The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: telescopes Labels: child sexual abuse Labels: child sexual abuse Labels: telescopes
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
The Joys of a Good Refractor
I was just outside looking at Saturn with my Televue Ranger. It's in the low 20s, crystal clear, and not very turbulent. I hauled out the Ranger because Saturn is still too low in the east for me to get with my 8" reflector--the disadvantages of living in suburbia. This was also a chance to try out the 4mm University Optics orthoscopic eyepiece I just received in the mail. (I have been doing business with University Optics since 1971--I have nothing but nice things to say about them.)
I should explain. About ten years ago, I received a no-name 4mm orthoscopic eyepiece as a gift for helping a friend find a buyer for his Coulter 13.1" reflector. The no-name was a little dirty, and you could see the dirt when you looked at bright objects. I decided to take it apart, and clean it.
It turns out that there are many ways to reassemble an eyepiece. An orthoscopic, at least a true Abbe design orthoscopic eyepiece, consists of two chunks of glass: an eye lens, and a triplet field lens. Neither of these are symmetrical, so there are four possible ways to put the eyepiece back together.
When I was done, the lens wasn't really any cleaner--and it was no longer a 4mm focal length eyepiece--more like a 5.5mm. I bought a 4mm orthoscopic that someone had just bought--and discovered had too little eye relief for them to use while wearing glasses, so I was able to buy it for $10 off the new price.
I was about ready to sell the dirty no-name orthoscopic cheap to anyone with the patience to clean and reassemble it, when someone gave me directions on how to reassemble it correctly. I took the no-name apart, cleaned it, and reassembled it. Voila! It is not perfectly clean, but there's only one obvious dirt spot now, and it is again a 4mm orthoscopic. (I'll be quite happy to take $25 for it, shipped anywhere in the U.S. or Canada.)
Anyway, back to the story of chattering teeth and my dog whining about the cold in the backyard. As Saturn rose, and less and less atmosphere was in the way, more and more detail became apparent. The joy of a well-made refractor is that it gives such an astonishing image, even at relatively low magnification.
The 4mm orthoscopic (120x in the Ranger) was just beginning to give hints of the Cassini Division at the ansae when it became too cold to stay outside--and I could see differing cloud bands in the atmosphere of Saturn. This is a moderately demanding task in many reflectors of 6" aperture--and in a refractor of 2.7" aperture, all the more impressive.
Using a 9mm orthoscopic and a 3x Barlow took me up to 160x. The image was beginning to lose sharpness at this point, but not enough to make me give up on it. The contrast drops as you increase magnification, and so the Cassini Division was a little less obvious. The cloud bands in the atmosphere were a bit less crisp as well, but still noticeable.
The Ranger is a semi-apochromat--not completely color-free, but much better than a typical achromatic refractor, though a bit inferior to a true apochromatic (color-free) refractor. I am attempting to purchase a Vixen 102S from someone in Spokane at the moment--this should provide a dramatic leap up in resolving power and magnification. (Then I have to find a buyer for the Ranger.)
If you are at interested in refractors, you may find this review I wrote several years ago of the Televue Ranger of interest. Like nearly everything I write, I was unable to get it published anywhere.
The Real Bush
From the Scotsman--one of his opponents meets him face to face, and is surprised:US President George Bush is “totally at odds” with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.
Oh yes, and read this from Sgt. Stryker about getting fooled. Some of the comments as well are quite interesting.
Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.
He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.
“He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.
“He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks.”
Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was “totally at odds” with his media image, went on: “I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.”
Man Charged With Threatening Spammers
This article was really interesting:A Silicon Valley computer programmer has been arrested for threatening to torture and kill employees of the company he blames for bombarding his computer with Web ads promising to enlarge his penis.
If I were on the jury....hmmm, is there a provision of the law about justifiable spamicidal insanity?
In one of the first prosecutions of its kind in the state that made "road rage" famous, Charles Booher, 44, was arrested on Thursday and released on bail for making repeated threats to staff of a Canadian company between May and July.
Booher threatened to send a "package full of Anthrax spores" to the company, to "disable" an employee with a bullet and torture him with a power drill and ice pick; and to hunt down and castrate the employees unless they removed him from their e-mail list, prosecutors said.
He used return e-mail addresses including Satan@hell.org.
In a telephone interview with Reuters on Friday, Booher acknowledged that he had behaved badly but said his computer had been rendered almost unusable for about two months by a barrage of pop-up advertising and e-mail.
"Here's what happened: I go to their Web site and start complaining to them, would you please, please, please stop bothering me," he said. "It just sort of escalated ... and I sort of lost my cool at that point."
Finally! A Bite
I have sent many dozens of queries to university presses over the last few months concerning my book Armed America. (Click here for the two chapter excerpt that I have sent in most of these query letters.) Overwhelmingly, the responses are that a book like this just doesn't fit into their plans. (Perhaps I should write Lesbian Cross-Dressing Midget Gamblers of the Antebellum Mississippi: Deconstructing Gender, Sexual Identity, and Nationalism in a Random Chance World instead.) Finally, one of the more obscure ones has asked to see it.
The Gun Lawsuit Decision From the Ninth Circuit
I should mention that along with the incredibly stupid decision of the Ninth Circuit allowing a lawsuit to go forward against gun manufacturers, there was a very intelligent and able dissent by Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall as well that pointed out that the majority had chosen to ignore the court's obligation to follow state law in diversity jurisdiction. (For those who don't know what this means: this means the federal courts are hearing a case involving parties in different states.)The majority’s almost exclusive reliance on authority from outside of California speaks volumes about how a California court would rule on this case. To reach its result, the majority must look outside California because when a proper analysis of California’s statutes and cases is conducted, it becomes clear that the district court correctly dismissed appellants’ claims. The majority essentially overlooks California law, relying instead on cases from other jurisdictions, nonbinding legal treatises, and abstract common law principles to arrive at its conclusions. But “[t]here is no general federal common law.” Erie, 304 U.S. at 78. Sitting in diversity, we are not free to pick and choose from the many different common law principles that have been developed in the fifty states. Our role is “to ascertain what the state law is, not what it ought to be.” Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 497
It's a powerful dissent, one that I expect to see the U.S. Supreme Court cite with approval--unless Congress does its duty, and short-circuits these absurd suits by passing a law on the subject.
(1946) (emphasis added).
...
To justify my conclusion that this is undoubtedly a products liability suit, I turn to the very case that appellants have cited most often to support their theories, Stevens v. Parke, Davis, & Co., 9 Cal. 3d 51 (1973). In Stevens, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant drug manufacturer was negligent because it over-promoted the drug Chloromycetin with the intent that doctors would not prescribe it correctly. Id. at 65. This theory closely parallels what plaintiffs suggest here: the gun manufacturers over-sold their products knowing that the guns would end up in the hands of people who would misuse them. In Stevens, the California Supreme Court treated the action as a products liability action. See id. at 64 (“One who supplies a product directly or through a third person ‘for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the [product]’ ”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, which describes failure to warn claims in products liability law). Given the similarities between this case and Stevens, California courts would be required to treat this case as a products liability action. As such, it is governed by section 1714.4.
...
The majority and appellants argue that appellees were negligent in that they breached a duty not to market their firearms products to criminals and others likely to misuse them. But California’s highest court has specifically rejected this theory.
In Merrill v. Navegar, the California Supreme Court held that no cause of action could lie for a claim of “negligent marketing” of firearms. 26 Cal. 4th at 483. Like the incident underlying this case, the incident involved in Merrill was a violent tragedy of the kind which has become all too common in our nation’s life. A crazed man bought an assault weapon and went on a shooting spree. Families of the victims sought to hold the manufacturers of the guns responsible under a negligence theory. In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, the California Supreme Court held that section 1714.4 barred such a cause of action.
Diebold's No Longer A Suspect
Read here for a discussion of how some California counties ended up with these unbelieveable election results.
R. L. Wilson's New Book
Silk and Steel: Women at Arms. No, it's not that sort of book. Get your mind out of the gutter!
From the description on his web page:From Queen Elizabeth I through her contemporary descendant, Queen Elizabeth II, the numbers of aristocratic arms enthusiasts, particularly shooters, have been impressive. Among those regal personages: Russia's Empresses Elizabeth and Catherine the Great, France's Marie Antoinette, and Great Britain's Duchess of Devonshire. In the New World, Thomas Jefferson's matched pair of Queen Anne-style flintlock pistols were made by London gunmaker Mary Dealtry. Every American grade school student has heard of Molly Pitcher, Revolutionary War heroine. Pioneer American women took bold steps to defend home and hearth, and their courage first earned them the right to vote in Western states, where hardiness and self-reliance were taken for granted. As Jefferson himself admonished: "[The gun gives] boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind."
Ordering information is here.
For decades the major shareholders of the world's two foremost gunmakers were the widows of the founders: Mrs. Samuel Colt and Mrs. Oliver F. Winchester. Many women were comfortable with firearms in pioneer America, and among the world's most famous women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Annie Oakley – Little Sure Shot. For years the major shareholder of today's foremost gunmaker, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., was a woman.
Turning back the clock to the time of Joan of Arc, women have not only suffered the agony of war, but have played a vital role in supporting conflicts. It is not only in modern times that they have been in the front lines. The key position of women in the military is best exemplified today by the Israeli Army. But in numerous past conflicts, women have played a role – sometimes in the guise of men, without their comrades knowing that women were present. Increasingly there are female fighter pilots and cadets at West Point and at all the U.S. service academies. The 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan saw Northern Alliance women trained to fire AK-47s, some even shooting their Taliban tormenters.
Expanding on a long tradition, in the post-World War II period millions of women and girls gravitated to sport shooting, including trap, skeet, and sporting clays, rifle and pistol target competitions, and the harvesting of game birds and even the dangerous big game of Africa.
Smoking
Forwarded by a friend: a link to the web site of a guy for whom smoking's effects were somewhat more sudden than lung cancer. Warning: there are some gruesome pictures of the effects of what this smoking-induced disease did to his extremities. Useful if you think that smoking is something "cool" to do right now while you are in college, but that you intend to give up when you get out of school.
Where Does The Money Come From?
I was trying to explain this to a student before class today. As with all cartoons, it oversimplifies the relative sources of money for the two parties. But the essentials are true: the Republican Party has managed to build a sizeable fundraising operation on contributions of modest size from middle to upper middle class people, with, of course, some rich people throwing in big chunks--while the Democratic Party is much more reliant on a small number of people who hit the $2000 contribution limit per campaign--and hit that limit with dozens to hundreds of campaigns across the country. These are people for whom $2000 per campaign is small potatoes--people like Barbra Streisand, and George Soros.
Those Unreasonable, Intolerant British
From AP:A government official said Friday the country's Muslims must choose between "the British way" of peaceful political dialogue and the terrorism of groups such as al-Qaida - remarks that drew condemnation from Islamic organizations.
Yup. It's really divisive to ask British Muslims to oppose terrorism.
The comments by Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane came a day after suicide bombers attacked the British consulate and a London-based bank in Istanbul, Turkey.
"It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: it is the British way - based on political dialogue and nonviolent protests - or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is now uniting," MacShane said in a speech in his Rotherham constituency in northern England.
He said leaders of the Muslim community should be stronger in their condemnation of terrorism.
"I hope we will see clearer, stronger language that there is no future for any Muslim cause anywhere in the world that validates, or implicitly supports, the use of political violence in any way," MacShane said.
Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said Muslims condemned terrorist attacks such as Thursday's suicide bombings in Istanbul, which killed more than two dozen people.
"We do not need lectures from a representative of a government that has conducted an unlawful war against Iraq," Bunglawala said.
"The attacks only emphasize that the disastrous war in Iraq has not reduced the risk of terrorism, as our own governments had us believe beforehand, but has exacerbated it," he added.
Anas Altikriti, director of communications for the Muslim Association of Britain, said the comments were "an outrage and extremely disgraceful.
"I am disappointed with the foreign office when it should be bringing Muslims together to counter this disease that we are all fighting," he said. "What these comments do is divide and antagonize a community."
I keep hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it is "racist" or "ignorant" or any of a number of terms to suggest otherwise. So why is it so difficult for British Muslims to take the position that terorism--the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of generating terror--is a bad idea?
Some Soldiers Never Surrender
I thought that this was a problem of the past. No, it appears that there are still Japanese soldiers who have refused to give up on World War II. This account from the Scotsman (thanks to Instapundit for the link) reports that the Japanese government is sending a group down to the Philipines to try and find the survivors, and convince them to abandon their war against the United States.
News Stories of the Failure of the Occupation
Start reading here and work your way down. This blogger has scanned in New York Times stories about the failure of the occupation; about how the weapons of mass destruction program turned out to be not even close to a weapon, in spite of claims by a high-ranking official of our government; and "mounting bitterness over occupation practices" from the population. Oh yes. The dates are all 1945, and the problems are in Germany and even, amazingly, France.
Please Start Thinking
There are stories like this that are tragic--and make you wonder how any adult could be so stupid: The second of two SUNY Maritime College students who slammed into a bridge while riding atop an elevated subway in the Bronx last week has died, officials said yesterday.
...
Loughrey and Hochstetter climbed on to the back cars and were surfing when they collided with a steel girder of the Whitlock Avenue bridge, while the two other classmates stayed on the train.
Complacency = Death
From UPI: Syphilis rates rose dramatically for the second straight year in the United States, particularly among gay and bisexual men, a finding that has health officials worried about an increase in HIV/AIDS cases in the coming years.
Why anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, would be engaging in unprotected sex outside of a long-term mutually monogamous relationship in the age of AIDS utterly amazes me. For homosexual men this is an especially insane behavior. They are at much greater risk simply because anal intercourse is especially high-risk, and because so much of their sex lives involves completely anonymous sex. This is madness.
Overall, the U.S. syphilis rate rose by 9 percent between 2001 and 2002, the second consecutive increase from an all-time low in 2000, according to figures released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
The bulk of the increase occurred among men, rising by about 27 percent overall, including a staggering increase of more than 85 percent among white men and a nearly 36 percent increase among Latino men. Information on sexual orientation is often not collected by health departments but the CDC estimates 40 percent of the increase was in gay and bisexual men.
...
The rise in syphilis infections indicates a growing number of gay and bisexual men are having unprotected sex, which worries health officials because the men could be spreading other diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
The problem is not just limited to the United States. "Several other countries, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia and several countries in western Europe have also reported increases of syphilis and other diseases among gay and bisexual men and in many of these there are high levels of HIV co-infection," said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, deputy director of CDC's HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis prevention center.
Valdiserri said there is no clear evidence HIV cases are increasing yet in the United States, "but we are extremely concerned about that possibility."
He noted a study released in July at the National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta found rates of diagnosis with HIV infection were up by 17 percent among men who have sex with men. This does not necessarily represent new cases, however, so it is difficult to determine if the HIV infection rate actually is increasing, "but we're very concerned about that increase because it wasn't observed in other risk groups," Valdiserri said.
Heightening concern further is the fact that syphilis increases the risk of HIV transmission by two to five times, because the genital sores caused by syphilis serve as portals of entry for the AIDS virus, Douglas said. In addition, a recent study found HIV viral load increases when a person has syphilis, suggesting he or she may be more contagious.
UPDATE: This San Francisco Chronicle story reports that San Francisco has "jumped from sixth place nationally to first" in syphilis cases, a 127% increase last year. The article also reports that "two-thirds of the new infections in San Francisco are among HIV-positive men." Now, not every HIV-positive man in San Francisco is gay--but it's a pretty good guess that most of them are. Yet, contrary to popular impression, gay men are actually not the majority. The San Francisco Dept. of Public Health used to assume that 11% of the men in San Francisco were homosexual; this article reports that there are 50,000 homosexual men, which would mean about 14% of the population--and most of the gay men aren't HIV+. That means that something less than 2/3 of the new syphilis infections are found in a population that is less than 7% of the population.
But I'm sure that this isn't because of rampant promiscuity. After all, they're just like everyone else, except for who they love.
More About the Ninth Circuit's Absurd Decision
Professor Volokh has already done a fine job of pointing out many of the problems with this decision, but let me throw my two cents worth into the mess.
1. The core problem wasn't the gun; it was Buford Furrow. The decision mentions--in a footnote:Furrow had been committed to a psychiatric hospital in 1998, indicted for a felony in 1998, and convicted of assault in the second degree in 1999 in the state of Washington.
What they don't tell you is that Furrow had attacked staff at a mental hospital trying to get treatment after telling them about his plans for mass murder. When he was tried for this attack, he told the judge about his mass murder fantasies, trying to get a judge to put him into a mental hospital. The judge refused, and gave him a six month sentence. Immediately upon finishing that sentence, he went to California to start killing "non-whites." (Anyone who thinks Jews are "non-whites" has some serious perception problems.)
There are a lot of mental patients wandering around who are a danger to themselves and to others. The same crowd that thinks banning guns is a solution is also very reluctant to admit that the mental illness commitment laws in this country have swung too far from the bad old days.
I can give you many other examples: Russell Weston, Jr., a mental patient who blasted his way into the Capitol in 1998; Larry Gene Ashbrook, who murdered seven people in a Fort Worth, Texas church in 1999; Richard Baumhammers, an attorney who went on a rampage in 2000 in Pittsburgh. These are the big names, but there are lots of little ones as well.
2. The decision goes on to make a claim that makes you wonder if their lawyers have tinfoil in their hats:Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants intentionally produced more firearms than the legitimate market demands with the intent of marketing their firearms to illegal purchasers who buy guns on the secondary market.
How many firearms does the legitimate market demand? How do you know what this number is? Any manufacturer of any product knows what the market demand for a good is by whether they can sell product at a profit or not. This notion that a manufacturer can determine what is the "legitimate market demand" is the sign of someone who hasn't the faintest idea how a business operates.
What is the legitimate market demand for bread? For cars? For screwdrivers? You find out by selling these goods, and seeing if your inventories start to get too large. At best, a manufacturer's marketing department makes some estimates as to likely sales--and marketeers get surprised a lot, sometimes by failing to adequately project demand, but usually by being too optimistic.
4. The decision reports the plaintiff's allegations include:They contend that Glock guns are safe and appropriate for use by well trained elite offensive police forces, but are not appropriate for civilians or unskilled users.
Huh? I don't recommend Glocks to anyone with small children (because of the lack of an external safety), but unless the plaintiffs are suggesting that Furrow wouldn't have killed anyone had he been carrying some other brand of pistol, this is insane.
5. Another sign that the lawyers who filed this appeal--and the two federal judges who found this claim plausible--haven't the faintest idea how the real world works:In addition, Glock and its distributors encourage police departments to make trade-ins earlier than necessary or originally planned so that they can sell more firearms to the police and sell the former police guns at a mark-up on the civilian market. Glock knows that by oversaturating the market with guns, the guns will go to the secondary markets that serve illegal purchasers.
What? Gee, do you suppose that Glock and its distributors might encourage the police to "make trade-ins earlier than necessary or originally planned" because Glock and its distributors are in the gun business? Do these idiots think that GM and Ford come out with new models every few years so that they can find a way to push old clunkers onto poor people, so that they can commit DUI? GM and Ford are in the business of making and selling cars.
6. More signs of paranoia: The plaintiffs allege that Glock and its distributor, RSR Seattle, arranged for the sale of the gun to the police department and its subsequent sale to gun dealers to facilitate the creation of an illegal secondary gun market.
Yeah, not to make money on sales of guns to licensed dealers who, under federal law, may only sell guns to people that pass a background check. No, it's to "facilitate the creation of an illegal secondary gun market." Do these idiots seriously think that Glock and RSR are sitting up nights figuring out how to put guns into the hands of criminals? Yeah, when they aren't torturing cute furry animals to death, and...yeah, it just struck me. Blood libel! That's the ticket! Glock and RSR are actually part of a conspiracy to kidnap little children and ritualistically cannablize them!
7. Now the decision goes into a realm that I can only call dishonest:Dineen then was able to sell one of the former Police Department Glock guns at a reduced price to David Wright, a man who claimed to be a gun collector.
Claimed? Normally, if someone claims to collect guns, or postage stamps, or barbed wire, or (worst of all) Dolly Parton albums, and they in fact purchase such items, we normally give them the benefit of the doubt. But just so that you aren't confused, on the next page, in the footnote, the opinion explains:The Complaint alleges that these “gun collectors” do not actually collect guns for any purpose other than to sell them without having to comply with the firearm registration system and background checks with which gun store owners must comply with when they sell a gun.
Wait a minute. The BATF has prosecuted people for buying and selling as few as four guns in a single year for "engaging in the business" without a license. If a federal judge doesn't know this--or doesn't feel the need to point out that anyone who regularly buys handguns and resells them without a license is already breaking federal law, it is time to find another line of work.
8. More paranoia: Plaintiffs alleged that all the defendant gun manufacturers and distributors produce, distribute, and sell more firearms than legal purchasers can buy, and that they all “knowingly participate in and facilitate the secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms.” Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant manufacturers and distributors “select and develop distribution channels they know regularly provide guns to criminals and underage end users.
Let's try this on for size. They sell "more firearms than legal purchasers can buy"? Are they alleging that the manufacturers and distributors are selling guns to people who may not lawfully buy guns? Of course not. They are alleging that after a distributor sells a gun to a retailer--and a retailer sells it to a lawful purchaser, some small number of lawful purchasers either ignorantly or intentionally sell guns to illegal purchasers.
We know for a fact that this happens--that there are lawfully qualified people that regularly buy guns for the purpose of reselling them outside of the normal background check system. In some cases, these guns are probably going into the hands of otherwise law-abiding people who are paranoid about the government knowing how many guns they have--but I would be more than willing to admit that many of these guns resold by are being sold to people who probably can't pass a background check. (I am specifically referring to those who buy guns "for the purpose" of reselling, as distinguished from the guy who buys a gun, and five years later, sells it to a friend.)
Does the retailer know that a customer is doing this? In a few cases, probably so. There are unscrupulous dealers, I'm sure, that don't ask too many questions of someone who comes in and buys a new handgun every couple of weeks. I would be very surprised, however, if most of the people engaged in these "strawman" purchases go back to the same gun store five or six times a year. They almost certainly go to different gun stores, to reduce suspicion. Unless the same gunrunner comes into the same gun store regularly, the retailer almost certainly doesn't know. (If only they had those mindreading machines!) If the vast majority of retailers don't know that this is going on, how can the distributor or the manufacturer know? They are even more removed from the retail purchaser.
9. More blame shifting. That same absurd statement continues: Defendant manufacturers and distributors have been specifically so informed [by the ATF] in connection with [its] crime-gun trac[ing] efforts[.]”
So are they claiming that ATF knows who is selling guns to illegal purchasers--and ATF isn't going out and arresting them? Either ATF knows about violations of the federal gun laws, and is choosing not to enforce them--or the plaintiffs need to spend less time toking up when writing these complaints.
Look, if gun control advocates want the existing laws enforced, why don't they take this up with their friends at ATF? ATF, after all, has badges, guns, and lawful authority to arrest people for breaking the law. Why go this roundabout way of trying to get Glock to pretend it is the government?
10. I could go on and on about the many absurdities of this decision (because the decision goes on and on), but I'll settle for a single example of why these two federal judges should be impeached and removed from the bench. A judge is supposed to engage in at least a pretense of fairness when hearing a case. What can you say when someone writes an opinion that includes a statement like this?Furthermore, the kind of harm suffered (death, serious gun shot wounds, and trauma from witnessing gun violence) is the kind of harm that is reasonably foreseeable when a person who is forbidden under federal law from purchasing guns is able to purchase an arsenal as a result of the manufacturer’s distribution system.
Arsenal? Here's some definitions of arsenal:a place where arms are manufactured
Do you think that this tells us something about the level of fairness and cool logic with which these judges approached this case? Furthermore, how in the world are we to expect a manufacturer's distribution system to prevent a psychotic neo-Nazi from obtaining guns?
a military structure where arms and ammunition and other military equipment are stored and training is given in the use of arms
all the weapons and equipment that a country has
This decision tells me three things:
1. Congress needs to pass a law that slamdunks these sort of absurd lawsuits.
2. ATF should use this supposed information that it has about criminal trafficking in guns, and make a serious effort at suppressing it. (Of course, someone might shoot at them.)
3. There are a lot of federal judges who need to be removed from the bench for lacking both judicial temperament and the intelligence of a toaster.
Interesting Concept
It looks like an online newspaper, but apparently built on blogging tools. Even though they are soliciting other authors, so far they just seem to have the one--but it's an interesting model. Now, if someone can figure out how to make it profitable....
That Right to Privacy
Yeah, a minority group is concerned about their right to privacy, and wants the government to stop keeping records about them!Invoking Adolf Hitler's and Fidel Castro's atrocities, a handful of conservative lawmakers have filed a bill to prohibit police from compiling gun-owner and gun-sale lists, saying it infringes on citizens' rights to privacy and to own firearms.
Oh, that's not the minority group that you were thinking of?
How To Make Yourself Look Like a Real Fool
To quote Michael Jackson's brother: "My brother is not eccentric." Look, he may be innocent. He may not be a child molester. He is definitely an impressive singer and showman. But he is not eccentric? Compared to what?
The Ninth Circuit Decision on Firearms Product Liability Suits
I will blog this evening or this weekend about this. In the meantime, Professor Eugene Volokh has made a number of very cogent blog entries on the many problems with this decision here, here, here, and here.
Why Was Loving v. Virginia (1967) Not Decided Based on Full Faith & Credit?
A question for you law professors and law students out there. Loving v. Virginia (1964) was decided by applying strict scrutiny rather than rational basis to Virginia's law that punished interracial marriage. Why was it not decided based on Art. IV, sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
The Court had already imposed the obligation to recognize divorce proceedings of other states. The Lovings were married in the District of Columbia; why did not the Supreme Court simply direct Virginia to recognize that marriage?
It's true that this would not have struck down Virginia's law banning interracial marriage, but it would have precluded criminal punishment of the Lovings by Virginia, and in practice, made it very easy for interracial couples to marry and return to Virginia.
My interest in this is both because of the parallels that some make between Virginia's ban (which only 16 states still had at the time) and the 50 state ban on homosexual marriage (until a couple of days ago), and because strict scrutiny is such a bizarre standard for a Court that had, with respect to most rights, applied only the rational basis test for the previous 25 years.
By the way, for those who see an analogy between the Supreme Court striking down Virginia's interracial marriage ban and bans on homosexual marriage today, the analogy breaks down in one fundamental respect. Virginia was not just refusing to recognize interracial marriages from other states; they specifically made it a criminal matter to get married elsewhere, and then return to Virginia:On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.
I don't know of any opponent of homosexual marriage who proposes sending two men to prison for getting "married" in Canada and then returning the U.S.
Strategies for Massachusetts to Pursue
Over at The Corner, Robert Alt points out that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and de facto state legislature has given the elected legislature 180 days to resolve this. There's no lawful way for the legislature to amend the state constitution in less than two terms, so their only realistic choice is gay marriage or civil unions, and even this might not satisfy those unelected legislators:Another suggestion that I have heard bandied about is offering some kind of a Vermont-style civil union substitute. Given the sweeping language of today's court decision, it is dubious at best whether such an option is still viable. While the legislature could offer it, the court is likely to simply enter its order in 180 days, and thereby alter the state's definition of marriage. For gay marriage proponents, why have civil unions, when the court has already granted them equal access to the civil institution of marriage?
Here's another strategy--pass civil unions and start the amendment process. Once the amendment passes in a couple of years, end civil unions, perhaps grandfathering in existing ones to avoid lawsuits claiming ex post facto law violations.
Master/Slave
Eugene Volokh points to this Los Angeles County government memo that reads like a parody of Political Correctness: One such recent example included the manufacturer's labeling of equipment where the words ''Master/Slave'' appeared to identify the primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label.
Back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, I worked for a company that built an in-circuit emulator product. It was called a "slave emulator" because it grabbed control of the microprocessor to more adequately debug hardware-specific features. We were bought by a German company, but they were so disturbed by the word "slave" that we had to go through and purge that word from everything. Of course, my boss, a very decent German guy, accidentally used the expression, "Arbeit macht frei" without thinking about it in a meeting. (I guess the phrase hasn't lost its original, pre-Auschwitz meaning.)
The Michael Jackson Freak Show Continues
Perhaps he can get the same lawyers that ACLU has arguing for teenager "sexual autonomy" in Kansas to come to his aid. After all, there aren't any allegations of force so far.
I agree that Michael Jackson is hardly typical of bisexuals--he's hardly typical of anything or anyone, except alien life forms. But isn't it interesting that Jackson seems to be stuck at the emotional maturity of a child--about the same age as the two children he has been accused of molesting? Isn't it interesting how common this sort of emotional immaturity is in the homosexual male community? If you don't know what I am talking about--move to the San Francisco Bay Area for a while. You'll know what I mean.
How Did This Crisis Happen?
The Independent is reporting that U.S. breadmakers are having a crisis summit because of the Atkins Diet:Consumption of bread plummeted in America in the past year with an estimated 40 per cent of Americans eating less than in 2002. The US bread industry is to hold a crisis "bread summit" tomorrow to discuss measures to curb falling sales. In Britain, the Federation of Bakers launched a promotional campaign last month to counter the Atkins effect. British Bread month was advertised with the slogan "Use your loaf, have another slice."
Maybe I'm not watching enough television, but I wasn't aware that this was a widely practiced diet. I know one person who is on the Atkins Diet, and I am certainly trying to reduce my carbohydrates, although I wouldn't say that I am on the Atkins Diet. How does something like this get so big without Big Media hyping it?
Sales of sliced and wrapped bread have been declining by 2 per cent a year for the past three years in the UK. John White, a spokesman for the federation, said: "The impact of Atkins in the US is of concern to UK businesses. Everyone seems to be on it."
An Opponent of the Missouri Concealed Weapon Permit Law
Kevin Horrigan writes a column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that I am sure he thought was proof that there was no need for concealed weapons in Missouri. What he really wrote, however, was a pretty persuasive piece of evidence that guns aren't the problem--so why bother treating them like they were some sort of poison?Here are some amazing true facts, courtesy of the St. Louis Police Department:
In this case, it would appear that the average resident of St. Louis has almost nothing to fear from the widespread carrying of guns--unless you are one of the criminals who murders one of the 22% of victims with no felony criminal history.
Between Jan. 1, 2001 and last July 11, the city recorded 300 homicides - a little more than 10 per month. Of the 300 victims, 234 (or 78 percent) had a felony criminal history. Of the suspects arrested in these killings, 88 percent had felony criminal histories. That percentage would be even higher if people suspected of multiple killings had been counted more than once.
Seventy-three percent of the 300 victims had a history of using illegal drugs or a criminal history involving illegal drugs. Sixty-five percent of the suspects had a drug history. Sixty-eight percent of the victims had illegal drugs or alcohol in their systems at the time of autopsy.
Of the 300 victims, 265 were black and 258 were male. Fifty-six percent were between the ages of 17 and 30.
Thus, if you are a middle-age white male - those considered most likely to apply for a concealed-carry license - and you don't drink or do drugs or hang around with people who do, your chances of being a victim of homicide in St. Louis are almost zero.
Wisconsin: Governor Doyle Vetoed Concealed Weapon Bill
It's time for you cheeseheads to get on the phone to your legislators:Doyle said allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons would threaten the safety of police officers and the general public, and the legislation has serious flaws.
While banning concealed weapons at youth sports games and other places, it would still allow them in shopping malls, libraries, the state Capitol, concerts, Summerfest and the State Fair, he said.
The veto sets the stage for lawmakers to attempt an override. That would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
Overturning Doyle's veto would require 22 votes in the Senate and 66 votes in the Assembly.
The Assembly approved the legislation 64-35, while the Senate voted 24-8 to approve an earlier version of the bill.
The Al-Qaeda/Iraqi Connection
Since the Bush Administration is doing its darndest to make sure that Americans don't think that there's a connection between al-Qaeda and Hussein's government, it's worth reading Stephen Hayes' latest article about this over at the Weekly Standard. The conclusion of the article is especially entertaining, because Hayes quotes a Clinton appointee:James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, made reference to the Tenet letter in an appearance this past weekend on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Tenet's enumeration of the links and the evidence in the Feith memo has Woolsey convinced.
Is the Bush Administration trying to look bad? Or are the bureaucrats that supposedly work for him trying to make him look bad?
"Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."
Interesting Gun Rights Decision From Washington State Court of Appeals
Someone that I would not invite over for dinner was convicted of unlawful ownership of firearms while out on bail for a serious crime. The Washington Court of Appeals decided that while it satisified a legitimate state interest to prohibit people awaiting trial for serious crimes to possess firearms, there was not sufficient legitimate state interest in prohibiting such a person from owning a firearm if he was not actually in possession of it, because this conflicts with the Washington State Constitution's right to keep and bear arms. This is one of those interesting cases with lots of interesting facts to it that makes it somewhat unusual compared to most cases involving a person awaiting trial in possession of a firearm.
What Is Michael Bellesiles Doing These Days?
He's not teaching at Emory University, of course. But demonstrating that some organizations have no shame, History News Service is distributing his work. See this example. Now, I don't fundamentally disagree with him that technological hype seldom meets expectations on the battlefield, but certainly the "shock and awe" campaign did its job in Iraq--terrifying the regular military of Iraq into not putting up much of a fight. What amazes me is that after the embarrassment of Arming America that any reputable organization of historians would want anything to do with Michael Bellesiles.
Of course, Arming America is again in print. But serious scholarship on the subject is unpublishable.
Eugene Volokh Is Still Examining the Decision
He makes the case here that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision seems to open the way to legalizing polygamous and adult incestuous marriages. And remember: Professor Volokh supports homosexual marriage (although not the courts imposing it on the states).
UPDATE: As one of my readers points out, it's a lot broader than that, with some interesting consequences:The SC of Mass has decided that any two humans who want to marry should be able to do so.
Unlikely? Sure. That last possibility, in particular, is fraught with abuse potential, especially because the ACLU is busily arguing in Kansas for the "sexual autonomy" of minors as part of their effort to reduce the penalty for molesting a fourteen year old.
So if a widower decides to "marry" his only child, in order to evade inheritance taxes, that's ok?
If an incestous, pedophile parent decides to "marry" the child, in order to prevent testimony, and gives parental consent to do so, that's ok?
The Mohammed Atta/Iraqi Connection
This just isn't going away. I've long wondered why our government has downplayed the significance of Czech reports that indicated Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague a few months before 9/11. The article suggests a reason:Since al-Ani was an officer of Saddam Hussein's intelligence (and diplomatic) service, this identification raised the possibility that Saddam might have had a hand in the 9/11 attack. It could also be potentially embarrassing, as Kavan pointed out, "if American intelligence had failed before 9/11 to adequately appreciate the significance of the April meeting."
It seems that the FBI and CIA efforts to protect themselves from embarrassment is taking precedence over the evidence suggesting an Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
A Stunning Photograph
Over on astromart.com, someone is trying to sell their Televue 102. Instead of posting a photograph of the telescope, he posted something a lot more impressive: an astonishingly detailed photograph of sunspots he took with his scope. Unfortunately, I don't have any way to link directly to that photograph, so you'll have to click over to it.
How Do Americans Feel About Homosexual Marriage?
Opposed--nearly 2-1. Here's a Pew Research report that came out just about the same time:Opposition to gay marriage has increased since the summer and a narrow majority of Americans also oppose allowing gays and lesbians to enter legal agreements that fall short of marriage. Moreover, despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the 1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.
The numbers show that 59% of Americans oppose gay marriage; 32% support it; 9% are undecided.
The time to act on the Federal Marriage Amendment is now. Unfortunately, my Congressman, "Butch" Otter, who pretends to be a conservative Republican, isn't willing to back it. I think he has spent too much in the District of Criminals; he represents the Beltway to us, not us to the Beltway. If there is anyone willing to run against in the primary, I'm interested in hearing about it.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is H. J. RES. 56 is very simple:`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Some opponents of the FMA claim that this would prevent states from passing civil union laws, or any laws granting any sort of marital rights to homosexuals. I don't see that this does anything of the sort. It says that no constitution shall be construed "to require" homosexual marriage. This means that state legislatures could pass laws as they wished--even laws recognizing homosexual marriage. The courts, however, could not "require" this based on either federal or state constitutions.
UPDATE: Just so you don't get the wrong impression. I live in Boise. You may be wondering, "Why is Clayton so anti-homosexual? Is it because he lives in Boise, and hasn't met any homosexuals?" No. It's because I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area from 1982-84 and 1986-2001. I worked with homosexuals, I engaged in political activity with some, and I met many.
Some were perfectly decent and sensible people. These homosexuals were aware that discretion is the most effective strategy for being left alone when you are doing something unpopular.
Most, however, were not. Their notion of "discretion" was public exhibitionism. Their notion of being "like everyone else, except for who they love" was to argue about whether to exclude the North American Man-Boy Love Association from gay pride parades. Their notion of responsible behavior was intentionally going out and getting infected with AIDS, and intentionally infecting others with AIDS.
I used to be a pretty doctrinaire libertarian. I was uncomfortable with homosexuality, but no more so than I was adultery, and heterosexual "swingers." I would often argue with my wife about this (who had a lot more contact with homosexuals in high school than I did). Homosexuals have persuaded me that there is something terribly, terribly broken about homosexuality--and the brokenness is becoming more apparent now that homosexuals are no longer oppressed, but celebrated and encouraged by the popular culture.
That there are homosexuals who are relatively normal and sensible I do not dispute--but they seem to be the exception. The crazies--the defenders of NAMBLA; the sadomasochists; the coprophiliacs; the guys who engage in insulting parodies of feminine behavior; the gals who engage in insulting parodies of masculine behavior--these are who defines homosexuality. When the Supreme Court imposes homosexuality on the states, mandates anti-discrimination laws to protect pedophiles, and decides that "equal protection" takes precedence over "freedom of religion," ordering all churches to ordain homosexual ministers, or lose tax exemption status, it will be to make that group happy.
Do you think these possibilities are unlikely? Would you have guessed, in 1970, that a state supreme court would order the legislature to recognize homosexual marriage? Would you have guessed that the U.S. Supreme Court would override the legislature and strike down laws prohibiting homosexual actions?
Americans have been sitting here, dazed and amazed by how rapidly the judiciary has turned a behavior that was universally felonious in 1960, into a protected class.
More News Concerning Alien Life Forms
From Reuters. Shocked! I'm shocked, I tell you, to learn of these allegations! Police swarmed over pop superstar Michael Jackson's opulent Neverland Ranch, near Santa Barbara in central California, on Tuesday as part of an unspecified criminal investigation, police said.
A Santa Barbara Sheriff's spokesman said sheriff's deputies and officials from the District Attorney's office went to the sprawling ranch at 8.30 a.m. PST to "serve a search warrant as part of an ongoing criminal investigation."
The search was still going on two hours later.
Police did not specify the nature of the investigation, but cable channel Court TV said it stemmed from allegations of sexual abuse brought by a 12-year-old boy against the self-styled King of Pop.
A spokesman for Jackson was not immediately available for comment and Jackson's whereabouts were not immediately clear.
The allegations come nine years after a 14-year-old reached an out-of-court agreement to settle a lawsuit accusing the singer of molesting him in 1992. No criminal charges were ever brought in that case.
More About the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision
Eugene Volokh, who is definitely supportive of gay marriage, points out that many of the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, back 25 years ago, claimed that it would open the door to homosexual marriage--and it turns out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision used the Massachusetts version of the Equal Rights Amendment to do exactly that: But this decision -- and the Hawaii decision cited by the concurrence, which has since been reversed by the Hawaii voters -- shows us that we shouldn't lightly dismiss plausible, facially valid textual arguments (the text bars discrimination based on sex, and the marriage laws do treat people differently based on their sex) as "canards," "scare tactics," or "hysteric[s]." The anti-ERA forces, much as I probably disagree with most of them on many things, have proved prescient.
Let me also point out that the decision is based partly on the Lawrence decision (which I have already pointed out is based on falsifications of history). It is also based on Griswold--arguing that because Griswold found that marriage was a fundamental right, a state law that intruded on a married couple's privacy was therefore unconstitutional. But this struggle isn't about privacy at all; it is about something that is very public: the state government recognizing marriage, and granting homosexual couples certain legal privileges.
Privacy is a legitimate argument--but keep it private, then.
UPDATE: Volokh provides even more evidence that contrary to the claims made at the time, anti-discrimination laws to protect homosexuals did eventually lead to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordering the legislature to allow homosexual marriage. Those who keep saying, "Striking down sodomy laws won't necessarily lead to the courts mandating gay marriage, striking down child molestation laws, or legalizing polygamy and bestiality" better explain why the slippery slope arguments that they decried in the past--and turned out to be correct--are wrong now.
The Left's Ignorance of History
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has some remarks about George Bush: Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".
Hmmm. I guess Mr. Livingstone's education left out the guy with the brush mustache who murdered 13 million people, and caused the death of 56 million total (including combatants). I think he must have read the condensed version of the history of the Soviet Union, that murdered tens of millions.Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called "the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years".
Hmmm. Racist? Let's see, in 1942, President Roosevelt had 110,000 American residents (most citizens, and most of the rest by law unable to become citizens) locked up solely because of their race. And what has Bush done that is comparable to that, much less worse?
President Bush has nominated California Supreme Court Justice Jance Rogers Brown (a black woman) to the D.C. Court of Appeals. His Secretary of State is black. His National Security Advisor is black. No American President has ever appointed blacks to such important Cabinet posts--ever. Yet Livingstone thinks Bush's the "the most... racist American administration in over 80 years"?
One of the reasons that I can't take the left seriously is their ignorance: of history, of science, of just about everything, except their own rage.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules That Homosexuals Have a Right to Marry
The decision is here. Their essential argument is that the right to marry is fundamental (based on the Griswold decision--in which the concurring opinion explictly held that state laws against homosexuality would not be affected by it), and therefore, the only question is whether strict scrutiny or rational basis is the appropriate test. They concluded that limiting marriage to a man and a woman doesn't even meet the rational basis test. I think that their argument that this is irrational would be equally true for polygamous marriage, or marriage to your favorite barnyard animal.
They did give the legislature 180 days to come up with a solution of some sort. They are apparently considering a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which would settle the matter.
Intentional Combining of Windows?
Over at packing.org, someone asked where to go in Seattle to apply for a Washington State concealed handgun license. The response was somewhat amusing. After describing what building to enter:If you see a bunch of weirdos standing around, it's because the CCW application window is also the Registered Sex Offender window. Hey, if there is ever a reason to get a CCW, just wait until the guy in front of you and is 6'5" and 350 pounds says to the clerk "No. No CCW. Registered sex offender".
Yep, happened to me. Got rid of that "Why do I need a CCW?" question in my mind.
Flagrant Abuse of Property Rights in Iraq
The Healing Iraq blog mentions a flagrant abuse of property rights--by the New York Times. Private security guards protecting a building occupied by the New York Times are threatening Iraqis who live next door.
Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
Anti-American Sentiment in Britain
It's not as high as many media people here would like to believe. From the Labour paper, the Guardian: A majority of Labour voters welcome President George Bush's state visit to Britain which starts today, according to November's Guardian/ICM opinion poll.
Oddly enough, while there is a large number of Britons who don't want Bush to come visit, where those Britons are located on the political spectrum suggests to me that those who don't Bush to cme are afraid that Blair will get a political boost from the visit by Bush:
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world.
...
The ICM poll also uncovers a surge in pro-war sentiment in the past two months as suicide bombers have stepped up their attacks on western targets and troops in Iraq. Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters.
This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable".
It also may explain the beginnings of a recovery in Tony Blair's personal ratings in this month's Guardian poll. He still remains an unpopular prime minister with 52% unhappy with the job he is doing, compared with 40% who say they are satisfied with his performance. But the prime minister's net popularity rating of minus 12 points is a significant improvement over last month's net rating of minus 18 points. Labour voters are more enthusiastic about the visit than Tory voters. But it is only Liberal Democrats who are marginally more unhappy about his arrival, with 43% against and 39% willing to welcome him. A majority of "twentysomethings" welcome Mr Bush. Hostility is strongest amongst the over-65s. There is a clear gender gap in attitudes with a majority of men - 51% - welcoming the president's arrival, compared with only 35% of women.
If only we could get numbers that high among America's media elite!
Pro-Americanism, as might be expected, is strongest among Tory voters with 71% saying the US is a force for good. But it is nearly matched by the 66% of Labour voters who say the US is a force for good. Anti-Americanism is strongest among Liberal Democrat voters but is still only shared by 24% of them and the majority see the US as the "good guys".
Amnesty International USA On Terrorism
I've always had a bit of respect for Amnesty International, in spite of my differences with them, and this interview with the director of Amnesty International USA is one of the reasons. He concedes that military intervention at times is the only realistic alternative to genocidal thugs. He also makes some good points about the Patriot Act--although perhaps not the points he was trying to make:Recently several Democratic U.S. senators spoke out in favor of the PATRIOT Act. According to the Washington Post, Joseph Biden, D-Del., said popular criticism of the legislation has been "ill-informed and overblown," and even Russ Feingold, D-Wis. -- the only U.S. senator who actually voted against the legislation -- said he supports "90 percent" of its provisions, and that the rest are "fixable." What's your view of PATRIOT? Can we stop terrorism without it?
He is arguing that it doesn't appear to have been much used, and even seems to be acknowledging that it hasn't really been abused. Of course, just because it hasn't been used much in the struggle against terrorism doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for that purpose. It does suggest a pretty admirable level of restraint by the Justice Department.
There's little evidence at this point that the PATRIOT Act is a critical factor in defending the country against terrorism. The Justice Department has acknowledged that they have used it exceedingly sparingly, and that when it has been used, it's been against non-terrorist criminal elements. This isn't to say that there aren't parts of it which are reputable, about which civil libertarians and human rights advocates should have no complaints.
It's clear that the major element of the PATRIOT Act that's drawn criticism is its short-circuiting of the traditional process of seeking subpoenas from an independent court for retrieving personal information. I've seen no evidence, from Feingold or anyone else, that sidestepping the traditional process of going to court -- where you have to show at least some degree of evidence as to why such information is relevant to the pursuit of a suspect -- is a necessary provision. The Justice Department itself, by saying it has rarely used the provision, appears to be acknowledging it isn't necessary.
That knocks out a fundamental argument in favor of PATRIOT in the first place: You have to be able to prove that some derogation of traditional rights is not only effective, but necessary to pursuing the protection of security -- that without the suspension of these rights, the public's safety will be considerably jeopardized. Thus far I haven't seen such evidence. [emphasis added]
Compare this to World War I, when a movie director who made a movie about the American Revolution was sentenced to prison because the film was too anti-British! Or compare the situation to World War II, when 110,000 people were locked up because they were of Japanese ancestry.
Other parts of the interview emphasize that support for human rights doesn't require pacifism--and indeed, he argues at one point:I personally believe that in the face of genocide the world community should intervene militarily. That situation clearly trumps national sovereignty. I think it was the Clinton administration's greatest shame that it blocked the United Nations from intervening in Rwanda. I think the intervention in Kosovo is defensible on human rights grounds, and there may be others.
...
To the best of my knowledge, neither Amnesty nor any other human rights organization had documented active genocide going on in Iraq. There were profound human rights violations going on, and I think there's an arguable case that those violations may very well have justified some sort of international military intervention. That's a case I'm certainly prepared to discuss.
Apologies for the Past With a Twist
It's nice to see that the apologies aren't always by Europeans: NUBUTAUTAU, Fiji (Reuters) - Villagers in Fiji's rugged mountain interior wept Thursday as they apologized to descendants of a British missionary killed and eaten by their ancestors more than 130 years ago.
The inhabitants of the tiny settlement of Nubutautau and the descendants of the Reverend Thomas Baker were taking part in a complex reconciliation ritual, which the villagers hope will lift a curse they blame for an extended run of bad luck.
Cannibals killed Baker in 1867 and ate him after a perceived slight against the then village chief, even boiling his leather boots with the local vegetable, bele, in an act which villagers say resulted in the curse.
Modern Art
I couldn't make this up--or at least, I wouldn't have the nerve to do so, because it would sound like some sort of attack on modern art: BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Police on Friday removed the corpse of a man believed to have hanged himself at least a year ago after builders and students at Budapest's University of Arts had initially mistaken it for a modern sculpture.
UPDATE: This suicide confused with modern art problem seems not to be limited to Hungary. See this BBC account from Berlin, last year:
The body hung for a whole day in a garden building that had been re-opened for repairs before onlookers realized what it was and called the police, local media said. Berlin passers-by were slow to respond to a woman who had committed suicide, thinking that she was taking part in a piece of performance art.
The 24-year-old woman died jumping from a window at the Tacheles art gallery in the fashionable Mitte district.
Some Countries Just Can't Handle Homosexuality...
I see this news story about a huge fine assessed against a televsion network for showing a kiss between two men. Why can't these narrow-minded sorts be more like the Europeans? Oh, wait, they are Europeans:ATHENS (Reuters) - Fifty gay men and women went on a "kissing demonstration" in central Athens late on Friday in protest at a 100,000 euro fine imposed by the Greek TV regulator for scenes in a late-night drama that included a kiss between two men.
So homosexuals are now their own race?
The watchdog criticized the sexually charged language and portrayal of a relationship between gay men in the hit series "Close Your Eyes," which deals with the lives of a group of 20-somethings. It said it "could damage young people by making them too familiar with vulgarity." Representatives of gay and transsexual rights groups gathered outside the building of the regulator to protest at what they said was a racist decision that marginalizes gay people.
Thanks For The Contributions
For those who are dropping the occasional small contributions into the tip jar (the button marked PayPal Donate on the left, a little below my picture)--thanks! It makes it a bit easier to talk myself into adding content here. The money is going to several good causes: I've made some contributions to the fund that is defending Missouri's new concealed weapon law, and I just used some of the money in the PayPal jar to buy a 4mm orthoscopic eyepiece over at astromart.com. (Astromart.com is a place where amateur astronomers buy and sell used stuff--I was able to pick up an almost new University Optics 4mm orthoscopic for $50--new they cost $59.95.)
I have an irrational hankering for a Televue 102 apochromatic refractor, so I guess I better put up a lot of valuable content here.
In case you have ever wondered about PayPal--it is a secure method of making or receiving small payments or contributions online--as little as one dollar. You can link your PayPal account to a checking account, a savings account, or a credit card. Balances in your account earn a pretty decent money market balance.
Amazon.com has a very similar scheme as well, and that used to bring in tens to hundreds of dollars a month for me, but I wasn't willing to have any financial ties to a company that sells books that promote child molestation.
The Ability to Predict the Future
I was a charter subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer, a publication of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP). For a couple of years, before they lost sight of their original goals, and became just another defender of the One Truth Faith of Science, the Skeptical Inquirer was an often useful and entertaining publication.
One of my favorite articles was the annual reprinting of psychic predictions "for the coming year"--at the end of the year. This was rather like shooting fish in a barrel, because most of these "psychic predictions" came from the supermarket checkout line tabloids. The tabloid "psychics" are no more typical of those who honestly believe in psychic phenomena than these tabloids are typical of serious newspapers. Still, it was amusing to read the predictions, and see how wrong they were.
The Cranky Professor points to this dire prediction of the consequences of Gulf War II, made November 12, 2002:Researched and written by health professionals, this evidence-based report examines the likely impact of a new war on Iraq from a public health perspective. Credible estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians.
Amazing how many people seemed to believe that Hussein had WMDs back then.
The aftermath of a ‘conventional’ war could include civil war, famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, catastrophic effects on children’s health and development, economic collapse including failure of agriculture and manufacturing, and a requirement for long-term peacekeeping.
Destabilisation and possible regime change in countries neighbouring Iraq is also possible, as well as more terrorist attacks. Global economic crisis may be triggered through trade reduction and soaring oil prices, with particularly devastating consequences for developing countries.
...
The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive than the 1990-91 Gulf War, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim. Furthermore, the mental and physical health of ordinary Iraqis is far worse than it was in 1991, making them much more vulnerable this time round, and even less able to muster the resources needed for recovery and reconstruction.
...
The US goal of leadership change is counterbalanced by Saddam Hussein’s goal of survival, so a short, clinical campaign is probably wishful thinking. The options open to Saddam Hussein include:
• firing oil wells and using radiological or chemical missiles to pollute the sites
• paramilitary attacks on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, pipelines and facilities
• paramilitary attacks on civilian centres in other Gulf states
• paramilitary attacks on targets in the US, UK and other Coalition countries
• selective use of chemical and biological weapons (CBW).
The report considers the circumstances in which more substantial use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons may occur. An Iraqi CBW attack on Israel or elsewhere could provoke immediate nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and/or UK, while the UK and US have not ruled out the nuclear first-strike option.
Shocking Depravity By Secretary of State Colin Powell!
From the Independent. Note the tone of mockery and the comparison to Victorian Prime Minister Gladstone: Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, has made an admission reminiscent of Gladstone by revealing that he and his wife Alma help to educate girls in Washington about the virtues of sexual abstinence.
Next, Powell will put his foot in his mouth by admitting that he discourages them from smoking!
The Victorian-era British prime minister would scour the streets searching for prostitutes to rescue and rehabilitate. Meanwhile, Mr Powellhas described in an interview how he and his wife warn girls about the dangers of Aids. "Abstinence is a good thing to teach young people before they're ready for the responsibilities of sexual activity," Mr Powell said. "Abstinence works. We know it works ... and it is a perfectly sensible strategy to take to young people."
Mr Powell was drawing on his personal experience as he defended plans to spend one third of the $15bn (£8.8bn) the US has pledged to the global fight against Aids on abstinence projects. During an interview with the BBC World Service due to be broadcast today, he described how he and his wife, with whom he has three children, frequently came face to face with girls who belonged to the sector of society at the "greatest risk" of contracting HIV.
Wesley Clark
I've stayed out of this, for the most part, but these are some pretty severe criticisms from his fellow generals: When at a forum in September, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Which was bad enough, but on November 6, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark. "I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned."
