The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 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).
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. |
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Telescope Solutions in the Kitchen Drawer I had mentioned a while back that there was a little bit of rocking in the diagonal that came with my Photon Instruments refractor. It turned out that the solution was to take a .001" aluminum shim and wrap it around the diagonal barrel. This solved the problem. And where did I find that shim material? In the box marked Reynolds Wrap, in the kitchen drawer. Labels: telescopes Another Explanation For Disproportionate AIDS Research Funding A reader of both my blog, and Professor Volokh's, makes a point about AIDS research funding which I think is quite valid: [W]hen AIDS first started becoming a big issue, it was stressed that AIDS was an equal opportunity disease. Supposedly, everyone was at risk. Typical of this was the claim by Oprah that a large percentage (20%) of heterosexuals would Friday, January 02, 2004
A Letter to My Sister Concerning Christianity and War I received a letter from one of my sisters recently, and I thought the content worth sharing with the rest of you. Dear Carolyn: Your letter about Christianity and peace got me at a good time, with the semester over. It raises some questions worth discussing. I was quite surprised, when I became a Christian as an adult, to discover that the pacifist perspective is a minority viewpoint in Christianity. I read a book titled War: Four Christian Perspectives trying to understand this, because like you, I had grown up with a particular understanding of what Jesus taught about war and peace—but one that is, at best, a rather selective reading of the New Testament, and one that is perhaps better suited to children (who often have not learned to draw subtle distinctions) than to adults. The four principal schools of thought can be characterized as: pacifist; non-resistance; defensive war; and just war. Each of these theories has a fairly long intellectual pedigree: you can find Christians arguing for each theory from the first century A.D. forward. Pacifism Pacifism is the belief that war and violence is fundamentally wrong, and the Christian has an obligation to not only refuse to participate, but to take steps to prevent it others from participating, and even to refuse to provide services that assist others who are participating in war. This school says that a pacifist should not only refuse to be drafted, but refuse to serve as a medical corpsman, or even to work in a factory that produces food that might be used by the military. The argument is essentially that war and violence are evil and that there can be no involvement that does not corrupt the soul. I find the pacifist argument the least persuasive, because it does not seem to be based on anything Scriptural. Unlike the non-resistance theory, this aggressive view of pacifism believes that there is an obligation to stop war, even sometimes to the point of using force to stop it (although almost always force against objects, not people). Non-Resistance Non-resistance is the argument that one should not participate in war and violence, and even if attacked, the Christian has a duty to refuse to fight. A non-resister would not resist prosecution for draft evasion, but also would not assist the government in any way. Non-resisters often are prepared to serve in a humanitarian role, as a medical corpsman, as a doctor, or a nurse in military service. Many conscientious objectors over the years have taken this path, and even those who disagree with the non-resistance theory have been overwhelmed with the example of conscientious objectors who have put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of others. Non-resisters often point to Jesus’s teaching about turning the other cheek. One of the arguments against this understanding of Jesus’s teaching is that a slap on the cheek is an insult, and it even hurts a little, but it’s not life-threatening. Jesus didn’t say, “If someone breaks your arm, extend your arm also.” Significantly, some of Jesus’s disciples regularly carried swords, and this hardly seems consistent with non-resistance. Defensive War Defensive war theory says that the Christian has a duty to avoid war, because it is evil, but that there is an evil that is greater than war: allowing evil people to murder, rape, and steal because of the Christian’s unwillingness to stop evil. Under this point of view, we have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil. If you or I were walking through a park, and we saw a man raping a woman, would we walk over and say, “Don’t do that!” Or we would be justified in using force to protect her from the attack? To me, that’s so obvious that I don’t even consider it worth discussing. Someone who argues that you don’t have both a duty and a right to stop evil is saying that evil people are free to do what they wish. It does no good to say, “But I would call a police officer.” So what? The police officer has the same moral choice: Say, “Don’t do that!” or use force to stop the evildoer. Obviously, there are times when the line between defense and offense get blurred in warfare, just as they sometimes are in ordinary life. At what point are you allowed to use lethal force to prevent a crime? Do you have to wait for a murderer to actually kill someone? Or is it enough that you see someone put a knife to someone’s neck and threaten to kill them? That’s clear enough to me. What if you see a convicted murderer and rapist buying a hunting knife, adhesive tape, and handcuffs? Do you have to wait until you actually catch them in the act? That’s a slightly more difficult problem. Just War The just war theory argues that there are times when a particular violent act, while not strictly defensive, can still be justified as a method of preventing an obvious and clear-cut evil to be performed against others. A good example is the suppression of slavery. Britain’s colonial empire in Africa was at least partially the result of their attempts to suppress the slave trade, both to the Americas, and to the Arab world. More recent examples include the invasion of Iraq (although Hussein’s involvement with terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, and that his government was attempting to make weapons of mass destruction, would justify this invasion on defensive war grounds). I have no problem with the just war theory; I recognize that it has some significant potential for abuse. The definition of what constitutes “clear-cut evil” is sometimes a problem. You can argue the question of whether a particular evil that you intend to prevent is greater or lesser than the just war you fight to abolish that evil. As much as I am horrified by the child sex trade that flourishes in much of Asia—and it is a very great evil—would going to war to suppress it be greater than the evil itself? Almost certainly, and I have no illusions that it would end that trade. How bad would it have to be for “just war” theory to allow it? I don’t know, but I recognize that the theory can be, and has been, misused before. The Vietnam War is probably the best recent example of good intentions leading to a “just war” that was worse than the evil it was supposed to prevent. Just war does not mean, “anything goes.” There are obligations that Christians must follow in either defensive or just war. The Hague Conventions of Land Warfare, and Hague Maritime Warfare Convention, are examples of where Christian nations at the turn of the twentieth century understood these to be. Almost all of these good intentions evaporated in a flurry of evil, some during World War I, but most during World War II. All the elaborately constructed distinctions between combatants and non-combatants disappeared because of aerial bombing. The improvements in precision guided weaponry in these last few years have taken the United States forward in the morality of fighting wars. This doesn’t mean that war is bloodless, or even that non-combatants are safe—but compared to almost any war of the twentieth century, the recent invasion of Iraq was a dramatic improvement. There were several thousand civilians killed, many because the Iraqi government based legitimate military targets in residential neighborhoods. During World War II, there were individual hours in which bombers killed that many civilians. You ask how James feels, “being almost of military/draft age?” Draft? What draft? The only people that want a draft right now are liberal Democrats, hoping to anger teenagers into becoming antiwar activists. It turns out that draftees have never been the most effective soldiers. Throughout history, armies of professional soldiers have just about always outfought draftees. It would not bother me to have James go into the armed services, and I have at least encouraged him to consider it as a possibility, if he decides that he is not quite ready for college right out of high school, but I suspect his somewhat rebellious nature might make this a less than perfect fit for both of them! At the end of World War I, the German Empire made the incredibly foolish mistake of drafting Socialists into the Army. (They had been previously exempt.) What happens when you send anti-war activists to the front? They turn their fellow soldiers against war. I don’t want anyone defending my nation who had to be forced to go there. When I read news accounts of what our all volunteer military is doing overseas, I am awestruck with the courage, with the integrity, and with the sheer humanitarianism that they are exhibiting. Our soldiers are rebuilding thousands of schools in Iraq. They are doing the sort of mission that John Kennedy imagined the Peace Corps would do—helping Iraqis rebuild the critical social infrastructure of a society. Our nation’s history of overseas involvement is pretty checkered. We had to be dragged into World War II, but playing a part in shutting down the Holocaust is a proud moment, even if it was only a side effect of our principal military goal. Similarly, the United States played the leading role in bringing down the Soviet Union—a system of depravity based on a delusion. There are far more examples of the United States either going to war for the wrong reason (Spanish-American War, Mexican War, World War I), or so poorly implementing a well-intentioned effort that everyone would have been better off if we had done nothing at all (Vietnam, U.S. peacekeeping efforts in Beirut in 1983). I have no similar misgivings about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is simply no question that the NATO invasion of Afghanistan was an act of defensive war. Afghanistan was providing shelter and assistance to Osama bin Laden. Iraq, while less clear-cut as defensive war, at least gave strong reason to suspect Iraqi involvement with terrorist groups. From the just war perspective, invading Iraq was clearly justified. Hussein is one of the great monsters of world history, turning Iraq into a charnel house. Hussein differs from Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the other great thugs of history only in scale, not in the level of evil that he inflicted on his people. Love, Clayton Elitism In Britain From the Independent: Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.Gee, do you suppose that this might reflect a certain level of concern among Britons who don't take kindly to the idea of someone breaking into their homes at night? While the law in question isn't specifically about guns, it does reflect one of the great divides in the Western world. Why does the U.S. still have a death penalty, while almost all European countries have abolished it? Not because Europe is so big on democracy--but because the structures in most European societies are for and by the elites. I am no fan of the death penalty, but I do recognize that it enjoys widespread support. Much of what calls itself liberalism today is fiercely elitist in nature. This is not classical liberalism, skeptical of government, but a liberalism that believes in a large and powerful government. It objects to particular policies that enjoy popular support, but does not reject powerful government per se. Colin Greenwood has long argued that part of why Britain adopted its 1967 gun control law, which licensed shotguns, was because the Labour Government was trying to distract attention from the argument about capital punishment. In 1965, Britain had abolished capital punishment for murder. In 1967, in response to the murder of three British policemen by criminals with unregistered, smuggled in handguns, there was a significant outcry for restoring hanging for murder. The elites, represented in this case by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, clearly used shotgun controls as a distraction from what the public clearly wanted then--and still wants now: capital punishment. For the most part, the elites do not live in places or circumstances that require them to worry about the safety of themselves and their families. They can enjoy the luxury of decrying the "barbarity" of capital punishment, without having to worry about the consequences of such policies. UPDATE: A reader points me to this article about the disconnect between Europeans, and their leaders, on the death penalty. Amazingly enough, the article cites an article by leftwing Democrat Joshua Micah Marshall concerning this disconnect. What is exactly the public sentiment in Western Europe about the death penalty? Joshua Micah Marshall wrote about this last summer in The New Republic: "In fact, opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians crave executions almost as much as their American counterparts do. It's just that their politicians don't listen to them. . . Differences in the way survey questions are framed complicate direct comparisons with Europe. (European polls sometimes pose the question in terms of the death penalty for terrorism, for genocide, for depraved sexual crimes, and so forth.) But, even if you ask the death-penalty question in the more restricted sense that Americans generally understand it--'Do you support the death penalty for aggravated murder?'--you find very few European countries where the public clearly opposes it, and there are a number where support is very strong. In Britain, the world headquarters of Amnesty International, opinion polls have shown that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the population favors the death penalty--about the same as in the United States. In Italy, which has led the international fight against capital punishment for much of the last decade, roughly half the population wants it reinstated. In France, clear majorities continued to back the death penalty long after it was abolished in 1981; only last year did a poll finally show that less than 50 percent wanted it restored. There is barely a country in Europe where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion rather than in spite of it." This May Be Bad News For the Beagle 2 Mars Probe From this web site: The following three pictures show the landing site kindly provided by Dr. M. Malin of Malin Space Science Systems, the provider of the Mars Observer Camera on Mars Global Surveyor.Let's hope it is just a coincidence to find an impact crater there. A Question For Our Time Just received this from a friend, and I thought it worth sharing: It is time to take a serious look at our involvement there.Actually, that's not quite fair. There may be more Iraqi support for U.S. intervention in Iraq than Californian support for U.S. intervention in Iraq. I think Bush would get more votes in Iraq than in California, too. Of course, Iraq doesn't have such Draconian gun control as California, either. Why Do People Take Photos Of Themselves Breaking the Law? You may recall Rob Lowe's embarrassment (and worse) some years ago in which he videotaped himself breaking the law with a too-young female. Now, we see that there is something more stupid than making a record of yourself breaking the law--and that is publishing it on the Internet: LINCOLN, Neb. — It may be legal to appear naked in cyberspace, but police ticketed a Lincoln woman Monday for posting nude pictures of herself on the Web that were taken in downtown bar. Your Tax Dollars at Work The National Endowment for the Arts is at it again: A musical based on the life of San Diego serial killer Andrew Cunanan ---- whose far-flung victims include fashion designer Gianni Versace ---- will be developed this year at the La Jolla Playhouse through a $35,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Playhouse announced last week.Oh yes, money definitely well spent. Imagine what the uproar would be if the NEA had given $35,000 to say, Regents University's drama department to make a musical about Andrew Cunanan titled, "The Wages of Sin Are Death." Why Was This Guy Released? This guy had to be subdued by air marshals: An ex-convict on a Honolulu-to-Seattle flight charged toward the cockpit, shouting that he wanted to see the pilot, and was subdued by undercover air marshals who were on board to monitor him, officials said.Glad to see them doing their jobs. The rest of the story, however, is really interesting--and sad: The man was identified as Reno Maiava, 33, of Seattle. He was released from prison two years ago after serving 10 years for his role in a much publicized spree of beatings of gay men in Seattle in 1990.Now think about this for a minute. Here's a guy who is a gang member, apparently mentally ill, engages in a series of predatory attacks, and one of the victims suffers "near-fatal head injuries." So why is he released after ten years? This makes no sense. We have gone too far from the bad old days when the merely eccentric might find themselves locked up in a mental hospital. This guy was convicted of a series of predatory attacks, with very serious consequences, is pretty clearly still mentally ill--and so he is walking the streets again. This is dumb. This is liberalism at work. Research Funding Per Death A friend pointed me to an article by Antonio Regalado in the January 2, 2004 Wall Street Journal (page B1) about mad cow disease and research funding. There's an interesting table in the article showing 2002 research funding from the National Institutes of Health for various diseases, and the number of deaths in 2001: Well, do the math, and calculate research funding per death, and you see a very interesting pattern: all of these diseases--except two--receive between $10,900 and $15,317 of funding per death. HIV/AIDS receives more than ten times as much funding per death as breast cancer, and sixteen times as much funding per death as all of these other common diseases. Only the new and still poorly understood BSE research is equivalent. (The version I received had a footnote "1" on the 250 deaths, which was mangled by HTML into 2501 deaths.) Why? There was a time (a long time ago) when you could argue that the cause of AIDS was uncertain. Not now. AIDS is very close to being completely preventable. Do you not want to get AIDS? Follow these simple procedures, and your risk of getting AIDS goes essentially to zero: 1. Do not have unprotected sex with men. 2. Do not have unprotected sex with prostitutes. 3. Do not share needles. 4. Live in mutually monogamous relationships--and don't change your sexual partners frequently. (What is "frequently"? Change sex partners less often than you change hair styles.) The same can't be said for most of the other diseases above. Yes, there are some risk factors for diabetes that you should watch for, and the same is true for breast cancer and prostrate cancer--but I defy anyone to point to four such simple steps that will give you a nearly certain guarantee of avoiding those diseases. We could make AIDS in the United States almost go away over the next ten years, if drug addicts and homosexual men would follow these four simple steps. There is nothing complex or difficult about this (although I've seen homosexuals argue that monogamy is essentially the same as celibacy, and they would rather die than do that). Yet because AIDS disproportionately affects homosexual men, the U.S. government spends an enormous amount of money doing research on this. It is hard to take seriously the claim that America is a "homophobic" nation. This insane level of research funding on HIV/AIDS, when we know how to prevent it, demonstrates that the American government cares more about homosexuals and IV drug addicts than it does about everyone else. UPDATE: Professor Volokh is, of course, full of reasons why it might be legitimate to spend a lot more money on AIDS research than on other diseases: Might there be some other factor involved here? Lots of possible factors come to mind, but here's one that's pretty clear -- communicable diseases such as AIDS pose a far greater potential danger than noncommunicable ones, because there's a chance that they might spread much more broadly, as they in fact have in many other countries.But one of the arguments for why AIDS shouldn't be treated like other public health risks--such as tuberculosis and typhoid were treated, not that many years ago, is that it isn't all that terribly communicable, except to those who voluntarily put themselves at risk. If AIDS is really a serious general public health threat, because of its communicability, then registering people with AIDS, quarantining those who are consciously spreading the disease, would all be reasonable public health measures, wouldn't they? We can be sure that Professor Volokh would be upset about those sorts of actions. Professor Volokh's ingenuousness about political processes also shows up here: Wow -- "the American government cares more about homosexuals and IV drug addicts than it does about everyone else"! Even though homosexuals and IV drug addicts are only a tiny share of all voters. Even though lots of voters dislike IV drug addicts, and quite a few still dislike homosexuals. Pretty odd, no?Are there any other government programs that disproportionately benefit just a tiny share of the voters? Sure. Dairy farmers. Steel makers and their employees (until quite recently). We even have a specific term to refer to these groups: "special interests." I am utterly amazed that Professor Volokh doesn't understand how a tiny faction, by being well-organized, can get the government to do their bidding, even against the interests of the general public. Or is it that hard to understand that homosexuals are a special interest group? (Obviously, IV drug abusers don't have much influence.) UPDATE 2: Professor Volokh's argument becomes even more bizzare: This, though, is a different point from the one that I was criticizing. Cramer's original claim was that "the American government cares more about homosexuals and IV drug addicts than it does about everyone else." His new argument is that the American government is more influenced by homosexuals because they're better organized, which is not the same as "cares more about" them; and he now seems to withdraw the claim about IV drug abusers.Does anyone seriously believe that what drives special interest power is that they represent major parts of the electorate? Special interest power involves the ability to mobilize a sufficient fraction of the electorate to decide an election. You don't need 51% of the voters to exercise special interest power. Most Congressional elections are decided by margins of 5% or so of the general election. In many parts of the United States, there is only one primary that matters. If you live among the millionaire dairy farmers and software engineers of Sonoma County, the only primary that matters is the Democratic primary. In some parts of Idaho, only the Republican primary is of any relevance. In states where the largest vote decides a primary (which can be as little as 15% of those who vote in a partisan primary, if there are ten or more candidates on the ballot), all it takes to decide the nominee--and thus the winning Congressional candidate--is the swing of a few hundred votes. So, how does a special interest group decide an election? Not by having 51%--or even 30%--of the electorate vote their way. All that is usually required is 2-3% of the voters who are prepared to vote the same way, based on a single issue. This works on gun rights, on environmental policy, on protective tariffs for steel, on farm price supports (which even in farm states, injure most of the population by driving up food prices, and benefit just a small percentage of the population who actually farms). Indeed, the smaller the faction, the more disproportionate their power. Why? Let's say that a special interest group has come up with a way to line their pockets out of the federal treasury. Each member of the special interest group may make $500,000 in extra income through this program. The general public loses perhaps $10 in extra taxes to pay for this program. A little math demonstrates that a few thousand members of a special interest group can justify spending tens of thousands of dollars each in every election to keep that program operational, and still make vast profits. At most, the general public, if they become aware of the program at all, can't justify spending more than a few tens of dollars each to kill that program. Is there any question in anyone's mind that 2-3% of the population, if they are prepared to consistently vote for candidates with certain views, and against opposing candidates, can exercise enormous influence on elections? Does Professor Volokh really believe that the same special interest group influence that drives many other areas of politics simply stops working when it comes to AIDS research funding? Mad Cow & Prions: Misguided Research? Here's an interesting article that argues that federal funding of BSE (mad cow disease) and related maladies may be misdirected: Millions of federal dollars being spent to find treatments and diagnostics for mad cow disease and similar brain disorders in humans might be misguided and actually delaying the development of effective medications that could cure or prevent these deadly disorders, experts have told United Press International.One of the difficulties when you have a single, relatively small group making decisions is that even if they are genuinely mistaken, their mistakes can misdirect a lot of research down the wrong path. This article suggests that this might well be the case. Because a relatively small number of people make the decisions about how to spend federal funding, if they are disinclined to consider other theories, the resources that they misdirect are not just a waste of money-- they also crowd out research resources that could be usefully used to examine other possibilities. I am not suggesting that the federal government should not be in the disease research funding business. I am suggesting that arranging for the government to have a diversity of research funding organizations, with a diversity of points of view represented, might be a good thing. Just like we have both the CIA and the lesser-known Defense Intelligence Agency doing intelligence, and sometimes coming to differing points of view, having more than one agency funding such research might be a good thing as well. Competition is a good thing in business--and in research. Security Hole? Or Just Badly Translated Spam? I receive vast quantities of spam--almost all of which revolves around body part enlargement, or Paris Hilton videos. Occasionally, I get a piece of spam that makes me wonder: Hello, we wish you a good year 2004, and do not forget to consult our site for the acquisition of passports European by naturalization with the following address http://www.blackeagle.ch/passeports/Of all the items that should not be available mail order, a passport would seem like the most important in the post-9/11 world. Or have I missed something on this? More Phun With Photons! The snow stopped; the sky briefly cleared; I drag the Photon Instruments outside, because the Moon is visible. The viewing conditions are actually pretty good--not too much turbulence. But then the telescope has to adjust to the outside temperature (which, as you might expect, is quite low). I do some calculations, and conclude that the sky will be clouded over again by the time the objective has reached a good figure again. I was right! Grrrr! Unfortunately, I was down on the ground, because the Cave Optical mount has such a low saddle. Yes, it does appear that a Losmandy GM-8 is the right choice for a mount: light enough to pack in any car (maybe even the Corvette), steady enough to handle both the Photon Instruments refractor and the 8" reflector. Let's see, call it $1600 with the aluminum motor covers and the extra counterweight required for the reflector. Now, if I can find a buyer for the old Cave Optical mount.... Labels: telescopes Thursday, January 01, 2004
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
More Liberalism In Sonoma County From the Washington Times: Tim Bueler recently received some unusual advice: His principal and a campus police officer suggested that he stay home from his California high school for a few days.Well, no surprise. I've written about what a cesspool Sonoma County is before. Rancho Cotate High School was the high school in the town where I lived. Thanks to Instapundit for the link. If You Grew Up in Snow Country, You Can Ignore This My wife and I just returned from an hour walk in falling snow. This may not seem like much to those of you with long, wet, intimate experience with snow, but I grew up in Southern California; my wife grew up in Southern California and Hawaii. A snow storm is really magical to us! The snowflakes were huge; the glistening of the streetlights on the freshly fallen powder; the quiet of the landscape because the snow absorbs so much sound--how beautiful! I suppose this must why some people go to Hawaii and go ga-ga over palm trees! Dollar Hits Historic Lows This is actually good news, at least in part: The dollar weakened against the euro but pulled off record lows set earlier on a sharp sell-off linked partly to concerns about possible attacks in the United States during New Year celebrations.What happens as the dollar drops in value against foreign currencies? It means that American goods become more competitively priced compared to foreign goods. While I don't see "buy American" as a perfect solution to the problem of unemployment, and I am hostile to tariff barriers as a method of protecting jobs, it is certainly true that we are better off putting people to work in factories in Colorado, or Utah, than in China or Singapore. As the prices of American-made goods fall, the incentive for Wal-Mart to buy from China drops. For those with jobs at risk of being outsourced to India, a declining dollar means that the price advantage of hiring East Indian software engineers drops also. There are downsides to a falling dollar, of course. Imported goods become more expensive, and this takes away competitive pressure on American makers to keep their prices low. This is bad for American consumers. Rising foreign currencies makes it more expensive for Americans to be tourists abroad (but similarly, expands the travel and tourism industry here in America, as foreigners discover how much further their pounds, Euros, and yen buy here). Of course, if you are one of the people working on an assembly line, "reducing competitive pressure" on your employer may mean that you keep your job, or your employer might have a little more room to give you a raise the next time your union contract comes up for renewal. (I do not suggest that your employer is going to give you a raise out of the goodness of his heart. That does happen, but I would consider fear of losing employees to higher paying companies, or a strike, as more likely incentives.) If you have any doubt as to whether this is a good thing or not, consider the end of the article: "Everybody is looking to the February meeting. That seems to be the next major sticking point (for the dollar)" said Tim Mazanec, senior currency strategist with Investors Bank & Trust in Boston.That pain barrier is the pain for the Europeans--not for the Americans. Snow This is my third winter in Boise. The first winter (2001-2) we had a scenic snowfall the day the moving van arrived--and all subsequent snowfalls were equivalent--just enough to be pretty, but they melted quickly enough that they were not a major obstacle to driving. The second winter (2002-3) we had a few light snowfalls, but the snow always melted within a day or two. No obstacle to driving, even in my Corvette. This winter has been enough snow that it is losing its charm. I've already mentioned the joy of Corvette on snow. The snow these last few days have been heavy enough that even my wife's Malibu is a little more exciting to drive than I would prefer. On Monday, I slipped and slided into work just long enough to grab my laptop, and head home. Fortunately, my employer tolerates me telecommuting, so that is what I did Monday and Tuesday. This morning I fully intended to go back into the office--but the snow was several inches thick, and still falling. So here I am, testing software changes over a secured broadband connection from my home office--where I have more control over the temperature, ambient noise, and what to drink as I work. I wish that I could do this every day--but think of the stimulating group meetings that I would miss! Armed Journalists What makes this news story so entertaining is that it is a New York Times correspondent who is carrying a gun in Baghdad--someone who works for one of the most reflexively anti-gun newspapers in America: More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in nearly any other conflict in the past decade. And as post-war instability and dangers continue, a debate has arisen about how far journalists should go to protect themselves. Hollywood Getting Hurt By Gun Control Laws This news story from the Los Angeles Daily News has more than a touch of irony to it: Before filming began on "Black Hawk Down," production crews went to International Studio Services prop house in Sunland looking for an elaborate cache of Soviet-made AK-47 assault rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons and other firearms.Now, what makes this so amusing is that Hollywood is one of the major promoters of gun control laws. California's 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act even had a provision allowing the California Attorney-General to issue licenses for assault weapon purchase for "corporate, non-personal use" so that the companies that supply weapons to the movie studios would not be inconvenienced. (But just try to get a license to own one of these guns for self-defense--no way at all.) The other amusing aspect of this story is this statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein: Brian Dyak, president of the Entertainment Industry Council, a nonprofit organization that monitors Hollywood's depiction of health and social issues, said he sympathizes with U.S. entertainment armorers -- up to a point.Of course, Sen. Feinstein, like most gun control advocates, doesn't much care about the criminals getting guns. It is the rest of us that they are trying to disarm. I Feel Like I'm Reading a News Story From An Alternative Universe From BBC: Police often raid the notorious Hillbrow neighbourhood South African police will crack down hard on anybody throwing old fridges from high-rise buildings during the New Year's holiday, they say.I can almost understand why people who had grown up in rural areas might think firing guns into the sky as a New Year's celebration makes sense; this was a tradition in the United States, not that many decades ago. It is still a tradition in rural Mexico and parts of California that might as well be rural Mexico. It is only somewhat dangerous in a low-density area. (Unfortunately, the article reports that many of these shots are going out horizontally, not vertically.) But refrigerators? I would think that to all but the most depraved or retarded, the risks to those below would act as a restraint on such behavior. Resident With Handgun Shoots Burglar in Town Where Handguns Are Illegal My co-blogger Pete Drum has already put this up on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, but I thought I would mention this case as well because the person who engaged in an otherwise lawful defensive shooting broke the law: Hours after an intruder used the dog door of a Wilmette home to steal a set of keys and a BMW sports-utility vehicle, the homeowner shot a man he confronted inside the house, authorities said Tuesday.Remember that this is the goal of gun control advocates--to make sure that if you are attacked, that you will think twice before defending yourself from a criminal. After all, if you believe (as many gun control advocates do) that there is no intrinsic moral difference between the criminal and his victim, then it is very important to make sure that the criminals don't get hurt. At least Lambrecht represents the principled ideological gun control advocate: you is concerned about using a gun to chase off a burglar because it is "very risky" (at least for the burglar). Will someone explain this statement? Another trustee said he didn't think the incident would lead to a change in the handgun ban.So he thinks it was a good thing--but doesn't see a reason to change the law? That makes no sense at all. UPDATE: A friend points out that the ban on handguns apparently has a number of odd little exceptions to it--none of them very useful. Of course, armored car companies, of course, who are protecting something far more valuable than a person's life--a corporation's money--are exempt. Good Signs for the Economy An AP news story reports: New claims for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level in nearly three years, a sign that America's businesses are feeling more confident that the economic recovery is genuine.The Democrats must be really, really bummed right now. Bush has done everything wrong--from the Democratic perspective--cutting taxes, increasing deficits, invading Iraq, rather than begging al-Qaeda for forgiveness--and yet the economy is recovering from the Internet boom and bust. I am still waiting for interest rates to rise, but Bush's luck (or more likely, skill) is so high that I suspect that interest rates won't start to rise significantly until after the 2004 general elections. In the meantime, I find myself looking at two-year federal agency bonds with a 2.25% annualized yield and thinking, "Wow! What a great return!" Groan. Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Michael Novak, Demonstrating That He Is a Primitive Bloodlust Sort of Guy From a recent column at National Review Online: Near my home, two cars bear the simple-minded bumper sticker, WAR IS NEVER THE ANSWER. I have to restrain myself every day from inserting with a thick red crayon a modifier: EXCEPT FOR SLAVERY, FASCISM, COMMUNISM, AND TERRORISM.If you doubt that Novak has neighbors with such bumper stickers--or if you think he misinterprets the meaning of such bumper stickers--I came from a county awash in such sentiments. It sounds so very noble, doesn't it? War is certainly a bad thing, and best avoided. But there is something worse than war, and that is the pacifism that thinks that you can end genocide by appealing to the better natures of those who run death camps; that thinks a noble example will influence those who revel in causing pain and terror among innocents. The Question That Must Be Asked I received this from a reader--a very thoughtful question about our involvement in that troublesome place: It is time to take a serious look at our involvement there.The difference between California and Iraq, of course, is that Iraqi generally support our intervention in Iraq--I'm not so sure if Californians are quite as sympathetic to our mission in Iraq. Also, Iraq under U.S. military occupation has less stringent gun control laws than California. The Futility of Extreme Gun Control Laws I've often made the point that if the government banned gun ownership, it would simply create a market opportunity for smugglers and illegal makers. Here's an article from the Taipei Times about the illegal gun making business in the Philippines: Politicians are among a steady stream of clients for the revolvers and machine pistols Jose produces in the backyard of his home in Danao City on the central Philippine island of Cebu.Killing people over My Way? Hmmm. It sounds like a country with deeper problems than guns. Monday, December 29, 2003
More On the Photon Instruments Refractor I had mentioned a few days ago that the diagonal that came with the scope seemed a bit loose. I pulled out the micrometer and measured the inside diameter of the focuser, and the outside diameter of the diagonal. My best estimate for these is 1.994" and 1.992", respectively. A discrepancy of 2/1000th of an inch isn't enough to cause a problem. So why does it rock back and forth? The focuser is actually a fairly large tube with a "collar" threaded into it. The collar is the 2" diameter component--but the collar's bearing surface is only a fraction of an inch deep. Once the diagonal has slipped into the collar, it is unsupported beyond the collar. I believe that this is what causes the diagonal to rock back and forth. It would take a fairly minor design change to correct this--make the collar perhaps 1.5" deep, and the diagonal would be fully supported. Fortunately, the collar is threaded, so it would be an easy change to make. Had I an engine lathe, I would just whip one out. Labels: telescopes Faith-Based Prisons? Call them by the name the Quakers came up with--penitentiaries--and then ask why the root word is "penitent." Surprise, surprise! The first penitentiaries in America were originally places for criminals to consider the error of their ways--and Quakers had a lot to do with creating these prisons. As one web site points out: [The first prisoner at Eastern State] was then placed in a cell with nothing to do--no work, no reading materials, nothing. The Quakers knew what would happen: "His mind can only operate on itself; generally, but a few hours elapse before he petitions for something to do, and for a bible. No instance has occurred, in which such a petition has been delayed beyond a day or two."Once again, liberalism has gone beserk in its ignorance of history--or perhaps, liberalism's hatred of Christianity just takes precedence over everything else. (If these were Islamic-based prisons, I'm sure the ACLU would come up with a rationalization that allowed them.) Ann Coulter Nails It! As you probably know, I chuckle a lot at Ann Coulter's columns, but often find them a little unfair. This time, her facts are a little askew (sorry, no permalink yet), but the essence is correct: liberals are terrified that someone, somewhere, is gazing on "forbidden knowledge": UTTERING the standard liberal cliche a few years ago, Richard Reeves described "representatives of the new South" as "Republicans of old puritan definition, righteous folk afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun." (I'll skip the context of Reeves' insight, except to note that apparently aging liberals view sodomy with a chubby intern in the back office as "having fun.")Okay, the part that is not quite accurate is that these lawsuits get filed by red state residents who are upset that the Ten Commandments are on display. Now, if one of those red state bluenoses filed suit to prevent Richard Mapplethorpe's "art" from being put on display in a public display, the ACLU would be there in a flash to protect the duty of every citizen to look at it. Put a block of stone with the Ten Commandments on display in a public place, and the ACLU acts like it was 1950, and the offensive art had naked female breasts on it. Make no mistake about it: the ACLU's interest is not freedom, but replacing one form of narrowmindedness with another form of it. Those Al-Manacs Carried By Al-Qaeda This is actually a serious news story, and I am not suggesting that the concern isn't legitimate, but what can I say? "Almanac" is one of those words that comes from Arabic: The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning. Corvette in Snow I did not have any real problems last winter with the Corvette--but then again, last winter Boise did not get much snow. Yesterday, on the way to church, I began to see why a lot of people around here put the Corvette in the garage for the winter. The Traction Control display kept coming on, even driving very slowly and carefully. At one point, I needed to make a three-point turn on a road with a couple inches of snow--and I was no longer in control of the car. If I took my foot off the brake, the car would yaw and move backward--at about 1/4 mile per hour. I remembered the instructions that came with the car, to turn off Traction Control, and let wheel spin melt down through the snow to a solid surface. That worked! This morning, I drove into work (less than a two mile drive), and I decided that because the snow was coming down, I would drag my laptop home, and telecommute. No more driving in this stuff unless I have no choice. I should probably replace the rear tires--they are just about to the tread wear indicators, and on tires this wide, it is very easy to "float" on the snow. Perhaps a somewhat beat-up 4x4 for winter driving would not be a bad idea.... | |||||||||||||||||||||
