Thursday, July 31, 2008

Recession?

Recession?
A common definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. The Democrats and the mainstream media (which are pretty much the same thing) have been screeching about recession in the hopes of scaring the population into voting Democrat. There's just one little problem: we haven't reached that point yet. From July 31, 2008 Forbes:
The Commerce Department reported an advance reading on second-quarter GDP of 1.9%, mildly below the expected 2.3%, but also revised its first-quarter figure to 0.9%, from 1.0%, and cut the fourth-quarter 2007 GDP figure to negative 0.2%, from 0.6%. (See "GDP Lags, Employment Scares.")
Now, the concern is that part of why the second quarter growth numbers are still okay was that this was the result of the economic stimulus package. The revision of the 4Q 2007 numbers to a negative is indicative that the economy is slowing, and there is some real danger. But we aren't in a recession. We could be in the future, and it is worth worrying about--but to the extent that media screeching creates public perceptions, it can help to create it. I would ask the media to be responsible, but I might as well ask the sun to not rise tomorrow.

Texans Love Grilling & Handguns

Texans Love Grilling & Handguns

And how much more appropriate can this barbecue get?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Racism and Anti-Semitism: It's a Southern Democratic Primary!

Racism and Anti-Semitism: It's a Southern Democratic Primary!
Tell me, if this were happening in a Republican primary, wouldn't this be front page news all over the country? Black ministers are distributing flyers that say "Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the Jews Hate Jesus." And the flyers emphasize that a "black Christian" has to replace Cohen.

RedState reports
:
In 2006, Steve Cohen won Harold Ford’s seat in Memphis in a bitter contested race. Cohen beat Nikki Tinker barely. During the race, Cohen hacked off black ministers for supporting gay rights legislation and opposing school prayer. But what angered people in the district more was that a black congressman could potentially be replaced by not just a white man, but a Jew too. The anti-Semitism has resurfaced this year. Black ministers (started by one who is not even in district) have passed out fliers that say “Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus.” Nikki Tinker has refused to denounce the fliers.
Last year, some black ministers caused a stir against Cohen because he supported federal hate crimes legislation that included gay rights. Robert Poindexter, one of the angered ministers, gave away the game saying, “He’s not black and he can’t represent me, that’s just the bottom line.”
And Andrew Sullivan is telling a similar story.

Look, I can agree that there might be good reasons for Tennesseeans to send someone who isn't so liberal to Washington. But injecting anti-Semitism and racism into the contest is so utterly wrong--and so utterly Democratic.

This Is Encouraging

This Is Encouraging

RealClearPolitics average of recent national polls shows that Obama's lead over McCain is now only 2.4%--which is probably not statistically significant, since several of the polls have sample sizes of 1003 or less. The largest sample sizes (and therefore with the smallest margin of error) are the Rasmussen poll done 7/27 through 7/29, which has Obama up 2.0%, and the Gallup Tracking poll done the same dates, which has Obama up 4.0%.

Now, if McCain would actually run some serious ads, we might see this turn around. Once we hit the 60 day deadline imposed by the moronic McCain-Feingold Act, independent campaign expenditures will start--and I'm hoping that Obama's numbers will start to fall.

They're Running Scared!

They're Running Scared!

From July 30, 2008 Law.com:
In 1981, Morton Grove, Ill., a quiet northern Chicago suburb, made history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the possession of handguns.
Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense.
It's one of several Illinois communities -- reluctant to spend money on legal fights -- rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.
...
Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.
The National Rifle Association and others carried their enthusiasm straight to federal court, suing the city of Chicago and Mayor Richard Daley, a vocal supporter of gun control, and the Chicago suburbs of Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.
Wilmette, another northern Chicago suburb, voted to repeal its ban. Officials there said they believe they weren't sued by the NRA because the village stopped enforcing its 1989 ban after the high court ruling.
"In my mind we had to repeal," said Wilmette Village President Chris Canning, who is also a lawyer. "I knew that our ordinance would not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist in Illinois, said communities working to repeal their gun bans simply see the writing on the wall.
"Some communities are truly seeing what is contained in the Supreme Court decision and they're reacting appropriately," Vandermyde said.
"Others want to spend taxpayer money on some Don Quixote-type quest," he said, referring to Chicago, whose lawyers insist the city's ban will withstand any legal challenges.
Keep in mind that if every city with such a ban repealed it, we would have a more difficult time in court. You have to have an actual controversy--an actual legal dispute--to get the Supreme Court to make a decision. I'm glad that Chicago is being obstinate about this--it will just make it easier to get the Second Amendment incorporated against the states.

What Qualifies as "Public Indecency" In San Francisco?

What Qualifies as "Public Indecency" In San Francisco?

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality has some unpleasant and definitely not worksafe pictures of what goes on in public streets in San Francisco these days--not just public nudity (which AFTAH has at least blacked out), but what appears to be a very unhygenic sex act taking place that, shall we say, explains the need for a booth visible in another picture offering hepatitis vaccination.

The police were there--they were just told to keep the public nudity and sex acts confined to the public streets that were part of the "Up Your Alley" public festival.

Yeah, yeah, I know, most homosexuals aren't this sick. But when you pass laws saying that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, you don't get to pick and choose which homosexuals are going to be moving into your town because you told them that it was okay.

So, what still qualifies as public indecency in San Francisco? It certainly doesn't include public nudity. It doesn't include a guy putting his tongue somewhere that the sun doesn't shine. But as I mentioned last year, when a Christian group held a rally in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning them.

I used to wonder why some Christians insisted that homosexuality, while no worse of a sin than any others, seems to be especially destructive to a society. I don't wonder anymore, when sickness like this is tolerated in public streets--while a Christian rally deserves official condemnation.

UPDATE: Zombietime has a far more detailed collection of pictures--and it was far worse than the examples above. Far worse. You can go for the fuzzed out version, or the fully obscene and gross version when you get there.

More About The Aptera

More About The Aptera

I mentioned the Aptera yesterday
as an example of a truly futuristic looking car. A reader tells me:
You need to change the label from 'cars' to 'motorcycles'. The Aptera is designed, built and registered as a motorcycle so as to avoid all those nasty federal crash worthiness requirements. No crash stuff means less mass and a lower startup cost since there is no need to submit finished product for destructive testing.
It struck me as I was going through the National Automobile Museum a few weeks back that many of the early cars were surprisingly small and light, and that if you built a car this light today, with modern engines and transmissions, they would probably be capable of exceptional gas mileage. Even using fairly sophisticated materials, they might be reasonably cheap just because there's not much material there. The Aptera is that same approach.

I confess that I am not thrilled at the idea of driving a thousand pound car--even if was made of carbon fiber composite, and was therefore very strong--because of the mass of the existing vehicles on the road. On the other hand, if it was fast and maneuverable enough, you might think of it as an overgrown motorcycle, and figure that you have to pay a lot of attention to the idiots on the road.

Another reader points me to a car from the 1960s that was probably just too advanced in its stylng for its time--and looks like something that George Jetson's kids might have taken to school: the Peel Trident.



UPDATE: Another reader points out that the Aptera website discusses this vehicle safety standards question:
In fact, Aptera is a motorcycle manufacturer registered with DOT and CA DMV. This means, among other things, that we are able to issue VIN's. Our 'world identifier number' is '5WT', so all of our VIN's begin with '5WT'. Knowing the public perception of motorcycle safety, we made the decision to make safety a fundamental part of the design of our vehicles. For example, the Typ-1 roof is designed to EXCEED rollover strength requirements spelled out in FMVSS 216 for passenger vehicles. The doors EXCEED the strength requirement spelled out in FMVSS 214. We decided not just to meet many of the specs for passenger vehicles, which are set above and beyond the requirements for motorcycles, but we chose to exceed them whenever possible.
They aren't required to meet those standards, and they don't say that they meet all of them--just that they try to exceed them "whenever possible."

A friend points me to the Isetta, one of the early post-World War II "microcars."

Urine Tests

Urine Tests

An interesting comment that came in from a reader:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do , on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their [rear], doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
First of all, remember that "public assistance check" is something of a misnomer. Back in 1995, after Republicans took control of Congress, the old system of welfare was substantially revised. General Assistance (which was never very widespread or generous) largely went away. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was widespread, open-ended, but not particularly generous, was replaced with Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), which imposes significant limitations on its recipients--and it is not open-ended.

I know that there was a significant problem with AFDC. I had a distant cousin who ended up on AFDC, off and on, for many years. I asked her once how many AFDC recipients she knew where the core problem was her situation--a husband who never let work get in the way of his drug habit. She told me that every AFDC recipient she knew was in that category. She indicated that in about half of these homes, the mother managed to get food and rent paid out of the AFDC check, and whatever was left was spent on alcohol or pot. The other half of the homes that she saw, drugs came first; if there was anything left over, the mother would be able to feed the kids.

As I understand it, TANF has fundamentally changed the equation. There are obligations on TANF recipients to get training for a job, and there is a limited time during which one is eligible. In spite of the enormous whining from liberals about the suffering that the AFDC to TANF transformation was going to cause--it actually worked out surprisingly well. I suspect that there are still TANF recipients in the same drug-funded madness that my cousin was in--but I also suspect that simply ending the open-ended nature of the program probably changed things a bit. It would be interesting to see if TANF recipients are as deeply enmeshed in the drug culture as AFDC recipients used to be.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

And I Thought The Prius Was a Bit Weird

And I Thought The Prius Was a Bit Weird

This Aptera looks like something that George Jetson would have driven.

Just Like The Rest of Us, Right?

Just Like The Rest of Us, Right?

American Family Association has been promoting a boycott of McDonald's because of their involvement with the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, sponsorship of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, and the statement of a McDonald's spokesman that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on hatred. AFA has a web page up with some photographs that they say are from the most recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade--and they are definitely not worksafe. They may not be lunchsafe.

Now, it is possible that these photographs aren't what AFA claims that they are--but if you go to any of a number of collections of photographs of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, AFA's photographs aren't at all hard to believe. Not every person marching in the parade is naked, or almost naked. Not every person is doing their best to appear like a freak. There are some that look like they want to be taken seriously as people, not as a circus sideshow (and my guess is that the more unusual ones tend to get photographed).

Still: what does it say about "being gay" that so many people feel it is appropriate to dress and behave in a manner that conforms to the worst stereotypes of homosexuality? Imagine if the NAACP sponsored a parade in which black men all dressed like Superfly, or worse, were portrayed as rapists. Even if there were blacks who thought that this was funny, or clever satire, they would find themselves marching pretty alone--because most blacks in America abhor these vicious stereotypes.

I'll believe the "homosexuals are just like the rest of us except for who they love" when gay pride parades stop being freak shows.

Heller II

Heller II

Just because the Supreme Court has spoken, doesn't mean that the District of Columbia will obey the law. Here is the complaint filed against D.C.'s continued efforts to avoid obeying the law. Back in 1963, Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama gave a rather famous speech defying the Supreme Court:

I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.
D.C. is a bit more circumspect, but their regulations are effectively, "gun bans today... gun bans tomorrow... gun bans forever."

Monday, July 28, 2008

All Larrys Are Alike, I Guess

All Larrys Are Alike, I Guess

Larry LaRocco is the Democratic nominee running after Senator Larry Craig's seat. So what happened when someone printed up campaign buttons for LaRocco, hoping that some of the Obamamessiah magic would rub off? They put a picture of Obama next to a picture of a Larry--Larry Craig! The amusing details can be found at the July 27, 2008 Idaho Statesman.

I Guess The War in Iraq Has Been Won

I Guess The War in Iraq Has Been Won

At least, if Associated Press is admitting it. See this July 26, 2008 account:
BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

At this rate, even the Democrats will be willing to admit in, oh, perhaps ten or fifteen years.

My, Wasn't This Mature

My, Wasn't This Mature

From July 28, 2008 Inside Higher Education:

Myers is a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris who has a national following for Pharyngula, the blog on which he regularly exposes and lambastes efforts by creationists to undermine the teaching of evolution. A few weeks ago, he wrote a blog entry in which he defended a University of Central Florida student who protested the presence of religious groups on his campus by taking a Eucharist — the small wafer blessed in Roman Catholic services and then seen as the body of Christ — and removing it from the service rather than consuming it. Myers, in an entry entitled “It’s a Frackin’ Cracker” — questioned why this was such a big deal.

Ever since, Myers and his university have been bombarded by e-mail and other messages attacking him and calling for the university to punish him for insulting Catholic teachings.

On Thursday, Myers responded by staging what he called a “great desecration.” For the desecration, he took a communion wafer (sent to him by a supporter in the United Kingdom, who removed it from a church there), and pierced it with a rusty nail. ("I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date,” Myers quipped on the blog.) He then threw it in the garbage with a banana peel and coffee grounds, symbols of refuse. But to show that he wasn’t picking on Catholics, Myers added to his mixture some ripped out pages of the Koran. As a proud atheist, Myers isn’t a member of a faith that he could desecrate at the same time so he took a text he does cherish — The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins — and tore some pages out and added them to the trash.

In a blog posting that describes the attacks he has received and then features a photo of the desecration, Myers finishes with a call to question everything:

“Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything,” he writes. “God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity’s knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.”

Professor Myers certainly does know how to upset people! As one of the comments over at Inside Higher Education points out:
I don’t quite get why Myers is going after the Catholics, if his issue is evolution. (It’s rather like invading Iraq, if you’re mad at al-Qaeda).
Yup. Because the Catholic Church, as near as I can tell, has embraced evolution without any great problem. Christian critics of Evolution as the True Faith assert that much of what drives the ferocious attacks on Intelligent Design is not science, but a ferocious atheism that uses evolution merely as a tool. Myers' behavior seems to be confirming that claim--that his desire to attack religion is more important than his support for evolution, a scientific theory.

What's Wrong With This Picture? Knoxville Church Shooting

What's Wrong With This Picture? Knoxville Church Shooting

WBIR channel 10
reported yesterday that neighbors of the killer:
A neighbor told 10News Adkisson described himself as a "Confederate" and a "believer in the old South." She says Adkisson self-identified in this way to her on more than one occasion, but that she didn't know what he meant by it.
At this morning's press conference, the police chief indicated that from a letter found in the killer's home:

1. He had been unemployed since 2006. (He had an associate's degree in mechanical engineering.)

2. He blamed liberals and gays for his inability to get a job--hence, his decision to attack the Tennessee Valley Unitarian-Universalist church.

3. He was upset about his food stamps being reduced.

4. His criminal record was two DUI convictions, one in California, and one in Tennessee.

5. He thought that he was having trouble getting a job because of his age.

This guy sounds like a mass of contradictions. You know, most rational people who hate liberalism aren't taking food stamps (a liberal program) or whining about age discrimination (a liberal concern). And somehow, blaming gays for his inability to get a job seems a bit bizarre to me--especially in mechanical engineering. There are some occupations that are stereotypically gay, but mechanical engineering isn't one of them.

This guy does seem pretty atypical, in many respects. The vast majority of murderers have one or both of the following characteristics:

1. Substantial violent crime histories before committing murder.

2. Histories of severe mental illness that was inadequately treated, or often not treated at all.

Murderers with just a couple of DUI convictions, and who have managed to get to such an advanced age without a violent criminal history, are pretty unusual.

According to the police chief's news conference this morning, he was planning to kill people until the police arrived and killed him--and had brought 78 rounds of shotgun ammunition with him. The police were there three minutes after the 911 call--excellent performance. But by then members of the church had overpowered this guy. Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If I correctly heard what the police chief said, it appears that the killer only managed to fire three rounds before he was disarmed. It would appear that this guy wasn't smart enough to figure out how to position himself to do what he claimed he intended to do. Be glad that he wasn't terribly smart (which might better explain his employment problem than blaming liberals and gays).

It would also appear that the shotgun was purchased from a pawn shop a month in advance of this incident, demonstrating that a waiting period wouldn't have helped.

UPDATE: A bit more detail, just adding to the mass of contradictions, from the July 27, 2008 Knoxville News:
The man accused of a mass church shooting this morning was described by his Powell neighbors as a helpful and kind man, but one who had issues with Christianity.
Jim D. Adkisson, 58, has been charged with first-degree murder in the shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, which killed one and injured eight others.
He is being held on $1 million bond.
"He had his own sense of belief about religion, that's the impression I got of him," said neighbor Karen Massey. "We were talking one day when my daughter graduated from Bible college, and I told him I was a Christian, then he almost turned angry.
"He seemed to get angry at that."
According to Massey, Adkisson talked frequently about his parents who "made him go to church all his life ... he was forced to do that."

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Who Was Leon Jaworski?

Who Was Leon Jaworski?

I was watching the evening news, and they had a story about a bunch of black soldiers who were convicted of crimes related to the lynching of an Italian POW in 1944 at Fort Lawton, in Washington State. It turned out that they weren't guilty--and today, the Army apologized for this miscarriage of justice.

I wish that I could say that this was a rare event. It wasn't. There were plenty of examples earlier in the twentieth century where black soldiers were punished for crimes that they didn't commit, or at least for which the evidence wasn't sufficient.

Part of the problem was that the dominant culture said that blacks were savages. Especially in the South, almost any confrontation between black and white was going to be assumed to be the black person's fault.

Part of the problem was that "black soldier" was a very, very scary concept--because "soldier" includes the idea of "gun." The fear that black soldiers might take knowledge of firearms back into civilian life was why, for much of American history, blacks were allowed either in the Navy (where their experience wasn't going to be useful in civilian life--how many five inch naval guns are privately owned?), or kept in entirely non-combat roles--such as loading ships and driving trucks. The four black regiments (segregated, of course, but with white officers) that the U.S. Army kept after the Civil War were only because Republicans, who dominated the Congress throughout the postbellum period, insisted. If the Army had gotten its way, all the "Colored Troops" units would have been disbanded at the end of the Civil War.

Bernard C. Nalty's Strength for the Fight is a very powerful and often heartbreaking history of the efforts of black Americans to prove themselves in the U.S. armed forces--and the enormous efforts that were made to keep them out. It also includes other incidents like what happened at Fort Lawton, where it was apparent that for political reasons, black servicemen were never going to get a fair shake.

So, who is Leon Jaworski? The evening news broadcast mentioned that Jaworski was the lawyer in charge of the investigation, and sat on information that would have cleared these black soldiers. This July 23, 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article tells us:
Jaworski had evidence that likely would have cleared Snow and the others. Instead, he sat on it, and the case was nearly forgotten until a book by Seattle author Jack Hamann proved that the black soldiers didn't lynch the Italian soldier -- something Army investigators knew during the largest and longest court-martial of World War II.
The evening news broadcast also mentioned that Jaworski later became famous because of Watergate. My guess is that most people under 40, if they even know what Watergate was, only know that it was a scandal involving a Republican politician--and will probably assume that Jaworski was someone caught up in the scandal.

Not so. Jaworski was a Democrat who was appointed as special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate crimes, and whose actions led to Nixon's eventual resignation. And I'm sure that's part of why the American Bar Association has the Leon Jaworski Public Program Series:
Since 2001, the American Bar Association Division for Public Education has conducted the Leon Jaworski public program series. The Jaworski public programs have examined themes of law, politics, and culture and have operated on the premise that exploring fundamental legal identities and attributes help us better understand who we are as Americans.
A couple of points:

1. In some circles, it is just assumed that hostility to blacks is some Republican thing. It isn't, and in practice, Democrats throughout the twentieth century have done far more to injure blacks than Republicans have done.

2. What Jaworski did was not just convicting these black soldiers in error, but actually suppressing evidence that would have cleared them--and perhaps found the real killer. Why? Jaworski was a Southern Democrat--and I would not be surprised if he thought that it didn't matter if these soldiers were innocent of this murder. The whole idea of black men in the uniform of the United States of America would have been abhorrent to him. After World War II, there was an incident in South Carolina where a black soldier returning home was arrested and mutilated by a sheriff who was enraged by the sight of a black man in a military uniform.

3. I presume that in the calculation of which is bigger--taking down Nixon, or violating his duty to the law--the ABA will decide that taking down Nixon was more important. I rather doubt that the Leon Jaworski Public Program Series will be going away.

UPDATE: Here's a more detailed account of the incidents that led to this court-martial that, in spite of putting at least some of the black soldiers involved in a poor light, comes from the ultraleftist April 22, 2008 Village Voice:
What was never in much dispute was that some of the black soldiers stationed at the fort, drinking heavily the night before being shipped out to a possibly very dangerous Pacific location, reacted to a fistfight between one of their own and one of the Italian POWs by swarming the Italians' barracks and beating the living hell out of many of the Italians as well as some white American MPs. Also not in dispute was that the rioters had stabbed unarmed victims with knives and used wooden clubs to break limbs, and that one black soldier drove a Jeep repeatedly over a tent that had men in it. It was probably something of a miracle that more people weren't killed. The dead man, Private Guglielmo Olivotto, was found in another part of the camp at dawn the next morning, hanging from a noose that had been tied to a wire at an obstacle course.
What Hamann uncovered, however, was that right from the start, the MPs and the officers in charge at Fort Lawton handled the case by doing just about everything wrong. Evidence was destroyed, statements weren't taken when they should have been, and soon it was almost impossible to figure out which of the black soldiers at Fort Lawton had taken part in the beatings and which hadn't.

Friday, July 25, 2008

"Gay Conservative" Is Not An Oxymoron

"Gay Conservative" Is Not An Oxymoron

The blogger GayPatriot responds to a criticism that he isn't a conservative, and can't be, because he's a homosexual:
I ask Knight the same thing I ask some of my liberal critics: do you even read my posts? This guy hasn’t a clue about my ideas.
It’s amazing how many errors I can find in that short quotation. What drives Mr. Knight’s need to paint all gay people with such a broad brush, assuming we are anti-family or favor “taxpayer-funded promotion of homosexuality”?
How eager Robert Knight is to deny my conservatism at the same time he misrepresents my ideas.
While I do lean libertarian (with a small “L”), I am definitely a conservative. I would hardly call myself a gay activist. I do write about gay issues, but don’t militate for political action, not seeing government as appropriate institution to promote the social changes I seek.
I oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for a great variety of reasons (link solution in search of problem), including a recognition of the dangers it poses to freedom of religion and association. It may make it difficult for social conservatives to exclude gays from their groups, just as it would make it difficult for gays to exclude non-gays from our groups. I may disagree with such exclusion, but do believe citizens should remain free to associate with whomever they choose.
I’m a member of a gay group which filed an amicus brief on behalf the Boy Scouts.
Knight’s notions notwithstanding, I recently wrote a piece defending the right of Canadian pastors to express their views of homosexuality, even when I disagree with those views. I took a Canadian Human Rights (sic) Panel to task when it punished a pastor for saying things I thought were just plain wrong. That wasn’t the only time I defended the right of a prominent person to make anti-gay statements.

I recognize the central importance of family to our society. I love my family more than this man could possibly know. I can still recall the sense of relief I felt when my Dad responded favorably to my coming out. Heck, I just returned from a trip to Cincinnati to be with my Mom when she went in for an operation. Those who read this blog know I think my nieces and nephews rule the world.
It’s not just because I’m conservative that I value my family. I can’t tell you the number of gay people I know, of nearly every political affiliation, who have a similar regard for their families.
Not just that, had he read this blog, he would know that I believe monogamy is a defining element of marriage. And have regularly criticized gay activists for misrepresenting that ancient and honorable institution.
There are people that call themselves "gay conservatives" but really are more libertarian than conservative. But as the quoted remarks above suggest, GayPatriot really is a conservative. We might not agree on everything, but I am certainly not going to push him into the enemy camp.

Poor Choices Of Words...Start Wars

Poor Choices Of Words...Start Wars

Back in 1950, President Truman asserted that South Korea was outside our defense perimeter. And the result? North Korea invaded, starting the Korean War. President Bush gets endless criticism for "Bushisms"--sometimes clumsy or unique uses of English. So watch this clip of a speech that Senator Obama gave to the American Israel Political Action Committee where he says that Jerusalem must remain the capital of Israel and undivided--and then watch what happens when ABC's Charles Gibson asks him about that (over at Mitchell Blatt's blog), and Obama calls it a poor choice of a word, but can't seem to come up with a way to finesse whether it should remain undivided or not.

This is like "a little bit pregnant." (Although Obama has a solution for that!) Jerusalem divided is a binary choice: it will be, or it won't be. Regardless of whether it is or isn't divided, a poor choice of words by the President can start a war. Remember when the left got all twitterpated by Reagan's admittedly foolish joke during a radio sound check? "The bombing will start in five minutes."

Watching Obama's stumbling around, looking for a way to answer Gibson's serious questions about a serious problem, it strikes me that Obama needed to either say: "Yes, Jerusalem will remain undivided," or "This is negotiable." Watching him fumble around trying to come up with a non-zero, non-one answer to a binary question gives me the impression that his "great speaker" credentials are the sign of great delivery of a speech--not necessarily of great off-the-cuff eloquence. As someone once observed of Winston Churchill's ability to give great speeches, but not do so well at answering questions: "Heavy guns, but not very mobile."

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

The July 23, 2008 Investors Business Daily reports on contributions by journalists to political campaigns:
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
Of course, we know that as soon as these journalists get to work, they drop all biases and assumptions about politics, and are just completely fair and evenhanded in how they cover the election. Right?

Obamamessiah

Obamamessiah

A number of people have pointed out the absurdity of how people are responding to Obama--an idol worship that would be silly if he were an entertainer, but is downright scary because he is a politician. This piece of satire in the July 25, 2008 Times of London really captures the insanity:
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
...
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
Let me emphasize: this isn't an attack on Obama. It's an attack on the bizarre idol worship that is going on about this guy.

This piece in the July 25, 2008 Telegraph isn't so clever--it just points out that Obama is, once again, out of his depth:
he words sounded wonderful. "Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together," Barack Obama told 200,000 gathered for his speech at the Victory Column. Only trouble is, that's not the case - since Good Friday peace agreement in 1998, the walls dividing Belfast's sectarian enclaves (known as the "peace line") have been going up, not coming down.

Obama has no excuse for getting this wrong because his own Northern Ireland adviser Trina Vargo wrote an oped piece in the "Irish Times" in February that began with the words "Belfast's so-called peace walls remain". It quoted former Senator George Mitchell - who chaired the Good Fiday talks - as saying: "I hope and pray that I live to see the day when the peace line goes the way of the Berlin Wall: its destruction will be the symbolic end of an age of conflict."
In September 2007 Vargo even drew a direct contrast between the wall coming down in Berlin and walls staying up in Belfast in another "Irish Times" piece in which she asked: "With things settling down in Northern Ireland, isn't it time to consider taking down the so-called 'peace' walls separating communities instead of erecting more""
A quick Google search would have clued in Obama's speechwriters. Shawn Pogatchnik, the long-time Belfast correspondent for the AP, wrote a piece in May that was headlined "Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number" in "USA Today". He reported: "Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast's barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they've grown in both size and number."
I checked in with a couple friends in Belfast last night. They confirmed that the trend I witnessed while reporting from Northern Ireland up to late 1999 has continued. While there has been dramatic political progress in Northern Ireland, if anything there has been an increase in sectarianism. The consensus is that it will take at least another generation before Protestants and Catholics can "find a way to live together" in a fashion that the rest of the civilised world would consider normal.
Look, I don't expect Obama to be an expert on everything. I don't expect any president to be an expert on even a few things. I do expect that before making a factual statement in a speech about something important, that the president, or his advisers, would see if the factual statement had any actual facts backing it up.

Obama's Going To "Soak The Rich"

Obama's Going To "Soak The Rich"

So why are rich people pouring money into his campaign? According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama has raised $340 million for his campaign. A breakdown by donor amount for individual contributors shows that the bulk of that money was in the category was $1000 and up--and a very large chunk was contributions of $2300 and up.

The $2300 and up group contributed a total of $68,735,311, from 26,194 contributors--or an average of $2624 each. In the $4600 and up group, the average contribution is $4702.

Pretty obviously, someone who gives this kind of money to a political campaign is pretty well off. I notice a number of the $5000 contributions are from people that list their occupation as "homemaker." I believe the correct term is "independently wealthy."--like Warren Buffett, the billionaire who gave $4600 to the Obama campaign. And cheapskate billionaire George Soros, who only gave $2100 to the Obama campaign.

So with all the rhetoric from Obama about raising taxes, why are rich people funding his campaign? For the same reason that billionaires and the independently wealthy have, at least throughout my lifetime, heavily funded "soak the rich" leftists: the "rich" people that they are going to soak aren't rich at all. (And this isn't new. When I was reading about socialist communes in Los Angeles in the 1900-1920 era, it was not surprising to find that millionaires funded these political activities. Similarly, the Bolsheviks raised at least some of their money in Czarist Russia by marrying into the aristocracy. Lenin, for example, was part of the minor aristocracy.)

Raising income taxes has only a limited impact on the wealthy people that fund the Democratic Party. If you have $5 million in net assets, income taxes are purely voluntary. If you buy municipal bonds of your state of residence, the interest on them is exempt from federal and state income tax. Right now, interest rates are down, and if you were buying munis, you probably would only get about a 4% return. If you are one of the poor Democratic fat cats, your $5 million will only return you $200,000 a year in tax-free income--why, you might have to wash your own dishes with that little money. (And of course, if you are a more average Democratic fat cat, with $100 million in net assets, you have to live on a miserable $4 million a year in tax-free interest.)

So what does raising income taxes on families that make $100,000 a year do? It prevents people that are not yet rich from becoming so. And that's why Democrats talk about how the rich people get away with so much--but never propose taxing assets--only income. Because if they talked about taxing assets, most of their campaign contribution base would dry up. These are people that like to talk about helping the poor, but most of them don't believe it enough to give away their excess wealth, and have to live on a miserable $200,000 a year. It is so much easier to fund people like Obama who make sure that the rest of us won't get to that point.

This is one of the reasons that this country lurches back and forth between left and right. Republicans generally push for cutting income taxes, which allows some people to become obscenely rich. Once enough wealth accumulates that there are people who no longer have to work for a living, because they are obscenely rich, many of them shut off the opportunity for others to get that well off, by electing Democrats.

Getting Up To The Top of Big Bertha

Getting Up To The Top of Big Bertha

I mentioned a week or so ago the problems with the stepstool I have been using to reach the eyepiece on Big Bertha 2.0. It wasn't quite tall enough, it's a little rickety, and in the dark, it is very easy to get disoriented.

I took one step to solving the elevation problem by lowering everything by about eight inches. I needed to bore the interior of a short segment of 6" OD aluminum tubing to 5.7" ID--but my lathe wasn't big enough. A former co-worker has an older Atlas lathe, and was happy to turn it for me. The Atlas as a power feed (meaning that you don't have to advance the cutting tool by turning a crank). The more I watched this, the more tempted I was to get the power feed for my lathe. Anyway, Big Bertha's eyepiece is now quite a bit lower, less chance of banging into the top of the garage door when moving it in and out, lower center of gravity--all the way around a big win.

I think I may have found a combination of price and functionality that make sense. Louisville Ladders makes this rolling warehouse ladder that has casters that let you roll it, but as soon as you step on, the weight locks them. The top platform is 30" high, which I believe would be high enough. (The stepstool I use now is 20" high, and it is only a little stretch to look through the eyepiece in a couple of odd angles.) It has handrails, and a rail at the top of the platform so that you don't have any risk of falling over the top. Load capacity is 350 pounds--which might be useful if two people are both at the top at the same time. And it is only $235. (I suspect shipping isn't going to be real cheap, however.) There is also a a 40" high version for just a bit more money--perhaps worth getting.

It appears that Louisville Ladder may make this in America, which is nice, and really not surprising, when you consider that shipping costs on something this large might wipe out the advantages of cheap Chinese labor and the absurd yuan-dollar exchange rate.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Digital TV Converters

Digital TV Converters

If you weren't already aware of this:

On February 17, 2009 all full-power broadcast television stations in the United States will stop broadcasting on analog airwaves and begin broadcasting only in digital. Digital broadcasting will allow stations to offer improved picture and sound quality and additional channels.
A couple months back, I went to this website and asked for two of the $40 coupons for digital TV converters. I went out and bought two of the RCA boxes today at Wal-Mart. By the time I left the store, it cost me $25.

Because we are in a so-so area for broadcast TV, I was expecting that the digital signal might be a bit better than the analog signal. My, that was an understatement! The broadcast digital channels are as sharp and beautiful as the satellite channels! If I had realized how much of an improvement this was going to be, I would have done this sooner!

Of course, remember that if the digital signal is too weak, you won't get anything at all--and I had to fiddle a bit with the rabbit ears to get a couple of the digital channels to come in. But where before I had channels 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12 (as well as religious broadcasting on 18 and 31 that we never watch), now I have thirteen digital broadcast channels. Most the stations actually broadcast different shows on different subchannels--4, the PBS station, actually has five separate subchannels, everything from serious public affairs to Barney.

There's also show some limited programming information (what's on now, what's on next), although from what I have seen so far, there's so mismatches between what's being broadcast and the program description. Another nice feature is that this box has V-chip support, which as broadcast television gets raunchier, may be useful for keeping the trash away from your kids, your spouse, and you. (Democrats may prefer to block anything rated G or PG instead.)

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

This Doesn't Speak Well of the Knox County DA

This Doesn't Speak Well of the Knox County DA

The problem of mentally ill people--or just emotionally disturbed sorts--confessing to crimes that they didn't do--and often could not have done--isn't new. This story from the July 23, 2008 Knoxville [Tenn.] News gives me no confidence in the ability of the Knox County District Attorney's office to do its job:
Ronald E. Greene had murder on his mind and a confession on his lips when he sat down with a Knoxville Police Department investigator and a tape recorder.
He could not recall with certainty who he killed, when he killed, how he killed or why he killed. He spent more time and offered greater detail in the 22-minute interview describing who he wanted to kill but so far had not: Buster, who drank his liquor; Maurine, who was trying to kill him with nitroglycerine; and David, who blamed Greene for the pneumonia that led to his father's death. He was not, however, trying to kill any prostitutes with a hatchet. He just wanted to scare them straight.
Yes, he confessed, he has to take "a lot of medicine" for mental health woes that had even a veteran KPD investigator worried about the state of Greene's mind.
But none of those red flags stopped the Knox County District Attorney's Office from charging Greene, 40, with second-degree murder in a slaying that had gone unsolved for more than a decade. After all, Greene had confessed.
"I done it, and I'm guilty, and I want to die," Greene insisted in his interview with KPD Sgt. Tim Snoderly.
And Greene knew exactly where the slaying took place. Turns out, though, he forgot to mention one tiny detail that went undiscovered for more than a year: At the time of the slaying, Greene was at a state-run mental health facility hundreds of miles away, sent there with the knowledge of the same district attorney's office that, until last week, insisted Greene was a killer.
It would take defense attorney Steve Sams' examination of court records and the Knox County Justice Information Management System, to which District Attorney General Randy Nichols' staff has access, to prove that Greene could not have beaten Richard Allen Sweat to death underneath the Woodland Avenue viaduct in 1994.
Yup, that seems like a pretty open and shut alibi to me.

Global Warming Graphs

Global Warming Graphs

I have no way to verify the accuracy of these graphs--but they rather fit with a lot of what I have posted here over the last several years about global warming. For example, this graph showing global temperature data for the last few years:



The dashed lines are the trend line--downward.

A much more detailed report is here showing that while CO2 concentrations keep rising since 1998--there is no statistically significant temperature rise to go along with it. Now, this doesn't prove that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures. But it does make you ask why rising CO2 levels aren't having a measurable effect over this time period. Maybe the effect is far less than the global warming claimers want to believe. Maybe it is being overwhelmed by some other change (hint: solar output changes). But it should make you very skeptical that the global warming claimers have it right.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle

You may recall that I mentioned this documentary produced by channel 4 in Britain last year. The global warming fanatics complained to the government agency responsible for telling television networks what they are allowed to say, and how ("Ofcom," whatever that stands for). And the report that came out largely vindicated the producers of the documentary. BBC (which is part of the global warming scam) described the results like this:
In a long-awaited judgement, Ofcom says Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues.
The film also treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead audiences "so as to cause harm or offence".
Plaintiffs say the Ofcom judgement is "inconsistent" and "lets Channel 4 off the hook on a technicality."

...

The broadcaster argued that the judgement vindicated its decision to showcase the documentary.
"Ofcom's ruling explicitly recognises Channel 4's right to show the programme and the paramount importance of broadcasters being able to challenge orthodoxies and explore controversial subject matter," said Hamish Mykura, the station's head of documentaries.
"This is particularly relevant to Channel 4 with its public remit and commitment to giving airtime to alternative perspectives."
On another issue - whether contributors to the programme had been treated fairly - Ofcom mainly found against Channel 4 and the film's producer WagTV.
Former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King had been misquoted and had not been given a chance to put his case, the regulator said.
Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been invited to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but which turned out to be "an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

Wow! Can you imagine? A documentary about a controversial subject that promoted a particular point of view! What a shocker! Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit points out that the relatively small number of complaints upheld was nothing compared to the complaints that Ofcom decided were without merit, or outside their area of competence:

None of the complaints alleging lack of due impartiality in the science portion (sections 1-4) was upheld. Not one. The only bone thrown to the complainants was a finding that there had not been due impartiality in the portion talking about Africa - an issue that Bob Ward and the Myles Allen 37 didn’t even mention.

When Obama Supporters Admit It...

When Obama Supporters Admit It...

It's probably a sign that victory in Iraq in almost unavoidable. From Time magazine's blog, Joe Klein admits:
The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point.
Now, Klein thinks it is "scurrilous" for McCain to point out that Obama wanted to withdraw U.S. forces last year, because Obama was convinced that the surge would make things worse, not better:
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
Is there anyone that doesn't think that the Democrats would rather lose Iraq than lose the race for President?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Right of Newspapers To Keep And Bear Machine Guns

The Right of Newspapers To Keep And Bear Machine Guns

I'll say this for nineteenth century American journalists--you would never use the word "wimp" to describe them! The British naval officer and novelist Frederick Marryat, visiting America in 1837, wrote about the role of libel and slander in provoking duels:
Slander and detraction are the inseperable [sic] evils of a democracy, and as neither public nor private characters are spared, and the law is impotent to protect them, men have no other recourse than to defend their reputations with their lives, or to deter the defamer by the risk which he must incur.

And where political animosities are carried to such a length as they are in this exciting climate, there is no time given for coolness and reflection. Indeed, for one American who would attempt to prevent a duel, there are ten who would urge the parties on to the conflict.... The majority of the editors of the newspapers in America are constantly practicing with the pistol, that they may be ready when called upon, and are most of them very good shots.... But the worst feature in the American system of duelling is, that they do not go out, as we do in this country, to satisfy honour, but with the determination to kill. [Frederick Marryat, Diary in America, edited by Jules Zanger (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1839; reprinted Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1960), 195-6]
I've read that the New York Times ordered up some Gatling guns to protect the newspaper during the New York City Draft Riots, during the Civil War, when enraged antiwar protesters upset about the draft murdered hundreds (some say, thousands) of blacks, burning down black orphanages with the children inside. A few years back, an acquaintance who invited me to speak at Columbia University told me that he had actually seen a photograph of a Gatling gun on the roof of the New York Times building. I was a bit skeptical, but I now have considerable evidence that the Gatling gun was on the roof only because the strafing run hadn't yet been invented.

All the following sources agree that the New York Times had Gatling guns set up to deal with rioters; using the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect the First Amendment right of a free (non-smoldering) press.
John Swinton, Memories of the New York Times, New York Times, March 27, 1898; Paul Wahl and Donald R. Toppel, The Gatling Gun 24-25 (Arco Publishing Co., 1965); Lawrence Milton Woods, British Gentlemen In The Wild West: The Era Of The Intensely English Cowboy 42 (Collier Macmillan, 1989); Don Carlos Seitz, Horace Greeley: Founder Of The New York Tribune 209 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1926). Not only was Henry Raymond, the publisher of the Times manning the guns, so was Winston Churchill's grandfather, who was part owner.

Really Dumb

Really Dumb

Idaho law allows open carry. Back when we had a discretionary concealed carry permit law, and it wasn't that easy to get a permit, open carry made a bit of sense. But today? From the July 20, 2008 Idaho Statesman:
When you go to the zoo, you expect to see monkeys, ducks in a pond. You don't usually expect to see visitors with handguns.
But you would have, had you visited Zoo Boise Saturday morning.
About 10 members of the local chapter of OpenCarry.org, a national group that advocates for citizens' rights to openly carry handguns, met there.
After a little confusion at the front desk about whether it's legal to bring an unconcealed handgun into the zoo - it is - the group bought tickets and sauntered through the front gates like all the other visitors.
That they were no different from all the other visitors was the point the group members were trying to make.
"Coming to the zoo was something we could do together, like any family would," said Carol Schultz of Nampa. She is never without her handgun and holds her holster in place with a heart-studded belt.
Do you know how to upset people, really fast? Force them to confront the reality that many people own and carry guns. It isn't even like open carry has some great advantage over concealed carry when it comes to self-defense. It's a bit quicker to draw, sure, but if a random spree killer is deciding who to attack first, guess who's first? The person who is obviously armed.

Open carry may make you as an individual somewhat safer from criminal attack, because it encourages those criminals who don't have a death wish to go look for an easier target. Concealed carry, however, makes everyone safer--because the criminal doesn't know if his intended victim is going to draw a gun--or perhaps a bystander is going to do so.

Open carry is constitutionally protected, as the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the decision In re Brickey (Ida. 1902). But that doesn't mean that this is the most appropriate or most polite way to carry a gun.

Don't be rude. Don't be stupid.

UPDATE: It strikes me that there is an analogy to gay men who feel the need to have sex in public view (something that I have blogged about before). Just about every adult knows that there is homosexual sex happening out there. Most Americans aren't approving of it, but at least it isn't something that they have to see. It's an abstraction. When you walk down a public beach in Rhode Island, or along the Russian River in California, and there are guys having sex, it is no longer an abstraction. It's a reminder that someone wants you to see what they are doing, or at least doesn't care that it might not be what others want to see.

Now, some of the goal of both groups--public sex and open carry--is desensitization. They are hoping that if people see this happening on a regular basis, that it will no longer be shocking, and eventually, everyone will get used to it. There are people for whom this is probably true, and it is part of why television shows make a point of including gay characters--to get everyone used to it, so that it is no longer shocking. But for most people, public sex and open carry--and especially in a setting where there are children present--it has the opposite effect: it infuriates, enrages, or (at best) annoys.

UPDATE 2: I keep getting emails, so let me clarify. You have a right to open carry in Idaho and many other states. I would not for a minute propose that this should be illegal. But if your actions drive people that are neutral about guns into the enemy camp, should you do it?

Weird Dreams

Weird Dreams

I dreamed of thermodynamic chemistry last night--delta G, delta H, the graphs showing relative heat of the reactants and products, the threshold that prevents the reaction from going forward, how catalysts lower the threshold. I studied thermodynamics in general chemistry back in 1975 at USC. I've made no use of it since.

In A Christmas Carol, Scrooge decides that the Ghost of Christmas Past is really a bad dream caused by a bit of "undigested potato." What you have a dream this weird, you ask yourself, "Where did this come from?"

UPDATE: My wife tells me that we had a spectacular electrical storm during the night--among the most impressive that she has seen (and we get some good ones here). I managed to sleep right through it, but perhaps all that flashing and thunder put my sleeping mind to thinking of the energy involved in thermodynamics!

UPDATE 2: A reader passed this piece of nerd humor to me:

The Thermodynamics Song
(tune: Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Heat content and fugacity revolved within his brain,
Like molecules and atoms that you never have to name,
And logarithmic functions that revolved within his dreams,
And partial molar quantities devouring chocolate creams.
(chorus)
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,

Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll pass you by and by.
They asked him on the final if a mole of any gas,
In a bottle with a membrane through which hydrogen could pass,
Were compressed to half its volume, what its entropy would be,
If two thirds of delta sigma equals half of delta phi.
(chorus)
He said he guessed the entropy would have to equal four,
Unless the second law might bring it up a couple more,
It might be almost seven if the Carnot law applied,
And it maybe might be zero if the delta T should slide.
(chorus)
The professor read the paper with a corrugated brow,
For he knew he had to grade it but he didn't quite know how,
And then an inspiration from his cerebellum smote,
And he grabbed his trusty fountain pen and this is what he wrote.
(chorus)
As you have guessed the entropy, so I must guess your grade,
Though the second law won't raise it to the mark you might have made,
It might have been a hundred if your guesses had been good,
But I think it must be zero 'till they're rightly understood.
(final chorus)

Glory, glory, dear old thermo,

Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll try again next year.





Monday, July 21, 2008

Privileges & Immunities: What Did It Mean?

Privileges & Immunities: What Did It Mean?
If you are familiar with the historical question about the meaning of the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and whether it incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, you may find this of interest. The "privileges and immunities" clause appears first in the Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 2, where it guaranteed that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." What does that mean? There are a number of arguments about how that was understood, but I found this discussion quite interesting, in an 1838 complaint from black Ohioans about discriminatory laws of that state:
All residents of the state were prohibited, by penal laws, from hiring or employing, in any manner whatever, any person subject to this law, who had failed to comply with its provisions, while the citizens of other states, who had not gained a residence, were exempted from such penalties. Nor were the projectors of this measure satisfied with casting them out beyond the protection of law, and depriving them of the means of obtaining a lawful subsistence: but they made it the duty of the officers of townships to remove them by force out of the state, for disobedience to these laws. By the same process of legislation, every right secured by the constitution may be taken from the citizens of the state. The right of suffrage, the right to bear arms, the right of the people to assemble together and consult for the common good; the right to speak, write, and print upon any subject, might be trammeled with such conditions, as to preclude their free exercise by a large portion of the citizens to whom they are secured. There is no greater security given for the right of suffrage, to those who now enjoy it, by the constitution, than is given to all men of acquiring and protecting property, pursuing happiness and safety, and of enjoying personal liberty. The constitution was formed with a full knowledge that our population was comprised of white and colored persons. The rights and privileges of the one class were as clearly defined and settled, and as sacredly secured, as the other, by that instrument. The discrimination was distinctly made and expressed in unequivocal terms, whenever it was intended to confer any political privilege upon the one, from which the other was to be excluded. But these laws are not only repugnant to the constitution of this state, and to the principles of our free institutions, they are also in direct contravention of the constitution of the United States. That document declares, that 'the citizens of each shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' What is the plain and obvious import of this provision? What was the manifest design of its insertion? Can there be any doubt as to its construction or intention? Was it not intended to secure to all the citizens, in each state, the right of ingress and egress to and from them, and the privileges of trade, commerce, and employment in them, of acquiring and holding property, and sustaining and defending life and liberty in any state in the Union? Does it not form one of the conditions of our national compact?[1]



[1] “Unconstitutional Laws of Ohio,” The Liberator, April 6, 1838.
Their argument seems to be that "privileges and immunities" meant the protections of the Constitution for individual rights--such as the ones that they list. Hmmm. That's the argument that "full incorporation" advocates make--that the Fourteenth Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause was supposed to impose the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights onto the states.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Some Cool Photography By My Nephew Daniel

Some Cool Photography By My Nephew Daniel

My nephew Daniel Goldwasser is a photographer based in Los Angeles, and he has some examples of some of the TV commercials on which he has worked, as well as some very beautiful time lapse photography work. I especially like this Cadillac commercial showing the development of the Cadillac since 1902.

Moon Over Bogus Basin; Jupiter

Moon Over Bogus Basin; Jupiter

Unfortunately, I was so ga-ga over how beautiful the framing was, I didn't notice that I wasn't very sharply focused--on either Moon or trees (although they should be effectively identical focus). This is a prime focus at ASA 100 with the 17.5" f/4.5 reflector, 1/90th of a second.


Click to enlarge


I also tried to do eyepiece projection on Jupiter--still having a heck of a time getting a decent focus. You can tell that the cloud bands are there. Being still low in the sky, and with the Moon washing everything out, the cloud bands weren't dramatically more crisp in the eyepiece. This was 1/20th of a second, ASA 400, with an 18mm orthoscopic eyepiece projection.


Click to enlarge


I have also decided that whatever the limitations of Big Bertha's mirror, it is not clear that it has a turned edge. I am beginning to think that the problem was the lack of support of Big Bertha 1.0. I took the mirror mask off last night, and I couldn't see that there was any decline in image quality. I also tried to do the star test on Antares. While I couldn't get the diffraction rings (Antares was low in the sky, and there was a bit of turbulence), I didn't see any of the outside focus symptoms of turned down edge. It may not be a great mirror, but I can feel comfortable using the full aperture of the mirror now.

The big problem is that I need to get the telescope back down to Earth! I have the mount sitting on a 10.5" plus 12" column right now to get it high enough off the ground board to avoid collisions. What I need to do is is take out the 10.5" column, and build appropriate hardware to bolt the 12" column to the ground board. I still need a better stepladder than I am using, but even taking 10.5" out of the elevation would make a world of difference.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Limbaugh Listeners vs. National Public Radio Listeners

Limbaugh Listeners vs. National Public Radio Listeners

In some circles, Rush Limbaugh's listeners (Dittoheads, as they call themselves) are assumed to be knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. I confess, over the years, those people I knew who were regular Limbaugh listeners didn't impress me, largely because they weren't readers. So imagine my surprise at finding this July 6, 2008 New York Times article about Limbaugh with this amazing piece of information:
Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identify themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners. The study found that “readers of newsmagazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR and viewers of the Daily Show and C-SPAN are also much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.” [emphasis added]
I suspect that if you let most NPR readers in on this secret, it would cause an epidemic of strokes.

Consensus Meltdown

Consensus Meltdown

The Physics & Society forum of the American Physical Society (that is to say, the professional association of physicists--about 50,000 members) has backed away from their support for anthropogenic global warming:
With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.
Oh dear. I guess that this isn't settled science. The discussion over at July 16, 2008 Daily Tech includes this:
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
When all the major politicians (Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, McCain, Gingrich) take a position on the same side of an issue--you can be pretty sure that they have it wrong.

Interesting Parallels

Interesting Parallels

This comes out of a Pennsylvania trial of those who had resisted enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. I found this in the December 18, 1851 National Era, one of the black nationa newspapers of the time:
He said the gentleman had mistaken the temper and misunderstood the character and position of our people, when he indulged in his long and severe lecture upon them. He said we were not situated like citizens of the South. We felt secure in our homes, and could turn out in defence of our country, to resist an enemy, or suppress an insurrection, leaving the protection of our homes and firesides to the women, without apprehending any danger from a domestic and a servile adversary. We were not compelled to forbid the reading of the Bible by any of our people, or to forbid their instruction in letters. We had no laws to authorize one man to beat another immoderately, or to whip women. We had no laws to forbid the wearing swords as dangerous weapons, or to prohibit the sale of powder and ball to any man, of any color, or of any extraction. We permitted every one to have arms, to bear arms, and to use arms, with the proper limits of legal propriety; we had public schools for the general instruction of the people, where the child of the poor man stands on an equal footing with the child of the rich; every man's home is held sacred, and is secure, and the rights and duties of the domestic relations are guarded and enforced by the law, and maintained with all the moral sanctions of a correct public opinion.
The Democrats haven't quite reached the point of forbidding the reading of the Bible (yet), but their contempt for teaching anything based on that book is pretty clear. And they certainly have their position about guns pretty well staked out--and in the same position that they took back then.