Just because I saw it somewhere else and love it, watch "Pac-Man: The Movie"
The twisted tale of four ghosts trapped in a maze while being stalked by a giant yellow monster.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Indian Prophecy
In 1755 George Washington marched with the army of Major General Edward Braddock as part of the expedition to capture Fort Duquesne, held by the French. Washington was serving as an aide-de-camp to the General at the time. The British regulars, drilled for traditional combat, were ambushed by a force of French and American Indians, severely beaten by guerrilla tactics and forced to retreat. Then Colonel Washington took the lead after Gen. Braddock was shot and salvaged the situation the best he could.
"15 years later, in the fall of 1770, Washington and several other men traveled to the Ohio river to examine some of the western lands that had been granted to colonial veterans of the French and Indian War. During the journey they were met by an Indian trader who "declared that he was conducting a party which consisted of a grand sachem and some attendant warriors; that the chief was a very great man among the northwestern tribes, and the same who [had] commanded the Indians at the fall of Braddock.... Hearing of the visit of Colonel Washington to the western country, this chief had set out on a mission, the object of which [he] himself would make known." (32) After the two groups had arranged themselves around a council fire, the old Indian rose and spoke to the group through an interpreter:
32. George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, ed. Benson J. Lossing (New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860), p. 302.
33. Ibid., pp. 303-4. This incident was related personally by Dr. James Craik, an eyewitness, to G.W.P. Custis, Martha Washington's grandson.
Excerpt from The Real George Washington
There is some discussion as to the veracity of the above. However, it is hard to imagine a better source than Dr. Craik, who sat at the fire, heard the prophecy and reported it to Martha Washington's grandson.
Note that George Washington, despite receiving many holes to his clothing, was never injured in battle so far as I've been able to determine.
"15 years later, in the fall of 1770, Washington and several other men traveled to the Ohio river to examine some of the western lands that had been granted to colonial veterans of the French and Indian War. During the journey they were met by an Indian trader who "declared that he was conducting a party which consisted of a grand sachem and some attendant warriors; that the chief was a very great man among the northwestern tribes, and the same who [had] commanded the Indians at the fall of Braddock.... Hearing of the visit of Colonel Washington to the western country, this chief had set out on a mission, the object of which [he] himself would make known." (32) After the two groups had arranged themselves around a council fire, the old Indian rose and spoke to the group through an interpreter:
"I am a chief, and the ruler over many tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes, and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle.References
"It was on the day when the white man's blood mixed with the streams of our forest that I first beheld this chief. I called to my young men and said, Mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe-he hath an Indian's wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do-himself is alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were levelled, rifles which but for him knew not how to miss-'twas all in vain; a power mightier far than we shielded him from harm. He cannot die in battle.
"I am old, and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades; but ere I go there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy. Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his destinies-he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire!" (33)
32. George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, ed. Benson J. Lossing (New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860), p. 302.
33. Ibid., pp. 303-4. This incident was related personally by Dr. James Craik, an eyewitness, to G.W.P. Custis, Martha Washington's grandson.
Excerpt from The Real George Washington
There is some discussion as to the veracity of the above. However, it is hard to imagine a better source than Dr. Craik, who sat at the fire, heard the prophecy and reported it to Martha Washington's grandson.
Note that George Washington, despite receiving many holes to his clothing, was never injured in battle so far as I've been able to determine.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Discussion after House Passage of H.R. 2454
Following yesterday's passage of H.R. 2454 in the House of Representatives, there was naturally some discussion by people who were following the legislation. Tangent: Please contact your Senators and let them know you oppose the passage of any Senate version of H.R. 2454.
One disturbing comment I saw was this one:
"Predictably, I am in favor of it. Bring on the truth in pricing. If I'm doing or buying something that is particularly bad for the earth, I might as well know it, and decide if it is worth my money and my kid's future. (And yes, I know there are many ways the big G is messing with our children's futures.) But then, I saw this coming years ago and started shrinking our family 'footprint' well in advance of government compulsion, so maybe I am just being annoyingly smug. Sorry."
Many environmental activists may feel the same way today, so let me take a moment to say what I feel is wrong with it.
"Bring on the truth in pricing."
What truth? My understanding of this comment is that additional cost in energy and products is warranted. Why? They already reflect current costs of energy creation, salaries of those involved, etc. If the truth is the cost to the environment of carbon dioxide production, then I dispute the term truth. There is plenty of room for doubt about carbon dioxide's effect on the environment and the theory (yes, theory, not fact) of anthropogenic global warming. Here are just a few posts on this blog on the subject, each referencing solid outside sources:
Say No to Cap and Trade. Oppose H.R. 2454
California's Going to Tax Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Cautionary Tale
The End of Global Warming (inaccurate data throws the entire theory into doubt)
Al Gore, the face of Global Warming doesn't act like he believes his own theory
Then again, fewer and fewer people do believe in anthropogenic global warming
Nevertheless, despite much inquiry into the credibility of the theory and his own actions, Gore still pushes global warming legislation before congress
This despite the fact that arctic ice doesn't really seem to be disappearing as originally reported
That other planets were behaving similarly to Earth (pointing to an extraplanatary cause, meaning any climate change was not likely anthropogenic)
And that Earth now seems to be cooling, or at the very least, temperatures have been flat since 2001. This is all cited in the resources linked in the various posts linked above.
So, it's clear the global climate change bill isn't about truth. It's about a very questionable theory.
That means there's a huge problem with forcing this policy on everyone. Because the science is not settled, the belief in anthropogenic global warming is real is just a belief. Many scientists have characterized it as a religious belief. It is not fair, nor even Constitutional, to force anyone's belief on anyone else by legislation.
There's also the matter of a legislative instead of a market-based solution. If the commenter would like to pay more to offset her carbon footprint, she is free to do so. Most utility companies offer the option to pay a bit more for the delivery of green energy. Entire lines of products are devoted to environmentally friendly options that usually cost a bit more. As demand for such goods and energy increases, they will become more prevalent in the marketplace. That's the American solution, rather than the authoritarian socialist solution passed by the House of Representatives yesterday. The market solution is in keeping with the Constitution and the founding principles of our nation. Better yet, no one's free will or rights are abridged.
The most basic concept of the founding of America is liberty. Key to that concept is that your rights extend precisely to the point where they infringe upon mine, and there they stop! Naturally, the opposite is also true. My rights end when they infringe upon yours.
Finally, there's the matter of being in favor of this bill. How could anyone possibly be? No one had time to read the over 1200 pages of bill, let alone the over 300 pages of amendment added at 3 AM the day of the vote. We don't know what's in there, and that may well be the scariest part. A vote should never take place unless the legislature and the people have had a time to read and consider what's being voted on.
As an aside, the poster was right; her smugness doesn't help her cause, nor does her sense of moral superiority give her any special right to force her beliefs on me, at a cost my family can't afford.
One disturbing comment I saw was this one:
"Predictably, I am in favor of it. Bring on the truth in pricing. If I'm doing or buying something that is particularly bad for the earth, I might as well know it, and decide if it is worth my money and my kid's future. (And yes, I know there are many ways the big G is messing with our children's futures.) But then, I saw this coming years ago and started shrinking our family 'footprint' well in advance of government compulsion, so maybe I am just being annoyingly smug. Sorry."
Many environmental activists may feel the same way today, so let me take a moment to say what I feel is wrong with it.
"Bring on the truth in pricing."
What truth? My understanding of this comment is that additional cost in energy and products is warranted. Why? They already reflect current costs of energy creation, salaries of those involved, etc. If the truth is the cost to the environment of carbon dioxide production, then I dispute the term truth. There is plenty of room for doubt about carbon dioxide's effect on the environment and the theory (yes, theory, not fact) of anthropogenic global warming. Here are just a few posts on this blog on the subject, each referencing solid outside sources:
Say No to Cap and Trade. Oppose H.R. 2454
California's Going to Tax Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Cautionary Tale
The End of Global Warming (inaccurate data throws the entire theory into doubt)
Al Gore, the face of Global Warming doesn't act like he believes his own theory
Then again, fewer and fewer people do believe in anthropogenic global warming
Nevertheless, despite much inquiry into the credibility of the theory and his own actions, Gore still pushes global warming legislation before congress
This despite the fact that arctic ice doesn't really seem to be disappearing as originally reported
That other planets were behaving similarly to Earth (pointing to an extraplanatary cause, meaning any climate change was not likely anthropogenic)
And that Earth now seems to be cooling, or at the very least, temperatures have been flat since 2001. This is all cited in the resources linked in the various posts linked above.
So, it's clear the global climate change bill isn't about truth. It's about a very questionable theory.
That means there's a huge problem with forcing this policy on everyone. Because the science is not settled, the belief in anthropogenic global warming is real is just a belief. Many scientists have characterized it as a religious belief. It is not fair, nor even Constitutional, to force anyone's belief on anyone else by legislation.
There's also the matter of a legislative instead of a market-based solution. If the commenter would like to pay more to offset her carbon footprint, she is free to do so. Most utility companies offer the option to pay a bit more for the delivery of green energy. Entire lines of products are devoted to environmentally friendly options that usually cost a bit more. As demand for such goods and energy increases, they will become more prevalent in the marketplace. That's the American solution, rather than the authoritarian socialist solution passed by the House of Representatives yesterday. The market solution is in keeping with the Constitution and the founding principles of our nation. Better yet, no one's free will or rights are abridged.
The most basic concept of the founding of America is liberty. Key to that concept is that your rights extend precisely to the point where they infringe upon mine, and there they stop! Naturally, the opposite is also true. My rights end when they infringe upon yours.
Finally, there's the matter of being in favor of this bill. How could anyone possibly be? No one had time to read the over 1200 pages of bill, let alone the over 300 pages of amendment added at 3 AM the day of the vote. We don't know what's in there, and that may well be the scariest part. A vote should never take place unless the legislature and the people have had a time to read and consider what's being voted on.
As an aside, the poster was right; her smugness doesn't help her cause, nor does her sense of moral superiority give her any special right to force her beliefs on me, at a cost my family can't afford.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Say No to Cap and Trade. Oppose H.R. 2454
Do you want to pay more for everything you need to survive, from electricity and gasoline to your cell phone and your child's Playstation?
Right now Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives are trying to ram a clearly unConstitutional bill on climate change down America's throat. Among the powers granted are the right to sweep aside any other legislation that might interfere with the implementation of this bill, and review by the Federal Government of all homes for an energy efficiency rating.
It's called H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, but don't let the pretty name fool you. It's the biggest tax in the history of the United States. It will increase your energy costs, and since all production and transportation of goods depends on energy, everything you buy will cost more.
Now that many people are waking up to the lie of anthropogenic global warming, Congress is hurrying to use the remaining cover to grab greater power over and take more taxes from the average American.
The science, once proclaimed by Al Gore as incontestable, is being shown to be shoddy and dishonest work by activists with agendas. As quoted widely today: "The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."
The lie of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a tremendous amount of money, and will start pushing businesses out of America just as it has done in Europe if this bill, and all future bills like it aren't stopped.
Remember, the policies proposed don't even work, according to reports from countries that have implemented them!
Call your representative now, e-mail him or her, fax him or her and register your opposition to H.R. 2454! Follow up on Monday. If they vote for this bill, do your best to keep them out of office during their next election cycle.
Update: HR 2454 has passed in the House of Representatives. Call your Senators and let them know you staunchly oppose this legislation. It must be stopped in the Senate.
Eight Republicans betrayed their constituency to vote for this awful bill. The voters of their districts should work hard to get them out of office. The list is given at Restate.com here or below:
Mary Bono Mack (45th District of California)
Mike Castle (Delaware)
Mark Steven Kirk (10th District of Illinois)
Leonard Lance (7th District of New Jersey)
Frank A. LoBiondo (2nd District of New Jersey)
John M. McHugh (23rd District of New York)
Dave Reichert (8th District of Washington)
Chris Smith (4th District of New Jersey)
While all our representatives should have voted against this massive hike on the cost of living for American families, especially in tough economic times, the above 8, as "conservatives" in theory, have more to answer for. The entire list of politicians who voted yes on raising your cost of living is available here. Vote them out!
Call your Senators now, and let them know you oppose the Senate version of the recently passed HR 2454.
Right now Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives are trying to ram a clearly unConstitutional bill on climate change down America's throat. Among the powers granted are the right to sweep aside any other legislation that might interfere with the implementation of this bill, and review by the Federal Government of all homes for an energy efficiency rating.
It's called H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, but don't let the pretty name fool you. It's the biggest tax in the history of the United States. It will increase your energy costs, and since all production and transportation of goods depends on energy, everything you buy will cost more.
Now that many people are waking up to the lie of anthropogenic global warming, Congress is hurrying to use the remaining cover to grab greater power over and take more taxes from the average American.
The science, once proclaimed by Al Gore as incontestable, is being shown to be shoddy and dishonest work by activists with agendas. As quoted widely today: "The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."
The lie of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a tremendous amount of money, and will start pushing businesses out of America just as it has done in Europe if this bill, and all future bills like it aren't stopped.
Remember, the policies proposed don't even work, according to reports from countries that have implemented them!
Call your representative now, e-mail him or her, fax him or her and register your opposition to H.R. 2454! Follow up on Monday. If they vote for this bill, do your best to keep them out of office during their next election cycle.
Update: HR 2454 has passed in the House of Representatives. Call your Senators and let them know you staunchly oppose this legislation. It must be stopped in the Senate.
Eight Republicans betrayed their constituency to vote for this awful bill. The voters of their districts should work hard to get them out of office. The list is given at Restate.com here or below:
Mary Bono Mack (45th District of California)
Mike Castle (Delaware)
Mark Steven Kirk (10th District of Illinois)
Leonard Lance (7th District of New Jersey)
Frank A. LoBiondo (2nd District of New Jersey)
John M. McHugh (23rd District of New York)
Dave Reichert (8th District of Washington)
Chris Smith (4th District of New Jersey)
While all our representatives should have voted against this massive hike on the cost of living for American families, especially in tough economic times, the above 8, as "conservatives" in theory, have more to answer for. The entire list of politicians who voted yes on raising your cost of living is available here. Vote them out!
Call your Senators now, and let them know you oppose the Senate version of the recently passed HR 2454.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
California's Going to Tax Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Cautionary Tale
California is considering taxing some industries in California "to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and combat global warming." This is a complete farce. As more data comes in, we're finding that Global Warming might in itself be a lie, as the globe is presently cooling, but there's plenty of evidence that carbon dioxide isn't the primary cause of warming anyway (that's discarding the fact that increased carbon dioxide causes increased plant growth and so may be important to crop yield) and that activists have been cooking the figures for years.
Let's lay that issue aside for the moment. What is really going on is that California wants to tax business to "raise more revenue." Of course, businesses don't pay tax, they pass it on in cost to the consumer. Add that to the fact that Congress is likely tomorrow to pass a tax and trade (I won't call it cap and trade) bill, which will pile on more of the same.
What will really happen? More businesses, following the example of hundreds of thousands in the last few years, will flee California's high tax, over-regulated environment, leaving fewer jobs in California for the people who are still willing to pay through the nose for Utopian policies or who are simply stuck here.
Consumers aren't going to be able to pay the increased cost of this tax. Lest you think this is a California only issue, remember that Tax and Trade in Europe has driven many of their industries out of the EU. When the U.S. Congress passes similar legislation (call your representatives today!) we'll have a similar flight of our remaining industry from the U.S.
Let's lay that issue aside for the moment. What is really going on is that California wants to tax business to "raise more revenue." Of course, businesses don't pay tax, they pass it on in cost to the consumer. Add that to the fact that Congress is likely tomorrow to pass a tax and trade (I won't call it cap and trade) bill, which will pile on more of the same.
What will really happen? More businesses, following the example of hundreds of thousands in the last few years, will flee California's high tax, over-regulated environment, leaving fewer jobs in California for the people who are still willing to pay through the nose for Utopian policies or who are simply stuck here.
Consumers aren't going to be able to pay the increased cost of this tax. Lest you think this is a California only issue, remember that Tax and Trade in Europe has driven many of their industries out of the EU. When the U.S. Congress passes similar legislation (call your representatives today!) we'll have a similar flight of our remaining industry from the U.S.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
You don't even have to study history not to repeat this mistake
Reuters is reporting that Representatives Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Anthony Weiner want Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax recently tightened standards for mortgages on new condominiums. They feel the current guidelines are causing housing to sell too slowly, thus prolonging the economic slump.
Even Barney Frank can't be quite that stupid. This crisis arose from government intervention, and government intervention will prolong it. Making lending easier after the .com crash led to the housing bubble. Lending organizations were also forced to make loans they knew they shouldn't or face accusations of redlining and racism. That is, had market forces not been interfered with, most of this wouldn't happened.
I sincerely hope Fannie and Freddie don't give in to Frank, but suspect they won't have much choice.
Even Barney Frank can't be quite that stupid. This crisis arose from government intervention, and government intervention will prolong it. Making lending easier after the .com crash led to the housing bubble. Lending organizations were also forced to make loans they knew they shouldn't or face accusations of redlining and racism. That is, had market forces not been interfered with, most of this wouldn't happened.
I sincerely hope Fannie and Freddie don't give in to Frank, but suspect they won't have much choice.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Words of Wisdom from George Washington
I'm reading "The Real George Washington" at the moment, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the founding of the U.S.
What is striking to me is that many of the situations that bothered him have parallels today, and many of his statements about them are similarly applicable.
"At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprication [sic] of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors; but the manner of doing it to answer the purpose effectually is the point in question.
"That no man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource." (George Washington to George Mason, April 5, 1769)
It is notable that Mr. Washington considered liberty an heritage from his ancestors, not a privilege granted by government.
With regard to the unreasonable taxation Great Britain was heaping upon the unwilling colonists at the time, he wrote:
"...the Parliament of Great Britain have no more right to put their hands into my pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for money." (George Washington to Bryan Fairfax, July 20, 1774).
This is a concept that is central to the original Constitution of the United States. That is, the government only exists and functions at the sufferance of the citizenry, and that its officers have no more power to do anything a citizen than does his neighbor or any other citizen. Thus, taxation can only be effected if the citizenry agrees to it, and it must be put to uses agreed upon by them. This is a deeply different idea from the current view of most of the U.S. and local governments, who see citizens only as a source of "revenue."
It would be well to politely remind your representative that you're more than a cash cow.
What is striking to me is that many of the situations that bothered him have parallels today, and many of his statements about them are similarly applicable.
"At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprication [sic] of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors; but the manner of doing it to answer the purpose effectually is the point in question.
"That no man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource." (George Washington to George Mason, April 5, 1769)
It is notable that Mr. Washington considered liberty an heritage from his ancestors, not a privilege granted by government.
With regard to the unreasonable taxation Great Britain was heaping upon the unwilling colonists at the time, he wrote:
"...the Parliament of Great Britain have no more right to put their hands into my pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for money." (George Washington to Bryan Fairfax, July 20, 1774).
This is a concept that is central to the original Constitution of the United States. That is, the government only exists and functions at the sufferance of the citizenry, and that its officers have no more power to do anything a citizen than does his neighbor or any other citizen. Thus, taxation can only be effected if the citizenry agrees to it, and it must be put to uses agreed upon by them. This is a deeply different idea from the current view of most of the U.S. and local governments, who see citizens only as a source of "revenue."
It would be well to politely remind your representative that you're more than a cash cow.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Missing the Mark on Education
AP missed the mark in a recent article on education in California. The entire column focuses on how the current financial crisis will reduce per capital funding and increase class sizes, which will destroy education in the state.
Unfortunately for this premise, California was spending less per pupil and taxing less per capita adjusted for inflation when it had a model educational system, great roads and a free California State University education for every lawful resident who wanted one.
California now ranks low on education even though it has some of the toughest teacher credentialing standards in the U.S. (to my knowledge, only New York is similarly difficult).
Our schools, even during the massive income years of the recent past, haven't performed well when flush with money. In fact, they seem to perform poorly no matter how well they're funded. Something else is going on, and if we're going to solve the problem, we have to look at it honestly and figure out what it is.
Pouring money on a problem doesn't usually solve it unless the money is used well. There's a lot of waste and mismanagement in California school districts as anyone in the system for a while can attest. I taught for two years, and have a friend who has been teaching for nearly two decades, a large portion of that in the Oakland, California school district. I saw corruption during my brief involvement in the profession. My friend has seen it on a much grander scale.
The "65 percent" solution might help, mandating that at least 65 percent of all funding go directly to classroom expenses. Detractors claim this strict guideline isn't actually helpful, but given what I've seen of administrative misuse of funds, I'd like to examine more data before I agree it's not effective.
It isn't just money we're misusing, though. We waste time. Any teacher will tell you that in California approximately the last month and a half of class time is spent on testing and assessments of various kinds. When you're using 15% of your school year on assessment instead of instruction, you'll convey less information to your students.
It's notable that part of the reason for the strict yet ineffectual credentialing and massive amount of assessment is that our legislature passes laws based on what feels good, so every time someone wants to tell their district they're pro-education, they pass another law toughening credentialing or adding testing, regardless of how that actually affects our schools.
Other problems in California include the fact that many of the cultures within the State don't emphasize education as important and a large portion of the population doesn't speak English.
California is out of money to spend on anything, so we no longer have the luxury of pretending this is just a problem of funding and class size.
It's time to study what other states are doing right and implement their strategies here rather than remaining mired in failed ideology.
Unfortunately for this premise, California was spending less per pupil and taxing less per capita adjusted for inflation when it had a model educational system, great roads and a free California State University education for every lawful resident who wanted one.
California now ranks low on education even though it has some of the toughest teacher credentialing standards in the U.S. (to my knowledge, only New York is similarly difficult).
Our schools, even during the massive income years of the recent past, haven't performed well when flush with money. In fact, they seem to perform poorly no matter how well they're funded. Something else is going on, and if we're going to solve the problem, we have to look at it honestly and figure out what it is.
Pouring money on a problem doesn't usually solve it unless the money is used well. There's a lot of waste and mismanagement in California school districts as anyone in the system for a while can attest. I taught for two years, and have a friend who has been teaching for nearly two decades, a large portion of that in the Oakland, California school district. I saw corruption during my brief involvement in the profession. My friend has seen it on a much grander scale.
The "65 percent" solution might help, mandating that at least 65 percent of all funding go directly to classroom expenses. Detractors claim this strict guideline isn't actually helpful, but given what I've seen of administrative misuse of funds, I'd like to examine more data before I agree it's not effective.
It isn't just money we're misusing, though. We waste time. Any teacher will tell you that in California approximately the last month and a half of class time is spent on testing and assessments of various kinds. When you're using 15% of your school year on assessment instead of instruction, you'll convey less information to your students.
It's notable that part of the reason for the strict yet ineffectual credentialing and massive amount of assessment is that our legislature passes laws based on what feels good, so every time someone wants to tell their district they're pro-education, they pass another law toughening credentialing or adding testing, regardless of how that actually affects our schools.
Other problems in California include the fact that many of the cultures within the State don't emphasize education as important and a large portion of the population doesn't speak English.
California is out of money to spend on anything, so we no longer have the luxury of pretending this is just a problem of funding and class size.
It's time to study what other states are doing right and implement their strategies here rather than remaining mired in failed ideology.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Armed Citizen
I have no deep thoughts this week. While the case for the 2nd Amendment should be made with the simple question, "How much do you really trust your government, past, present and future?" I'm actually focused on something more immediate at the moment. Events in my own neighborhood have made a more active neighborhood watch desirable, and I find myself wishing my sheriff were more generous in his CCW issuance policy. I've actually now sent him copies of Sheriff Mack's relevant books in the hopes that where activist citizens might be ignored, the opinions of another Sheriff might have some weight.
At first, nothing seemed unusual about the man inquiring about a DVD player at a Bucks County, Pa., pawnshop and check-cashing business. But 10 minutes minutes after he left, he returned with two accomplices, one of whom pointed a gun at the store owner. When a female employee sought refuge behind a steel door, the gun-toting man fired several shots at her. Outnumbered, the store owner drew his gun and fired, striking two of the intruders, including the man who was armed. One suspect lay injured on the floor until paramedics arrived, while his accomplices fled only to be apprehended by police. The store owner suffered a gunshot wound to his hand. "Certainly this should send a message to anyone who wants to carry out a crime in Bucks County that you can't go around terrorizing people. You may find yourself on the other end ...," said District Attorney Diane Gibbons. (Bucks County Courier Times, Levittown, PA, 08/26/2005)
Following the burglary of her apartment, a Georgia woman refused to be victimized again. She purchased a firearm for protection, and it was not a moment too soon. Police say that a man began climbing into her bathroom window late one night, but she was able to fend him off with her gun by shooting him several times. He stumbled out of die apartment and forced his way into an occupied BMW. The driver later told police that the suspect said, "I need a ride to the hospital because I've been shot. Don't stop because I'm going to jail." Upon his release from the hospital, police planned to charge the alleged burglar, whom they also considered a suspect in the previous break-in at the woman's apartment. (Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, 08/25/0205)
What sounded like an explosion outside a Michigan mans home set off a bizarre chain of events. According to police, when the homeowner looked out his window around 2 a.m., he saw that a Jeep had crashed into his garage. Armed with a handgun, he went outside and found a man trying to dislodge the vehicle. A yelling match ensued and the man drove off, but returned with his lights off. The homeowner, fearful diat the driver was trying to hit him or run him over, hid ; behind a car, and the suspect accelerated and smashed into it twice. The homeowner then fired four shots at the Jeep, but his gun jammed, so he ran inside to retrieve another firearm while his wife and neighbors phoned police. When the homeowner returned, the driver of the Jeep accelerated toward him so he fired two more shots at the vehicle. The driver, whose vehicle was riddled with bullet holes, then left the subdivision and was apprehended by police. (Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI, 09/13/2005)
When an armed citizen confronted an alleged burglar inside his northern Virginia home early one morning, police say the intruder ran from the family room to the bedroom of the homeowner's teenage daughter. A struggle ensued and ended when the homeowner shot the intruder in the face. The suspect fled on foot, but was arrested at the hospital when he sought treatment. (Arlington Sun Gazette, Arlington, VA, 09/01/2005)
Ice-cream vendor Christopher Sanders, who has a concealed carry permit, told police he was selling in his usual territory when a man flagged him down and asked for a ride. When Sanders told him "no," the man allegedly tried to open the vans sliding door, which was locked, and then tried to reach in an open window on the passenger side. Sanders grabbed a handgun from behind a seat, pointed it at the alleged perpetrator and told him to get his hands out of the vehicle. The man uttered an expletive and left while Sanders phoned police. As Sanders waited for an officer to arrive, the man returned and walked toward him with his hands in his pockets. Police say Sanders yelled at the man to show his hands, and two witnesses saw the suspect throw a knife on the ground. The alleged criminal was found by police, arrested on suspicion of robbery and booked for a previously issued misdemeanor warrant. (The Columbian, Vancouver, WA, 09/07/2005)
After an Idaho woman went outside her home to investigate a strange noise, she found a former co-worker hiding in the bushes. He told her his pickup truck had broken down and he needed a lift home. She reluctantly agreed and took a .380-caliber handgun with her. Police say that when they reached the co-worker's driveway, he began to assault her. "He grabbed her and physically attacked her and told her she was coming with him," said Sheriffs Capt. John Valdez. The woman drew her gun and shot the man in the abdomen, killing him. An autopsy of the assailant, who was a registered sex offender, showed he had a blood-alcohol content of .26 percent. Investigators say his truck was later found near the woman's home, and it appeared that its engine was intentionally disabled. (Associated Press, 09/17/2005)
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Why no one should support gun control.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
At first, nothing seemed unusual about the man inquiring about a DVD player at a Bucks County, Pa., pawnshop and check-cashing business. But 10 minutes minutes after he left, he returned with two accomplices, one of whom pointed a gun at the store owner. When a female employee sought refuge behind a steel door, the gun-toting man fired several shots at her. Outnumbered, the store owner drew his gun and fired, striking two of the intruders, including the man who was armed. One suspect lay injured on the floor until paramedics arrived, while his accomplices fled only to be apprehended by police. The store owner suffered a gunshot wound to his hand. "Certainly this should send a message to anyone who wants to carry out a crime in Bucks County that you can't go around terrorizing people. You may find yourself on the other end ...," said District Attorney Diane Gibbons. (Bucks County Courier Times, Levittown, PA, 08/26/2005)
Following the burglary of her apartment, a Georgia woman refused to be victimized again. She purchased a firearm for protection, and it was not a moment too soon. Police say that a man began climbing into her bathroom window late one night, but she was able to fend him off with her gun by shooting him several times. He stumbled out of die apartment and forced his way into an occupied BMW. The driver later told police that the suspect said, "I need a ride to the hospital because I've been shot. Don't stop because I'm going to jail." Upon his release from the hospital, police planned to charge the alleged burglar, whom they also considered a suspect in the previous break-in at the woman's apartment. (Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, 08/25/0205)
What sounded like an explosion outside a Michigan mans home set off a bizarre chain of events. According to police, when the homeowner looked out his window around 2 a.m., he saw that a Jeep had crashed into his garage. Armed with a handgun, he went outside and found a man trying to dislodge the vehicle. A yelling match ensued and the man drove off, but returned with his lights off. The homeowner, fearful diat the driver was trying to hit him or run him over, hid ; behind a car, and the suspect accelerated and smashed into it twice. The homeowner then fired four shots at the Jeep, but his gun jammed, so he ran inside to retrieve another firearm while his wife and neighbors phoned police. When the homeowner returned, the driver of the Jeep accelerated toward him so he fired two more shots at the vehicle. The driver, whose vehicle was riddled with bullet holes, then left the subdivision and was apprehended by police. (Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI, 09/13/2005)
When an armed citizen confronted an alleged burglar inside his northern Virginia home early one morning, police say the intruder ran from the family room to the bedroom of the homeowner's teenage daughter. A struggle ensued and ended when the homeowner shot the intruder in the face. The suspect fled on foot, but was arrested at the hospital when he sought treatment. (Arlington Sun Gazette, Arlington, VA, 09/01/2005)
Ice-cream vendor Christopher Sanders, who has a concealed carry permit, told police he was selling in his usual territory when a man flagged him down and asked for a ride. When Sanders told him "no," the man allegedly tried to open the vans sliding door, which was locked, and then tried to reach in an open window on the passenger side. Sanders grabbed a handgun from behind a seat, pointed it at the alleged perpetrator and told him to get his hands out of the vehicle. The man uttered an expletive and left while Sanders phoned police. As Sanders waited for an officer to arrive, the man returned and walked toward him with his hands in his pockets. Police say Sanders yelled at the man to show his hands, and two witnesses saw the suspect throw a knife on the ground. The alleged criminal was found by police, arrested on suspicion of robbery and booked for a previously issued misdemeanor warrant. (The Columbian, Vancouver, WA, 09/07/2005)
After an Idaho woman went outside her home to investigate a strange noise, she found a former co-worker hiding in the bushes. He told her his pickup truck had broken down and he needed a lift home. She reluctantly agreed and took a .380-caliber handgun with her. Police say that when they reached the co-worker's driveway, he began to assault her. "He grabbed her and physically attacked her and told her she was coming with him," said Sheriffs Capt. John Valdez. The woman drew her gun and shot the man in the abdomen, killing him. An autopsy of the assailant, who was a registered sex offender, showed he had a blood-alcohol content of .26 percent. Investigators say his truck was later found near the woman's home, and it appeared that its engine was intentionally disabled. (Associated Press, 09/17/2005)
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Why no one should support gun control.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
6% of Jewish Israelis
The Jerusalem Post reports that only 6% of Jewish Israelis feel President Barack Obama's administration is pro-Israel.
So, I see Israelis have a firm grasp of reality.
So, I see Israelis have a firm grasp of reality.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Budget Bully
Normally, I wouldn't post anything produced by the Republican party. I'm not Republican, and the party in California acted shamefully in February. What's funny is that this commercial is absolutely true, but is just as damning against the Republican party, which fully participated in raising taxes, and is just as enslaved by the SEIU and other State unions.
So, as you watch, remember, this applies to both parties equally in California.
So, as you watch, remember, this applies to both parties equally in California.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Enjoyable Forward--Divorce Agreement
You may have seen this in your inbox already, and usually I don't post forwards. This one was sufficiently entertaining, with enough pointed content to post. I haven't been able to verify the attribution, but it's entertaining nonetheless.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al.:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al.:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Knife Control? Seriously?
We've posted on knife control before. Now it looks like the U.K. is getting serious about it. Here's the anti-stab knife that they're beginning to sell:
Full article here.
This really won't change anything in the U.K., much as gun control hasn't.
What is the truth about this "anti-stab" knife? A criminal will be able to modify this knife very quickly to make it a stabbing weapon (or he can just use it in a slashing fashion). Worse yet, lawful citizens in the U.K. will be just a little more helpless.
I'm waiting for them to start banning rocks and bricks.
Any society is foolish to blame the instrument of violence for the behavior. Address the behavioral problems and recognize the criminal is to blame, not the gun or knife.
Full article here.
This really won't change anything in the U.K., much as gun control hasn't.
What is the truth about this "anti-stab" knife? A criminal will be able to modify this knife very quickly to make it a stabbing weapon (or he can just use it in a slashing fashion). Worse yet, lawful citizens in the U.K. will be just a little more helpless.
I'm waiting for them to start banning rocks and bricks.
Any society is foolish to blame the instrument of violence for the behavior. Address the behavioral problems and recognize the criminal is to blame, not the gun or knife.
Why no one should support gun control
I meant only to post about firearms once a week. Current events have convinced me there may be more to say this week.
Even if you disagree with the current administration, you have to admit, it's nice to know we can vote it out. We can vote out Congress, if we try hard enough. There's a wonderful civility to our process in the U.S. and many Western systems of government.
In fact, our system has worked so well for so long, we've forgotten why we really have a 2nd Amendment.
What happens if it all breaks down, a truly authoritarian government takes charge, and the citizenry doesn't have guns?
Right now, in Iran, hundreds of thousands of people, if the news reports are to be believed, are marching in the streets protesting the rigged results of an election that doesn't actually matter anyway--they have a Supreme Leader who controls the country. The president isn't really all that important. The government isn't too worried, though they've reportedly shot a few protesters. Why? Their people aren't armed.
What does a populace legitimately demanding change from an authoritarian government look like without firearms? They look like Iran right now. They look like Tienanmen Square in 1989 (had you forgotten about that).
Does the fact that Iran is not permitting foreign media to report on its current internal struggle disgust you? If so, you might want to consider what our own White House is doing in collaboration with the media. ABC is reportedly turning over reporting to the White House. This isn't the first time, by the way. President Obama gave a speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009. Instead of allowing press in to cover it, the White House put together a press package and released it.
Government control of media was not what the founders of a free society had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Government control of all potent instruments of self defense and/or revolution was not what the founders of a free society had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. The Founders based the Constitution not on contemporary political theory of the 1700's, but on the immutable principles of human nature. Human nature has not changed.
Want to get rid of all privately owned guns?
How much do you trust your government? Canada is fine, you may say. The U.K. is fine. You're right, they are at present. We are too. I may disagree with this administration, but I'm still not worried about them taking authoritarian control of our country. Think about the last administration. Think about this administration. How about every administration to ever come in the future of humanity. Do you trust your children to them? Your grandchildren?
Still want to get rid of all privately owned guns?
Move to Iran or China and let me know how that works out for you.
Even if you disagree with the current administration, you have to admit, it's nice to know we can vote it out. We can vote out Congress, if we try hard enough. There's a wonderful civility to our process in the U.S. and many Western systems of government.
In fact, our system has worked so well for so long, we've forgotten why we really have a 2nd Amendment.
What happens if it all breaks down, a truly authoritarian government takes charge, and the citizenry doesn't have guns?
Right now, in Iran, hundreds of thousands of people, if the news reports are to be believed, are marching in the streets protesting the rigged results of an election that doesn't actually matter anyway--they have a Supreme Leader who controls the country. The president isn't really all that important. The government isn't too worried, though they've reportedly shot a few protesters. Why? Their people aren't armed.
What does a populace legitimately demanding change from an authoritarian government look like without firearms? They look like Iran right now. They look like Tienanmen Square in 1989 (had you forgotten about that).
Does the fact that Iran is not permitting foreign media to report on its current internal struggle disgust you? If so, you might want to consider what our own White House is doing in collaboration with the media. ABC is reportedly turning over reporting to the White House. This isn't the first time, by the way. President Obama gave a speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009. Instead of allowing press in to cover it, the White House put together a press package and released it.
Government control of media was not what the founders of a free society had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Government control of all potent instruments of self defense and/or revolution was not what the founders of a free society had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. The Founders based the Constitution not on contemporary political theory of the 1700's, but on the immutable principles of human nature. Human nature has not changed.
Want to get rid of all privately owned guns?
How much do you trust your government? Canada is fine, you may say. The U.K. is fine. You're right, they are at present. We are too. I may disagree with this administration, but I'm still not worried about them taking authoritarian control of our country. Think about the last administration. Think about this administration. How about every administration to ever come in the future of humanity. Do you trust your children to them? Your grandchildren?
Still want to get rid of all privately owned guns?
Move to Iran or China and let me know how that works out for you.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Armed Citizen
This week I reread "From My Cold, Dead Fingers: Why American Needs Guns" by Sheriff Richard Mack. I do recommend the book for those considering the question of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately the possibly apocryphal "liberty teeth" quotation* is included, but the majority of the book is based on solid research. While it's a bit older, the statistical trends haven't changed much. The only caveat I'd include is that Sheriff Mack sees conspiracy where there may only be special interest or incompetence rather than malice.
Most of the book is based on thorough research and Sheriff Mack's own experiences. Several stories and statements underscore the desirable and positive influence of lawful firearms ownership in our society, including the following:
A group of Cambodians at a housing project in Los Angeles used M-1s and Kalashnikovs to put down an attack by the Bloods in May of 1988. (Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1988)
Drug dealers terrorized Piru Street in Los Angeles until two gang members were shot and wounded by a "block watch" leader, attracting the attention of police. (Washington Times, November 25, 1988, p. C6)
Korean merchants protected their property during the 1992 Los Angeles riots with "assault weapons." ("The 'Assault Weapon' Panic," Morgan and Kopel, p. 60) [Note: this reminds me of armed citizens protecting their lives and property following Hurricane Katrina, when many police had fled the area and the ones who remained busied themselves confiscating the firearms of lawful citizens instead of facing the criminals taking advantage of the confusion.]
Off-duty Army Rangers launched a "free-fire" offensive against crack-cocaine dealers in Tacoma, Washington, using handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, and driving the drug dealers from their streets. (Rocky Mountain News, September 29, 1989, p. 4)
It's clear that when the police can't help, or can't respond quickly enough, the concept of every citizen being part of the militia isn't a dead concept. It's alive and well. Gun control advocates would like to pretend the world is safer than it is, and hope that banning all guns will help make their illusion reality. While I'm sincerely glad that Americans are largely safe, and appreciate our fine police officers for making that a reality, the truth is we haven't gotten to the point that private ownership of firearms isn't necessary for safety and security.
We're nowhere close to the point where Americans should happily trust their government to be eternally beneficent. That is simply not the nature of human beings, unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment is as relevent today as it was when it was written, because as I've stated before, the Founders based the Constitution not on contemporary political theory of the 1700's, but on the immutable principles of human nature. The question of gun control is not one of hunting or accident statistics, or even criminal use. It is simply, "How much do you trust your government?" If it is enough to turn in all your guns, you may need to study more history and more of human nature.
When it comes to the statistics, however, honest review often makes skeptics into 2nd amendment supporters. Such is the case with Gary Kleck (a liberal statistician) and Professor Hans Toch. Toch studied causes and cures for violence in America for the Eisenhower Administration, and then firmly believed that taking guns out of society would reduce violence. The preponderance of evidence gathered since his opinion of the 1960's and today changed his mind:
When a young man showed up at Breaux's Jewelers in New Orleans dressed as an old lady-complete with a walker, purse, gray wig and tan dress-the ruse was good enough to get him buzzed inside. But storeowner Mike Breaux quickly saw through the disguise and drew his handgun just as police say the suspect started to pull a handgun out of his purse and leap over the counter. Breaux fired, striking and incapacitating the would-be robber. From outside, a second suspect fired several shots through the glass front door as Breaux and one of his employees, who had picked up the first suspect's gun, returned fire. Breaux was grazed by a bullet before the wounded man fled with yet another accomplice. The second suspect turned up at a hospital later with gunshot wounds to his neck, back and arm. The first suspect was taken from the store by ambulance. Both men were listed in critical condition. (The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, 07/20/2005)
Gayle Martin was sound asleep when the doorbell rang at 5 a.m., but he didn't open the door because he didn't recognize either of the two men standing on his porch. He continued watching the men through his front window as they went around his house and began battering his back door. Within moments, the two thugs came crashing through the door into the kitchen and living room area. That's when Martin drew his .357 Mag. and fired three shots, causing the men to run away. "They were in the house," Martin said. "They had just broken in. I didn't let them get any farther." Authorities found the home invaders nearby, both suffering from gunshot wounds. Grant County Sheriff Randy Middleton called Martin lucky to be alive, adding, "He's a good shot." (Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, OH, 07/10/2005)
The two masked men who burst into a North Fort Myers, Fla., pharmacy demanding drugs didn't notice the pharmacy technician, who was a concealed-weapons permit holder, crouched in the back. When one robber leapt onto the countertop and waved a pistol at the clerk, the technician took action, opening fire with a .45-cal. pistol and hitting the armed man in the stomach. Both suspects fled the scene. Police believed the wounded man was a career criminal with 14 felony convictions since 1990 who was released from prison in January. "I knew for sure this guy was going to kill me," the technician said. "I was so afraid. I knew if I died, [the clerk] was going to die." (The News-Press, Fort Myers, FL, 06/07/2005)
Christine Peacock was pulling through a fast-food drive-through when a man ordered her to stop and hand over her belongings. Because she was in her boyfriend's car, the normally unarmed Peacock had a gun handy. When she drew it, the mere sight of the firearm caused the would-be robber to flee the scene. It was a scary incident that completely changed Peacock's opinion of concealed carry. "I didn't believe that everybody should carry a gun at all times; I thought it was too overprotective," she said. "[Now] I plan on enrolling in a concealed weapons permit class, and purchasing my own gun [to have] with me at all times." (Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 06/19/2005)
If it weren't for a Vienna, Ill., woman's quick thinking, she and her husband might both be dead. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Albert Rolens heard his dogs barking and went to investigate, finding a partially opened sliding door. When he reached to close it, a man wearing a stocking cap, gloves and a large coat thrust a rifle through the open door and forced his way inside. The intruder instructed Rolens to wake his wife and unplug the telephones. The couple told the intruder to leave, but he refused to go without their granddaughter, his former girlfriend. After several tense minutes, Mrs. Rolens convinced the intruder to let her husband go to the bathroom to take some medication. Once there, Albert entered an attached bedroom and retrieved his .45-cal. revolver, which he pointed at the man, again telling him to leave. When Mrs. Rolens grabbed a cell phone and ran to call 9-1-1, the intruder darted after her. Fearing for his wife's safety, Albert shot the gunman once in the head, killing him. (The Vienna Times, Vienna, IL, 06/09/2005)
Just one day after a Dallas, Texas, woman sought a protective order against her ex-boyfriend, he confronted her outside her home, blocking her way. Upon noticing the disturbance, a neighbor came to her aid and helped her get inside as the ex-boyfriend left. Once in her home, she closed the door and the neighbor left, but the ex-boyfriend returned. When he bashed down her door, the frightened woman drew her firearm, shooting and killing him. "She was trying to protect herself," said Dallas police Sgt. Gil Cerda. (The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX, 07/02/2005)
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
*The "liberty teeth" quotation is attributed to George Washington, but doesn't appear to be authentic. There are many quotations by respected founders that support the position of 2nd Amendment advocates, so it's not really necessary to manufacture new ones and give false attribution. I've tried to find a source on this and so far haven't come up with anything reliable. For the interested, the quotation I've seen is:
Most of the book is based on thorough research and Sheriff Mack's own experiences. Several stories and statements underscore the desirable and positive influence of lawful firearms ownership in our society, including the following:
A group of Cambodians at a housing project in Los Angeles used M-1s and Kalashnikovs to put down an attack by the Bloods in May of 1988. (Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1988)
Drug dealers terrorized Piru Street in Los Angeles until two gang members were shot and wounded by a "block watch" leader, attracting the attention of police. (Washington Times, November 25, 1988, p. C6)
Korean merchants protected their property during the 1992 Los Angeles riots with "assault weapons." ("The 'Assault Weapon' Panic," Morgan and Kopel, p. 60) [Note: this reminds me of armed citizens protecting their lives and property following Hurricane Katrina, when many police had fled the area and the ones who remained busied themselves confiscating the firearms of lawful citizens instead of facing the criminals taking advantage of the confusion.]
Off-duty Army Rangers launched a "free-fire" offensive against crack-cocaine dealers in Tacoma, Washington, using handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, and driving the drug dealers from their streets. (Rocky Mountain News, September 29, 1989, p. 4)
It's clear that when the police can't help, or can't respond quickly enough, the concept of every citizen being part of the militia isn't a dead concept. It's alive and well. Gun control advocates would like to pretend the world is safer than it is, and hope that banning all guns will help make their illusion reality. While I'm sincerely glad that Americans are largely safe, and appreciate our fine police officers for making that a reality, the truth is we haven't gotten to the point that private ownership of firearms isn't necessary for safety and security.
We're nowhere close to the point where Americans should happily trust their government to be eternally beneficent. That is simply not the nature of human beings, unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment is as relevent today as it was when it was written, because as I've stated before, the Founders based the Constitution not on contemporary political theory of the 1700's, but on the immutable principles of human nature. The question of gun control is not one of hunting or accident statistics, or even criminal use. It is simply, "How much do you trust your government?" If it is enough to turn in all your guns, you may need to study more history and more of human nature.
When it comes to the statistics, however, honest review often makes skeptics into 2nd amendment supporters. Such is the case with Gary Kleck (a liberal statistician) and Professor Hans Toch. Toch studied causes and cures for violence in America for the Eisenhower Administration, and then firmly believed that taking guns out of society would reduce violence. The preponderance of evidence gathered since his opinion of the 1960's and today changed his mind:
"...when used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patters show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal agression." (Psychology and Social Advocacy, eds. P. Suefeld & P. tetlock, "Research & Policy: The Case of Gun Control," Toch & Lizotte, Hemisphere Press, New York, NY, 1990.)Without further ado, here are the stories of self-defense.
When a young man showed up at Breaux's Jewelers in New Orleans dressed as an old lady-complete with a walker, purse, gray wig and tan dress-the ruse was good enough to get him buzzed inside. But storeowner Mike Breaux quickly saw through the disguise and drew his handgun just as police say the suspect started to pull a handgun out of his purse and leap over the counter. Breaux fired, striking and incapacitating the would-be robber. From outside, a second suspect fired several shots through the glass front door as Breaux and one of his employees, who had picked up the first suspect's gun, returned fire. Breaux was grazed by a bullet before the wounded man fled with yet another accomplice. The second suspect turned up at a hospital later with gunshot wounds to his neck, back and arm. The first suspect was taken from the store by ambulance. Both men were listed in critical condition. (The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, 07/20/2005)
Gayle Martin was sound asleep when the doorbell rang at 5 a.m., but he didn't open the door because he didn't recognize either of the two men standing on his porch. He continued watching the men through his front window as they went around his house and began battering his back door. Within moments, the two thugs came crashing through the door into the kitchen and living room area. That's when Martin drew his .357 Mag. and fired three shots, causing the men to run away. "They were in the house," Martin said. "They had just broken in. I didn't let them get any farther." Authorities found the home invaders nearby, both suffering from gunshot wounds. Grant County Sheriff Randy Middleton called Martin lucky to be alive, adding, "He's a good shot." (Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, OH, 07/10/2005)
The two masked men who burst into a North Fort Myers, Fla., pharmacy demanding drugs didn't notice the pharmacy technician, who was a concealed-weapons permit holder, crouched in the back. When one robber leapt onto the countertop and waved a pistol at the clerk, the technician took action, opening fire with a .45-cal. pistol and hitting the armed man in the stomach. Both suspects fled the scene. Police believed the wounded man was a career criminal with 14 felony convictions since 1990 who was released from prison in January. "I knew for sure this guy was going to kill me," the technician said. "I was so afraid. I knew if I died, [the clerk] was going to die." (The News-Press, Fort Myers, FL, 06/07/2005)
Christine Peacock was pulling through a fast-food drive-through when a man ordered her to stop and hand over her belongings. Because she was in her boyfriend's car, the normally unarmed Peacock had a gun handy. When she drew it, the mere sight of the firearm caused the would-be robber to flee the scene. It was a scary incident that completely changed Peacock's opinion of concealed carry. "I didn't believe that everybody should carry a gun at all times; I thought it was too overprotective," she said. "[Now] I plan on enrolling in a concealed weapons permit class, and purchasing my own gun [to have] with me at all times." (Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 06/19/2005)
If it weren't for a Vienna, Ill., woman's quick thinking, she and her husband might both be dead. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Albert Rolens heard his dogs barking and went to investigate, finding a partially opened sliding door. When he reached to close it, a man wearing a stocking cap, gloves and a large coat thrust a rifle through the open door and forced his way inside. The intruder instructed Rolens to wake his wife and unplug the telephones. The couple told the intruder to leave, but he refused to go without their granddaughter, his former girlfriend. After several tense minutes, Mrs. Rolens convinced the intruder to let her husband go to the bathroom to take some medication. Once there, Albert entered an attached bedroom and retrieved his .45-cal. revolver, which he pointed at the man, again telling him to leave. When Mrs. Rolens grabbed a cell phone and ran to call 9-1-1, the intruder darted after her. Fearing for his wife's safety, Albert shot the gunman once in the head, killing him. (The Vienna Times, Vienna, IL, 06/09/2005)
Just one day after a Dallas, Texas, woman sought a protective order against her ex-boyfriend, he confronted her outside her home, blocking her way. Upon noticing the disturbance, a neighbor came to her aid and helped her get inside as the ex-boyfriend left. Once in her home, she closed the door and the neighbor left, but the ex-boyfriend returned. When he bashed down her door, the frightened woman drew her firearm, shooting and killing him. "She was trying to protect herself," said Dallas police Sgt. Gil Cerda. (The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX, 07/02/2005)
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
*The "liberty teeth" quotation is attributed to George Washington, but doesn't appear to be authentic. There are many quotations by respected founders that support the position of 2nd Amendment advocates, so it's not really necessary to manufacture new ones and give false attribution. I've tried to find a source on this and so far haven't come up with anything reliable. For the interested, the quotation I've seen is:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."There are several things that make me doubt the authenticity of the quotation beyond being unable to source it. "Keystone under independence" might invoke an arch supporting the idea of independence, but is awkward. It would be better stated, "keystone of independence" creating the comparison of independence to an arch, with firearms being the vital keystone or capstone. Also, "peace, security and happiness" seems more modern. Many of the founders probably would have said, "life, liberty and property." If the quotation doesn't originate with George Washington, it's unfortunate the author didn't publish it sans false attribution and allow it to stand on its own merits.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Obama's Loose Relationship With the Truth
Something I worried about before the '08 election was that Obama seems to lie whenever he's pressed into a corner. He says what sounds good, rather than what's true.
Victor Davis Hanson asks the question, "Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?"
Victor Davis Hanson asks the question, "Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?"
In the first six months of the Obama administration, we have witnessed an assault on the truth of a magnitude not seen since the Nixon Watergate years. The prevarication is ironic given the Obama campaign’s accusations that the Bush years were not transparent and that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, was a chronic fabricator. Remember Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and that “words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.”I urge you to read the whole thing.
...
What is stunning about Obama’s hostile demagoguery about Bush’s War on Terror is not that he has now contradicted himself on one or two particulars. Instead, he has reversed himself on every major issue — renditions, military tribunals, intercepts, wiretaps, Predator drone attacks, the release of interrogation photos, Iraq (and, I think, soon Guantanamo Bay) — and yet never acknowledged these reversals.
Are we supposed to think that Obama was never against these protocols at all? Or that he still remains opposed to them even as he keeps them in place? Meanwhile, his attorney general, Eric Holder, is as voluble on the excesses of the Bush War on Terror as he is silent about his own earlier declarations that detainees in this war were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
All Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date
Yep, all of them. The title is from Jim Geraghty's NRO post from November of last year.
This time around, it's amazing how much reversal Obama has done in the last few months (reversals which will have dramatic impact on our nation).
Pointed out from the blog Small Dead Animals:
Jack Tapper pointed out that Obama flatly denied that this would happen, all the way back in...March of this year:
This time around, it's amazing how much reversal Obama has done in the last few months (reversals which will have dramatic impact on our nation).
Pointed out from the blog Small Dead Animals:
Obama at Buchenwald, June 5: "This place teaches us that we must be ever-vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem, and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests."
Obama in Cairo, June 4: "So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
Or slightly different quotes at Gateway Pundit:
"Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."Today's reversal is about Mirandizing jihadis on the battlefield, reading them their rights, as if they're arrested by police officers.Barack Obama"The international community has an obligation, even when it's inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring."
Sunapee, N.H.
June 20, 2007Barack Obama
Dresden, Germany
June 5, 2009
Jack Tapper pointed out that Obama flatly denied that this would happen, all the way back in...March of this year:
In March, President Obama told 60 Minutes that "the whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."
The End of Global Warming
An important Op-Ed showed up last week, titled "Cooling down with global-warming data."
What this means is that the vast majority of the actual measuring stations have a bias that shows temperatures warmer than they really are.
Note a good station vs. a bad station.
Take a look at this station in Santa Ana:
That's right, that's a temperature monitoring station on a roof, with AC exhaust all around. How can we even trust the surface data if this is how it's measured?
The Detroit Lakes Station was apparently shamed into fixing their setup. Is it any wonder this setup showed warming over time?
Of course it's not surprising--as those AC vents got added, it would increase the hot air exhaust over time. In fact, the overall warming trend is smaller than the bias from the improper stationing. Which means that we might be in the middle of a global cooling trend.
In fact, AccuWeather suggests we might be in for a year without a summer this year:
What specifically is being addressed is the Surface Stations Project. In particular, look at the overview of the survey map:"We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data," said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado.
The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings were alarming.
They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
 |
 |
What this means is that the vast majority of the actual measuring stations have a bias that shows temperatures warmer than they really are.
Note a good station vs. a bad station.
| Good |
 |
| Bad |
 |
Take a look at this station in Santa Ana:
That's right, that's a temperature monitoring station on a roof, with AC exhaust all around. How can we even trust the surface data if this is how it's measured?
The Detroit Lakes Station was apparently shamed into fixing their setup. Is it any wonder this setup showed warming over time?
Of course it's not surprising--as those AC vents got added, it would increase the hot air exhaust over time. In fact, the overall warming trend is smaller than the bias from the improper stationing. Which means that we might be in the middle of a global cooling trend.
In fact, AccuWeather suggests we might be in for a year without a summer this year:
According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a “year without a summer.” The jet stream, which is suppressed abnormally south this spring, is also suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can form.Good thing we're ready to pass that cap-and-trade on carbon! Perfect timing.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Thanks for the Trade War Obama!
Our Presidential Student of History is following in the footsteps of the Great Depression. It's a well-known lesson of history that protectionism leads to trade wars leads to serious economic harm.
Despite warnings, the "stimulus" package included "buy American" clauses. This angered Canada, and now they're starting to retaliate. Thanks a bunch!
Despite warnings, the "stimulus" package included "buy American" clauses. This angered Canada, and now they're starting to retaliate. Thanks a bunch!
The Armed Citizen
A 66-year-old Montgomery, Ala., man and his handgun prevented a would-be robber from making off with a bank bag belonging to a church. The victim had arrived at a bank on a Monday morning, ready to deposit funds from his congregation, when he was approached by a man who forced him to the ground and took the money. However, the church courier stood up, drew his gun and fired a shot that foiled the crime. His attacker initially fell to the ground and subsequently fled, but dropped the bank bag in the process. All the money inside was recovered. Police said later it was uncertain if the suspect had been struck by the shot, or if he had simply fallen. (Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery, AL, 04/19/2005)
The hooded armed robber likely thought the older, female clerk would be an easy mark as he entered a Tampa convenience store, brandishing his gun and demanding money. He wasn't counting on confronting someone like Janet Grammer. The 64-year-old mother of 10, a former security guard, pulled her own gun from under the cash register and fired, hitting the criminal in the chest. "I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer said after the incident. "I think I scared the hell out of him. I thought he was getting ready to shoot me in the head. My life was at stake." Grammer, who also has 32 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren and three great-great-grandchildren, later said she worried that she had killed the hospitalized assailant. "It was very upsetting. The good Lord had to be with me," she said. (The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 04/16/2005)
A resident of Hempfield Township, Pa., tried, at first, to halt a 3 a.m. break-in at his house by firing two shots. The intruder allegedly used a fireplace poker and his fists to break out a pane of glass, but refused to heed the warning and then charged the homeowner. The next time the homeowner fired his handgun he struck the bandit in the legs and drove him out of the house. Police arrested the suspect and later said he would be charged with multiple offenses. None of the family members -- husband, wife or two young daughters -- were hurt in the home invasion, a Pennsylvania state trooper reported. (Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA, 04/10/2005)
A woman living in Charles County, Md., initially turned to the judicial system to seek protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend. "I have been afraid to come forth and speak out for fear of him doing bodily harm to me and threatening to burn down my home," she said in her petition requesting a protective order. "The last four years have been a living hell. I am contemplating purchasing a handgun for my protection." After twice violating the court order, the man, described as a violent drug addict, broke into the home and began beating her current boyfriend with a metal pipe. This time she was indeed armed with a handgun, which she used to shoot and kill her attacker. Police said she had not been charged with a crime and that they considered her a victim. (Maryland Independent, Charles County, MD, 04/08/05)
Even after ramming a police cruiser with his own vehicle, a reckless driver in Blair County, Penn., apparently thought he could run from the authorities. But in the end he couldn't hide from an armed citizen. The pursuit began shortly after midnight when police unsuccessfully tried to pull over a car that had run a stop sign. After an extended high-speed chase, the officer on the scene broke off pursuit, but police soon found the suspect's vehicle overturned and unoccupied. Shortly thereafter, the county's 9-1-1 center received a call about a man attempting to gain entry to a nearby home, but responding officers were not able to locate him. A few minutes later, a second call from the residence said that the man had been found hiding in the basement. Upon arrival police found a cornered suspect being held at gunpoint by a female resident. He was positively identified as the driver and taken into custody. (Altoona Mirror, Altoona, PA, 02/25/2005)
A 64-year-old traveler from Arkansas stopped to ask directions at a Milwaukee gas station and soon found himself confronted by a gang of young men. A fight started, during which one attacker choked the motorist while a second beat the man with his own cane. Acting in self-defense, according to the police report, V.O. Goins then pulled a handgun from under the seat and shot and killed the 20-year-old thug who had been choking him. Officers responding to the scene found Goins' car keys on a juvenile accomplice. A Milwaukee assistant district attorney said Goins would not be charged. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, 04/07/2005)
Want even more stories? Visit the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
The hooded armed robber likely thought the older, female clerk would be an easy mark as he entered a Tampa convenience store, brandishing his gun and demanding money. He wasn't counting on confronting someone like Janet Grammer. The 64-year-old mother of 10, a former security guard, pulled her own gun from under the cash register and fired, hitting the criminal in the chest. "I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer said after the incident. "I think I scared the hell out of him. I thought he was getting ready to shoot me in the head. My life was at stake." Grammer, who also has 32 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren and three great-great-grandchildren, later said she worried that she had killed the hospitalized assailant. "It was very upsetting. The good Lord had to be with me," she said. (The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 04/16/2005)
A resident of Hempfield Township, Pa., tried, at first, to halt a 3 a.m. break-in at his house by firing two shots. The intruder allegedly used a fireplace poker and his fists to break out a pane of glass, but refused to heed the warning and then charged the homeowner. The next time the homeowner fired his handgun he struck the bandit in the legs and drove him out of the house. Police arrested the suspect and later said he would be charged with multiple offenses. None of the family members -- husband, wife or two young daughters -- were hurt in the home invasion, a Pennsylvania state trooper reported. (Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA, 04/10/2005)
A woman living in Charles County, Md., initially turned to the judicial system to seek protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend. "I have been afraid to come forth and speak out for fear of him doing bodily harm to me and threatening to burn down my home," she said in her petition requesting a protective order. "The last four years have been a living hell. I am contemplating purchasing a handgun for my protection." After twice violating the court order, the man, described as a violent drug addict, broke into the home and began beating her current boyfriend with a metal pipe. This time she was indeed armed with a handgun, which she used to shoot and kill her attacker. Police said she had not been charged with a crime and that they considered her a victim. (Maryland Independent, Charles County, MD, 04/08/05)
Even after ramming a police cruiser with his own vehicle, a reckless driver in Blair County, Penn., apparently thought he could run from the authorities. But in the end he couldn't hide from an armed citizen. The pursuit began shortly after midnight when police unsuccessfully tried to pull over a car that had run a stop sign. After an extended high-speed chase, the officer on the scene broke off pursuit, but police soon found the suspect's vehicle overturned and unoccupied. Shortly thereafter, the county's 9-1-1 center received a call about a man attempting to gain entry to a nearby home, but responding officers were not able to locate him. A few minutes later, a second call from the residence said that the man had been found hiding in the basement. Upon arrival police found a cornered suspect being held at gunpoint by a female resident. He was positively identified as the driver and taken into custody. (Altoona Mirror, Altoona, PA, 02/25/2005)
A 64-year-old traveler from Arkansas stopped to ask directions at a Milwaukee gas station and soon found himself confronted by a gang of young men. A fight started, during which one attacker choked the motorist while a second beat the man with his own cane. Acting in self-defense, according to the police report, V.O. Goins then pulled a handgun from under the seat and shot and killed the 20-year-old thug who had been choking him. Officers responding to the scene found Goins' car keys on a juvenile accomplice. A Milwaukee assistant district attorney said Goins would not be charged. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, 04/07/2005)
Want even more stories? Visit the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.
Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
Armed Student Saves 10 People,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,
Crime Spree Stopped with the Simple Presentation of a Firearm.
Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work,
Scotland holds a Summit on their Failed Gun Policies, Chicago's gun ban continues to fail,
Real Women's Rights (This one includes one of my favorite personal accounts),
Opposition to CA AB 2062,
Knife Control?!,
Protecting Children through Gun Control?,
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy,
A Contrast to VA Tech.
Thoughts just prior to the release of DC v. Heller, with one of the best appellate court quotations ever.
Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.
Carrying a Firearm is an Inherently Civilized Act.
Right to Carry Statistics.
Does Violence Beget Violence?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Will Obama Defend the Constitution?
I'm new to the blog here, but I have something to say. I saw a bumper sticker during a work day that had a picture of Obama with the text that said "Hitler gave great speeches too." A co-worker of mine is mostly liberal and supports Obama. We frequently have heated political debates and I shared with him what I saw on that bumper sticker. His initial reaction was somewhat hostile and asking me how I could say something like that since Obama hadn't killed millions of people as Hitler did. This led me to explain that the point of the bumper sticker I saw (as I took it) was that someone who can speak well is also capable of horrendous acts. This country is taken by a man who is capable of speaking well and they've given him his votes. The Hitler thing bothers me because he spelled something out early: "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." It bothers me to no end that this is where we are today in the United States of America. People aren't thinking. They are feeling. There is nothing wrong with feeling, but there comes a point when thinking is necessary. And a lot of thinking isn't required. I will say that Reagan got it right. He was hated by what was the media in that age, but he stayed true to his beliefs. That's something that us conservatives saw and loved in Palin. She is a gold-plated conservative. And she's paid the price for being drawn into the spotlight. I know a lot of leftists will say I'm repeating talk radio, and they are right but so am I. And so is talk radio. Reagan took a stand and drew a line in the sand. Obama has wiped the line out with his foot. My fellow bloggers do this better than I do, but I stand on their side. Obama makes a trip to celebrate D-Day and it's amongst apologizing (again) for what America stands for. I'm not sorry for what America has stood for, nor the countries we've helped. My father served in Vietnam and was wounded in action (I have his purple heart medal). I, as a citizen of the United States of America will NOT apologize, or accept someone else apologizing on my behalf for us defending our constitution. Oh, and speaking of which, what happened to the oath that our "president" took? In case you forgot, here it is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! HE SPOKE THOSE WORDS! Is he living up to that oath? No. The Constitution is not ambiguous. It is very specific, and the man who took the oath to uphold it is not doing so. He is endangering us all at a break-neck speed and seems to be doing so cluelessly. My purpose of this blog (thank you Andy and Mark) is to put out the opinion of someone who understands what is happening to our country. If we don't do something about this, the results could be disastrous. To my co-worker who was upset that I compared Obama to Hitler: Both were/are able to speak well. It scares me that someone who can win crowds as Hitler did has emerged and is president of my country. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, but I'm cautious of what he's capable of. Students of history know that Germany was converted to socialism by Hitler. I don't want to see that happen here.
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! HE SPOKE THOSE WORDS! Is he living up to that oath? No. The Constitution is not ambiguous. It is very specific, and the man who took the oath to uphold it is not doing so. He is endangering us all at a break-neck speed and seems to be doing so cluelessly. My purpose of this blog (thank you Andy and Mark) is to put out the opinion of someone who understands what is happening to our country. If we don't do something about this, the results could be disastrous. To my co-worker who was upset that I compared Obama to Hitler: Both were/are able to speak well. It scares me that someone who can win crowds as Hitler did has emerged and is president of my country. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, but I'm cautious of what he's capable of. Students of history know that Germany was converted to socialism by Hitler. I don't want to see that happen here.
Friday, June 5, 2009
What Balkanization and Identity Politics Bring
In Ethnic Studies at U.C. Berkeley, I was taught that only the majority can be racist. Minorities can not be racist, because they do not have power to carry out their biases. That's simply a lie, as demonstrated by this story. Still doubting it? Remember this story from 2007? Here is the same issue, in 2009. What can stop all this? We have to start identifying with other people as humans, not as subcategories of ethnicity. People matter. Color doesn't.
The Heart of Progressivism
Many people proudly announce they're progressives. What exactly is a progressive, though? Jonah Goldberg, author of "Liberal Fascism," wrote this column early in 2008 during the presidential election to help people understand a some of the history of the progressive movement.
We're not a Democracy, Reprise
I've made the point in the past that we're not a Democracy. Sometimes a short video will make more of an impression than many words. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is key to the return of good governance in the U.S.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Obama Lie: "Create or Save Jobs"
One of the ridiculous things coming out of the Obama administration is that the stimulus plan will "create or save" many many jobs. We've been shedding 500-600k jobs every month for serveral months now. Meanwhile, news stories are claiming that in 100 days we've "created or saved 150k jobs." The only problem is that there's no way anyone could know what has been saved (at least someone in the media is noticing that):
There is only one necessary data point to make the "jobs-saved" claim: an accurate measure of expected employment levels in the future. That baseline data is critical to measure what the employment level would be in the absence of the stimulus. Unfortunately for the White House, they cannot possibly know that measurement within any degree of confidence -- and they know it.
To understand just how unknowable this data point is, it's not necessary to be an economist, a mathematician or a statistician.
You only need to know this: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - thousands of the most professional and rigorous counters and analyzers of labor data in the history of mankind - makes TWO revisions of employment data for their ESTIMATE of the PREVIOUS month! And even then the reports are mere estimates - an annual benchmark survey is required to reset the nation's payroll baseline.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Pravda Mocks U.S.
To be fair, it's an opinion piece. Still, did you ever think you'd see the day when Pravda would mock us as hapless sheeple?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
