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, January 26, 2008
Adulterers, Liars, & Tactless Sorts I mentioned a couple of days ago my concern about my state senator introducing a bill adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to Idaho's employment discrimination law. I've received some encouragement to put the fear of the voters into Senator Corder by running against him in the primary. I'm mulling it over. Like the dog that chases after a car--what do you do if you catch it? (Okay, not likely.) It occurs me to that why stop with "sexual orientation and gender identity"? Why don't we protect adulterers, liars, and those who are remarkably tactless (that's to protect people like me) from being discriminated against by employers? I mean, as long you show up to work, and do your job, why should an employer use what do you after hours against you? I'm sure with a little effort, we can come up with a much longer list of behaviors that an employer just shouldn't hold against you--and therefore, the government needs to step in and make sure that they don't! There comes a point where you really do need to draw the line and say, "This shouldn't be the government's job." Whether the government has the constitutional authority to take certain actions, it seems like very poor public policy for the government to be telling us what width of stripes we are allowed on our shirts, how wide our ties should be (or even if we should be wearing a tie), how often we should clean our glasses, or whether we should be carrying a handkerchief in our pocket, or a packet of Kleenex. Hands off! Labels: homosexuality It Might Not Do Any Good... But I don't see that it could do any harm, either. There's some guy organizing a petition to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne (who used to be Idaho's governor) asking the federal government to "institute an exception to 36 CFR 2.4 and 50 CFR 27.42 to allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms consistent with state laws" in national parks and other facilities of the Fish & Wildlife service that currently prohibit guns. (Go there to sign up.) Now, notice that this isn't a request to abolish all weapons regulation in national parks. The proposal is to make the rules in the parks consistent with the surrounding state. If the surrounding state allows concealed carry with a permit, so would the national park. If the surrounding state allows open carry, so would the park. If the surrounding state doesn't allow carry of any sort, the national park's rules wouldn't change. In case you are wondering: the reason for allowing carry in a national park isn't for hunting. In some national parks, there is a problem with violent criminals. Okay, Yellowstone isn't Watts. But there are disturbing incidents like the murders of Carole and Juli Sund, and Silvina Pelosso, and then some weeks later, Joie Ruth Armstrong, by an employee in the park named Cary Stayner. Some other national parks do have dangerous wildlife. Yes, incidents where visitors get badly injured or killed by wildlife are very, very infrequent. But there is nothing wrong with being allowed to defend yourself, and something terribly wrong with guaranteeing that if a grizzly mistakes you for a Big Mac, you have no lawful way to prevent yourself from becoming lunch. The Puckle Gun I've mentioned in the past the Puckle gun, an early 18th century patent for a repeating firearm something rather like a Gatling gun. I've also written that it was never actually made, because the machining technology didn't yet exist. To my surprise, I have been pointed to a number of sources that indicate that Puckle actually had a couple of prototypes made, and that they worked. Harold Leslie Peterson's The Treasury of the Gun (1962), p. 205, indicates that 1722 London Journal accounts indicated that one fired 63 rounds in seven minutes in the rain. Okay, that's not a machine gun, but nine rounds a minute is a major technological breakthrough compared to muskets that fired three rounds a minute, and not at all if it was raining. Anthony Smith, Machine Gun: The Story of the Men and the Weapon that Changed the Face of War (St. Martins Press, 2003), 18, tells the same story, and identifies the date of the article in the London Journal as March 31, 1722. According to Great Britain Patent Office, Patents for Inventions: Abridgements of Specifications (1859), p. 26, Puckle received patent number 418 on May 15, 1717 for his design. UPDATE: I made reference to a 1722 patent to James Kerr. That was actually the patent number, not the date. Labels: gun history Making the Tube Rounder I've mentioned that the two aluminum tubes that I had fabricated came out far from round. I've been trying to stretch the upper tube assembly to get it closer to round--and I'm getting somewhere! When I started, this tube was about 20 5/8" ID on one diameter, and about 19 7/8" on the diameter perpendicular. Now, by using a clamp/stretcher device I bought at Harbor Freight, it is now 20 1/4" on the smaller diameter, and 20 1/2" on the larger diameter after removing the stretcher. I'm hoping that if I keep this up, I will get it to 20 3/8" both dimensions--and if not, this is getting close enough to round to do what I need to do. Labels: telescopes How Obsolete Is The Unorganized Militia? Less obsolete than you think. I've read that Oregon's governor at the start of World War II, because of the shortage of military units available, asked the state's unorganized militia to patrol beaches, looking for signs of Japanese invasion. I've also read that similar actions took place on the East Coast. But I never had a source that I could cite before. Now I do. Starting at Archives of Maryland, 409:616-18, is a radio address by Maryland Governor Herbert L. O'Conor on March 10, 1942: The sincere hope of every person in Maryland is that our State may never experience invasion or attack. That we should consider such a thing as possible is in itself a terrible shock to the American state of mind. Nevertheless, with so much of the world overrun by the enemies of Democracy, and with the invasion of Java and New Guinea as well as other points in the Australian Archipelago fresh in our minds, we would be foolish, indeed, not to be prepared, as completely as possible, for any such happening, even here in Maryland.Some people argue that United 93's passengers and crew are part of the proud tradition of civilian militias, and that the concept isn't dead or obsolete. I agree. As we can see, as recently as World War II--when, to hear some tell the tale, the concept of armed civilians as part of the national defense was obsolete--calling up the unorganized militia was hardly a crackpot idea, and for the same reasons that it wasn't a crackpot idea in 1776. UPDATE: There was also the Alaska Territorial Guard, somewhat more than 6000 unpaid volunteers (including some women) drawn from the civilian population to protect Alaska from Japanese invasion during World War II. This was created because the Alaska National Guard was going to be deployed outside of Alaska. This October 17, 2007 USA Today article mentions that they were supplied obsolete Army rifles for their mission, unlike the situation in Maryland. If you can find any other examples of unorganized militia use during (or even after World War II), please let me know. UPDATE 2: And here's the details of the Oregon State Guard, formed in response to the federalization of the Oregon National Guard from the Oregon State Archives web site: State guard members were all volunteers and legally could not be called up for federal service or serve outside of the borders of the state. They furnished their own guns, clothing, and personal equipment. Members received regular army training and were subject to army discipline. They trained in a variety of subjects, including first aid, chemical warfare, tactics, and "other soldierly topics." And, they stood ready to respond to orders from the governor, who was the commander in chief. Authorities were expansive in their interpretation of the authority of the governor to order the force to execute any "lawful command." Over time, the state guard assumed control of nearly all National Guard armories around the state. The exceptions were Ashland and Woodburn, which had no state guard units. Labels: gun history Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Are There Any Conservatives in Idaho State Senate District 22? I mentioned my disappointment with State Senator Tim Corder's authoring of a bill to add "sexual orientation and gender identity" to Idaho's antidiscrimination statute. His response leaves me even more disappointed. If I could afford it, I would run against him in the primary. (It doesn't cost much to win a state legislative race; the problem is, what do you do if you win? The pay is so awful that you have to be either desperately poor or independently wealthy to quit your day job.) I've been disappointed that an Idaho Republican could only manage a C rating from NRA last election. Is there any conservative in Corder's district who can afford to be a member of the Idaho State Senate? It's Like a Weird Al Yankovic Parody Song You know, the one that made fun of the Jerry Springer show with reference to the "gay Jewish black dude" who gets into that awful fight with the KKK. Except that it seems to be real, and potentially worrisome. From the January 21, 2008 New York Daily News: Police stumbled upon a bomb-making factory Sunday in the home of a Columbia professor who specializes in the spread of infectious disease - and are investigating whether he and his roommate have terror ties.To add to the weirdness, Ivanov, who claims to be Jewish, according to this January 22, 2008 New York Times article, admitted to a series of swastika painting incidents on local Jewish synagogues and school buildings. But the pipe bombs were for fishing. I believe that, don't you? And what about the roommate, Michael Clatts? Well, he spends an awful lot of time doing research about homosexuality, AIDS, and drug abuse--gobs of papers. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's gay, of course. But when the Society Of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists had a meeting several years ago, Clatts was the chair of a panel titled "Out in the World: The Role of Eros in the Tourism of Sexual Minorities." And as a number of troublemakers, like this commenter over at Ann Althouse's blog pointed out, his department is a very PC operation--the sort of place that I would expect a modern Weather Underground sort to work: The Department of Sociomedical Sciences is distinguished by its focus on the social determinants of disease and health. This is accomplished by examining the correlation between epidemiological trends and structural inequities in order to expose the fundamental social causes of public health events, including discrimination, stigma, and poverty.For some odd reason, unlike other faculty members, Professor Clatts' page is curiously empty now. Maybe Clatts had nothing to do with his roommate's curious method of fishing, or artistic use of swastikas. You know, some people just aren't very curious about what their roommates leave around the place. Labels: terrorism Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Why Liberal Is A Dirty Word To Me Idiots like this guy. From the January 20, 2008 Chicago Tribune: Jay Grodner, the Chicago lawyer who keyed a Marine's car in anger because the car had military plates and a Marine insignia, finally got his day in court last week.Ready to leave and go to the south of France for a while? Book yourself a one-way ticket, Grodner. And don't come back. A Bad Idea From My State Senator Tim Corder has introduced S.1323 in the Idaho State Senate. This bill would add "sexual orientation or gender identity" to the existing Idaho Code 67-5909 which prohibits discrimination in employment. I agree that in the vast majority of jobs it doesn't matter what a person's sexual orientation is. What they do after they get off work is really quite irrelevant. But there are some jobs where I think there are some legitimate questions. For the same reason that most people wouldn't be comfortable having a male gym teacher in the girls' locker room (and most people wouldn't be much more comfortable with a female gym teacher in the boys' locker room), there's a reason not to have homosexual men in the boys' locker room, or lesbian gym teachers in the girls' locker room. Another problem is that "sexual orientation" doesn't just include homosexuality. It includes pedophilia, necrophilia, and a lot of fetishes that I am not going to mention on my blog. Should a daycare center be allowed to refuse employment to a man known to be a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association? This bill would make such discrimination unlawful. What if your employee gets arrested in the Minneapolis airport men's room? The ACLU has already argued that there is a constitutional right to solicit sex there. Would an employer be within his rights to fire a person who was using the company restrooms for that purpose? Or would that just become another basis for a lawsuit? The "gender identity" clause opens an even larger can of worms. It certainly includes cross-dressers, and people that show up for work some days dressed as a man, and some days dressed as a woman. It will certainly be held to protect gay men who insist on dressing "fabulous." A business that suggests that an employee needs to dress appropriately to the position (meaning, guys shouldn't be wearing feather boas, 5" long eyelashes, and half a pound of eye shadow) is going to get sued for that as well. I've long been uncomfortable with the extent to which the government interferes in private matters. I can understand and somewhat agree with the arguments for banning discrimination against blacks, since both the federal and state governments, for many decades, either required such discrimination, or actively encouraged it. But there does come a point where you have to say that the government needs to back off. As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults do in private isn't properly the government's business, and it doesn't matter whether that is sex or employment. Labels: homosexuality Needed: Image of Belt Driven 19th Century Mill I've been trying to find a picture of a belt driven 19th century mill--the kind where a single driveshaft (usually coming from a water wheel or steam engine) provided all the motive force for the various manufacturing processes. I need this for a presentation in a class that I will be lecturing in Wednesday evening. UPDATE: Thanks! I now have enough pictures! Labels: history Oral Arguments Scheduled In The DC Gun Case March 18, 2008, is the date scheduled by the Supreme Court for oral arguments. Labels: gun rights Monday, January 21, 2008
The Mirror Cell Is In The Tube After repeatedly running the base plate through the sander, the mirror cell now slides into the tube. It is a tight fit--but not so tight that I can't loosen the bolts in the flanges and slide the entire mirror cell back and forth.  Click to enlarge I took off only as much of the base plate as I needed to barely fit into the tube. For that reason, the tube, which was delivered somewhat out of round, is now close enough to round for my purposes. Unfortunately, I can't use the same trick for the upper tube assembly. The spider legs were designed to be light, and to hold the diagonal mirror holder in position under tension. But because the upper tube assembly is so far out of round (even more so than the lower tube assembly), I don't have any easy way to get the diagonal mirror holder exactly centered using the tensioned legs approach. I am thinking of replacing the .050" carbon steel legs with something a bit thicker and stiffer--perhaps .100" carbon steel. These might be stiff enough to actually force the tube walls closer to circular. In this case, they aren't held in tension, but add rigidity to the upper tube assembly. I wish that there was some way to force the upper tube to be round, but the aluminum is just stiff enough that while I can bend it to round, it won't stay there once I remove the clamp. I can't imagine a technique for applying that force that won't obstruct the diameter. I thought about applying an epoxy coat to the outside of the tube, while I have it clamped to round--but once the clamp comes off, I expect the tube's desire to return to its natural state will crack the epoxy. Labels: telescopes Where The "Bear Arms" Paper Went I mentioned a couple of days ago that "What Does Bear Arms Imply?" had been accepted by a law review you might have even heard of, but we were holding the name until we had this nailed down. It is now nailed down. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy will be publishing it. Labels: gun history Attorney's Fees & Idaho S.1283 One area of civil litigation that I think is terribly destructive is that, unlike Britain, we do not have a consistent "loser pays" rule about attorney fees. What this means is that if Ms. A sues Mr. B for $500,000,000 because Mr. B said something that hurt Ms. A's feelings, Mr. B will spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to defend a suit that has no merit. Even if the judge looks at the evidence, and decides that Ms. A had absolutely no legitimate basis for the suit, Mr. B is out his attorney's fees. In theory, judges have the authority to order Ms. A to pay Mr. B's fees if it is apparent that there was no legitimate basis for the suit, but in practice, it isn't all that common. Let me tell you a little story. Back in the late 1970s, my friend Eric and I jointly owned a 1973 Chevrolet Caprice station wagon, which we used for transporting furniture on those occasions when either of us moved. We lent the station wagon to Eric's brother Allan one day. So Allan is driving down the street somewhere in Los Angeles, and ahead of him, he sees a Ford Mustang smash into a streetlight post. Allan comes to a stop, slightly tapping the Mustang's bumper. The driver of the Mustang is taken to the hospital by ambulance, where she is DOA. The police officer investigating the crash puts in the police report that the Mustang was a one car accident--that Allan crashed our station wagon into the Mustang after it had already come to a complete stop, and the collision was so slow that there was no damage to either the station wagon or the Mustang from it. The autopsy on the Mustang driver shows that she had a .23% blood alcohol level; only an idiot would fail to see that she probably passed out at the wheel. So, about six months later, the driver's father-in-law files suit on behalf of the driver's husband. (Father-in-law and husband are both attorneys, of course.) The suit demands $15,000 in damages from Allan (he was driving), myself and Eric (we owned the car), and 20 other people who were either driving cars, or owned cars, that were in the intersection, claiming that we "jointly and severally conspired" to force the Mustang into the post, thus causing the driver's death. The complaint itself was embarrassingly bad: not just typos, but consistent misspellings, sentence fragments, and so on. Pretty obviously, the California Bar Exam couldn't be that difficult, or perhaps they gave special treatment to these lawyers because English wasn't their native language. So I take this over to my insurance company, and ask them what they are going to do about it. I was outraged that such an obvious attempt at extortion had been filed. My insurance agent got back to me a few days later and said, "Ordinarily, we'll settle a suit like this for $500 just to make it go away, because it costs us too much to go and litigate it, but this is probably the most ridiculous suit our lawyers have seen this year, so we're probably going to fight it." Probably? Suits like this that are extortion under color of law. There was simply no legitimate reason for this suit, and even if the grieving husband didn't want to see that the cause of the accident was that his wife was so drunk that she probably passed out, the lawyer who filed the suit should have refused to file it. The cost to my insurance company of going to court was high enough--and the judge was simply not going to impose any penalty on the plaintiff, by requiring him to pay the attorney's fees--that the lawyer had no incentive to tell the husband, "I'm not going to do this." After all: maybe the insurance company would be willing to settle for $500 out of court. I recognize that a strict application of "loser pays" would prevent many legitimate suits from being filed, especially where the plaintiff is poor, and the defendant has deep pockets. But there does seem to be a point where a suit is so absurd that judges should impose "loser pays" as a way to discourage such suits. Pretty clearly, this suit in which I was a victim demonstrates that there were no penalties for filing absurd lawsuits in Los Angeles at the time. Some of the lawsuits that I have seen filed over the years (such as a multibillion dollar suit against International House of Pancakes by an irate customer who couldn't get the advertised special served to her) tell me that the problem hasn't been fixed. Now, Idaho's legislature is considering a revision to our state law. The bill is S.1283, and it adds one line to the current statute that lists the available remedies for employment discrimination: (f) An order for reasonable attorney's fees.Why is anyone proposing to add this? Well, last year, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled in Stout v. Key Training Corporation, 144 Idaho 195, 158 P.3d 971 (2007) that even though federal law provides for someone who wins a suit for unlawful employment discrimination to receive "reasonable attorney's fees" (are there such things?), Idaho law does not have any specific provision granting this. I don't know what the merits of the underlying suit were. Stout claimed discrimination because she got pregnant. The defendant, Key Training Corporation, apparently trains linemen--and I can see how someone might foolishly have thought that it was a bad idea to have a pregnant woman up on top of high voltage lines. Regardless of the merits of the case, I can see why Stout, having won the case, thought that she should receive attorney's fees. I actually don't have a problem with this change in the law--but I'm a bit funny in one respect--I think that the law should apply equally on both sides. The way that I read the statute that S.1283 would change, the plaintiff is entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees" if he wins, but the defendant isn't entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees" if he wins. I can support S.1283 if the winner, on either side, gets to collect attorney's fees from the loser. I can't support something this one-sided, because it creates an incentive to file discrimination suits, with no costs to the plaintiff for questionable or even completely bogus claims. Labels: Idaho politics Sunday, January 20, 2008
Icicles So Big You Can Use Them As Swords! This is a harsh winter--and these icicles hanging off the roof and the table of the back porch are pretty astonishing:  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge |
