucker off and be sure to tell your Mom!

STILL Think I'm Crazy For Carrying A Gun in Wal-Mart?

2008-08-28T21:55:00.000-07:00

From the Allentown Morning Call: Teen robber shot outside Wal-Mart is charged

A shopper licensed to carry a firearm shot and wounded a 17-year-old boy who allegedly tried to rob him at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart store in East Stroudsburg early this morning.

(More)

A Comic I Can Identify With

2008-08-25T21:59:00.000-07:00

I notice more and more that with few exceptions, I don't actually laugh at the comics in the paper anymore. Granted, I don't often get a newspaper any more, except Sundays, but still.

Opus wins the most points for making me laugh. Garfield seems to be improving in humor content. Since I began attending business school, it somehow seems a switch was turned on, and I've begun appreciating the humor of Dilbert quite a bit.

But while waiting at my bank today, I flipped open the paper and saw a comic that, for once, made me burst out laughing. If you don't get why, read this post.

Was Superman So Super?

2008-08-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

The universe of Superman has always been a mystery to me. I enjoy watching his exploits as much as anyone else (yes, I say watching - I don't read comic books), and I'm sure the problem of how to make an invulnerable superhero vulnerable is always an interesting experience for writers. Inevitably, it comes down multiple, mutually exclusive crises.

But Superman's superpowers baffle even basic levels of intuitive science.

The heat vision or super-cold breath aren't so bad. The former seems to require an internal light/heat source, while the latter must require a hyper-compression/decompression function in his lungs, or some sort of atmospheric coolant/retardant.

His ability to fly is so enviable that you really don't mind it being scientifically anathema. (Although if he's truly weightless, why does he not, in terms relative to the earth, fly off into space the instant he becomes weightless? After all, the planet is hurtling through the galaxy at thousands of miles an hour. Anything truly independent of the earth's gravitational field should be left in the wake.)

"You offend reason, sir. [Beat] I should like very much to offend it with you!" John Darling, 2003 adaptation of Peter Pan

His near-invulnerability raises questions. In the first Superman movie, Jor-El (Marlon Brando) attributes his virtual invulnerability to his dense molecular structure. If that density corresponds to known physical and elemental properties, why then isn't he heavier than the weight of 225 pounds (about average for his height/build) he quoted Lois Lane in the same film? Additionally, flying at his intense speeds, he has to stand up to atmospheric pressure and kinetic friction. (We already know he can stand up to heat from the movies also.)

If a bullet flattens itself up against Superman's eyeball (going even so far as to shape itself around his eyelashes) without even making him blink, as was the case in Superman Returns, then why does Superman even need eyelids? Evidently, his eyes are less sensitive to foreign objects, and therefore impervious to, say, such annoyances as getting an eyelash stuck in your eye or a speck of dust. Why does he even need lachrymal ducts and tears? (At last check, scientists still don't understand why human beings shed tears when they are sad.)

But all Superman fans know his one bane is kryptonite - radioactive pieces of Krypton, or the Kryptonian sun. Superman becomes weak and useless under its effects. Radiation certainly makes people weak and kills cellular growth. Prolonged exposure is deadly. But how can kryptonite alter Superman's molecular density simply upon exposure? Sure, it may radiate and kill his cells, but that wouldn't instantly make him vulnerable, or weak. And he wouldn't be back to normal after its presence was removed, either.

Clark Kent obviously eats, and Superman said in his first interview that he does eat, when he is hungry. This raises the question, why couldn't Superman be poisoned? If his biological systems of consumption and digestion are similar, poisons should be able to exploit those functions in the same way they work on normal human beings.

So, if Superman's skin is so impervious to elements, intrusions and penetration (even of a small-gauge needle, such as the one that bent on his skin in Superman Returns), if his body can withstand the friction of high-speed flight and the pressure of outer space, how could it still be sensitive to things like human touch, heat or debris?

Okay, so I'm dissecting a fantasy world too closely. At this point, if not long before, a true fan would throw arms up and exclaim that it's just fantasy.

My overarching point in all this is, aren't these sensitivities and vulnerabilities what make us human? The same skin that can tear and bleed so easily can also sense tiny objects (ever been tickled by the tip of a human hair, or felt a minuscule insect crawling on you?) including human touch.

Humans who acquired Superman's near-invulnerability would doubtless find it nearly as much a curse as it is a gift.

"There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket -- safe, dark, motionless, airless -- it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell." - C.S. Lewis

The Philosphy of Bumper Stickers: Power to the Peaceful

2008-08-16T16:43:00.000-07:00

I spied another "peace at any cost" bumper sticker the other day. And I'll not deny that bumper stickers, right or wrong, are often pithy and creative slogans - I just can't help but pick apart the silly premise or flimsy logic behind it.

This latest was "Power to the Peaceful."

I suppose it depends on how you interpret what it says. I interpret it to be "take power away from the war-mongers and give it to those who want peace." The only problem is that power isn't (shouldn't be) dormant. It is something to be wielded, ideally for good. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of peace, good must often wield that power through acts of confrontation. Giving power to pacifists is like giving money to self-reliant hermits...they can't and won't use it for anything constructive.

Contrast this slogan with the t-shirt I saw at an IDPA competitive shooting match today, a rephrasing of Patrick Henry's famous "liberty or death" quote:

"I'd rather be dead on my feet than alive on my knees."

Black Widow

2008-08-12T20:38:00.000-07:00

I was taking out some empty flooring boxes to the trash this morning, and found both dumpsters full. So I turned over one of the regular garbage cans and found it full of webbing and a rather large black spider. A closer inspection as the old girl turned her underside to me revealed a bright shiny hourglass...a dead giveaway that it was a black widow one of the few poisonous spiders indigenous to my area. Although the venom is more toxic than some snakes, you don't usually die from the bite, and I'd never seen a live one before. Before taking care of it (you don't leave a poisonous spider free to lay her eggs around your house!), I grabbed my camera and snapped some shots for the arachnophobes out there to enjoy.

DC, SCCC & C-SPAN

2008-08-10T12:14:00.000-07:00

1. Flights are cheaper when you order them in advance. This is one of the first lessons I learned during my recent excursion to Washington DC. Fortunately, I secured a flight to and from DC at a reasonable price, and one night's stay was already taken care of courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation.

2. It's hard to sleep the night before an exciting trip. That was the second lesson learned, as I lay in bed, awake, tired and unable to sleep. I think I finally eked out about three hours of sleep before awakening at about 4:30am to get to the airport on time.

3. Airports don't need nearly as much time at 5am as they do at 5pm. Despite warnings that you arrive at your airport an hour or two before take-off, I quickly processed through security and my luggage check and was waiting near the boarding tunnel for a good 45 minutes, as they sky slowly brightened behind me.

4. Airports charge you for luggage. Having not been on many flights, I didn't realize this. But once you're there, what're you going to do?

5. Yes, luggage handlers really DO just sling luggage around carelessly. I watched several times as husky bag-loaders tossed, stuffed and threw bags around without any semblance of care or caution at all. I wonder if they were trying to break something?

6. Airplanes are a lot smaller than they look in the movies. I had to squeeze my bulky frame into a window seat above the wing, and had the good fortune of having someone else join my row who was at least as bulky as I was. Oh yay.

7. You can't listen to fitting music on an MP3 player during take-off, to make the surge in speed and lift seem that much cooler. And I had prepared three tracks for the occasion, too.

8. There's nothing like flying. Forget about cool music...watching the ground drop away is a fantastic thing to see. It's a gradual process that happens very quickly, if that makes sense. Everything rapidly shrinks away, until those little ribbons are rivers, those little squares are fields and tiny moving dots are semi-trucks. Pardon me for waxing philosophical for a moment, but somehow, being that high does trivialize the problems down below. It puts things in perspective, and causes one to go "wow, we really are small."

The rest of the flight was relatively short, and soon I was in Charlotte NC's humongous airport. (Five Starbucks seemed a bit much to me.) More waiting, and then I boarded the next flight to DC. It's also a fun experience to look at different concourses, flight numbers and boarding tunnels and see the different destinations - like Miami, Honolulu and Chicago.

I arrived at Reagan airport at about 11am, plenty of good time, with a view of the city on the starboard side as we landed. Having typically only taken car trips, the fact that I was in DC just hours after being in Kentucky was still a bit surreal. Unfortunately, I learned the hotel I was staying at did not send a shuttle. So, I had to take a cab. Which reminds me...

9. DC cab drivers get away with way more than normal drivers would.

I quickly dumped my luggage in the tiny little box that somehow had room for a TV, a bed and a desk (the bathroom was probably the nicest place in the room) and change into my dress clothes. Carrying a printed-out map from the hotel to the National Press Club, I set out on foot. However, 14th street turned and weaved a little, and I wound up taking a false turn down another street. I finally broke down and asked a couple of gentlemen, expecting they would tell me it's right in front of me. But no, I was a bit further than I thought. I finally caught up with SCCC President Mike Guzman and some others hanging around just outside the National Press Club, and was escorted to the lucky 13th floor of the club.

It was a pretty good crowd, we counted over a hundred.

(Video of the event is available on C-SPAN's website here. Make sure you allow the pop-up window.)

I still don't know why they had water in expensive glass bottles that looked like they could potentially contain alcoholic beverages. And they were being consumed in wine glasses. A fine spectacle some of us figured this was making for the C-SPAN cameras!

It was a little strange to meet so many of the people I'd kept in touch with via Facebook and instant messenger, for more than a year, some of them. It wasn't even putting a face with the name, it was putting a human presence with a face and a name already known.

The tentative agenda was as follows:

1:00-1:05 Opening Speech by SCCC Pres Michael Guzman
1:05-2:05 Debate between John Lott and Brady Campaign Pres Paul Helmke
2:05-2:50 Academic Panel David Mustard, Bob Cottrol, Joyce Lee Malcolm
2:50-3:35 State Legislators Who Have Sponsored Legislation
3:35-4:15 Student Panel Discussing Their Experiences
4:15-4:40 Awards Presentation
4:40-4:55 G. Gordon Liddy
4:55-5:00 Closing Statement by SCCC Pres Michael Guzman

John Lott presented his side first, as only John Lott can do. Alas, Paul Helmke seemed to have greater poise at the microphone, and was more dynamic and animated in his communication with the audience. He was also dead-wrong, but, that's what a debate is for.

Lott and Helmke traded arguments about specific incidents of firearms usage, both good and bad, bandying details about the college shooting of 1966, as well as the New Life church shooting in Colorado and the Appalachian Law School shooting which was brought to a halt by students with guns.

When the floor was opened for questions, yours truly was first in line (at about 56:40 if you tune in to the video) to ask if, given that the issue of firearms was one of public policy, whether or not we should dispense with the countless anecdotal evidences available and look at the aggregate numbers to determine which is more common, criminal use of firearms or civilian use.

C-SPAN cameras catching every minute of the conference

By the way, I would like to extend a special thank-you to Nancy Pelosi for shutting down the cameras on the Senate floor, because although she was making an underhanded attempt to censor Republicans on the floor, she created an opportunity for additional exposure via the primary C-SPAN cameras, rather than on C-SPAN 3 as originally scheduled.

Shortly after these two wrapped up, I stepped out of the conference room and engaged in some discussion with Paul Helmke and John Lott, both of whom were locked in an interesting discussion at the time:

When speaking with Paul Helmke, he admitted that he wouldn't have a problem with responsible students like myself carrying a weapon on campus, especially if I had the state-issued credentials.

Speeches by David Mustard, Robert Cottroll and Joyce Lee Malcolm were all enjoyable, although I missed Mr. Mustard's speech due to conversations with Lott & Helmke. Mustard was more academic in addressing his research, Cottroll was more laid-back and intimate in communicating with his audience about the legal background of the right to keep and bear arms and "militia", and Ms. Malcolm traced the evolution of the right to "defence" (as citizens of Great Britain would spell it) to its current, dismal state. (I meant to ask her about the UK's recent upgrade of self-defense laws but did not.)

State legislators Jason Murphey (OK) and Ernest Wooten (LA) briefly addressed the audience, and took questions. I was particularly impressed and pleased with Rep. Wooten's speech. Among the different styles of public speaking (mine tends to be to say a lot in a short amount of time), the other style I admire is that where you say something and wait two or three beats to let it sink in before saying something else and waiting several beats, etc. Rep. Wooten noted that the first people who need educating are the educators, which was very true.

Following these two, renowned attorney Alan Gura, who argued the landmark DC vs. Heller case before the Supreme Court, spoke about the legal right to self-defense, and some of the details surrounding the case. (Photos were scarce because I tried to video most of it.)

I was able to catch up with Mr. Gura outside the room and have an enjoyable chat with him and Rep. Wooten. (I wound up missing most of the student panel and the speeches by Ted Gest and Joe Tartaro.) I also spoke with Professor Cottroll about speaking at my university. I noted John Lott leaving with two boxes of books in his hands, and inquired if he needed any help. Lott accepted, and I was soon to learn that his car was parked in a parking garage a little more than a block away. No good deed...

Upon returning (after some difficulty locating the original entrance to the Press Club!) I crossed paths with radio host G. Gordon Liddy, who was just coming in the door I'd been looking for. I hadn't been sent for him, but it seems I was just in time to intercept him and take him to our floor. (It is fortunate I was there and recognized him!)

Mr. Liddy addressed the audience in closing about his experience with the FBI (none of which necessarily pertained to guns on campus, but was interesting to listen to nonetheless).

C-SPAN lists the conference as lasting 4 hours and 22 minutes. Because of my different activities, it's funny that I wound up missing not a small amount of it, but the experiences there were priceless, and I'm certainly glad for them.

I built two extra days in to my trip for sight-seeing, and I shall discuss those in a future post.

Review of The Dark Knight

2008-07-27T19:25:00.000-07:00

Mere hours after viewing the film which stirred up so much hype, I'm still trying to figure out why it is I don't like it. And when it comes down to "did you like it?" I have to answer no, but hesitantly.

Christian Bale's arrest for assault and Heath Ledger's untimely death merely heaped more fuel onto an already-existing inferno of publicity and expectation, and that was just the status updates across the networking site Facebook.

The film had the biggest opening ever, and quickly recouped its $180 million costs and rapidly continues to stock up profits bigger than the piles of cash featured in the film. Critics gave it good ratings, and the scuttlebutt about town is that Heath Ledger is being pressed for a posthumous Oscar for his performance.

So why don't I like it? The reasons aren't simple, but I'll try to spell them out.

Basic plot, Batman's crime-fighting capers coupled with "White Knight" District Attorney Harvey Dent's fearless prosecution (aided by Batman/Bruce's former flame Rachel Dawes, played by a new actress who is less impressive than Katie Holmes) is starting to make a serious "dent" in Gotham City's crime. Batman's heroics are even spurring minor league imitators trying to prevent crime. (Batman reminds a protesting would-be vigilante of the difference: "I'm not wearing hockey pads!")

Usually, I make sure the movies I see aren't needlessly brutal and decidedly light on "adult" content and check reviews at ScreenIt and PluggedIn. These promised the film would be darker than its predecessor(s). PluggedIn's reviewer wrote "The Joker forces us to imagine every cut and tear. He makes Jigsaw from the torture-porn Saw flicks look positively ethical ... the violence here feels more real, visceral...painful."

And later, "It's not just kids who'll walk out of the film shaken."

There's some truth to it, but the film fell short of living up to the hype, and I don't just mean the violence. I didn't find the film to be as dark or as brooding. Parts of the movie show us a Batman who is close to giving up because "a hero with a face" (Dent) is stepping up. Then the Joker steps in...a villain who is so incomprehensible that even the villains begin to turn against him. He has no clear motivation other than dystopia and laughs even as Batman "interrogates" him - with his fists.

"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money," Alfred explains, relying on obscure war experience (who knew?). "They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men...just want to watch the world burn."

But the Joker doesn't just want to plant incendiary devices around Gotham City. His goal seems to be to disprove the idealism of Gotham's heroes (Dent, Gordan and Batman) by pitting citizens against each other. Joker takes control of two large ferries, one full of criminals, one full of regular civilians, and pits the one against the other in a "social experiment" of his own invention, offering each the chance to survive by killing the other.

And of course, the other trick all super villains must resort to when dealing with the seemingly indestructible; presenting two mutually exclusive threats, and demanding the hero choose between the two. (The original Superman movie's two missiles, for example, or the Green Goblin's much shorter-ranged threat to Spider-Man.)

But we still haven't gotten to why I didn't like it. So let me try to explain.

First off, there was no clear victory, and no clear climax. I noticed even in the soundtrack (which I got before I saw the movie) there wasn't a definitive "buckle up, here we go" moment. (At least the tracks were more clearly labeled than the Batman Begins soundtrack.) There was no satisfaction gained. We see that the citizens of the city are brought very close to the brink of proving Joker right. Not fully pushing them over the edge of anarchy could be considered the Joker's only defeat. The only true defeat is bereft of true victory, because the villain spent most of the movie being a hero.

We're certainly not hard up for superhero movies in the past decade. Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, Superman, Hellboy, and the Fantastic Four have all been brought to the big screen, in addition to less successful attempts such as Daredevil, Catwoman, Ghost Rider and Punisher. New heroes are even being created in Hancock and The Incredibles.

So we've seen all kinds of sides to superheros, their strengths and their weaknesses. Batman's values never waver, but they do get lost in a seeming cloud of moral ambiguity, and I wonder if that's something that expectant audiences neither need nor deserve.

I found myself asking, "Why did you make this movie?" To foster an unfulfilled loathing for a man too psychopathic to even muster a good, sound hatred for - and rob us of any true triumph in the end? Joker's not an enemy you can love to hate nor even one you can hate to love. He just exists for the sake of creating chaos. The entire film seems to assume his completely nonlinear personality.

In the end, Batman keeps his virtues. Even the Joker is forced to admit it; he's incorruptible. But at what cost? Sacrificially taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit, Batman sadly explains "sometimes, truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

Batman may be the dark knight, but there were two knights who shone as brightly - Gordan, and an unnamed prisoner whose silent act of heroism was perhaps one of the most memorable moments in the film.

So okay, that's two reasons, lack of satisfying conclusion, and a haze of moral ambiguity. Is that enough? Maybe not to some. To me, if you're going to set up a villain, you'd better bring him to some sort of justice in the end...some sort of satisfying conclusion. Batman foils the bad guy's scheme, and hauls the villain's protesting butt to jail, or manages to see them meet a timely end. Neither happens. One friend shared with me a reviewer's take that Dark Knight is to Batman Begins what Empire Strikes Back was to the original Star Wars film - but we're hardly left with any indication of a third sequel that redeems the story. In addition to no clear victory, various high-profile characters meet their death in the film.

In the end, the film failed to live up to any expectations - neither as violent nor as menacing as we were told, nor as satisfying. I can't say I'm compelled to go back for a second helping, or to rush out and buy the DVD. The movie was certainly a respectable attempt, but for me, it just didn't cut it.

"He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight."

More Discounted Literary Goodies

2008-07-17T14:14:00.000-07:00

I wrote in September of last year about a library close-out book sale I attended, and the books I purchased. I would say I've read close to half of them. (My sister is a voracious reader, and I allow her to act as a sort-of screener for good books, and if she recommends them, I read them.)

I went to another sale today, and as usual, there's rows and rows, hundreds of books to browse through, and it takes a while to hone in on the proper section. It's always hard to know when and what to get, especially when prices are a dollar or less in most cases. Do I really want to buy Barbara Bush's memoirs, and will I really read them? Is it worth it to purchase Aldous Huxley's Brave New World just because he and his brother were noted for some interesting admissions regarding evolution?

At any rate, I finally found my zone inside a back (air-conditioned!) room, and harvested the following:

The Confessions of St. Augustine edited by Ernest Rhys, translated by E.B. Pusey. (The edition is from 1945...I love holding a book that old!)

The Age of Chivalry - The Legends of Charlemagne compiled by Thomas Bulfinch (1965)

Celtic Tales by Barbara Leonie Picard (1962)

The Age of Chivalry by Sir Arthur Bryant (1963)

A Night to Remember by Walter Lord (1964 edition - it's the story of the Titanic)

A Concise Treasure of Great Poems - English and American compiled by Louis Untermeyer (1963)

Colonial and Federalist American Writing edited by George F. Horner and Robert A. Bain

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells

Chowtime.

One Small Step for Great Britain

2008-07-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

From The Guardian: New self defence laws back 'have-a-go heroes'

"This law will help to make sure that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim," he said.

He added: "These changes in the law will make clear - victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal."

Aside from misspelling "defense" (it's one of many quirks between British and American spelling), this is fantastic news for self-defense in the United Kingdom. Hearty congratulations to Jack Straw and others for empowering their own citizens to take a stand against crime and refuse to be a victim.

Within Temptation: A Musical Quandary

2008-07-09T21:14:00.001-07:00

Lately, I've had some freedom to explore new genres and artists because of the free-but-nontransferable music offered by Ruckus through my university. I've been able to screen new soundtracks, pick up on musical gems that not even the major services like iTunes and Yahoo Music have, and find new groups or genres that fit my tastes.

In short, I've been expanding my musical base.

Which leads me to my "musical quandary." I've always disliked heavy metal, rap, and hardcore rock and roll. (I say "hard core rock" because it turns out the genre of "rock" really doesn't mean what it used to be.) I've even gone so far as to accept that many of these styles are detrimental to psychological and spiritual growth.

But I heard a song on a YouTube fan video that was coupled with footage of Lord of the Rings. The song, "Somewhere" was sad, achingly sad, but somehow tinged with resolve and carried it off without abandoning hope altogether. I went to find and buy the song very quickly after hearing it. It became one of those "play over'n over" tracks on my portable music device.

I was curious enough to learn more about the group, Within Temptation, who could craft such a meaningful song.

Pandora.com's Music Genome Project describes Within Temptation in a couple of different ways:

Vocal/choral foundation, smooth female lead vocal

Guitar-driven force of hard rock with the sweep and grandeur of symphonic music

Acoustic rock instrumentation, subtle use of vocal harmony, mild rhythmic syncopation, acoustic rhythm piano and intricate melodic phasing

Other classifications have been attempted, such as symphonic rock, or Goth-influenced symphonic metal. Regardless, they're not just any metal/rock sound and they don't fit neatly into any one general category. Their choral backgrounds are a highlight, as well as lead singer Sharon den Adel's very melodic wailing.

Using that splendid Music Genome project at Pandora, I've looked into similar groups such as Evanescence, Nightwish and Epica, and all fall short of the good songs by Within Temptation.

The problem is, their music is either feast or famine. Some of their work features what I suppose are classic metal elements, such as torturous drum beats, hideous guitar-jamming, and screeching "death yells" (raspy-voiced growls and other guttural, inhuman vocalizations).

On the other hand, there are splendid arrangements that really break out of the metal bindings and fill in a new sound all its own...a sound which I can only describe as epic tragedy or hauntingly fateful poignancy. (Songs like "Pale", "The Swan Song", "Forgiven", "Memories" and the instrumental "Intro".)

Others have a coursing power feel to them, songs such as "Our Solemn Hour", "Forsaken", "Ice Queen" (which works perfectly as a theme song for the Chronicles of Narnia's White Witch, as evidenced by the number of fan videos coupling the song with movie footage) and "Angels".

What was interesting to me is how many of these songs fit so well with the Lord of the Rings motion picture trilogy, as evidenced by the number of YouTube fan tributes centered around them. I'm often impressed by the skill of these "amateur" editors who edit clips and montages together for free.

"Our Solemn Hour", for example, was brilliantly set against clips of the films by one YouTube user named KatePevensie - I still go back to rewatch the video from time to time.

The song "Forsaken" was edited with LotR clips by a user named Endareyn. (Incidentally, for those who have read deeper into the history of Tolkien's Middle-Earth, "Forsaken" would be more fittingly matched with Akallabêth and the downfall of Númenor.)

When I heard the song "Pale", I knew I had only to search to find its LotR tribute, and YouTuber LadyLupin3's video is the first one I came across.

Another YouTuber by name of Elvira27 coupled "The Swan Song" with more clips in a montage. The song perfectly reflects the decline of the race of Elves.

The appeal of these videos is partly to provide an alternate score for moments from the film, but also to draw part of the story out of the whole and tell it independently. (IE, "the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen" or "Frodo's suffering", etc.)

I even got in on the game after hearing a song called "The Howling" from the latest Within Temptation CD, "The Heart of Everything". The song was picture-perfect and begging to be matched with battle footage from Lord of the Rings. Over the space of a month or two, I managed to download various clips of LotR battles such as Moria, Amon Hen, the Pelennor Field and the Black Gate from YouTube (not possessing the technology to rip the movie from the DVDs themselves), and splice them together in Windows Movie Maker to produce my own montage/tribute, titled "When We Start Killing" that I feel is equal to others on YouTube, and perhaps even equal to the song.

There is at least one other video that used "The Howling" for a film tribute, although mine is unique in at least one regard - I edited the music to make for a longer video. Because I wanted to feature important battles in the film (except Helm's Deep, since it just didn't fit) I had to repeat one of the verses. It didn't work seamlessly, but I was still happy with the result.

One of the things that is most appealing is the ability to capture sadness in such a moving way. I had a friend ask me why it was I "enjoyed" sad songs or at least, why they appeal to me. That's a question I hope to answer in a future entry.

In the meantime, I encourage you to check out some of the above-mentioned music, and if you find something that truly is similar, give me a holler.

Evolution, Hypocrites and Heroes

2008-07-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

From LiveScience: Why We're All Moral Hypocrites

The researchers speculate that instinctive morality results from evolutionary selection for team players. Being fair, they point out, strengthens mutually beneficial relationships and improves our chances for survival.

This story was linked from me mate over at Creation-Evolution Headlines.

It's hard to believe it took a study (and a small one, if I am reading correctly that the study contained only 84 participants) to conclude that people are more accepting of their own vices and harder on others. Personally, I think humans tend to be hardest on those who most closely reflect our own vices, because we see those traits which we live with so often, but without the self-interest to defray the response.

What's intriguing in this article is the very small and woefully inadequate explanation for how evolution "selected" for morality. I studied this issue for while when I was writing an article for a creationist collective several years ago. It seems that among the vast phenomena evolution is unable to explain, human behavior ranks near the top. No matter how long evolutionists theorize, they are working with a framework which is cold, mechanic and ruthless. (We know this because the Discovery Channel narrator reminds us all the time so we won't write nasty letters for showing seal intestines scattered across the beach.) Whenever evolutionists attempt to explain why a ruthless process such as evolution (that cleverly designing non-designer) would select for self-sacrifice, altruism and selflessness, they are stuck. Either they negate the value of truly good actions by suggesting good deeds are performed only because of expected returns, or they negate the reason for selection at all - for the highest goals of an organism are the survival and propagation of itself and its offspring.

It seems, therefore, that there is no evolutionary (or, if you will, scientific) explanation for the actions of soldiers like Matt Croucher, Michael Monsoor and Ross McGinnis who gave their life, or were willing to, at the greatest possible cost to themselves.

It is this kind of heroism that staggers the great, and confounds evolutionists.

It is here where intuition and common sense are most strongly offended by evolution. Evolution teaches that an organism is functioning properly according to evolution only when it seeks its own betterment and benefit; aught else is an aberration from nature's design. (Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that "Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each.")

Yet conscience and morality tell us that the people who put others before themselves are the better members of society.

Interestingly, a Biblical worldview has no trouble explaining the sacrifice of the military, or any other everyday hero - without diminishing the deed. Christ tells us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24), and we're told to die to self (2 Corinthians 4:11), and consider others as higher than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). Which side would you choose?

9 Reasons Why Lord of the Rings Clobbers Narnia

2008-06-23T10:20:00.000-07:00

From Film.com: Why Narnia Will Never Match Up to LOTR

I couldn't resist these tongue-in-cheek yet thoughtful and accurate reasons why Lord of the Rings (at least in a back-to-back movie comparison) clubs Narnia. (Edited for content)

1. Lord of the Rings = Old Testament = vicious deities, exciting plagues and turmoil, rains of fire, etc. Narnia = New Testament = hippie lovefest, turning the other cheek, etc. (What works in real life doesn't always make for super-cool fantasy action.)

2. There's no way someone as cool as Guillermo del Toro would agree to direct The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I mean, unless he could get Lucy Pevensie eaten by a troll or pushed down a well or something horrible like that.

3. Prince Caspian/Peter Pevensie slash fan fiction is kinda dull compared to Legolas/Gimli slash.

4. Hearty hobbit grub of mushroom pies and mugs of ale way better than enchanted Turkish delight -- what is that stuff, anyway?

5. Even Pippin could take Mr. Tumnus in a bare-knuckle brawl.

6. Huge dearth in Narnia of evil fiery volcanoes.

8. Giant masked demigod in black robes versus pretty white ice queen? What do you think?

9. Narnia is just a made-up place invented by an imaginative author. Middle-Earth is real. Everyone knows that.

Scientific American's Big Climate "Oopsie!"

2008-06-19T21:29:00.000-07:00

On June 13, Scientific American posted an article entitled Environmental Catch-22?: Mending Ozone Hole May Worsen Climate Change that recapped a study about the effects of the ozone hole and whether or not its closing would affect wind patterns and ultimately, climate change. Don't bother clicking on the above link, it is defunct. However, the original edition is (temporarily) preserved on Google's website cache here.

The original text of the article, taken directly from Google's cache, appears below.

Decades of chemical pollution have damaged the ozone layer of the upper atmosphere that shields Earth from the harmful effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays, each summer eating a hole over the South Pole that expands to nearly the size of Antarctica. But since 1996, when an international treaty banned the culprit chemical refrigerants and propellants (known as CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons), the size of the seasonal tear has been shrinking—and scientists predict it may stop forming by the end of this century.

You would think that was good news. But atmospheric scientists caution in a new study published in Science that sewing up the rift in the ozone (a type of oxygen) layer may exacerbate another environmental woe: climate change.

The reason: closing the gash may affect the flow of winds known as the westerlies around Antarctica, which impact everything from the extent of sea ice to the location of deserts in the Southern Hemisphere. According to scientific studies and mathematical models developed for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which last year determined that the changing climate is largely a man-made danger—global warming has shifted these winds toward the poles, altering weather patterns throughout the Southern Hemisphere. The new research shows that mending the ozone could speed warming in Antarctica and, potentially, the globe.

"The winds drive everything," says study author Lorenzo Polvani, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, "locations of storms, dry zones and deserts, the ice and the ocean circulation as well as the carbon uptake of the oceans." For decades, these winds have been speeding up near Antarctica; repairing the ozone would weaken the winds, he says, and shift them back toward the equator, affecting weather in the entire Southern Hemisphere, including Antarctica as well as Australia, parts of Africa and South America.

This also means Earth's southernmost continent might experience even more warming in future as the winds continue to shift and allow relatively warmer air to cover it, potentially speeding the melting of ice shelves. In addition, if there were no hole, the replenished ozone would trap even more heat as greenhouse gas concentrations also rise, according to Polvani.

Atmospheric scientist Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado at Boulder and her colleagues reached a similar conclusion, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. But she notes that none of the models on which scientists base these predictions tell the whole story, because they have yet to include all possible variables in their calculations. For instance, she says, no one has factored in the role that the ocean—critical to the regulation of Earth's temperature—would play if the ozone hole is closed.

Perlwitz says that computer simulations including ocean impacts are now being run, and could help scientists better predict the potential consequences of global warming and the changing ozone—and what must be done to limit the damage.

Someone quickly hit the panic button, however, and within hours, the article changed to its current state, Mending Ozone Hole May Benefit Climate Change which states the exact opposite of the former article, and more closely resembling Science Magazine's version. The new version contains a note on the bottom stating

"*Erratum (6/16/08): We regret the misunderstanding created by the original headline and wording of this article, which stated that mending the ozone layer could speed climate change."

Now how do you get to be an author at Scientific American and make a mistake that big? Especially in defiance of the established belief on anthropogenic climate change? I wouldn't have wanted to be in that author's cubicle when The Editors came calling.

Michael Ward: Narnian Books Allegory for Seven Medieval Planets

2008-06-18T20:38:00.000-07:00

Scholar Claims Secret Link Between 'Narnia' Books Lies in Astrology

The Rev. Dr. Michael Ward, chaplain of Peterhouse, the oldest college in the University of Cambridge, contends in his new book Planet Narnia that C.S. Lewis secretly constructed the seven Narnia books to reflect the temperaments and qualities of the seven medieval planets – Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Luna, Mercury, Venus, and Saturn.

Reverend Ward was actually a guest speaker for a Narnia event at Wheaton College in Illinois a couple of years ago, and I was able to ask him in an open forum how much of this idea he derived from the strong planetary/astrological symbolism found in Lewis's space trilogy, to which he replied "entirely."

Lewis was known for "redeeming" concepts that were stereotyped as evil (IE, the land of Bism in The Silver Chair resembling stereotypical images of hell, or the appearance of Mr. Tumnus resembling classic conceptions of the devil, other "pagan" mythology, etc.) but I tend to agree with Lewis's stepson, Douglas Gresham, who said in an interview that:

"We seem to be a species that loves conspiracy theories: "There has to be a hidden meaning, there has to be a hidden structure." A very nice man and a friend of mine, Michael Ward, has recently written and published a book all about how Narnian Chronicles are all based on the seven planets of the medieval astronomical system. I like Michael enormously, but I think his book is nonsense."

Hope for the Unborn in New Zealand?

2008-06-15T20:34:00.000-07:00

From Stuff.co.nz: What's next for abortion in New Zealand?

It seems that abortion in New Zealand has been following the adage "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission". Thanks to the slowness with which the wheels of government turn, the excuse of "mental health" has passed as an excuse since 1982, according to the article. (Ignoring the mental health consequences of abortions, of course!)

Public pressure has apparently kept most MPs from speaking up about it of late.

Now, thanks to a ruling by a Judge, this may change:

The judgment by Justice Forrest Miller found that:

* The Abortion Supervisory Committee had "misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law".

* "There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions".

* NZ law says abortion must be authorised by two certifying consultants using a limited number of grounds.

* Some certifying consultants decline few or no abortions.

* Justice Miller said the committee was wrong to interpret the law as meaning it had no power to review or scrutinise consultants' decisions.

Our Daily Bread Gets It Wrong!

2008-06-12T18:44:00.000-07:00

Created by novelist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes was an investigative genius who could routinely assess seemingly random clues and solve the mystery.

Baffled by Holmes’ uncanny brilliance, his sidekick, Dr. Watson, would ask for an explanation—to which Holmes would glibly respond, “Elementary!” and then proceed to unfold the solution.

- From Our Daily Bread by RBC Ministries, for June 12, 2008

Having read all 60 Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle (my favorite is the Valley of Fear) it bugs me every time this error is made. While Holmes does make the popular exclamation "The game's afoot!" in The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, he never once uttered the "famous" words "Elementary, my dear Watson."

What They Didn't Know Didn't Hurt Them

2008-06-09T12:22:00.001-07:00

Bar Owners Surprised That Guns Now Allowed in Taverns

Bar owners in Kansas are spewing their beverages in surprise to discover that for the past year, their customers have been able to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons into bars. Mind you, the law is not absolute. In the spirit of protecting private property rights, owners are able to ban licensed armed citizens (the ones who obey the rules!) by posting a sign.

It would seem that if armed civilians have been able to carry for the past year without incident, there is no need for shock and awe now.

Review of Disney/Walden's Prince Caspian

2008-06-01T21:24:00.000-07:00

The long-awaited Narnia sequel is here, and as promised, delivers a far more “savage” journey into C.S. Lewis’s Narnia. The two-and-a-half hour film doesn’t stop for long, featuring two heavy battle sequences and one intense duel. (As opposed to the one battle for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.)

And as you might expect for someone who, like many, has lived with part of his heart in Narnia since childhood, there are things to cheer for and things to wince at as Shrek director Andrew Adamson once again seeks to bring his vision of the story – not the story itself – to the screen. There are times where changes add immeasurably to the story, and others where one wonders what Adamson and the writers were thinking (smoking?) anyway. It seems producers enjoyed breaking parts of the story just to hear the snapping sounds. And just as when you break a mirror, the picture becomes fragmented. Though showing you a different side of what you were looking at, you still have a broken mirror. The first fault line was the large section of the film devoted to Peter’s attempts and failures to prove himself TO himself, reaping costly benefits in the process. His faith in Aslan has all but extinguished, and he resolves to lead Narnia on his own. His weaknesses and doubts about how Aslan could have allowed the devastation and sack of Narnia may strike a more poignant chord with modern day thinkers, but at cost to the actual character.

The film doesn’t really get off-kilter from the book until Lucy wakes up to find that meeting Aslan (as she was scheduled to in the book) was a dream. After this appearance, which DOESN’T count, it takes another hour before the stately sovereign arrives in earnest – reducing the central character of all seven Narnia books to a bit part towards the end. The completely new castle raid is another invention of Peter’s pride, but the tearful impact it has on audience members (plus the cool action sequences) is worth it.

Winners:

Edmund – For being a steadfast hero in the fight. The character grew along with the actor, and now both create a winning return. One looks to his more prominent role in Voyage of the Dawn Treader; he’s earned it.

Trumpkin – For being a “brick” with a dry sense of humor and bleak outlook on life, but a heart of pure gold.

Asterius – The secret of the aged minotaur’s noble sacrifice was public long before the film was, but there’s something about such honorable selfless surrender coupled with vicious determination that brings a lump to my throat. (So also for other movies, such as Boromir’s end in Lord of the Rings, or Doc Ock’s in Spider-Man II.)

Glenstorm – That gi-normous sword and stature coupled with imposing presence transform this character – a supporting role at best – to a highlight of the film, reminding us once again why we love these high and noble centaurs so well.

Editing – As a movie, the film flows much better cinematically. In particular, the beginning kicks off properly shrouded in mystery, and we find ourselves catapulted back into Narnia with nostalgia, intrigue and style.

Aslan’s roar and physical size – Too small in the first film, the stature of our favorite messianic lion more befits the highest of all kings in this second installment – as do his roars, few though they be.

Losers:

Peter’s stubbornness and pride – Reflective of some realism (would these four children really be satisfied with returning to the life of 1940’s English school children after being kings and queens of Narnia?) but still painful to watch, and a dramatic departure from the character. Does this reflect the learning and personal growth Aslan brought the Pevensies to Narnia for? And as failures mount, how can Aslan pronounce their learning from Narnia to be finished, even successful?

Prince Caspian’s accent – It takes more than watching clips of Inigo Montoya to perfect a Spaniard’s accent (no joking, folks), and alas, Barnes’ on-again-off-again rendition doesn’t pass muster.

Caspian/Peter rivalry – Directly conflicting with the book ( “I haven't come to take your place, you know,” Peter tells Caspian “but to put you into it.”) this lame attempt to manufacture interpersonal conflict between the junior monarchs stands out like a sore cliché. Again, like the broken mirror, it provides an interesting *alternative* perspective, but at cost of unifying the story.

Susan/Caspian romance – Designed mostly to stir up controversy, the looked-for “chemistry” fails utterly, and the unwarranted addition made even the actors uncomfortable .

Harry Gregson-Williams – For recycling music from the first film, whether or not it fit the sequence being scored. Gregon-Williams failed to give Aslan a fitting theme in the first film (particularly letting us down when Aslan resurrect) and makes no restitution in the second film. Ironically, he gets a second chance to introduce the lion in proper fashion, and blows it.

Aslan’s utterly diminished role and glory – To me, this is the central and defining failure of the film. As already mentioned, the defining character Lewis created, the only One to appear in all seven books, is not only limited to the latter twenty minutes or so of the film, but his sovereignty is also significantly and confusingly reduced. The best example is changing Aslan’s “no one is ever told what would have happened” to “we can never know what would have happened.”

Conclusion:
I saw the film once on opening day, and the thrill and experience of it all brushed aside my concerns about alterations. Post-viewing ruminations left me more and more dissatisfied. A second viewing reconciled the two sides, leaving me irritated with some of the changes, but an overall positive vibe about the film – and eagerly anticipating Michael Apted’s vision for the third film.

An Unprecedented Surge

2008-05-29T19:51:00.000-07:00

There are undoubtedly a myriad of factors that go into the trends of armed citizen stories that are posted on gundefense.net. Criminal activity trends, armed population trends, and the intersection thereof are certainly a part of it. But the successful use of a weapon against a criminal, and the reporting of such use to police also matter, as well as the decision by media to publish the story.

That being understood, between the two of us, Clayton and myself, we usually manage to post at least one story or day, but average about three to four stories a day. In the past two days (May 28th and May 29), I've found and posted 18 stories, and I'm not even through scouring the news archives yet.

Warmer weather bringing out the criminals?

At the same time, I'm evaluating purchasing a new carry weapon. My .357 S&W is a good traveling buddy, but I'm looking to upgrade to a semiauto with a larger capacity. Any suggestions?

Thoughts on the Scott McClellan Fervor

2008-05-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Stop the presses. Forget earthquakes, forget Obama's latest goof or threats from Al Qaeda. The front page news today issss, another ill-advised confidant of the Bush administration has turned around and used the momentum of anti-war opinion to thrust a disgruntled dagger into President Bush's public image. No, seriously!

This uproar is, of course, precisely what Scott (or his publisher) wanted. The element of surprise, and the ensuing kerfuffle have rocketed the book to #1 on Amazon.com.

A couple of thoughts hit me while mulling this over today. The first one is that, while I knew of Scott McClellan, I'd never been terribly impressed with his work as a press spokesman. Being that I now hold an official position as a press spokesman (Students for Concealed Carry on Campus) and having done several regional and national interviews, I did not find his quiet style of press conferences very engaging, and certainly not befitting the man who was in charge of batting away the blood-hungry media. He did not maintain a high profile, or even personality, and I never heard anything about his departure. (Unlike Ari Fleisher, whose conduct I remember well, and who was playfully doused with water when leaving the White House on his last day.)

Tony Snow never quite got his boots broken in before medical problems forced his departure, and he had to overcome freshman jitters and the fact that he often had to voice support for ideas he did not agree with, such as why there was no need to worry about the vast influx of immigrants on the Mexican border.

As other insiders such as Karl Rove and others return fire (while scratching their heads, trying to decipher this unexpected attack from within) it occurs to me that even as Democrats pounce on these "allegations", and maybe even guarantee the coveted immunity from leftist criticism, McClellan has lost respect from both sides. Democrats may welcome his shocking look behind the scenes at the eeeevil Bush White House, but will never respect him. They know now that he is a turncoat and a sellout. Similarly, Republicans welcome former Clinton lackey Dick Morris and his devastating blows to the Clintons, but they have small respect for him behind closed doors.

Republicans, of course, still baffled that such disgruntlement has laid dormant (until the book comes out), will certainly never trust McClellan again.

As for the allegations, they delve into far more complex matters (WMD, the Iraq war, Valarie Plame, et. al.), for which more qualified sources have broken down. Suffice to say that I still hold the informed opinion (contrary to public sentiment) that the Iraq war was justified, and for the very same reasons which the President himself now says were unfounded.

As for Scott McClellan, he'll hang around for a while and soak up praise (and money) for his maverick sucker punch, but it won't last. He's become a rebel without a cause, and without honor. Let's hope he's happy.

Gun Control, Ownership & Crime

2008-05-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

The following is a final paper I submitted for a political science class in spring 2008.

Gun Control, Ownership & Crime

A policy review and analysis by David Burnett

In 1981, a mentally unstable man named John Hinckley opened fire on President Ronald Reagan, injuring him as well as Press Secretary James Brady and two others outside a Hilton hotel in Washington, DC. Reagan soon recovered, but Brady was confined to a wheelchair for life.

This highly-publicized event was certainly not the definitive trigger point touching off opposition to firearms and their availability, but it has been used by Brady (founder of “The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence”, an offshoot of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” which was known as “Handgun Control, Inc.” until 2001) and others to further his goals of controlling and limiting firearm possession and use.

Advocates of stricter gun laws often view (and promote) an object – firearms – as the problem. Consequently, they form their agenda to “make it tougher to get a gun.” Although public opinion alternates between safety and security, the fact remains that opponents of private ownership of firearms must contend with more than 200 million firearms in the hands of the American public.[1] Therefore, it was necessary that opponents of stricter firearm restriction take a state-centered approach to policy implementation.

Policy Overview

There are several hallmark laws or acts regulating firearm ownership:

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulating machine guns and short-barreled long guns.[2]

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which required a license for licenses to sell, and regulated record-keeping (later repealed by the Gun Control Act)

The Gun Control Act of 1968, which enacted several standards for legal firearm possession.[3]

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993

While public opinion can sometimes shift on such issues, there were various reasons for the changing structure of gun control laws. The National Firearms Act, for example, was brought about in large part due to gangster activity.[4] The 1960’s action could be attributed to surging street crime and increasing gun ownership[5], as well as the Kennedy assassination. The 1990’s saw a great many minor bills and lawsuits, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the passage of the National Instant Check System (NICS), liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers, waiting periods, background checks and mandatory trigger locks.

These changes were due in large part to the lobbying efforts of organizations such as James Brady’s, as well as a sympathetic ear from the Clinton administration.[6] Further significant events such as the school shooting in Columbine increased public awareness, and touched off an emotional reaction which provided a further platform for anti-gun proponents to lobby for further restrictions.

The stated goals of legislation such as the Gun Control Act was

“to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence … [and not] to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.” [7]

Upon short-term evaluation, proponents of the Brady Bill claimed victory through reporting of increased prosecutions and decreased crime[8], but did not acknowledge that gun crimes (and the prosecutions thereof) had risen under the previous administrations, and, despite an increased budget and increased tools for prosecution, declined from 1992 to 1998. (The Brady Bill passed in 1994.)[9] This calls into question the effectiveness of passing new laws when current laws had seen declining rates of enforcement.

In 2000, under a new administration, states saw looser restrictions. More states became “right-to-carry” states and expanded legal rights to firearm owners, while more than 19 states saw expanded leniency for using deadly force against an intruder, known as “Castle doctrine” laws.[10] Under the Bush administration, the assault weapons ban and some other restrictions expired, while the president focused more on prosecution and enforcement of existing gun laws, and stiffer penalties for violation.

The fluctuations of legislation pertaining to firearms in recent years seems to illustrate that such legislation is a function of the political sentiment and public opinion/perception, as well as the attitudes governing the legislators and officials in charge of such laws. For example, it was expected (and reported) that in the days following the attacks of September 11th, firearm purchases surged nationwide.[11],[12] (Notably, data from Gallup polling may cast doubt on these reports.[13])

Localized events, whether as small as a single home invasion, as large as a college shooting, or as massive as a hurricane, also tend to affect gun sales and/or ownership positively. Hawaii, for example, saw a 60% increase in firearm registration since 2000, and increased permit applications as well.[14] Gun shop owners in Connecticut saw a spike following a single but highly-publicized home invasion-murder.[15] Gun purchase reports also increased following the Virginia Tech shooting.[16]

Conversely, the passage of gun laws may cause the sales of firearms to rise, as was the case when the state of Kansas passed concealed carry legislation in 2006.[17]

Weighing the costs

As economist John Lott noted at his April 21 speech at the University of Kentucky, every law has costs and benefits. Providing that the overriding goal of public policy is to bring about a net benefit to social well-being, each cost and benefit should be weighed as empirically as possible in order to determine the net cost or benefit of a policy decision. Advocates should not revert to strictly anecdotal evidence or emotional arguments in order to lobby for their goals. A policy must be considered under the scrutiny of aggregate impact.

Benefits of Firearm Restrictions and Decreased Ownership

Advocates of increased gun restrictions often argue that increased gun use and ownership results in higher rates of suicide, homicide and other violent crime. One Harvard study claimed that states with higher gun ownership also saw higher suicide rates.[18] Another suggested that states with guns had higher rates of homicide.[19] (It should be noted that both studies were funded by the Joyce Foundation, known for its support of anti-gun causes.[20] Additionally, the founder of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research sits on the board of a group that called itself CeaseFire, Inc. which was an anti-gun organization.[21])

In the first study, it was noted that suicides in which a firearm were used comprised barely half of the total number. In the second study, rates of homicide were addressed. However, gun ownership in this instance could very well be confusion between cause and effect; ownership could be an effect of higher crime, not a cause, IE, if an area’s rate of crime increases, it stands to reason that its residents may be more likely to seek out means of personal protection. Furthermore, police report incidents of self-defense as “homicide” which means that individuals shot by a civilian who isn’t charged are still counted in those numbers.

Advocates of stricter gun controls point to studies showing decreased harm (suicide, homicide and so forth) from certain mandates such as storage restrictions.[22] But no advocates of looser gun restrictions have argued that there is no benefit to gun restriction. Again, the question is of net benefit. If homeowners are forced to store their weapons in a locked safe, the weapons are then rendered inaccessible to them for purposes of self-defense. What is the net effect of forcibly depriving citizens of meaningful defense?

A further study by the Bloomberg School of Public Health (Johns Hopkins) indicated that decreasing the supply of inexpensive weapons overall reduced the supply of such weapons to criminals in the commission of a crime.[23] But again…there are going to be pluses and minuses to every law. It is difficult to accept that criminals will cease their actions simply because of the availability of a certain tool. If the demand for a tool to commit a crime is inelastic, then a determined criminal will merely steal a weapon, or find one on the criminal black market. In the meantime, what is the effect of increasing the price or availability of firearms to the general public? Such negative impact on civilian ownership (and resultant protection or defense) cannot easily be measured, and it seems no one undertakes to do so.

In the end, despite all of these studies (whose effects are not necessarily denied, but the benefit of them can be disputed), a study from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services indicated that there was “‘insufficient evidence’ to determine whether any of the federal, state and local gun laws reviewed had an effect on gun-related deaths, violent crimes, suicides and other outcomes.”[24] Other research on an international level suggests that the rate of firearms ownership in countries is irrelevant to its crime rates.[25]

In addition to intentional acts such as suicide and homicide, critics argue that children access firearms and accidentally shoot themselves or others. The Brady Center claims that 3,027 deaths of “young people” were reported in 2005.[26] However, only 4% of those were accidental discharges. Further, the Brady Center’s data defines “young people” as 18 or younger. This means that persons between the ages of 14 and 18 who have become gang members or have turned to crime and are shot by police, rival gangs or even who may have been shot in self-defense, are included in their number. Researcher John Lott broke down similar data for 1995 and determined that, although anti-gun causes claimed there were ten gun deaths per day, only 126 children under the age of ten were murdered by a firearm, with only 52 accidental deaths.[27]

The National Safety Council, which calculates the odds of dying by various accidents, indicates that a person is more likely to die in a car accident, a fall, an encounter with heavy machinery, or by drowning, choking, smoke inhalation, freezing or poisoning.[28] Yet there are no political firestorms, controversy or rush to regulate such common household items.

Detriments and Failures of Restricted Firearm Ownership

Although laws such as the Brady Bill were intended to be very effectual, only 7 individuals were prosecuted under the it during its first 17 months of taking effect.[29] This suggests the possibility that, whether intended or not, these laws were more symbolic than substantive. Furthermore, a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association found no significant impact from the passage of the Brady Bill on firearm homicide or suicide rates.[30]

And what if certain handguns are removed from public consumption? Will criminals cease their violent and illegal activities? Of course not. Switchblade knives, baseball bats, rifles and shotguns are still relatively effective weapons for use in a crime. Researcher David Kopel notes this factor, known as “substitution”, exists strongly in the criminal population. Kopel quotes a National Institute of Justice survey stating 72% of violent criminals would switch to a sawed-off shotgun if handguns became unavailable.[31]

Benefits of Increased Gun Ownership

It has been suggested that increasing firearms ownership and civilian concealed carry will increase the likelihood of violent crime and hostile confrontations. Such claims were made in the state of Michigan, for example, which changed its laws on concealed carry in 2001, making permits more available to the public. Police feared heightened gun crimes, and organizations such as the Million Mom March opposed it because of safety concerns. However, a study six years later determined that violent crime, as well as incidents of deaths by firearm (suicide, accidental discharge and homicide) saw a decrease.[32] Similar observations have been reported in other right-to-carry states.

Across states, the same seems to be true. In 2004, for states allowing concealed carry, violent crime was 21% lower than states restricting guns. Murder was 28% lower, and robbery 43% lower.[33]

In 2006 crime reports, some of the lowest violent crime rates of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, were states that allowed concealed carry for residents 18 and older, such as Montana (42nd), North Dakota (50th), South Dakota (47th), and Maine (51st). Vermont – relatively unique because it does not require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and otherwise has very few restrictions – ranked 49th highest (IE, the third lowest) of all the states.[34] (Conversely, Washington DC, which restricts handgun ownership of any kind, has a homicide rate is higher than that of New York, Chicago and Philadelphia.[35])

Several reputable studies indicate gun ownership actually benefits a population. Law Professor Daniel Polsby, for example, found that people over 25 have a lower likelihood of being murdered if they have a gun.[36]

Self-Defense

It can be difficult to gauge how often a weapon is used in self-defense. Many instances are of brandishing a weapon only, which are not recorded or reported in crime averages. Self-defense or justifiable homicide is not measured or reported by the FBI or other annual crime reporting agencies.

But we already know that guns, gun use and availability, and the laws that govern guns have costs and benefits. This begs the question, what are the benefits of guns, and is it possible they outweigh the drawbacks? Do guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter criminals? Can guns provide protection? If so, then doesn’t it hold that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will provide more protection?

Researcher Gary Kleck, a criminologist with Florida State University, noted the lack of research into the benefits of gun possession. He examined previous studies that touched on defensive gun use (DGU), but did not satisfactorily address the issue to draw conclusions on the matter. He undertook to study the matter, contriving an anonymous, random study with a sample population of nearly 5,000. His results indicated that guns have been used in self-defense between 2.3 and 2.5 million times each year by civilians. Considering that, as mentioned earlier, there are more than 200 million guns in the United States, and the vast majority of citizens being law-abiding by nature, this is not improbable. Kleck noted that 2.5 million out of the reported number of persons owning a gun (about 93 million) amounts to about 3% of these gun owners using weapons in self-defense. He also calculated that close to 75% of the DGU’s consisted merely of brandishing a weapon, which would account for low reporting.[37]

The National Institute of Justice did a follow-up survey to verify these numbers, and determined them to be accurate, if not an understatement![38]

There is vast anecdotal evidence to support this claim, as documented by this author and historian Clayton Cramer. More than 3,400 individual accounts of intervention though discharge or display of a firearm have been reported in the past three to five years.[39]

Clearly, self-defense is a factor in civilian gun ownership, and if we accept the empirical research previously mentioned, takes place more often than criminal misuse. And again, it is not a stretch to accept that a fraction of the gun-owning population used their weapons in defense. What should also be considered is the number of guns safely kept and never used. If more than 200 million guns are in America today, more than half of them were used (stored, carried, wielded) safely and without threatening anyone.

Conclusion

In our class, we discussed several ideas relating to supply and demand. We debated abortion, and about how, if outlawed, people may still engage in abortions, albeit in a less safe manner. We addressed drugs, and whether or not prohibiting them actually decreases the supply, and how people will still use them anyway. We discussed the ineffectiveness of prohibition alongside recreational drug use. The concluding factor seemed to be that “people will do it anyway.” The responding argument was that, no, most law-abiding citizens would not engage in a behavior if it were outlawed. Here, we reach a similar point with firearms. The common pro-firearm bumper sticker sums up the argument: “If the guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.”

Some might be critical for the seemingly hypocritical position I have taken, stating that dangerous drugs should be kept illegal, and that abortion should be made illegal, because it would, in fact, stop some abuse or save some lives in the womb, while advocating civilian gun ownership, in spite of the fact that restrictions would save lives. But there are two fundamental “hinge” points. We return again to the idea of net benefit – drawbacks versus benefits. If there are no guns in a family’s house, then no children can stumble upon the weapon and accidentally injure or kill themselves or others. On the other hand, there will also be no effective means of resistance in the event of a home invasion.

The second hinge point rests in the definition and use of the object in question. Can an object be used as it was designed and intended and not cause social degradation or personal harm? In the event of drugs, no. Drugs clearly have proven harmful results to health, as well as fueling dangerous and destructive addictions. Can alcohol be used as intended without harm? In small amounts, yes. Abortion? No – abortion ends a human life forever. Firearms, however, can be and are used safely and as designed without causing harm or social degradation. In fact, as has been shown, they can benefit a society by decreasing crime, by thwarting robberies, by providing people less capable of defending themselves (the elderly, the infirmed, and those who are weaker or less capable of defense) with a tool which effectively neutralizes the odds.

Clearly, firearms should not be made available freely and openly, no questions asked, to anyone wishing to purchase one. But there already exist reasonable measures for obtaining a firearm, with stricter regulations for obtaining a concealed carry permit. These safeguards are not fail-proof – no system is. But as with any other policy, failures are discovered and dealt with, and in any event are the exception, not the rule. The complete and total removal of firearms from the hands of the US population, however, is not an effective (or even possible) solution, because criminals will always find means of obtaining contraband.
The current state of firearms law, with some exceptions, seems a fair balance between safety and freedom. As another election cycle draws near, as students around the country advocate concealed carry rights extended to college campuses, and as the Supreme Court weighs the nature of the second amendment as either individual or corporate in nature, this debate will likely continue to play itself out in the public arena.

References

[1] Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. 1997. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” National Institute of Justice

[2] National Firearms Act. 1934. US Code Title 25

[3] Gun Control Act. 1968. US Code Title 18

[4] Gun Control. Almanac of Policy Issues. 2002.

[5] Schweikart, Larry and Michael Allen. 2004. A Patriot’s History of the United States. New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing

[6] Almanac of Policy Issues: Gun Control. 2002.

[7] Gun Control Act. 1968. US Code Title 18

[8] CNN. 2000. “Government figures show gun crimes down, Brady bill successful.”

[9] Majority Staff. 1999. “Crimes Committed With Firearms: A Report for Parents, Prosecutors, and Policy Makers” Senate Committee on the Judiciary

[10] Joyner, Chris. 2007. “Self-defense 'Castle' laws gain ground“ USA Today

[11] Baker, Al. 2001. “Steep Rise in Gun Sales Reflects Post-Attack Fears” The New York Times.

[12] Reynolds, Bob. Date not given. “Gun Sales Up” WNEP News Station.

[13] Gallup, George Jr. 2002. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2002 p. 329. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield

[14] Da Silva, Alexandre. 2008. “Registration of firearms has increased 60 percent in the state since 2000” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin

[15] Channel 3 Eyewitness News. 2007. “Gun Sales Rise After Cheshire Home Invasion”

[16] News Channel 5 KSDK. 2007. “Gun Sales Reportedly Increase After Virginia Tech Shootings”

[17] Belt, Mike. 2006. “Concealed carry law makes gun sales soar” Lawrence Journal-World

[18]Miller, Matthew, Steven J. Lippmann, Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway. 2007. “Guns in homes strongly associated with higher rates of suicide” The Journal of Trauma 62: 1029-1035

[19] Miller M., Hemenway D., Azrael D. 2007. “States with higher levels of gun ownership have higher homicide rates” Soc Sci Med. 2007 Feb;64(3):656-64.

[20] Beaucar, Kelley O. 2001. “Gun Panel Meets and Comes Under Fire” Fox News.

[21]Institute for Legislative Action. 2004. “Anti-Gun Lobbying Organizations” National Rifle Association

[22] Webster, Daniel W. Jon S. Vernick, April M. Zeoli, Jennifer A. Manganello. 2004. “Gun laws requiring safe storage prevent some youth suicides” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

[23] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick and Maria T. Bulzacchelli. 2006. “Reforms to gun dealer sales practices reduce supply of new guns to criminals” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

[24] Ham, Becky. 2005. “Review finds not enough evidence to say gun laws reduce violence” Health Behavior News Service

[25] Kates, Don B. and Gary Mauser. 2007. “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

[26] Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 2008. “Gun Violence Statistics and Studies”

[27] Lott, John R. 2003. “The Bias Against Guns” p 57. Lanham, MD. Regnery Publishing, Inc.

[28] National Safety Council. 2004. “The odds of dying from...”

[29] Agresti, James D. 1999 "Gun Control Facts.” Just Facts.

[30]Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. 2000. “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” Journal of the American Medical Association Vol 284, No. 5

[31]Kopel, David B. 1993. “Peril or Protection? The Risks and Benefits of Handgun Prohibition” Saint Louis University Public Law Review

[32] Bell, Dawson. 2008. “Michigan sees fewer gun deaths — with more permits” The Detroit Free Press.

[33] FBI. 2004. “Crime in the United States in 2004”

[34] FBI. 2006. “Crime in the United States in 2006: Violent Crime”

[35] Klein, Allison. 2007. “Killings In D.C. Up After Long Dip” The Washington Post.

[36] Close, Carl P. 1997. “Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says” The Independence Institute

[37] Kleck, Gary and Marc Gertz. 1995. “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.

[38] Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. 1997. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” National Institute of Justice.

[39] Cramer, Clayton and David Burnett. 2008. “Civilian Gun Defense Blog”

© David Burnett 2008. All Rights Reserved. Contact the author for use, reference or citation.

All content of this paper, excepting quotations and where noted, are my original, intellectual property. This paper exists in paper and digital form with a university professor as well as on the internet, and the contents thereof can be cross-referenced by other professors both inside and outside the state of Kentucky, to guard against plagiarism. Anyone using materials from this paper, or submitting the paper itself without permission or citation, is subject to disciplinary action by the educational institution in question.

DaveLoneRanger's personal blog

When Men Were Men

The Furlough Disclaimer

Do Not Ever - Not Ever! - Forget.

A Soldier's Epitaph

Ever Have One of Those Days?

Shadows of the Heart

Absolute Power (Corrupts Absolutely)

Two Outcomes (When Wolves Invade)

Why You Should Never Talk to the Police

On the Use and Power of Stories

The Corps-à-corps of Hypocrisy

A Little Fun With Solicitors

Music - The Other Superpower

Junk DNA: Reverting to Junk Science

Laughter, the Best Medicine

Report: Successes & Failures in Louisiana's 2008 Session

Louisiana: A report on Gubernatorial Successes & Failures in the 2008 Legislative Session

On Colleges and Graduation

Here Comes Da Judge

More Good News (May Edition)

More Good Economic News

More Good News

Obama's Withdrawal Problems

Holy Good News, Batman!

Obama's Cold Awakening

Obama's Economy Blitz

Bogus Study Claims More Conserv Pervs

Urinal-otta Trouble, Mister!

Ebony and Irony

Medieval Catholicism

Cardboard Constables (Could Someone Explain This To Me?)

A Study in Spin

Does Recycling Fuel Global Warming?

Oh...It's Humorous Alright

Concealed Carry II: Continuing Education

Corruption Is Non-Partisan

Self-Defense Happens

Debating Tip #2: Learn From History

The Randomness of Media Coverage

The Doctor Forever

Irish Armed Citizens

Homeschooling On The Rise

Recession Obsession

Krav Maga

Defying Stereotypes

The Slippery Slope

Lessons From Mumbai: Sheep and Sheepdogs

Guinness Records Discontinued Shooting Records in 1981 (Including Annie Oakley)

Still Think I'm Crazy To Carry in Church?

WSJ: Treatment of Bush Is Disgrace

Celebrating Androgyny?

Lose Like Men

An Election Irony

My Day in Court

The Good Gas News

Soundtrack Geekdom Pt. 2 - More Soundtrack Additions

Oh It Must Be CD Season - Upcoming Releases

Debate Strategy #1

How Much Is $700 Billion?

TIME Magazine Questions Need for Experience (For Obama)

Associated Press Pushes Church "Double-Standard" on Palin

Dave Goes HGTV

Humor for the Weekend

STILL Think I'm Crazy For Carrying A Gun in Wal-Mart?

A Comic I Can Identify With

Was Superman So Super?

The Philosphy of Bumper Stickers: Power to the Peaceful

Black Widow

DC, SCCC & C-SPAN

Review of The Dark Knight

More Discounted Literary Goodies

One Small Step for Great Britain

Within Temptation: A Musical Quandary

Evolution, Hypocrites and Heroes

9 Reasons Why Lord of the Rings Clobbers Narnia

Scientific American's Big Climate "Oopsie!"

Michael Ward: Narnian Books Allegory for Seven Medieval Planets

Hope for the Unborn in New Zealand?

Our Daily Bread Gets It Wrong!

Louisiana:
A report on Gubernatorial Successes & Failures in the 2008 Legislative Session