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). 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. |
Saturday, March 06, 2004
From My Friend Norman Heath What do you call a Democrat who opposes the ill-conceived, unjust and unwinnable war, and thinks the Republican president is a contemptible, despotic, ill-educated buffoon? A Copperhead. The president I was thinking of was Lincoln. Wanted: Someone To Check The Accuracy of My Research I have a spreadsheet consisting of firearms and valuations in probate inventories from Plymouth Colony. The probate records are all text online. I have been rechecking the information in the spreadsheet, in preparation for getting my book about firearms in early America published, and I've found a few mistakes (1 pound, 10 shillings, 0 pence when it should have been 0 pounds, 10 shillings, 0 pence). I do not expect these discrepancies to significantly affect the overall average--but it is good to be sure. If you have an hour or two, and would be interested in checking the spreadsheet contents against the particular probate inventories (you will find some interesting oddities there), please let me know. I don't expect you to do anything expect flag that lines where there seems to be an error. UPDATE: Never mind. I finished it, found a couple of guns in inventories that I missed the first time. Friday, March 05, 2004
There Is Something More Dangerous Than Trying to Rob An Armed Civilian From WNBC in New York: NEW YORK -- A would-be robber was in serious condition Friday morning after rounds were fired and he was wounded in a shooting incident on the Lower East Side.A .380 caliber revolver? Hmmm. Well, let's hope that the rest of the story was accurately reported. A .38 caliber revolver, almost certainly, but the only .380 caliber is the .380 ACP--strictly a semiauto pistol cartridge, not a revolver. Thanks to Pete Drum for bringing this to my attention. Impertinent Questions From the Telegraph: Sir - We are two "sixtysomething" ladies who have shared a home for the past eight years. As "two adults sharing the same address", we pay a reduced joint subscription to institutions such as the National Trust and, currently, a reduced joint premium for holiday travel insurance.The rest captures the indignation of two proper English ladies, confronting a Depraved, New World. Ashcroft's Campaign About Obscene Movies Over at the New Republic, Gregg Easterbrook attacks Ashcroft's legal pursuit of obscene movies by claiming that pornographers are more responsible than the mainstream media: THE PORNOGRAPHY THAT'S MORE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE THAN PARAMOUNT: As millions of people troop to a religious film that is totally inappropriate for children--yours truly is still trying to get his head around that--John Ashcroft's Justice Department has launched a war on obscene movies. But the Justice Department doesn't mean violent movies, it means movies depicting sex. Surely there are sex movies obscene in the legal sense of the word, that is, that forfeit their First Amendment protection: child pornography, and any films that depict rape or sexual killing as forms of pleasure. (Courts consistently hold that just-sex just-adults naughty movies are Constitutionally protected.) But then the major studios, not just the fly-by-night houses, have been depicting the sexual murder of women as a form of pleasure at least since the 1979 Paramount movie Bloodline, which starred: Audrey Hepburn.Easterbrook then goes on at some length about Vivid Entertainment, hardcore pornography makers, who as a matter of corporate policy will never depict violence. Easterbrook is upset that Ashcroft, rather than going after sexually violent movies, is going after movies that show sex. I could agree with Easterbrook that hardcore pornography is less destructive and degrading than many of the slasher movies, and even worse, movies that eroticize violence--but there's a little problem: the article that Easterbrook links to is very clear about who Ashcroft's Justice Department is pursuing obscenity charges: On April 8, law enforcement seized five movies produced by Zicari's California-based company, Extreme Associates, which bills itself as "The Hardest Hard Core on the Web."This isn't buried deep in the article, either. It is the main point of the article. Easterbook could have made an argument that this is the beginning of a slippery slope from violent hardcore porn to non-violent hardcore porn, but he doesn't make that argument. Does Easterbrook have a reading problem? Or is he so intent on going after Ashcroft that he isn't going to let the facts get in his way? Tony Blair Explains Reality to the Reality-Impaired The BBC web site has the full text of a rather impressive speech that Tony Blair gave recently, in which he explains why he decided to go to war in Iraq. Here's what I consider the most powerful and important part of the speech: Already, before September 11th the world's view of the justification of military action had been changing.And this is the problem. Al-Qaeda is an enemy that insists on a death match--that sees itself leading Islam on a crusade to subjagate the entire world. Nothing but death will stop al-Qaeda's brand of extremism, and pretending that it is possible to solve this problem with some sort of compromise is delusion. Loser Pays It turns out that at least California has done one thing right: they have imposed "loser pays" in what are known as "SLAPP" suits. If you haven't run into this acronym before, it means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and this website explains it well: What are SLAPPs?Being a good liberal, Barbara Streisand filed such a SLAPP against an environmentalist who is trying to photograph the entire California coastline. Well, she lost. And California law apparently has a specific provision that requires files of SLAPP suits to pay the loser's legal costs--which in this case, comes to more than $200,000. Streisand, like most liberals, doesn't much believe in rule of law--especially when the rule of the superrich egomaniac comes first--and is refusing to pay up. A Judge Who Actually Cares About the Rule of Law From AP: ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A state judge on Friday barred the mayor of a college town from performing more same-sex marriages for a month, saying Jason West was ignoring his oath of office.Isn't this grounds for censure by the ABA, actually following the law, instead of doing what makes you feel good? Excuse Me, Irony Overload From Newsday: The burgeoning battle over same-sex marriage came to Long Island today when about 50 gay and lesbian couples went to town halls on Long Island to demand marriage licenses.For those who aren't aware of this, the term "Whore of Babylon" appears in Revelations chapters 17-19 as a symbol of evil, and Babylon remains a symbol of depravity to many Christians today. The San Francisco Chronicle, on the rare occasions when public behavior gets a little too depraved even for them to accept, jocularly refers to San Francisco as "Babylon by the Bay." (I'm thinking of a post-election party a few years ago where the evening's entertainment--happening in front of the Chief of Police, several county supervisors, and most everyone who was anyone was present--involved a naked man, a naked woman, restraint devices, cutting into the skin, and then urinating on the wound.) UPDATE: If you want far more detail about this party in question than I have given you--probably far more than anyone should know about this perverted show--click here. But let me warn you--this is something that Larry Flynt might consider too sexually perverse. John Kerry Wins North Korean Endorsement The U.K.'s Financial Times reports that the same people engaging in starvation, mental and physical stunting of an entire generation of a country, torture, and mass murder, are clearly favoring John Kerry in the race for the White House: North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader. Another Superrich Liberal Goes To Prison Martha Stewart was convicted on all counts. If the Democrats were still in charge of Justice, I somehow doubt that someone on such good terms with Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party would have been pursued: Embattled doyenne of domesticity Martha Stewart was a major Democratic Party donor for most of the 1990s, giving the legal maximum to the campaigns of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, along with more than $100,000 in additional cash to related Democratic causes. So This Isn't An Urban Legend, After All I remember seeing the claim that some years ago, a too narrowly focused copy editor at a newspaper saw the phrase "putting the budget back in the black" and not realizing what that meant, changing it to use the preferred language of the newspaper for "black": "putting the budget back in the African-American." Demonstrating that there is nothing that too bizarre for the Los Angeles Times: A Los Angeles Times music critic who wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life" -- meaning a celebration of life -- was stunned to pick up the paper and find his review changed by a literal-minded copy editor to read "anti-abortion."Thanks to How Appealling! for the link. Idaho Supreme Court Strikes Down Indecent Language Statute as Violation of First Amendment The Idaho Supreme Court has decided that Idaho Code sec. 18-6409, which defines disturbing the peace to include using "any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner" violates the First Amendment's right of free speech. The majority opinion is long, rather hard to follow, and essentially takes the position that "vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children" does not fall into the "fighting words" exception that the Supreme Court has long recognized. Well, what did the defendant say? The majority is so delicately concerned with the 13 year old that was exposed to this language that they won't even tell us what was said--they decide it entirely in the abstract. The dissenting opinion at least tells us what was said, and this certainly seems to fit the definition of "fighting words" much better than the language the Supreme Court decided constituted such in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1942): The victim in this case was a thirteen-year-old boy, unrelated to Mr. Poe. He came to Mr. Poe's home with his mother to pick up his three year old half brother. Though the facts are in dispute, there is evidence that Mr. Poe had had a prior unpleasant contact with the child's father and was in an emotional snit. Within the hearing of the child Mr. Poe made a comment to the effect that the child's father "needed to add a couple of inches to the penis." The child was angry and left the house, most likely slamming the door. Mr. Poe then opened the front door while the child was in the front yard and began yelling at him that he was going to come after him and his father, words to the effect that he was going to "kick his ass and kick his father's ass." He referred to the child as a "Jew bastard." [emphasis added]Sorry, but if this doesn't qualify as "fighting words," what does? It is a direct threat of violence to someone presumably weaker than the defendant and in no position to defend himself. UPDATE: What is even more disturbing about this decision is that they still upheld Poe's conviction for disturbing the peace, on other grounds. The net effect of this decision was to make it legal to use indecent language around a child. If there were a question of whether the defendant was going to be punished or not, and the only way to avoid what the majority considered to be an injustice was to decide that indecent language was constitutionally protected, I could at least understand, although not agree. This seems to be just three justices intent on making sure that you can use vulgar language, even in a threatening way towards a child--and get away with it. Minnesota's Report on Concealed Carry Permits As required by law, Minnesota puts out a report every year reporting on the number of concealed carry licenses issued and denied, as well as criminal violations by licensees. I just noticed this report issued last year, after the first year of the new law. The results are pretty darn encouraging. Of 13,709 applications received, 12,780 were issued, 904 licenses were denied, and 25 were incomplete or pending. Agencies in Minnesota may refuse to issue licenses for good cause, and the list of "good cause" reasons, and the number of applicants rejected for this reason, sound like police are doing their job, but not being ridiculous about it: 1 Abuse of household member in Hawaii-unable to get disposition information from Hawaii.In a state the size of Minnesota, if there were no circumstances where applicants were disqualified for reasons listed above, you would wonder if they were just rubber stamping the process. Pretty clearly, they aren't. At the same time, the small number of such rejections suggests that the police aren't looking for excuses to refuse to issue. The table of licensees who committed crimes is also pretty comforting. With 11,381 permits outstanding as of December 31, 2002, here are the results for crimes committed by licensees: 4 Number of individuals holding valid permits that committed crime since issue.No crimes involving guns. Four crimes total--only one of which is a crime of violence, and the other three being signs of poor judgment. That's .035% of licensees committed crimes. Why Missouri's Concealed Weapon Law Problems Are Generating a Flood in Pennsylvania From Centre County, Pennsylvania's Center Daily Times: A legal challenge to Missouri's concealed-weapons law prompted Missouri's attorney general last week to ask counties there to stop issuing permits. But the law allows residents to carry concealed weapons if they have a permit from another state.Pennsylvania sheriffs have some discretion about issuing permits to non-residents, and quite a number do not issue to non-residents. Florida, of course, is another matter. Missourians have been applying for Pennsylvania permits because they are less expensive than Florida, and don't require firearms safety training. I do hope the Missouri Legislature straightens out this mess soon. UPDATE: One Missouri resident, not having received his Pennsylvania carry permit, decides to go for open carry: Well, I sent off for a PA permit since that is my only option right now. I guess I took the class for nothing except my own benefit which is fine. :) I work late at night and usually go home anywhere from 12 to 4am and I am in the downtown area. A friend of mine who was a football lineman in college and about 6'4 ran a business around the same area and about 2 years ago was attacked one night and robbed by three guys. The injuries put him in the hospital for some time. For the above reasons carrying protection is important to me. Until I can carry concealed I have been carrying my revolver, .454 Stainless 8" Barrell, in my hip holster in plain view. Now I don't flaunt it around and I only carry it around downtown here and once in a while into a nearby gas station. I do dress fairly well and always make sure to have a friendly look on my face if someone eyes me in line. I am impressed with how I have been treated by everyone. Not one person has given me a dirty look or anything other than a smile. Strangely I don't think most people even are aware of it being there since they are busy or tend to look you in the face when passing by. I have called the local police and made sure there weren't any laws against open carry. I even have had a few cops drive by me while going in or out of work and non of them have stopped or questioned me.If you don't know what a .454 is, the responses to that posting tell the story well: Do you mean you carry a .454 Casualland: You are well prepared if you are ever attacked.. Conservatives & Republicans Might Sit The Election Out? I saw this Robert Novak column yesterday, talking about how many Congressional Republicans were mulling over the possible advantages of Kerry beating Bush in November, and I thought, "What are they thinking?" Then there is this column at American Enterprise: Several weeks ago, I was talking to a friend over dinner. This friend was telling me about a call that he had received from the Republican National Committee, asking for money. My friend chose not to donate any money, although he has done so in the past. "Why should I?" he asked me, "So the Republican President and Congress can create another $500 billion entitlement?"My mind just boggles at talk like this. Look, I'm not happy about the increased spending under the Bush Administration, some of which reflects his priorities, but much of which reflects Congressional desire to buy off voters. I wish it were different, but does anyone seriously think that President Kerry wouldn't be pushing for even more spending than Bush, along with hefty tax increases? I wish that Bush were a little more vigorous in protection of marriage from the judiciary, but does anyone seriously believe that President Kerry would have spoken in support of amending the Constitution to protect marriage from the judges? I wish that Bush hadn't promised to sign an assault weapons ban renewal--but Bush lifted not a finger in public to get it passed. Does anyone doubt that John Kerry--who interrupted his campaigning to vote for the renewal on the Senate floor--would have aggressively lobbied Congress for such a renewal? James Lileks points out the big difference that all Americans who don't want to live in terror better think about long and hard before they stamp their little feet and sit out the election: Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.I am always amazed at how many people spend so much time around their fellow travelers that they do not understand the messy business of getting re-elected. The left's form of this delusion is the famous statement by Pauline Kael, New York Times film critic, after the 1972 election. She said that she didn't understand how Nixon won--no one she knew voted for him. The right's form of this delusion isn't quite so obvious. Instead, conservatives get furious because Bush is rolling out the pork barrel to get the votes of the moderates of America--the voters with no apparent political ideology at all. It's expensive to do this. It is impure, and I would agree with those who believe that many of these programs have no legitimate basis in our Constitution. So what? There's an election coming, and America isn't Burger King; you don't get to have it your way. Conservatives forget that they aren't a majority; there's a lot of people in the middle that the President has to buy off to get re-elected. Your choice is a very liberal Democrat, who is going to try and act like he's a moderate by election day, and a conservative Republican who often has to govern as a moderate in order to buy votes. Conservatives need to think long and hard about the two most important issues for the next President: the War on Terror (where no one seriously believes that Kerry and the assorted leftists that will make up his Administration would be competent), and appointments to the federal courts. If you aren't happy with the nonsense that comes from the Supreme Court today, what do you think the situation is going to be like after John Kerry appoints a couple of more Supreme Court justices? He'll be appointing judges like Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who supports lowering the age of consent to 12 at the same time that the ACLU argues that there is a constitutional right of minors to have sex with adults. The San Francisco Department of Public Health Study I recently made reference to a study commissioned by the San Francisco Department of Public Health back in 1990. I mentioned the study because the rates of child sexual abuse reported by respondents was extraordinarily high: 28% of men and 48% of women reported having been sexually abused as a child. One of my readers emailed me to criticize my use of this study, claiming that: 1. Those rates of child sexual abuse really aren't all that high compared to the general population. 2. The study in question was focused on substance abusers, who are almost certainly atypical, and very probably disproportionately child sexual abuse victims (which would contradict claim #1). 3. The study says that its results are not indicative of the state of gays and lesbians in San Francisco, because it wasn't a random survey. Let me deal with these, one by one. "Rates of Child Sexual Abuse On That Study Aren't All That Much Above the General Population" The reader directed me to this report by David Finkelhor, "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse," and told me that the numbers in that study were in line with those in the S.F. Dept. of Public Health study. I notice that the surveys listed in Finkelhor's report, however, are generally below the general population sexual abuse rates for females, and in line with the numbers that I was quoting for males. Of the nineteen studies Finkelhor's report summarized, nine included males. Eight of those surveys produced numbers that roughly matched the numbers I quoted: 8%, 6%, 7%, 3%, 1%, 3%, 4%, and 9%. The one very notable exception: a study by Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, and Smith (1990) that reported 16% of males reported sexual abuse as children. This one outlier, however, still just over half the rate reported in the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey for homosexual males. This outlier study asked questions that included all unwanted contact, including that involving no age differential between victim and aggressor. I would suggest that this outlier study may include a lot of locker room "unwanted contact" of a sexual nature (snapped towels, hazing), or the sort of young teen peer masturbation activity which is pretty common--and for which some boys as adults may feel guilt, and regard retrospectively as unwanted. I am not denying that these are bad situations, but it might explain why this one study is such a serious outlier. I notice also that in box 3 of Finkelhor's report, when trying to make a guess at the number of child sexual victims, he used rates of 20% and 7% for women and men respectively, suggesting that he considers these to be responsible percentages. The percentage in the S.F. study--48% of lesbians, and 28% of gay men--is still quite a bit higher than you would expect relative to the general population. "The Report Was Disproportionately Substance Abusers" It is certainly true that substance abuse and sexual problems of all sorts are much more common among adult survivors of child sexual abuse, regardless of their sexual orientation, and if a survey were taken that was disproportionately substance abusers, we should expect higher reported rates of sexual abuse. The problem, however, is that the survey wasn't directed at substance abusers, because one of its goals was to find out something about substance abuse problems in the gay community of San Francisco. One of my reader's objections was that many of the surveys were handed out in gay bars and other places oriented towards substance abuse--but the report lists all the survey distribution points, and only five were gay or lesbian bars. The rest were distributed at gay and lesbian social centers (Women's Building, and Harvey Milk People of Color Caucus as two examples), at book stores, [Appendix C] as well as in the Bay Times gay & lesbian newspaper--54% of the responses being from Bay Times readers alone. [Vol. I, p. 4] One should expect that a survey of homosexuals would have a high rate of substance abuse. Sections 2 and 3 of Vol. I are devoted to a review of the existing literature concerning the well-known high rates of substance abuse in the homosexual community. That is part of why this survey was taking place. Why do homosexuals have high rates of substance abuse? There are many different theories. If, as I suggest, at least one of the causes of homosexuality is child sexual abuse--which definitely causes substance abuse--then this could be the cause. Even in substance abuse populations drawn from the general population, homosexuals are overrepresented. I blogged a few months ago about a study of female IV drug abusers in Los Angeles County--and lesbians were about 10x-15x overrepresented. (See this report: "Women injection drug users who have sex with women (WSW IDUs) comprise 20 percent to 30 percent of American women IDUs.") Yes, it is possible that the group that they sampled of IV drug abusing women was disproportionately lesbian for some curious reason--but why? What would explain this disproportion? The S.F. Dept. of Publich Health survey was carefully worded to emphasize that the intent was not to focus on substance abusers, but to get "an assessment of alcohol and other drug abuse needs and services among lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual men and women in the City of San Francisco." [Appendix A, p. 1] "The Study Says That It Isn't Representative of the Gay Community" Yes, the report is careful to make the statement about "not a random survey" and "cannot be generalized to the entire gay and lesbian population of San Francisco." (Vol. I, p. 3.) But it also says on p. 4, While limitations must be recognized, there are other reasons for having confidence that the survey results do not seriously distort the nature and degree of AOD use in the gay and lesbian community. First, the methods of distribution ensured that they [sic] survey would reach a variety of segments of the population. The multiple method approach dilutes the systematic bias evident in using personal networks or single institutions as modes of distribution.If anything, you might expect substance abusers to be underrepresented in this survey, not overrepresented. If you want to argue that this study has an atypical population, it would appear to have been a higher status group than average--not quite the severe substance abusers that you might expect. For example, 90% of respondents had attended at least some college, 28% of the men were HIV+ (about half the HIV+ rate of the San Francisco population of male homosexuals at the time), average income was $25,598 for men and $21,142 for women (which was still a pretty decent income in 1990 when this study was done; I was only making about $50,000 a year at the time, and I was in a high demand occupation in the Bay Area). The executive summary is very clear that the researchers who published this survey considered this data to be sufficiently reliable to use it for making statements about what homosexuals do with respect to substance abuse: Lesbians and bisexual women appear to use alcohol and other drugs more often, in greater amounts, and in combination more often than women in the general population.They then cited National Institute on Drug Abuse surveys for the Western U.S. for the comparison. (p. ix) There are similar categoric comparisons of "gay and bisexual men" compared to "the general population": Gay and bisexual men appear to use alcohol and other drugs more often, in greater amounts, and in combination more frequently than men in the general population.All of this suggests that, while not a perfect, random survey, it was considered sufficiently representative to make rather definitive statements about the substance abuse problems of homosexuals in San Francisco--so why refuse to admit that it can be used to make similarly definitive statements about the high rates of sexual abuse? Maybe San Francisco was awash in really messed up homosexuals back then. Maybe San Francisco was and is grossly atypical of homosexuals in America. This survey might be way wrong--but I haven't misused this data. What I found most painful about the way people react to this information is that there is so much evidence that should make people just get angry. San Francisco also commissioned something called the Young Men's Survey in the early 1990s. They gathered data about how young men (ages 12-25) were becoming HIV+. The saddest chart in this study is labeled "Year of First Occurrence of Injection Drug Use or Anal Sex Among HIV-Infected Young Men Who Have Sex with Men." Now remember, this survey only included men 12-25, so since the study was done 1992-93, the oldest men in the group were born in 1967. Yet the year of first IV drug abuse or anal sex is reported as 1974 (for one respondent), and 1977 (for another). That means that by age 7 and age 10 (at the latest), someone was either injecting himself, or getting sodomized. Which do you think is more likely? But of course, that could not possibly have anything to do with their sexual orientation as an adult. Labels: child sexual abuse Thursday, March 04, 2004
The Incredible Shrinking Nation! And not just because North Korea is starving its people to death: YANJI, China — At 16, Myung Bok is old enough to join the North Korean army. But you wouldn't believe it from his appearance. The teenager stands 4-feet-7, the height of an American fifth- or sixth-grader.This is all so monstrous. It's unfortunate that the left wants us to leave North Korean alone. I suppose, eventually, the whole country will become a small number of party officials, living high on the hog, surrounded by millions of pygmies (both in mental and physical capacity). It is almost comical to think about--except that these are human beings, being degraded by the insanity of North Korea's leadership. Bush & The War on Terrorism Instapundit quotes a reader about Bush and the War on Terorrism, and it is a powerful point: Bush seems to be falling victum to his own success. We have been so successful in the war on terror that the country doesn't see it as a war anymore. Why At Least Some Jobs Are Going Overseas Walter Williams' column points out that one reason that U.S. candy manufacturers are in trouble isn't just cheaper labor overseas--but cheaper sugar. Once again, protectionist trade policy protecting sugar manufacturers (many of whom are right here where I live in Idaho) has made it too expensive to make something in America: Chicago has been home to many of America's candy manufacturers, but today they've fallen on hard times. In 1970, employment by Chicago's candy manufacturers totaled 15,000, and now it's 8,000 and falling. Brach used to employ about 2,300 people; now most of its jobs are in Mexico. Ferrara Pan Candy has also moved much of its production to Mexico. Yes, wages are lower in Mexico, but wages aren't the only factor in candy manufacturers' flight from America. After all, Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, has moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours.Now, I don't think that this is a typical reason for why American jobs are going overseas--in general, there aren't a lot of commodities that our government keeps out with high tariffs--but there are probably more examples that you can find than just sugar. Kerry's Rich Contributors: Agents of the Iranian Government? From Insight magazine: Among Sen. John Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.There's more there that raises questions about Kerry's financial supporters. Yeah, It's Not a Hobby, I'm Saving Humanity This CNN story reports that the House has passed 404-1 a bill that provides rewards for amateur astronomers who find near-Earth crosser asteroids. (Thanks to Tyler Cowen for the link.) Here's a very detailed report about how amateurs discover near-Earth asteroids. UPDATE: I was wondering who was the one vote against: why Ron Paul, who almost certainly thinks that preventing global disaster isn't authorized by the Constitution. How To Become Wealthy A number of readers have asked me to blog a link to this article about how to become wealthy, because they have found it so valuable. Originally this appeared as a series of entries here, but since many of my readers are new, you may not be aware of it. John Kerry Shows How In Touch He Is With Gun Owners The Weekly Standard quotes from a speech Kerry gave in support of the assault weapons ban renewal: JOHN KERRY gave an extraordinarily silly speech in the Senate on Tuesday, stating, for example that "[t]here is a gap between America's Field & Stream gun owners and the NRA's Soldier of Fortune leaders." That's an absurd, self-serving comment, and just one of many. Another quote from the speech: "There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America, and to those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the United States military." Again, there is little logic in that statement, either in the idea that "weapons of war" were being debated in the Senate, or that the military welcomes gun nuts. But because we have become used to absurd statements--divorced from facts and empty of argument--we get remarks like Kerry's.Let me point out that to the extent that there is a gap between gun owners and the NRA, it is more the other direction--a surprisingly large number of gun owners won't join NRA because they perceive NRA as a bunch too willing to compromise with the gun control lobby. These serious "gun nuts" think the NRA is too willing to melt the Second Amendment around the edges in the hopes of being accepted. I don't think that is a fair description of NRA, but it is a view widely held in some circles. Senator Kerry needs to come down from the multimillionaire zone, and talk to the average American gun owner. Yes, he will find a number that are willing to see the assault weapon ban renewed--and then he will discover that many of "sensible" gun owners think the assault weapon ban applies to automatic weapons. It doesn't. Senator Kerry also needs to look at the evidence about assault weapon misuse--there is almost none now, and the assault weapon ban didn't change that. (This article by me appeared in Shotgun News, March 20, 2000, pp. 28, 30.) Senator Kerry will also find that there are a lot of gun owners who don't own anything even remotely like an assault weapon, but who know that the real issue isn't the type of gun, but the person holding it. Which is more dangerous? A convicted felon in possession of a .22 rimfire rifle? Or a law-abiding adult with a Colt AR-15? Labels: gun rights Interesting Article About AIDS New Scientist reports on studies that suggest that another virus--with no apparent associated illness--may prevent HIV from causing AIDS: HIV patients who are also infected by a second, mysterious virus are less likely to develop AIDS and die of the disease, suggests a new study.One possible gotcha--much of this work is done with a rather specific population: Stapleton and his colleagues focused on one of the best-studied groups of HIV-infected patients - the Multicenter AIDS Cohort. This group is composed of men who have sex with other men. Some of the participants have been followed since 1984 and have had blood drawn every six months. Within this group, the researchers identified 138 men whose date of HIV infection could be determined within one year and good data was available on the progress of their disease.It is possible that this is a quirk of either the sample group, or HIV spread by sexual contact. My recollection is that some strains of HIV were most common among homosexuals, while other strains were more common among IV drug abusers. It certainly provides an interesting research opportunity. How Did Lionel Richie's Daughter Get So Spoiled? Read this sickening request by Lionel Richie's wife for $300,000 a month in support (she is divorcing him). I don't know why she is divorcing him--but after you read the description of their lifestyle, it is clear that the Richie household spends money in a very destructive way, including: monthly expenses that Lionel, 54, needs to cover: clothing, shoes, and accessories ($15,000); dermatology ($3000); laser hair removal ($1000); massages ($600); jewelry ($5000); gifts ($5000); and vitamins ($500). There are plenty of other costs Richie listed--like $20,000 annually for plastic surgery and her nine-year-old son's $125,000 boarding school tuitionI suspect that this is how much of the Hollywood set lives--and this may explain why they want to raise taxes on the rest of us--they feel guilt about what they are doing, and assume, therefore, that "rich people" (like themselves) need to be taxed more. Yet their support is for the Democratic Party, whose notion of going after "rich people" really means taxing people that work for a living. Recognize This Man? The FBI Wants Him For Making Child Pornography The FBI's decription of why he is wanted: On February 26, 2004, a federal grand jury in the District of Maryland indicted this individual and charged him with sexually exploiting a minor for the purpose of producing child pornography. On the same day, a warrant was issued for this man's arrest. It is alleged that this individual is involved in the sexual abuse of two young boys.   
Labels: child sexual abuse There Is No Neutral Position Between Barbarism and Civilization This New York Times news story about how intelligence agencies in the U.S. and Europe used a supposedly "anonymous" cell phone method to track down al-Qaeda operatives contains one great surprise: Swiss intelligence agencies were active participants in helping the U.S. and our NATO allies in tracking these guys down. Switzerland's neutrality seems to have gone up in smoke on 9/11. I'm glad to see that the Swiss can see something that the American left can't--there is no neutral ground between barbarism and civilization: Mr. Mohammed's cellphone number, and many others, were given to the Swiss authorities for further investigation. By checking Swisscom's records, Swiss officials discovered that many other Qaeda suspects used the Swisscom chips, known as Subscriber Identity Module cards, which allow phones to connect to cellular networks. Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Thinking More Seriously About Going To Law School As is becoming increasingly apparent, popular sovereignty no longer means much in the United States. Judges are becoming increasingly arrogant in their contempt for the Constitution. Not content with ignoring the clear text of the Constitution, and historical evidence of original intent, they are now finding rights that have no basis in the literal text or in original intent. The delusion of "living constitution" has given way to something a bit more bald-faced: judicial tyranny. If this were a libertarian revolution being handed down from the bench, I could at least respect it for intellectual consistency. But it isn't. The Second Amendment clearly protects an individual right. A pure text view of the Second Amendment is a bit too simple, and I could respect judges using original intent as a method of interpreting that text, even if it meant tolerating some types of gun control laws based on the evidence of how that right was understood in 1789, or in 1868. But that isn't what the tyrants in black robes are doing. They are striking down laws that they don't like, just because they don't like them, and pretending that what was a felony in 1789, should be understood as a constitutional right today. Conversely, what the federal and state laws required in 1792--that most adult men own or purchase a military weapon--has now become a felony in states like California. Yet the federal judges show deference to those laws. Law school, then, is the only method of access to the real power in our society. It does no good to sway the people, because judges arbitrarily decide which constitutional rights they will protect, and which rights they will invent. I am not talking about problems that the Framers of our Constitution did not think about. Some would argue that television and the Internet, not being within the knowledge base of the Framers, should not be considered "press" within the meaning of the First Amendment. I would disagree, but there is at least some basis for such an argument. Homosexual actions are not a recent invention. They were well-known and abhorrent to the Framers, and felonies everywhere. Thomas Jefferson, being one of the more liberal thinkers of that generation, believed that buggery (which included both bestiality and sodomy) should be reduced from a capital offense to castration: Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration.Everything that follows from this--anti-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage--is therefore absurd to call a constitutional right--unless we understand constitutional rights to be what judges increasingly understand them to be: whatever judges believe would be good public policy, regardless of popular will. Popular sovereignty seems no longer to exist in the United States. Lawyers run America. If you want to have any influence, law school is where you need to go. Now, if interest rates would just rise about two points, I could go and do this. Labels: homosexuality Bush Administration Backs "Separate But Equal" At Request of Sen. Clinton No, really. A number of feminists, including Senator Clinton, want schools to have the option of sex segregation of classes: WASHINGTON - Federal officials plan to significantly loosen their restrictions on same-sex public education, giving schools the most freedom they've had to teach boys and girls separately in almost 30 years.I've seen the claim made that especially in classes like math, the tendency of boys to dominate classroom discussions puts girls at a disadvantage. I don't know what to make of this claim. I know that when I went to school--at least where I went to school, this did not seem to be a problem. Of course, I got to school by wooly mammoth, feminism hadn't penetrated throughout the society yet, and while girls were definitely not treated as equals, the popular culture wasn't fiercely misogynist and generally rude like it is today. I am reminded of the fact that when Boston public schools were first segregated by race in the 1830s, it was at the request of the black parents, who didn't want their kids getting beat up by the white kids. Within a few years, they realized what a mistake this had been, and had to go through quite a fight to get the public schools reintegrated in 1855. Kansas House of Representatives Vote on Concealed Carry From KMBC-TV: TOPEKA, Kan. -- The House tentatively approved a bill Wednesday to allow Kansans to carry concealed handguns.Keep pushing, law-abiding people of Kansas! Another Reminder That Some Ideas Are Just Too Painful To Read Jacob Levy over at Volokh Conspiracy complains: Buggery, buggery, buggery: The classy John Derbyshire strikes again.Of course, when you read what Derbyshire said, you realize that it is actually along the same lines, much milder, than what California Attorney-General Lockyer joked about arranging to happen to Enron's CEO: MAYOR IN JAIL [John Derbyshire]I wouldn't have said that. But neither is all that terribly shocking, either. For some queer reason, Levy seems to suffer from the same problem that a lot of homosexuals do--they just can't bear to read anything critical about homosexuality. Yet if anyone else expresses a desire not to be shocked or offended by naked men having sex in the middle of a public street, the left takes this to be a sign of narrowness. I Think It's Time To Travel To San Francisco You see, there is someone who is very important to me. But because of the bigotry of the laws, there is no way to add my domestic companion to my health insurance. If I die first, there is no simple way to leave my estate; I would have to consult a lawyer, and the matter would become quite complex, especially the right of survivorship with respect to the house my companion loves so much. We are discriminated against at tax time; I may not take my domestic companion as a dependent. True, we will never have children, but the same is true for many couples marrying today in San Francisco, Oregon, New York, and New Mexico. But my love for this domestic companion is very strong, and I resent how the narrow-mindedness of the bigots that write our laws keeps us apart. As I sit on the couch watching TV next to my companion, I think how unfair it is that we remain trapped by the narrow definition of marriage imposed by the bigots. My companion yawns, and I look over, increasingly hurt that we must remain not "Applicant 1" and "Applicant 2" but only what Berkeley's city code now calls a "domestic companion." And her muzzle is graying; she chases the ball with less energy than in her youth. Those bigots, refusing to see how important love is, so focused on a minor difference in species. Does It Turn Out That Justice Roy Moore Was Right? He didn't feel an obligation to obey decisions of the federal courts. Now we have more local officials deciding that they don't have to obey silly state laws that define who may marry: NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) - A second New York mayor said Wednesday he will start marrying gay couples and plans to seek a license himself to marry his same-sex partner. Across the country in Oregon, gay couples lined up for a sudden chance to wed.After considerable reflection, I am now in agreement. Laws are just silly things, that each of us should ignore when inconvenient, or when they cramp our style. Certainly, I can't condemn someone who believes that the right to the pursuit of happiness means driving 100 mph on city streets. After all, until he hits someone, who has been hurt? If some city official decides to issue hunting licenses for gay people (instead of for deer), what will the left say? The city official hasn't hurt anyone, and he might well believe that the current laws against murder are antiquated, reflecting a traditional sort of bigotry. Of course, if people stop paying their income taxes, because they believe that these are unconstitutional, the left won't object in the least. We all have the right to ignore laws that we don't like, right? My New Exercise Machine I use an ancient rowing machine/bench press combo (DP Multigym 300, I think), but I have recently acquired an exercise machine that works an entirely different set of muscles: my Losmandy GM-8 equatorial mount. I take the telescope off the mount to move it, but tripod, mount, and counterweight puts it into the 70 pound range. Picking this up and moving it certainly works a different set of muscles in my upper body and back! Last night I was taking photographs of the Moon. The Losmandy tracks so well, and it is so stable that the telescope is completely calm when the shutter snaps. It may be a few days before I have pictures--I still do astrophotography on film, not CCDs. Kerry & Edwards Make It Clear What Matters According to the Washington Times, Senators Kerry and Edwards have a lousy record of showing up to vote (you know, the job we pay them to do?): During his presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts had missed the Senate's first 22 roll call votes of this year, prior to yesterday's votes, and was absent for 292, or 64 percent, of the votes last year, according to a Boston Herald review of Senate records.But both of them made it back to Washington to vote for the assault weapon ban renewal! This tells you what the Democratic Party considers important--not any of the other issues on which the Senate has been voting, and not actually doing the job for which these two senators are being paid--but gun control. Kansas House Votes on Concealed Weapon Permit Bill Today Here's the text of the bill. If you live in Kansas, it's time to call your representative and ask them to back House Bill 2798. Click here to go to the "find your representative" page. Alcohol I've blogged before about the destructive effects of intoxication on young people, especially as a result of living in an intoxication-based culture (Sonoma County, California). Here is one of those really sobering news stories: HELENA, Mont. -- Two 11-year-old boys whose bodies were found in a snowy field on an American Indian reservation died after consuming massive amounts of liquor, the sheriff investigating the case said Tuesday. One boy had a blood-alcohol level more than six times the legal threshold for drunken driving.Somebody does need to be held accountable. It would appear that there are some parents who are going to have to answer some questions: The boys were discovered Monday by one of their friends in a field a half mile outside their home town of Ronan. Barron said it appeared both died late Friday or early Saturday, but had not been reported missing all weekend.Another part of the tragedy makes me wonder what's going on in this family: Justin's 14-year-old brother, Tyler, was found dead of smoke inhalation in a burned trailer in November. Barron, who also investigated Tyler's death, said he passed out from drinking and had a blood-alcohol level of 0.23.The primary responsibility has to fall on the parents, who clearly aren't doing much of a job here. It is also clear that alcohol is more a problem for Indians than for many other populations. But is a very serious problem across races and economic classes throughout the United States. Tuesday, March 02, 2004
S. 1805 Sunk By NRA I just got off the phone from an interview with a reporter from KGO in San Francisco. For those who think the NRA was out to get the assault weapons ban passed--guess what? Realizing that they couldn't prevent the assault weapons ban renewal amendment from sticking to S. 1805, they used their muscle to sink S. 1805. I would say the chances of the ban renewing are now zero--and President Bush won't be able to sign that renewal that he "promised" he would sign if it ever got to his desk. UPDATE: The more I think about this, the more pleased I am. Yes, I would have liked to get some protection against frivolous lawsuits, but the gun controller strategy on this demonstrates their desperation: the only way they could defeat this measure was to attach their only realistic hope of extending the assault weapon ban to it. These lawsuits are an expensive nuisance to the gun makers, no question, but once the Bush Administration took over, there was no more federal support for these suits--which is why most of them disappeared during 2001. The core problem here--and not just for gun makers, but for McDonald's and the other "pushers of unhealthy food"--is that federal judges are not willing to use the existing sanctions that are available to punish plaintiffs who bring suits in bad faith. I am a little reluctant to try to write such a change into law, because there is usually no bright line that distinguishes a legitimate issue from a ridiculous one. The real solution is that the President must appoint, and the Senate confirm, judges who are prepared to take the most outrageous suits, and force the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's legal fees. I would say that the McDonald's suit is an example of a case where the plaintiffs should have been stuck with the bill. I think that would have discouraged the greedy lawyers involved from pulling that stunt again. The Curiously Expanding Definition of Rights This threat of suit in Florida is a good example of what I consider several terribly dangerous theories of Constitutional rights: DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Liz Book believes exposed breasts are a part of motorcycle culture, so the Volusia County mother plans to lead a protest of topless women on the last day of Bike Week.The first dangerous theory is, "We have our own subculture, and what we do is part of that subculture, and the government doesn't have the right to stop us." Before you start calling me intolerant, let me remind you that there are many subcultures in this country that we allow to do what they want in private, but we don't allow in public, either because it is offensive to adults, or because it exposes children to age-inappropriate materials, such as coprophilia and sadomasochism. In some states, open carry of a firearm is prohibited--although concealed carry is licensed and legal. There are a few subcultures that we don't even tolerate in private, even though the injury they cause to others is more indirect and subtle than direct violence. (Example: pedophiles, although I expect the ACLU will eventually get this turned into a constitutionally protected activity.) Generally even the "topfree" crowd admits that they might draw the line at exposing the sexual organs. But why draw the line there? What makes that line more rational than requiring female breasts be covered? If you walked through the Castro District of San Francisco shouting insults at homosexuals, I do not doubt that the police would arrest you for disturbing the peace--and liberals would suddenly decide that there are limits to free speech. Yet hurling insults is no more an injury to others than Liz Book's desire to expose her breasts, or walking down that same street with a gun on your hip. There is no question, however, that the same judges that are prepared to strike down laws against exposed female breasts would never think of striking down a law against open carry of a firearm--in spite of the rather obvious difference that while there is a guarantee of "right to keep and bear arms," there is no similar constitutional text protecting the right "to bare breasts." Even attacking female bare breast laws using the equal protection clause (men can go bare-chested in public--though most should definitely not, but women are prohibited from doing so), while at least plausible, fails because the laws of many states concerning the carrying of firearms treat police officers, private security guards, and a few other favored sorts quite differently from ordinary people. (Remember: protecting a corporation's property is a valid reason to be armed in California; protecting yourself from rape or murder is not.) The second dangerous theory is that every law must be justified as necessary, with a very strong standard of proof. It was not that many years ago that liberals were prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to almost any legislative body (probably because liberals were then in their ascendancy). While a few categories of discrimination were subject to strict scrutiny (race, for example), with respect to most laws, the courts accepted that "rational basis" was a sufficient reason. That is to say, if the legislative body was not obviously psychotic, the courts assumed that they knew what they were doing. In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), the Supreme Court cited a previous decision to demonstrate that they believe in this deference to the legislature, absent evidence of clear error: that 'with the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal'; that 'times without number we have said that the Legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity of such an enactment, that every possible presumption is in favor of its validity, and that though the court may hold views inconsistent with the wisdom of the law, it may not be annulled unless palpably in excess of legislative power.' Id., 291 U.S. 502 , at pages 537, 538, 516, 89 A.L.R. 1469.Now, it seems, liberals are no longer so prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the legislature, with decisions that essentially argue that if the legislature cannot provide a sufficiently exacting proof of the need for a law, that therefore it is simply bigotry that motivates it (the Lawrence decision argument). This is a very dangerous theory. It is dangerous not because the legislatures are always right--they are often wrong. It is dangerous because in a representative government, the people are supposed to be sovereign. The U.S. Constitution, or its state counterpart, contains limitations on that power, but when there is any ambiguity, the presumption must be that the legislators know what they are doing. If their actions get too far out of line, we can remove them (peacefully) at the next election--and such elections happen often enough that a truly absurd action will not oppress or annoy the vast majority for long. The same is not true for judges, especially federal judges. While state judges do not serve for life (at least, in any state that I am aware of), they do serve rather longer terms than the average legislator. Federal judges serve for life. It can take decades for enough of them age off the bench to correct great evils. It is worth remembering that one of the great precursors to the American Revolution were popular uprisings against judges that were perceived as enemies of the popular will. Ray Raphael's The First American Revolution: Before Lexington and Concord gives a detailed account of the events leading to the closing of the royal courts of justice in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1774. The Regulators in 1768-71 North Carolina are another example. There comes a moment when judges, in their arrogance, must remember where sovereignty ultimately lies: in the people, not the ACLU. How Does a Discussion of Evolution Lead to This? I would really like to know the details of the discussion this teacher and student were having: MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- A high school student jumped out a second-floor window to win a bet with a teacher, who has been disciplined, officials said. The teen was not injured.That's it! Yet another reason to remove evolution from public school curriculum! :-) People Too Stupid To Live How many times do newspapers have to carry stories about criminals who photograph themselves committing felonies before criminals figure out it is a bad idea to create evidence of your crime? Like this guy, making pornography with a baby, and then distributing it over the Internet. Life in prison should be the minimum. He's clearly too depraved and too stupid to let out. Senate Adds Assault Weapon Ban Renewal To S. 1805 I came home for lunch, and discovered that the Senate voted 52-47 to renew the assault weapon ban for another ten years. Senators Edwards and Kerry both came back to vote for the renewal. I hope those of you upset with Bush for saying that he would sign a renewal--if it ever got to his desk--will remember that Edwards and Kerry made a point of coming back to Washington to vote for the renewal of the ban. (For Kerry, that's quite an accomplishment--he's been gone so much that he is supposed to return some of his pay as a Senator.) I would like S. 1805 to pass--but not enough to accept the assault weapon ban renewal. Oh well. I guess we'll have to wait until next year--when at least a couple of the 52 Senators will have been turned out of office by irate gun owners. UPDATE: Instapundit suggests that Bush may have just lost the election because of this. I don't think so. I am pretty sure that even if House Republicans had been willing to tolerate an assault weapon ban renewal before, the White House is probably telling them right now, "That bill better not get to the Oval Office with the assault weapon ban still in it." A few years back, NRA flew me out to a certain Midwestern state to testify in favor of a non-discretionary concealed weapon permit bill. I tagged along with NRA's lobbyist--who impressed the heck out of me. (She was smart, young, attractive but professional, with a previous career in television journalism. I wish I could remember her name now.) I remember one particular conversation with legislative staff in which we were basically told that the governor didn't want this bill to reach his desk. If he vetoed it, gun owners would want his hide; if he signed it, the news media, he was sure, would use their veto power to prevent him from being Dole's running mate in 1996. Guess what? The bill didn't make it out of either house of the legislature. (But that state has such a law today.) Republicans have a majority in the House right now--and I hope that any of the ones that are wavering remember why Republicans have a majority in the House. It started in 1994, when, according to Bill Clinton, at least 20 members lost their seats because of the assault weapons ban. Don't think that gun owners have to vote Republican. They might not vote at all. I think that would be a terrible mistake--better a Republican who is weakly antigun (and can be pushed around by the rest of his party) than an antigun Democrat (who won't need any encouragement from hisparty to vote against gun rights). It still wouldn't hurt any to remind your Congresscritter that you want a ban on frivolous gun lawsuits--but not at the price of an assault weapons ban, or the absurd "gun show loophole closure" amendment. Monday, March 01, 2004
Sgt. Stryker's Blog Goes After Hollywood's Accuracy After which, the comments section piles on, with example after example of gross and minor errors--everything from Honor Guard Marines with sideburns to nonsensical stereotypes: As for the washed-up, drugged-out Vietnam vet; that's not a character they use because they don't know better. His use is a shortcut to knowledge about the character. If you see a disheveled, hairy, dirty guy wearing the old army field jacket, you instantly know that this guy is a tortured soul, haunted by the demons of his past, and unable to cope with the present. Likely he is really a pussycat as well, or a psychotic killer, you have to wait a bit to see which one. Same thing goes for the slow pan across a room that shows a crucifix on the wall and a picture of the "Last Supper". You instantly know that the person who lives there is a crazy religious fundametalist who will be trying to push his brand of religion on someone in the film. It's pure lazyness on the part of directors and screenwriters.to this amusing description of Crimson Tide's accuracy: If you ever want to have fun and have a couple hours to spare, just ask a submariner about Crimson Tide. The general consensus seems to be that apart from the fact that the Navy does indeed have boats that go underwater and fire missiles, the movie does not touch reality at any two contiguous points. Howard Stern Again A reader informs me that Howard Stern is not always talking about sex. Regarding the Howard Stern show, I happened to tune in one time when they weren't talking about sex. They were talking about projectile vomitting and diarrhea.I miss so much. Gay Marriage One of my readers points out: Many pro-homosexual marraige commentators point to the high divorce rate as indication that somehow homosexual marriage won't matter. (This is, of course, akin to looking at a house that is half on fire and declaring that hosing down with gasoline the part not yet burning won't matter...but I digress).I must confess, when I see the pro-homosexual marriage crowd point to Britney Spears and her recent drunken nuptials, my first reaction is: Gee, the left has spent the last twenty years working 24/7 to corrupt our kids by marketing casual and cheap sex to them, and now they complain that their strategy worked? Marketing sex to teenagers and young adults, of course, is not one of the more difficult jobs. It's right up there with marketing candy to children, sports cars to young men, and automatic weapons to gang members. Just because it is easy, however, doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do. Marketing cheap and degrading sex to young people is even more repulsive than marketing it to adults, because young people are generally still defining what their values are going to be. It's rather like advertising cigarettes to teenagers, with images of handsome men and beautiful women--a fraudulent message aimed at the impressionable. It is amazing how the same liberals that wanted cigarette advertising removed from broadcast television, and tried to get cigarette advertising completely prohibited because it was luring in the young, seem to have an entirely different attitude when it comes to promoting irresponsible sexuality. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership on The Passion JPFO, as usual, has found an interesting way to spin the controversy: nti-Semitism is Real, but the Movie isn't the Point Here's Your Inspiring Cheery News Story For the Day It's about a woman whose descent into schizophrenia was arrested by early and adequate treatment, and then tried out for American Idol (from the Oregonian, registration required): Moore, who discovered her voice while performing in musicals at Wilson High School, always thought her talent would make her rich and famous. Schizophrenia & Leaded Fuel: A Correlation This article from BBC reports on a study that found a correlation between women with exposure to high concentrations of leaded fuel and schizophrenia developing in their children: US scientists say they have found a link between exposure to lead in the womb and schizophrenia in adulthood.The article details some of Dr. Susser's theories about a possible causal connection. Fortunately, the Reagan Administration, well known for their environmental extremism, accelerated the removal of lead from gasoline because of an Australian study of mental retardation and lead exposure. It does make you wonder if we should be putting the same energy into removing lead paint that is still widely in place. But that could be done relatively cheaply, putting large numbers of unskilled workers to work, and teaching them a useful skill, without creating large bureaucracies. We can't do that! Preventing Schizophrenia Well this is an interesting and useful item. If schizophrenia runs in your family, you will want to read this rather lengthy report. Of course, you may not know if schizophrenia runs in your family. Milder forms, a half century ago, may not have been recognized. The shame that used to be associated with mental illness may mean that your Great-Uncle Joe was hospitalized for it, and because it wasn't a fit topic for discussion by your grandparents' generation, no one knows. The devastation that schizophrenia brings to not only the sufferer, but to family members, is beyond counting. The economic costs to our society are extraordinarily high, because schizophrenia often appears in young adults, and either destroys their ability to work, or severely limits it, often for the rest of the schizophrenic's life. The costs to the society are reflected in prolonged mental hospital stays, or the severe problems of homelessness. Even more tragic is that there seem to be a lot of very, very smart people who get schizophrenia. John Nash, the mathematician about whom A Beautiful Mind was written, is one example. My older brother, in a somewhat less dramatic way, is another example--one of those really, really smart people for whom schizophrenia has wasted an entire life. He is now past 60. Unlike John Nash, who eventually snapped back to reality, my brother has not. He is not quite the dangerous and frightening person that he was 30 years ago, but if you knew him before he became ill, you would say, "What could I have done to have prevented this?" Here's an excerpt from the introduction: This page is designed for family members of people with schizophrenia but may be of use to anyone interested in lowering their risk of getting schizophrenia. Here we try to answer two of the most common questions we get at this web site: what are the chances that another family member (or future family member/child) will develop the disease, and is there anything you can do to help reduce that probability?The report goes on to list a number of possible risk factors for schizophrenia, along with links to studies that suggest that these are risk factors. Some are pretty obvious: a number of the currently illegal drugs seem to be risk factors. There are some nutritional supplements that create no health risk, and may prevent it. One of the risk factors that surprised me: Country life (vs. city living) before age 15 is associated with lower rates of schizophrenia. Researchers have found a positive correlation between country living conditions and lower rates of schizophrenia. In fact a number of studies have demonstrated that psychotic illness is more prevalent in urban settings than in rural areas. Why this potential connection exists is unclear, but the researchers note that deprivation and social isolation in childhood neighborhoods have been shown to affect mental health. Where you are born and brought up is a larger contributing factor to risk than genetic predisposition. Indeed, 34.6% of schizophrenia cases would be prevented if people were not born and brought up in cities, compared to 5.4% of cases that would be prevented if people did not have parents or siblings who suffered from the illness, Dr. Susser (of Columbia University) told participants at a recent New York conference.There are some interesting correlations between the season that a child is born and the risk of schizophrenia--if you could make even a small reduction in your child's risk by delaying conception for a couple of months, wouldn't you? Season of Birth - Low Sunlight Exposure/Vitamin D is associated with higher risk of schizophrenia. Studies have indicated that children who born during certain times of the year have a higher than normal risk of schizophrenia. A lack of sunlight can lead to vitamin D deficiency, which scientists believe could alter the development of a child's brain in the mother's womb. According to an article in the New Scientist in 2002, research suggests people who develop schizophrenia in Europe and North America are more likely to be born in the winter and early spring (Januarya, Feburary and March, April have a slightly higher than average rate of schizophrenia, while children born in October have a slightly lower than average rate of schizohprenia).Please: read this. Your child's future may depend on it. John Kerry Isn't A Complete Fool Concerning Clear Channel Communications deciding not to run Howard Stern's radio show in some markets: A questioner at the town hall meeting in Brooklyn asked Kerry to stand up for Stern's right to say what he wants because the Republican-led government is repressing his right to free speech.Another interesting point of the article: Clear Channel Communications this week yanked Stern off stations in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Rochester, N.Y., Louisville, Ky., and Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Fla. Clear Channel said the suspension would last until the Stern show met its programming guidelines.I'm curious: would anyone listen to Stern's show if it did meeting Clear Channel's programming guidelines? I caught Stern's late night TV show on half a dozen occasions. If Stern has anything interesting to say about something other than sex (and there is more to life than just sex), I am unaware of it. Why Liberalism Is Morphing Into Totalitarianism Benito Mussolini once described fascism as "nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." It's still a ways to go before liberalism reaches that point, but decisions like this certainly suggest that liberalism is moving that direction: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A Roman Catholic charitable organization must include birth control coverage in its health care plan for workers even though it is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.Now, I think the Catholic Church's anti-contraception dogma is silly. Regular readers of my blog know that I am not impressed with how the Catholic Church's leadership has operated; it has demonstrated moral bankruptcy over the last few decades with its protection of child molesting priests--and at such a level that just takes my breath away. But what is the liberal rationale for forcing Catholic Charities to pay for a health benefit that it considers immoral? Are there any limits to what the government can force an employer to do? Imagine if Catholics completely dominated a state government in the U.S., and passed a law that prohibited private employers from offering contraception as a health benefit. Imagine a city where Christian Scientists were an overwhelming majority--and then imagine if the city council passed an ordinance prohibiting employers from offering health insurance plans that provided for physicians. These are every bit as much as oppressive as telling an employer that it must provide a benefit that it finds morally offensive. I understand the argument (which is certainly correct) that Catholic Charities is like any other employer, and should be subject to the same laws as other employers. But why is this not a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom? This reminds me a little of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). Oregon's compulsory school attendance law did not treat Catholic schools special; all private schools were effectively shut down by this law (which was apparently passed with the goal of shutting down Catholic schooling). There comes a certain point where you have two important brought into conflict by an overreaching law. To exempt Catholic Charities would violate equal protection. There is a legitimate argument that exempting religious employers from the law gives them a special legal status--something that should not be acceptable under the establishment clause (but in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court decided to exempt Amish kids from a school attendance law that applied to everyone else). At the same time, not exempting them from the law impairs a fundamental human right: freedom of religion. When you start to find these sort of conflicts in the law--where two rights, both important, are in conflict, it should be a sign that your government has overstepped its legitimate authority. Scrappleface on UN Plans for Iraq Worth reading in full: (2004-02-19) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan today unveiled his Iraq transition plan which he said is modeled on the "highly effective, internationally renowned United Nations structure." Scrappleface Weighs In On Gay Marriage... and I was sore from reading his original "news coverage" and the comments by readers. Here's how the "news coverage" starts: (2004-02-17) -- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom today declared that homosexuals applying for so-called marriage licenses at City Hall can pay the application fee with Monopoly money.And then it gets funny! The reader comments contain some real gems that interfered with breathing: When I was a kid we used to go to Golden State Park in San Francisco for family outings.and: Recently, I conducted a secret ceremony where I married Mayor Gavin Newsom without his knowledge or consent. Knowledge and Consent are arbitrary, primitive constrictions on marriage from the neanderthal days.and for those who remember the expression "as queer as a three dollar bill": Anybody got change for a three? Dennis Prager on The Passion Well worth reading. Prager explains why some Jews are terribly, terribly concerned about this film--but also why Christians are upset about the hostility towards the film: The Jews in the film manipulate the Romans -- who are depicted as patsies of the Jews and in the case of Pilate, as morally far more elevated -- into torturing and murdering a beautiful man.Thanks to David Bernstein for the link. Is the Jobless Recovery Starting to Hire? First, there is this news report: NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. factories boomed at close to a 20-year high in February, according to a survey released on Monday that also suggested a turnaround in hiring may be on the horizon after a three-year struggle.On a more personal level, I was searching hotjobs.com for electrical engineer jobs in Portland, trying to help a friend who has been out of work for more than a year, and has become so discouraged that I think he has given up. To my surprise, there were quite a number of EE jobs open. I was also encourage to see that HP has positions open as well. I found 126 engineering jobs, from entry-level to quite experienced, scattered around the United States. Click here to start searching for jobs at HP. Micron in Boise has 95 positions open: technician jobs; enginers; accountants--all sorts of positions. UPDATE: This article from the Bismarck, North Dakota Tribune reports The Mid-America business conditions index continued to rise along with inflationary pressures in February, according to the monthly survey of supply managers and business leaders in the nine-state region.However, the other news is that While recent upturns in the overall index point to rising growth in the months ahead, significant jumps have been recorded in inflationary pressures at the raw materials and supplies level, Knudsen said.This is bad news for interest-rate sensitive industries, and if you are considering refinancing or buying a home--I would get to it soon. On the other hand, for those of us who have been waiting for higher interest rates so that we can get a decent return on our capital, this is good news. Sunday, February 29, 2004
Journalists in Fear of Mountain Lions I read articles like this one in the Los Angeles Times (registration required)about the difficult decision: Should I hike alone, and risk being killed and eaten by a mountain lion? Or hike with a buddy, and lose the solitude? Isn't it amazing how, being a nature lover, and living in California, the author can't even consider the third possibility, and hike with her friends, Smith & Wesson? The essential scary movie has a bunch of teenagers in a remote mountain cabin, being stalked by a deranged killer. I've always had the temptation to make a short film. It starts out with the teenagers in the cabin. The wind is whistling. They hear noises outside, call the sheriff--and find the phone line has been cut! Everyone keeps their eyes open, looking out the windows into the shadows. Soon, they see the maniac, wearing a ski mask to hide his disfiguring scars. They see the hook that he wears instead of a left hand--and there's blood on the end of the hook. They suddenly realize that the news program they had seen several hours before had mentioned the mysterious death of a sheriff's deputy not far from the cabin. As Ravel's Danse Macabre provides the theme music, we see the maniac approaching the porch window. He smashes it in. The terrified teenagers, instead of staying together, where they might be able to protect each other, all scatter to different rooms. The camera follows the maniac into one of the bedrooms, as the pretty brunette pleads for her life as she sits on the floor. Meanwhile, one of the boys--the nerdy one with the horn-rim glasses--is frantically digging through the closets in an upstairs bedroom, looking for something--anything--to solve this problem. Last scene: as the music from Psycho's shower scene plays, maniac lifts his hook over the crying brunette--and the nerdy boy who wasn't going to get anywhere with the pretty gals anyway this weekend appears, at the door. He drops to his knees, and KABLAAM, he fires the 12 gauge, blasting the maniac out through the bedroom window. Of course, is it really a scary movie if it ends in ten minutes? Incidents such as I describe--well, usually not this dramatic--happen daily in America, and you can read incident after incident on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog that Pete Drum and I edit. It's a lot more realistic than guys wearing hockey masks that can't seem to die. Astronomy Enough with heavy topics today. I mentioned that I had purchased a Photon Instruments 5" refractor, and after a little bit of struggle, I am reasonably pleased with its optical performance. I also purchased a Losmandy GM-8 mount recently, used, for about $600 less than new. I was reluctant to buy Chinese for fear of putting money into the hands of a kleptocratic government that I consider the most likely future direct war threat to the U.S., but I was also a little wary because the Chinese factory quality control leaves a lot to be desired. I am so glad that I spent a bit more to get a used Losmandy. You can't see it in the pictures, but it is a real quality piece of work. Here's a couple of pictures of the scope on the mount: 
Now, the mount didn't come with what is called a dovetail plate. This mounts to the bottom of the telescope, and lets you slide the telescope in and out of the saddle quickly. I ordered up a dovetail plate ($75 from Woodland Hills Camera), but since the sky was gloriously clear Saturday, I decided that I couldn't wait, and I made an interim dovetail plate out of red oak, which you can see here: 
It's actually pretty simple; I started with a 1/2" piece of red oak, then set the table saw to a 45 degree angle. I trimmed in down both sides to the required width. Then I kept trimming, until it actually fit into the dovetail. Then I drilled and tapped metric M6 holes into it, and screwed the mounting rings into the dovetail. It's not beautiful (the real part is black anodized aluminum), and I expect that it won't last forever, but it works for a few days. I can use drill some more holes and use it to mount any other telescopes or odds and ends. Here's a detailed picture of the Losmandy GM-8 head: 
I can't give a detailed description right now, but I called my son out to show off one of the nice features--that I can use the four button hand controller to pan slowly across the Moon's surface. (I've been using ancient mount technology until recently; I'm surprised that there isn't a steam engine in the mount that I use for the reflector.) He thought that was cool, but he was also really impressed how sharp to the Photon Instruments refractor is. I will be doing some astrophotography soon. Alas, just as I was getting set up, my daughter called to talk about wedding plans, and as such conversations go, by the time I was back outside, the little motorcycle battery I have been using to power the mount had gone dead. By the time I finished recharging it, frost had formed on the front lens. The incident Saturday night where I tripped over the power card, breaking the plug--well, not quite as catastrophic as the scene where Gilligan trips over the space probe, dooming the castaways to several more seasons on Gilligan's Island, but frustrating, nonetheless. Labels: telescopes More About Priestly Sexual Abuse A reader sent me a link to a series of stories from last year in the Anchorage Daily News (registration required). The last story is about a suicide: ANCHORAGE, Alaska (February 26, 6:05 p.m. AST) - The high school principal who died in an apparent suicide left a note for his family, police said Thursday.Previous stories are heart-breaking examples of abuse by a clearly homosexual priest: In 1982, Pat Podvin told Archbishop Francis Hurley about the manipulative sexual advances of Monsignor Frank Murphy. Then, for more than two decades, he waited for a response from the Archdiocese of Anchorage.The rest of the stories describe Catholic officials doing their best to hide an alcoholic, lying, con-man, child molesting priest, so that it wouldn't reflect badly on the Church--but not, apparently, too terribly much concerned about the damage that he was doing to the children. I've seen Stalin quoted as saying that one murder is a tragedy, but a million is a mere statistic. The report I blogged about a few days ago was a statistic. Here's one of the tragic data points. UPDATE: I've redacted the brother's name from the story. It wasn't necessary, and was apparently causing him problems getting a job. Labels: child sexual abuse Democrat Dirty Tricks: Coming to a Ballot Near You Soon? From Final Protective Fire: In Colorado, the Democrats appear to be engaging in some dirty tricks. A somewhat covert attempt to put some dummy political parties on the ballot to siphon off right-wing support from the Republican Party with zombie parties named "Pro-Life Party" and "Gun Owners' Rights Party". From the article:A representative of the petition company that is gathering the names and a signature gatherer both told a Post reporter Saturday that they were hired by a relative of a former top Democratic official in Colorado. The newspaper is not naming that person because the relative could not be reached for comment. |
