ChuBlogga!

Dell Venue Pro memory self-upgrade

2011-04-12T10:23:00.004-04:00

So nothing had really changed since my last article on the Dell Venue Pro - it still crashed and froze multiple times a day. I had hoped that the latest Windows Phone 7 OS update (NoDo) would perhaps make it more stable, but it actually made my phone even more crash-prone.

Dell (via @LionelAtDell) has been promising a firmware update "soon" that would address some issues, but I have long since lost all faith in their ability to deliver fixes in a timely manner. They've been promising fixes of some sort since after LAUNCH (Dec 2010) and they haven't delivered a single thing.

So it came time to take matters into my own hands.

It quickly became apparent that the micro sd card included with the 16gb model was the source of (or at least the major contributor of) the Venue Pro crashes. I knew it wasn't the OS, since I had previous had an HTC HD7 which operated flawlessly. I quickly noticed the issue on the Dell Venue Pro after transferring a couple GB of music, and thereafter while anything disk I/O related was happening.

It was also telling that those who had bought the 8GB model reported far less incidences of crashing and instability. So it looks like everybody who spent the extra $50 for the upgrade got nothing but troubles for their money.

I had even gone so far as to swap out my first phone for a replacement created a couple months later, and the same issues persisted. My last hope for an easy resolution was for the NoDo update, which Dell originally claimed would contain the necessary fixes, but those fixes failed to materialize.

I had had enough of waiting on Dell and their horrible customer service department, their inanities and impotent promises. What they should have done was A) verify their supplied 16gb cards were bad (easy) and B) offer to send a working replacement to affected users (again, easy). Instead they have offered no analysis, no mea culpa, no details, and no results.

I ran across an article by Matthew Miller of zdnet who had replaced his stock 16gb card with a 32gb card to good effect. I had also seen several forum posts where other users had similar success, so I figured it was time to try it myself.

I ordered a 32gb sandisk. Reviewers had reported getting both class 2 and class 4 cards, but it doesn't really matter in this case. To the contrary, WP7 devices have been known to have compatibility issues with the higher-class cards (above C6), due to the fact that higher-class cards may have higher throughput but often have lower random r/w speeds, which are more important.

At this point, I figured forget the warranty. Dell hasn't shown any capability to get me a working device so why do I need the warranty? So I followed the directions to replace the card, and sure enough it worked.

Immediately following the first bootup, over the next 3 hours, I
A) configured the phone and OS settings
B) set up all my accounts (2 Live, 1 exchange, 1 gmail, 1 facebook)
C) installed over 60 apps & games via WiFi
D) synced with my PC, copying 11 GB worth of pictures, videos, and music

And I had absolutely zero crashes and hangups. With the old card I never would have been able to do all that and not crash in 3 days, much less 3 hours. So the upgrade was pretty much an unmitigated success. I'm definitely pleased with the results, but moreso that I have a stable phone rather than increased storage.

Also, benchmark apps now report a healthy storage I/O speed of 3+ MB/s, whereas most people with the stock 16gb card reported a speed of less than 0.3 MB/s. My theory is the stock 16gb cards have a bunch of bad sectors, leading to corrupted data and slow r/w speeds.

So, the moral of this story is: Forget Dell (in the vein of Cee-Lo)

Their customer support is useless, their promises empty. I will never buy another product from them where I expect I may need their support. Thankfully, where they failed miserably the user community has stepped up admirably. I hope this post has been informative and helps out everybody else who's in the same situation.

Dell Venue Pro vs HTC HD7

2010-12-25T20:54:00.004-05:00

After having the DVP for 48 hrs, I have some quick observations to make. I've also had an HTC HD7 for 4 weeks, so i'll mostly be comparing the DVP against it. I won't comment too much on the Windows Phone 7 OS other that I think it's pretty great, and Microsoft has done what they can to ensure a consistent experience across all WP7 devices.

Hardware
The DVP wins hands down, the overall fit and finish is great, and feels more substantial. The quality and craftsmanship of the device is phenomenal. It looks and feels great in the hand.

The physical keyboard works well, but the onscreen keyboard is more difficult to use than on the HD7, due to the smaller screen size.

The overall dimensions are pretty much the same as the HD7, but a tad thicker and heavier.

Also of concern is that the DVP seems to have 256mb of RAM, despite all pre-release information indicating it would have 512mb like all the other WP7 launch devices.

Screen
The DVP AMOLED screen looks better and really pops, but the HD7 LCD is more color accurate.

The HD7 screen touch sensitivity is more responsive and accurate, while the DVP seems to have detection issues near the edges. The DVP also has gorilla glass, making the screen less susceptible to scratches.

The DVP has a 4.1" screen and the HD7 a 4.3", but you can't really tell the difference unless they're side by side, and even then it's barely noticeable.

Software
Here is the achilles heel of the DVP - it crashes ALL THE TIME, sometimes while locked. The HD7 was much more stable. My DVP has crashed on me more in the past 24 hours than the HD7 did over 4 weeks. This is not a WP7 issue, as the HD7 is very stable, so it's got to be due to Dell's software and drivers.

On the DVP, the capacitive buttons often have a delayed reaction, if they react at all. They also don't light up as much as on the HD7, nor have haptic feedback. It makes the DVP feel a lot less responsive than the HD7.

Custom apps included with the HD7 are of better utility and quality than those on the DVP.

Camera
I haven't compared picture quality yet, but the DVP takes 5-10 seconds between each shot. The DVP also takes awhile to take the shot after the button has been pressed, resulting in blurry and badly timed photos. The HD7 camera operation is much more polished, stable, and usable.

Conclusion
There is a lot to like about the DVP - but until Dell fixes the software / drivers, the DVP is unreliable for daily use. Hopefully all that requires is a software update, which could possibly be done over-the-air and not a device replacement.

Of more concern is the 256mb RAM - are the system stability issues due to having half the RAM? Will the lack of RAM become a limitation when WP7 moves to multithreading in 2011?

Can we consider the lack of RAM a defect, since everybody thought it was going to be 512mb? Will Dell fix it and replace the defective units?

So many questions, and throughout the entire launch fiasco, Dell has been very tight-lipped and not very communicative, other than infrequent and uninformative tweets from their online crew. From watching #dellvenuepro, one gets the feeling that the various Dell representatives @LionelAtDell and @AmyAtDell are doing the best they can, but are not being allowed to tell or are not being told any information.

The bottom line is, unless you like being an early adopter and can stick out the stability issues, stay away from the DVP. Although a beautiful piece of hardware, it's too unstable, and Dell's behavior to date casts serious doubt that they'll address any of these issues in a timely or satisfactory manner.

If I had to sum it up, it's like having a beautiful Lamborghini with a busted engine. It looks great, and has great components, but it runs like crap, is in need of a serious overhaul, and the local dealer hates its customers.

Additional notes
I have the 16gb, and have been mostly at home using the wifi connection. Some have said they've noticed freezing issues only when wifi is enabled - i'll take notice of the wifi during future freezing episodes to see if there's a correlation.

Also, in my stability comparison between the DVP and the HD7, it wasn't completely similar conditions, as I still had all the live tiles that came preinstalled on the DVP - so I've removed them and made the DVP start page the exact same as the HD7 - this will help narrow down the possible causes of the DVP freezing.

All you need to know about our government

2010-09-23T08:50:00.004-04:00

Take 30 seconds and really understand what this chart is displaying.

Once you see it, YWSB, as they say:

You can see from 1967 through 2000 that the ratio of federal spending to private prosperity has been increasing consistently. That's kind of what you'd expect - that as the economy grows, so would federal spending. The spending ratio is pretty darn consistent. That's not to say it's right, but it's expected.

I'm guessing the small bump in the early 90s is probably due to the Clinton administration, with the downtick associated with the GOP congress of the mid-late 90s.

The jump in the early 2000's is obviously due to 9/11 and related spending, but it's still shocking. GWB's detractors were absolutely right about his increasing the size and scope of the federal government. Of course, it was mere child's play for what was to come in 2007 after the Democrat takeover of Congress, then the presidency.

The trend is now going VERTICAL. Worse, it's also going BACKWARDS. Meaning that federal spending is INCREASING even though private prosperity is DECREASING.

In mathematical terms, that's the sort of thing you see when you divide any number by zero. Applied to the chart above, that means that the relationship between the change in total government spending and the typical income earned by an American household from year-to-year is now "undefined."

In practical terms, that means government spending has become completely disconnected from the ability of the typical American household to support it.

Both parties, Republican and Democrat, are at fault - however I think you can draw the conclusion that one party in particular is excessively more so.

Is it any surprise that the Tea Party movement exists, when we see more and more evidence of an out-of-control and disconnected government? With behavior like this, it's easy to see why the popular sentiment today is both A) anti-Democrat as well as B) anti-incumbent (even Republican).

Problem citizens

2010-08-12T14:05:00.003-04:00

Rand Simberg addresses the problem of citizenship by birth through the lens of Heinlein. I've been brewing a post for the past couple of years on a similar vein, now i'm motivated to revisit it and get it posted.

Hines Ward is my Kryptonite

2009-11-16T10:12:00.003-05:00

This is going to be about fantasy football, so if you're not interested feel free to skip this article. Seriously, it's not even about fantasy football in general, but one of my teams in one of my leagues, so the chances of you being interested are fairly remote. Talking about your fantasy football team is like talking about your dreams: Very few people care.

Then again, if you enjoy a good fantasy football yarn then go right on ahead.

I felt the need to rant, and to share a miraculous discovery with the fantasy football world:

Hines Ward is my bitch.

Let me explain.

In one of my 3 leagues (the most serious and competitive one) I drafted Hines Ward in the 8th round. Being a Bengals fan, I wasn't particularly happy with it, but he was the best WR on the board at the time, and my fandom doesn't run deep enough to where I would cripple my fantasy team (or so I thought).

So, much like when I voted for McCain, I held my nose and drafted Ward.

Week 1 went by without incident, I started Hines Ward vs TEN for 14.4 pts, and that was the right call, as none of my other WRs did better.

But as the weeks went by, I started noticing a disturbing trend:

Week 2
Sat Hines Ward @ CHI for 9.8 pts
Started Brandon Marshall vs CLE for 6.9 pts
Would've lost anyway

Week 3
Sat Hines Ward @ CIN for 11.2 pts
Started Mario Manningham @ TB for 8.2 pts
Would've won anyway

Week 4
Started Hines Ward vs SD for 18.4 pts
Should have started Brandon Marshall vs DAL for 20.2 pts
Would've won anyway

Week 5
Started Hines Ward vs DET for 19.6 pts
Should have started Brandon Marshall vs NE for 24.4 pts
Would've lost anyway

Week 6
Sat Hines Ward vs CLE for 30.4 pts
Started Brandon Marshall @ SD for 8 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward

Week 7
Started Hines Ward vs MIN for 0.8 pts
Should have started DeSean Jackson @ WAS for 33.6 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward (and another choice)

Week 8
Sat Hines Ward on BYE
Made the right call (but duh)

Week 9
Sat Hines Ward @ DEN for 21.6 pts
Started Brandon Marshall vs PIT for 20.8 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward

You got that right:
in only 1 of 8 weeks Hines Ward was playing did I make the right call.

Every time I started him, I sat his superior. Every time I sat him, he wasted away more points on my bench. My decision to start/sit Ward has cost me 3 games, which I desperately needed with my record at 3-5-1.

Which brings us to Week 10.

It was a crucial week for me in fantasy, as I needed a W in order to have a shot at getting into the playoffs - but also in reality, as my beloved Bengals visited the Steelers for control and potential championship of the AFC north.

I knew going into it that whatever decision I made with Ward, it would be the wrong one. Counting on the history we shared, I started him knowing that he would stink it up, but also knowing that I was potentially sacrificing my fantasy season by putting a dud in my lineup.

Hines Ward vs CIN got me 5.2 pts.
Brandon Marshall @ WAS and his 33 pts sat on my bench, wasted.
I lost by 14 pts.

It was worth it.

Apple: Technical Fascism

2009-11-08T12:54:00.003-05:00

Vox Day has been on an anti-Apple roll lately.

On Apple's supposed technical superiority:

As a libertarian, I despise technological fascism as much, possibly more, than the political variant. After all, as has been pointed out many times before, the Apple "1984" ad is probably one of the most ironic in history.
[...]
Anyhow, since introducing the Macintosh, the Apple method has always relied upon limiting your options and controlling your behavior while loudly declaring that they are doing precisely the opposite. The reason Apples have been inferior game machines since 1983 despite the one-time popularity of the Apple II as a gaming computer - I still have my //e - is that the game industry is full of people who like to be at the forefront of technological development and aren't willing to put up with someone telling them that you will be stuck with X video card and Y amount of memory whether you like it or not.
[...]
People often get so caught up in the hype of Apple that they fail to see the inferior utility behind the sleek, sophisticated, and superficial design.
[...]
The truth is that Apple products have usually been tailored for technological retards.

Then he quotes some excellent British snark:

When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, "I hate Macs", and then I think, "Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?" Losing that second mouse button feels like losing a limb. If the ads were really honest, Webb would be standing there with one arm, struggling to open a packet of peanuts while Mitchell effortlessly tore his apart with both hands. But then, if the ads were really honest, Webb would be dressed in unbelievably po-faced avant-garde clothing with a gigantic glowing apple on his back. And instead of conducting a proper conversation, he would be repeatedly congratulating himself for looking so cool, and banging on about how he was going to use his new laptop to write a novel, without ever getting round to doing it, like a mediocre idiot.

I do not think it means what you think it means

2009-11-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

Stimulus, eh?

Notes on Ted Kennedy

2009-09-01T13:29:00.004-04:00

From twitter and various discussions:

It's not my place to judge a man's heart, but the US is much better off without a Kennedy wielding the power of govt.

To which a fellow Christian responded:

"I bet the American Church would be drastically different if we loved and served the poor with the fervor of Kennedy.

Also, when I die, I hope there aren't followers of Christ who post publicly that the world is better off without me."

And this displays a problem with a liberal Christian mindset: it seems to make no distinction between Christian charity that flows out of an individual's own desire to be like Christ, and the abuse of govt authority that takes the fruit of man's labor and gives it another BY FORCE.

Which one is love and which one is evil? Giving 30% of your hard-earned wealth to any charity you wish, by your own will, or having 30% taken out of your hands before you see it and having it given to those who you would not have given it otherwise. And it's not just money here - keep in mind that wealth is representative of our time, our LIFE. (See Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand)

What would be our opinion of God if He didn't give man a choice to love Him? Is love true if we had no choice in the matter?

Do we really want the church to look like Ted Kennedy ran the government? Then have the church enforce a 30% tithe on its entire congregation. Give funds to any people groups that will join the church and vote you back into office year after year. These people won't believe in Christ, but they don't care as long as you're giving them free stuff. Have snoops look into every single member's balance sheet to determine if they're telling the truth and properly tithing. If people refuse to pay, go into their house with guns, kidnap them, throw them in the janitor's closet for a couple years, and garnish his wages (or his family's) for the amount due plus interest. Increase tithe amount by 3-5% every year. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I make no judgment calls on the person of Ted Kennedy - the power to look into the hearts of men is beyond me.

But I can see his actions - and as a legislator he did a lot of evil.

Is forced charity the same thing as charity? How can fellow Christians justify politics that force charity at gunpoint and call that good?

To which a fellow Christian responded:

"the real question to ask is why aren't Christians being charitable without being forced?"

A Christian who chooses to be uncharitable is sinning - but forcing that believer to be charitable and removing their choice doesn't mean that they aren't sinning.

Government is not a tool for making men holy.

My issue is with Christians who confuse God's command to help others in need with a mandate for the government to tax me and give handouts to special interest groups, who would probably be much better off without it.

I do not believe it is godly to elect a government that passes laws to confiscate the fruit of my labors in order to distribute it to the shiftless and self-proclaimed needy and do so under the guise of charity.

Heck, even if the handout recipient is worthy of charity, I still don't believe that makes it a concern of the gov'ts - this is where the Church needs to step in - and amazingly, before the gov't got involved, it very much was.

It's not at all surprising that when the gov't starts doing charity that people abdicate their own responsibility to be charitable.

I can say this about Ted Kennedy, he never killed a man.

Ted K was the epitome of lib pols: life of privilege, above the law, unaccountable, shameless, charming, amoral, abuser of power

RT @IMAO_ Maybe we should name a term limits bill in honor of Ted Kennedy.

"It’s safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position TedK has failed to support in his long career." [link]

Worth sharing

2009-07-08T10:43:00.004-04:00

Neal Boortz just read this letter from Dr. Anne Wortham on the air (emphasis mine):

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

November 6, 2008

Can you tell she is an Ayn Rand fan? I certainly picked up on a lot of the same concepts and ideas (denial of reason, belief in irrationality, etc).

I wouldn't trust the government to predict the sun rising in the east tomorrow

2009-06-05T16:13:00.002-04:00

I'll let the graphic below speak for itself (click on it to get to the article):

Yup, that's right, not only are the unemployment numbers worse than Obama's economic team predicted after the TARP, but they are worse than their prediction WITHOUT TARP!

FairTax misconceptions

2009-05-14T15:44:00.003-04:00

An author of one of the blogs I peruse had some wild misconceptions about the FairTax - unfortunately this seems to be pretty common - but as somebody who actually, you know, read the book, I figured I'd take a shot at correction.

Now, in order to make this work, this Consumption Tax... you can't just hand it all to the retailers. This has to be tracked individually. Which means everyone from the moment of birth must have a Social Security Number, or some other National ID card with related number. Everything you do will be monitored, tracked, recorded, and taxed. You buy a carton of eggs and a gallon of milk, that is going to be recorded. You buy a new car or a new gun. That's going to be recorded. The IRS will not go away... they will be up your backside.

AFAIK, there is no requirement for tracking who purchases what - only that a sale was made, and that a tax was collected. This already happens in the routine course of business! There would be no extra personal information associated with the sale other than what we're already comfortable with (credit cards, reward cards, etc.) In fact, personal privacy will INCREASE - the IRS will not go away, but their scope becomes dramatically reduced, because they are no longer needed to collect income taxes! They don't need to collect them, so they don't need to know your income, they don't need to audit you, etc. They simply become a federal version of what states do with their sales taxes. However, the IRS will still need to know some personal information, such as your address, as they will be required to send out the prebate checks.

The prebate checks actually put the poor at an advantage compared to those above the poverty line. The prebate checks will be calculated (and here's where the possibility of things going screwy is the highest) based on the estimated consumption taxes a person or family would pay for their cost of living expenses. The reason its called a prebate, and not a rebate, is that you get this money in advance of the month ahead, rather than after the fact! Sure, it's inefficient in that a person may actually get compensated MORE than what they spend in taxes, but that's highly preferable to getting reimbursed after they spent their money. So anybody living at the poverty level effectively pays 0% in taxes. What's nice about this system is that you don't have to be at the poverty level to do this - you could earn a million dollars a year, but if you're frugal with your money you pay no taxes. But how many millionaires do you know spend the minimum to survive?

Admittedly, the way the prebates are handled seem to be a concession to the poor (rather than being completely fair), however I argue its drastically better than the methods currently in use for compensating the poor for being poor. It's not ideal, but it's negligable, and if it helps the FairTax get passed then so be it.

Everyone that sells any goods or services become Tax Collection Agents. All those people would have to register with the .Gov or they can't be in business. If they neglect their collection duties, they are in big Federal trouble. This gigantic invasion of privacy is something I find distasteful.

And this is different from these retailers collecting sales tax, how?

Almost all businesses (i'm excluding private sales for now) already have a mechanism/framework for collecting state sales taxes, unless you happen to live in a state w/o sales taxes (lucky you). So how difficult would it be for a a business to report federal sales tax as well as the state sales tax which they are already doing? I must admit I do not remember what the FairTax's policy is on private sales, but as long as an item is USED (ie not new) the FairTax should not apply to it. FairTax only applies to NEW items at its final POS.

I'll leave the question of what this means for private sales of new items (ie cottage industry) to someone else.

If you put money into savings or if you have paid into social security, when you pull it out to spend it, you will have been double taxed on it.

FairTax COMPLETELY REPLACES the federal income tax. So the salary you earn has not yet been taxed! Therefore funds going into Social Security come from the FairTax in the first place. It's a little strange here as the consumption tax goes into SS, and when you get your SS check and spend it, a portion of it goes back into SS - however i'm not sure that's that big of an issue.

The tax rate for the "Fairness" is about 30% and the rate calculation is so vague, it's too easy for the government to raise it.

And this is different from how the federal government determines income tax rates ... how? Imagine no income tax brackets. Imagine how much easier it would be to set tax levels, when all the gov has to adjust is a single rate, instead of hundreds of income brackets! Again, this is another place where things can go screwy, because here it's up to the public to keep an eye on the gov and make sure they're not a) spending like drunken sailors and b) raising the tax rates for no good reasons.

The Fair Tax doesn't do anything to address the fiscal responsibility of the .Gov to manage the money and control the spending... this is like using your Debit Card instead of your Checks... your still spending it... your just transferring that money a different way.

Believe it or not, this is actually a FEATURE of the FairTax as it is written. Sure, it'd be nice to throw in a balanced budget amendment, but adding that in there would exponentially increase the difficulty of getting it passed (as if it wasn't going to be hard enough). That's why the FairTax is simply written as a replacement for the federal income tax, and that's it.

And now for another big reason to avoid the Fair Tax – A whole new economy will spring up almost over night... The Black Market. Organized Crime will be be the regulation there, the Mob, whoever. The Black Market will be able to service you for everything you need... Smuggling will become huge. As a result, ordinary people would easily become Tax Dodging Criminals. Or are you going to tell me that just because the tax is Fair everyone is going to all the sudden become completely and perfectly honest?

I don't buy this argument. Think about how much money is spent at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, car dealers, grocery stores, malls, etc. Businesses like those never be able to skirt the law and get away with not collecting the consumption tax. Now think about the percentage of the overall economy that these businesses represent - I'm no economist, but my WAG is that they represent the non-trivial portion of it. My point is that, yes, there may be black market profiteers willing to risk it all by skirting the tax, but they would represent such a small portion of the economy that the impact would be trivial.

As a bonus, think of all the illegals living and working in the US right now. How much is the federal gov't collecting from them? NOTHING - because they work under the table and don't file income taxes. But illegal workers, drug dealers, and the like still buy food, supplies, diapers, dvds, electronics, cars, etc. - so under the FairTax, for the first time, the fed gov would actually collect from them! As a bonus, because the illegal immigrants are not registered with the IRS (like all of us hard-working citizens who pay income tax), they don't get a prebate, making it harder for them to live/work in the US illegally. They would actually be ENCOURAGED to become a legal citizen, instead of today where there is a huge advantage in being here illegally. (Now I realize that the legal immigration process here is f'd up, but that's another discussion).

FairTax is a pretty much a direct tax on our GDP... 30% on our GDP.
You've heard the phrase that you tax what you want to reduce? Think about that. This would kill us as a nation. Look at how many business out there live for 2 seasons, Christmas and Tax Returns.
Fair Tax would damage our economy like a kick to the nuts. After it was already taken down to its knees.

Except that
1) The FairTax will be calculated so that the price of goods remains consistent. Whatever rate they set for the sales tax will be close to the rate of federal income tax embedded in the cost of each product.
2) If the price of goods remain consistent, and all of a sudden everybody no longer pays federal income tax... (for me in 2008 that would be equivalent to a 23% raise). What do you think happens to the economy when everybody gets 23% raises?

Now admittedly I've only read the first book, so I may be misinformed as well, but I found the arguments and logic presented by the FairTax to be very sound and even rooted in reality. I truly believe it is a "fair" tax (even if it is a tad skewered in favor of the poor) and worthy of honest discussion.

Make them eat their own dogfood!

2009-02-03T14:45:00.002-05:00

In the software industry, the phrase "eating your own dogfood" is taken to mean that a company uses its own software to do its work. Microsoft uses Microsoft products to develop future Microsoft products. You would hope that Intuit employees would use TurboTax to do their own taxes, and likewise, that the Ford CEO would drive a Ford, or more literally that an Iams employee would feed their own dog Iams products. And not because they would be getting them at an employee discount - but because they believed that their product was the best and worthy of their own use. Would you eat at a restaurant where the head chef never ate what he cooked? Would you buy a parachute that the manufacturer wouldn't use himself?

Now what if we could apply this practice to our politicians? What if we could make them eat the dogfood they force upon the rest of us? What if Barack Obama had to send his kids to public schools? What if Tom Daschle had to pay all his taxes honestly and timely? What if Hillary Clinton had to go to Canada and experience universal health care before attempting it in the US? What if Nancy Pelosi couldn't have bodyguards with firearms? What if Ted Kennedy had to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes? What if all politicians had to be audited by the IRS every single year?

Maybe they'd think twice about passing laws when they actually have to live under the same laws the rest of us do.

Hah! 3

2008-12-05T08:52:00.002-05:00

Plaxico Burress shows off his new touchdown dance

Hah! 2

2008-10-31T09:09:00.003-04:00

Blatantly stolen from TOS

Hah!

2008-10-21T13:11:00.001-04:00

Dayton Daily Democrat strikes again

2008-08-29T17:28:00.005-04:00

Check this out (go to picture #3):
(screencap below)

As the political community turned desperate for any clues about the potential running mate of Republican Presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speculation moved toward several dark horse candidates including Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the so-called "hockey mom" credited with reforms of her tiny, out-of-the-way state.

I don't think anyone can rightfully call Alaska a "tiny" state. Out-of-the-way, sure, but at 656k square miles (4x California, 2.4x Texas), it certainly isn't "tiny".

Undoubtedly they probably meant to imply the population of the state was tiny; however, I think their bias shows through, as DDN tries to belittle the state of Alaska, and therefore Sarah Palin's experience.

It's.... Sarah Palin?!

2008-08-29T13:26:00.003-04:00

McCain's running mate is Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

Brilliant political move by McCain, as it has a good chance of luring Hillary supporters away from the Democrats' affirmative action candidate. But is it a good move for conservatives?

Here's Top 10 reasons for Sarah Palin as VP.

The stately Fred Thompson is on board, so I'm sold.

And I even may be falling in love...

Card-carrying NRA member

2008-05-17T19:46:00.010-04:00

I've been an NRA member for almost a year now, thanks to Taurus' free year deal. However, I actually had to carry my NRA card with me today because I went down to Louisville for the NRA's Annual Meeting. It was pretty nifty getting to see just about everything to do with guns, and being able to ask the company representatives questions about their upcoming products.

My notes:

Ruger: If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Kel-Tec should be feeling very flattered by Ruger's LCP. The construction seems a lot nicer and the overall build quality better than the P-3AT, at an equal MSRP. The LCP also has a slide lock of dubious functionality, as it doesn't hold open on an empty mag. Kel-tec may be forced to refresh their P-3AT line to compete with Ruger (much like Springfield had to do with the XD after the S&W M&P).

Springfield: Their main feature this year was the new XD(m) line. Where the original XD borrowed heavily from the Glock design, the XD(m) borrows a bit from the S&W M&P and adds other improvements in. The XD(m) is both performance-enhanced as well as ergonomically-enhanced, kind of aiming at both the run-n-gun as well as the ccw crowd. It is performance-enhanced with a match-grade barrel, lessened trigger-reset, extended magazine release, and higher round capacity (16rds in 40 S&W). It is ergonomically-enhanced with a frame redesign, cut-down slide (very melted/rounded feel), interchangeable backstraps (a la M&P), melonite finish. It doesn't have an ambi-safety like the new XDs have, but i'm guessing they have it in the works. In handling it, my overall impression is that it felt halfway between a Glock and a Walther.

Magpul: Couldn't find them at first, but there was a Magpul rep at the Bushmaster booth. Magpul Masada is now the Bushmaster ACR. Magpul designed it, and they sold the rights to produce them to Bushmaster. Interestingly enough, the rep was actually a Masada designer - unfortunately Magpul was at another gov't/DoD exhibition across town. The ACR is nice in that it doesn't require any tools to field-strip, is very modular and can be easily adopted for multiple roles. Bushmaster is planning for Q1 2009, but the Magpul rep encouraged us to pester them in chances of getting it earlier, perhaps by November. Also unfortunately, the flip-out smg did not make an appearance.

Sig-Sauer: If I can't wait for the ACR, well then the Sig 556 is still nice.

DSArms: When I was first looking at battle rifles, I originally wanted a FAL from DSArms but after seeing them at the exhibition, I found them too heavy for my tastes.

Hornady: They had good reps there who sold me on their Lock-N-Load progressive press. I gotta say that they were very helpful and informative, unlike some of the other exhibitors at the show. I'll probably pick one up, $450 for the press, $50 for a shellplate & dies.

Crimson Trace: I talked with a rep about their new laser grip for the Kahr MK9, and if they had plans for a PM9 laser grip: good news, it's in development and we can expect it in 12-18 months.

Taurus: They introduced a new slimline pistol coming out in November. It's the PT709SS/709B, 8+1 capacity, 3" barrel, 6" OAL, very short SA trigger, manual safety, very slim and all the edges had a melted feel. My only concern is the manual safety and the hair-trigger, but otherwise it looks like it'd be a great gun for the ladies in our lives.

Vortex: if their Strikefire lives up to expectations, it will be awesome. It's 1x magnification (comes with a thread-on 2x lens), both red and green mildot, comes with mounting ring. Should be in stores in a month w/ a street price of ~$120. Much to my dismay, they didn't have a working demo model for me to play with, but i'm already sold on it.

Leupold: Holy crap, their scopes are BRIGHT and CLEAR. When I start looking into rifle scopes, I'll definitely start with them first.

NRA: there's an NRA WINE club?

Notable sightings:
Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck, Oliver North, Wayne LaPierre, Ronnie Barrett, Todd Jarrett, the guy from Midway USA who shows up on American Rifleman, and the host/editor of American Rifleman.

Voted Today

2008-03-04T07:49:00.004-05:00

Only voted in a couple races - the Republican Primary, and the US House district 7.

I was pleased to see that Fred Thompson was still on the ballot, and thus proudly voted for him. Sure, it's nothing more than a protest vote, but I could not in good conscience vote for either of the remaining 2 Republican candidates. I have a sneaking suspicion that many conservative voters will be doing likewise. It will be interesting to see how many votes go to the candidates who have already withdrawn.

I also voted for Ron Hood against Steve Austria in the primary for US House of Representatives district 7. I don't really know too much about either one, but I did really like the mailer that Ron Hood sent out explaining his beliefs and positions. He seems to be a solid conservative candidate, and a cursory google search seems to back that up.

Steve Austria, on the other hand, seems to be a career politician - not the kind of person I'd like to vote for. He's also sponsored by the Dayton Daily ~~Democrat~~ News, which tells me all I need to know right there.

In all the other races, I didn't really know anything about them, so I abstained from voting. Not voting is the most responsible thing to do when ignorant. It's my fault really for not studying up a little more on the issues, but I don't get paid for politics.

It was worth a shot

2008-02-11T16:18:00.001-05:00

To: Chipotle Investor Relations

As a loyal customer, it occurred to me that if I want to ensure that Chipotle's longevity, then perhaps I should help out and buy some stock. So I did.

But, as a loyal customer (and now part owner), I have to wonder if there's any sort of extra benefits to being a stockowner.

Like say, one free burrito per year per 2 shares of stock, or something like that :) For me, that would be 14 free burritos a year, which may sound like a lot until you consider that I probably consume 65 of your burritos per year.

Anyways, consider it? :)

Their response:

Thanks for your interest in Chipotle, and for being a Chipotle
stockholder. Unfortunately, stock ownership does not come with any kind
of free burrito benefits. That's just not possible.

Best...

Awww....

The lesser of evils

2008-01-23T10:21:00.000-05:00

Well, now that Fred's out of the race, I find myself having to seriously evaluate the remaining candidates, hold my nose and vote for the least disappointing candidate.

Then again, why vote for the lesser of evils?

Other links:

Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO eulogizes the Thompson campaign:

‘We need to deserve to lead. And this is what this is all about; it’s about deserving to lead.”

That was Fred Thompson on Saturday in South Carolina during a sincere, passionate, well-grounded speech that sounded like his farewell to the campaign trail. With his announcement Tuesday afternoon that he has withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president, we now know it was. It was a bittersweet moment for any conservative who had been watching his campaign and wished it had been a more effective one earlier in the process. It was also a moment for the ages — one that every civics class in America should reflect upon: Politics is about policy and service to this great nation; that’s what makes the campaign worthwhile. That’s why you put up with the trophy-wife slanders and Chris Matthews’s questions.
[...]
There’s no doubt we’ll be seeing him again — he’s too invested in this country he loves for us not to. Thank God for Fred Thompson. May he inspire more to serve. And may he encourage us to rethink our may-the-man-with-the-best-soundbites-win electoral process.

Jim Geraghty on what Fred should have done:

He Should Have Punched More Hippies.

Frederalism

2007-12-30T00:17:00.000-05:00

This clip from Fred should do a good job of stealing support from the R-o-n P-a-u-l's constitutionalist followers.

Blatantly stolen from RWN

Fred Thompson: Kill, Protect, Punch.

2007-12-19T08:34:00.000-05:00

I'll try and get some more substantial posts up soon. I feel like it's finally time to start talking politics - I hate that the political cycle is now 24/7/365 instead of every 2 years for a couple of months.

Guitar Hero 3 vs. Rock Band Song List

2007-10-25T13:12:00.000-04:00

Because I'm a geek, I compiled a list of known songs for Guitar Hero 3 (GH3) and Rock Band (RB). If you're having trouble deciding which one to get, this should help. Of course, you could just buy both.

Table after the break.

Updated 11/05

(M)aster, (C)over, (U)nknown but included

Regular songs

Artist	Song	RB	GH3
Aerosmith	Same Old Song And Dance		M
Aerosmith	Train Kept A Rollin'	C
AFI	Miss Murder		M
Alice Cooper	School's Out		C
Beastie Boys	Sabotage	M	M
Black Sabbath	Paranoid	C	C
Bloc Party	Helicopter		M
Blue Oyster Cult	Cities On Flame		C
Blue Oyster Cult	Don't Fear The Reaper	M
Bon Jovi	Wanted Dead or Alive	M
Boston	Foreplay/Long Time	M
Coheed & Cambria	Welcome Home	M
Cream	Sunshine Of Your Love		C
David Bowie	Suffragette City	M
Dead Kennedys	Holiday In Cambodia		C
Deep Purple	Highway Star	M
Disturbed	Stricken		M
Eric Johnson	Cliffs Of Dover		C
Faith No More	Epic	M
Fallout Boy	Dead On Arrival	M
Foghat	Slow Ride		C
Foo Fighters	Learn To Fly	M
Garbage	I Think I'm Paranoid	M
Guns N' Roses	Welcome To The Jungle		M
Heart	Barracuda		C
Hole	Celebrity Skin	M
Iron Maiden	Number Of The Beast		M
Iron Maiden	Run To The Hills	C
Jet	Are You Gonna Be My Girl	M
KISS	Detroit Rock City	M
KISS	Rock And Roll All Nite		C
Living Colour	Cult Of Personality		M
Matchbook Romance	Monsters		M
Metallica	Enter Sandman	M
Metallica	One		M
Molly Hatchet	Flirtin' With Disaster	M
Mountain	Mississippi Queen	C	C
Muse	Knights Of Cydonia		M
New Pornographers	Electric Version	M
Nine Inch Nails	The Hand That Feeds	M
Nirvana	In Bloom	M
OK Go!	Here It Goes Again	M
Pat Benatar	Hit Me With Your Best Shot		C
Pearl Jam	Even Flow		M
Poison	Talk Dirty To Me		M
Priestess	Lay Down		M
Queens Of The Stone Age	3's And 7's		M
Queens Of The Stone Age	Go With The Flow	M
R.E.M.	Orange Crush	M
Radiohead	Creep	M
Rage Against The Machine	Bulls On Parade		M
Red Hot Chili Peppers	Dani California	M
Red Hot Chili Peppers	Suck My Kiss		M
Rolling Stones	Gimme Shelter	M
Rolling Stones	Paint It Black		M
Rush	Tom Sawyer	C
Santana	Black Magic Woman		C
Scorpions	Rock You Like A Hurricane		C
Slayer	Raining Blood		M
Slipknot	Before I Forget		M
Smashing Pumpkins	Cherub Rock	M	M
Social Distortion	Story Of My Life		C
Sonic Youth	Kool Thing		C
Soundgarden	Black Hole Sun	M
Stevie Ray Vaughn	Pride And Joy		C
Stone Temple Pilots	Vasoline	M
Sweet	Ballroom Blitz	C
Tenacious D	The Metal		M
The Clash	Should I Stay Or Should I Go	M
The Hives	Main Offender	M
The Killers	When You Were Young	M	M
The Outlaws	Green Grass & High Tides	C
The Pixies	Wave Of Mutilation	M
The Police	Next To You	M
The Ramones	Blitzkrieg Bop	M
The Sex Pistols	Anarchy In The U.K.		M
The Strokes	Reptilia	M	M
The Who	The Seeker		C
The Who	Won't Get Fooled Again	M
Weezer	My Name Is Jonas		M
Weezer	Say It Ain't So	M
White Zombie	Black Sunshine		C
Yeah Yeah Yeahs	Maps	M
ZZ Top	La Grange		C

Bonus Songs

Artist	Song	RB	GH3
An Endless Sporadic	Impulse		M
Anarchy Club	Blood Doll	M
Backyard Babies	Minus Celsius		M
Bang Camaro	Pleasure (Pleasure)	M
Bret Michaels Band	Go That Far		M
Crooked X	Nightmare	M
Die Toten Hosen	Hier Kommit Alex		M
Dope	Nothing For Me Here		M
Dragonforce	Through Fire And Flames		M
Fall Of Troy	FCPREMIX		M
Flyleaf	I'm So Sick	M
Freezepop	Brainpower	M
Gallows	In The Belly Of A Shark		M
Heroes del Silencio	Avalancha		M
Honest Bob And The Factory-To-Dealer Incentives	I Get By	M
In Flames	Take This Life		M
Kaiser Chiefs	Ruby		M
Killswitch Engage	My Curse		M
LA Slum Lords	Down N Dirty		M
Lacuna Coil	Closer		M
Lions	Metal Heavy Lady		M
NAAST	Mauvis Garcon		M
Prototype	The Way It Ends		M
Revolverhand	Generation Rock		M
Rise Against	Prayer Of The Refugee		M
Scouts Of St. Sebastian	In Love		M
Senses Fail	Can't Be Saved		M
Superbus	Radio Song		M
The Acro-Brats	Day Late, Dollar Short	M
The Hellacopters	I'm In The Band		M
The Konks	29 Fingers	M
The Mother Hips	Time We Had	M
The Sleeping	Don't Hold Back		M
The Stone Roses	She Bangs The Drums		C
Vagiant	Seven	M

Downloadable Songs

Artist	Song	GH3
AFI	Carcinogen Crush	M
Flyleaf	Tina	M
Foo Fighters	All My Life	M
Foo Fighters	The Pretender	M
Foo Fighters	This Is A Call	M
Marilyn Manson	Putting Holes In Happiness	M
Velvet Revolver	Messages	M
Velvet Revolver	She Builds Quick Machines	M
Velvet Revolver	Slither	M
GH3 Boss Battle	vs. Tom Morello	M
GH3 Boss Battle	vs. Slash	M
GH3 Boss Battle	vs. Lou (The Devil Went Down To Georgia)	C

I'll make it sortable when I get some time.

Currently Known Stats
Rock Band has 53 songs: 45 regular songs (38 Masters / 7 Covers), 10 bonus songs.
Guitar Hero 3 has 80 songs: 45 regular songs (26 Masters / 19 Covers), 25 bonus songs, 12 announced downloadable songs.
6 songs are in both games: Beastie Boys "Sabotage" (M), Black Sabbath "Paranoid" (C), Mountain "Mississippi Queen" (C), Smashing Pumpkins "Cherub Rock" (M), The Killers "When You Were Young", The Strokes "Reptilia" (M).

Sources
GH3, GH3, GH3, RB, RB, RB, RB, GH3

Dayton Brand Identity

2007-10-24T17:01:00.000-04:00

I just got this email forwarded to me:

As you may know, The Dayton Development Coalition has spent the better part of a year working with government, industry, and education partners and hundreds of volunteers across twelve counties to create a brand identity for our region. We're doing this so we can tell a true, consistent story about who we are and what we're all about. That way we can celebrate local pride and market our region effectively to businesses, visitors, and anyone looking for a great place to live.

To succeed, this effort needs to accurately reflect our region and the way we feel about it, so we'd like your opinion on the work we've done so far. Based on the results of a large-scale survey of citizens, workers, and community leaders, we've developed a regional brand. The regional brand would be used to represent the whole 12-county, Dayton region.

Please take a few moments to visit the link below before Friday, October 26th and give us the benefit of your opinion. Simply by completing our survey, you can provide invaluable input to help us ensure the Dayton region brand identity is strong, unique, and
compelling. The survey is only fifteen questions and will only take a few minutes.

With your help, we hope to represent the Dayton Region and its citizens well and truly-and work toward a brighter future for all of us.

Survey link: http://survey.daytonregion.com/enter_int.htm

Sincerely,

Maureen Patterson
Vice President Stakeholder Relations
Dayton Development Coalition

I think I can come up with some things that "accurately reflect our region and the way we feel about it":

Dayton: "We wish we were Cincinnati!"
Dayton, Birthplace of Aviation and... well we haven't done much since then.
Kitty Hawk may claim "First in Flight", but Dayton is "First in Bank Robberies!"

I'm sure you can come up with much better ones. Do so in the comments

No Reach Too Far

2007-10-24T13:06:00.000-04:00

Isn't it amazing how far you can make a mental leap when you've disconnected yourself from the realm of reality?

Wildfires get personal for lawmakers

"One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

Time Warner Cable (TWC) Dayton Ohio is screwing me over

2007-10-04T13:34:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to start blogging again, but it's been hard to overcome a combination of inertia, laziness, and general lack of blog-worthy material.

Figures it take me getting screwed over in order to start blogging again. Let me tell you a story:

I've been with TWC for 4+ years now, and I've been on my current package for at least 2.

That package is:
digipic 2000
hdtv tier
hbo
cinemax
2 HD DVRs
road runner internet

And I've been paying ~$150/month after taxes.

With their new Aug 29 channel lineup, I noticed that TNT HD and ESPN2 HD, which I was previously getting, were removed. TNT HD came up gray, ESPN2 HD said I was not subscribed.

TWC sent out a couple of techs to check it out - no signal problems, receivers were reset, no change - so they got on the phone with the office, and were told that because of the new package lineup, I could not get those 2 channels back without updating my packages. It's rather silly, considering that the HDTV standard tier consists of Discovery HD, TNT HD, ESPN HD, and ESPN2 HD, yet Discovery HD and ESPN HD still come in just fine for me. I'm just missing the TNT HD and ESPN2 HD.

Apparently "grandfathering" no longer means what it use to mean.

I just called the local TWC office to confirm this. The csr confirmed to me that if I wanted TNT HD and ESPN2 HD back, she'd have to upgrade my older packages to a newer packages, which would increase my bill by an extra $20/month.

Just to make sure I heard her correctly, I asked the following question, which went like this:

Me: "Let me get this straight: I was paying $150/month before September, which included TNT HD and ESPN2 HD, and now I'm paying $150/month without TNT HD and ESPN2 HD, and in order to get same selection of channels I had before, you want to charge me an extra $20 a month?"

CSR: "Yes, that's correct."

Me: "Thanks, just wanted to get that straight."
[click]

So, long story short, TWC is dicking me over and I'm contemplating switching to directv. Directv already has a big leg up in that I could finally get NBC in HD, and NFL network and the big 10 network, but according to the website, if I wanted to get the same setup I had at TWC (2 HD DVRs, HBO/cinemax, etc.) it'd cost me about the same per month, but with a $500 startup cost! Is that right?

So, for anybody who's got directv, what's the deal with the DVRs? I have to pay for them up front, instead of renting them from the provider? Do I end up owning them?

Train like you fight, fight like you train

2007-06-29T16:56:00.000-04:00

FrontSight is offering a free certificate for some of their firearms training courses! This is open to any blogger, all you have to do is put their links up for a few years. As I'll probably never delete this post, that's not going to be an issue. Sounds like a fair deal to me, as their courses can cost a couple thousand dollars. Found this over on AnarchAngel, and it's not a scam.

Here's the offer:

How would you like to receive a certificate to attend your
choice of a Four Day Defensive Handgun, Four Day Tactical
Shotgun, Four Day Practical Rifle, Four Day Select-Fire
M16, or a Four Day Uzi Submachine Gun course at no charge
and be able to attend the course at any time in the future
that is convenient for you?

This is a $2,000, Four Day Course of your choice at my
Front Sight Las Vegas facility that you can attend at any
time in the future-- at no charge!

Well, I will mail you such a certificate if you will do me
the favor of placing all the following website links on your
personal website, business website or blog.

You can copy the code for the Front Sight links from this
page:

http://frontsight.com/newsletter/front-sight-links.html

Why am I doing this? Why am I giving you such an
unbelievable opportunity to take a Four Day Firearms
Training Course at Front Sight at no cost?

The answer is very simple:

I'm giving you this opportunity in exchange for you helping
me spread all the great information on Front Sight's
website and all the positive media coverage we have
received for gun owners. By placing the links listed above
on your personal or business website link pages, more
people will see them than ever before and that will help us
positively change the image of gun ownership faster than
ever before.

Plus, I know that once you come out and take a course with
us, you will want to take all our courses, so I am willing
to give you a $2,000 Four Day Course at no cost for helping
me spread Front Sight's message on your websites and at
the same time, build a relationship with you that will
last a lifetime!

After you have placed our links on your link page, simply
e-mail me a link to the page you have listed our links on
along with your name, address and a personal statement
that you will keep the links on your page for a period of
at least three years.

I will personally review your link page to verify the
links are in place and then mail you a special
certificate, that has no expiration date, to attend the
Four Day Course of your choice. The certificate is also
transferable, so if you cannot use it, you can always
transfer it to someone who can.

Please understand this offer is limited and the
opportunity to get a $2,000 Four Day Course Certificate
will expire (the certificate does not expire just the
opportunity to get the certificate) on June 30, 2007 so
don't hesitate in placing our links on your personal or
business website.

And it you don't have a website NOW is the time to create
one while you can get a $2,000 Four Day Course Certificate
from me to do so.

If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me
and I will assist you as I can.

Remember, this offer expires on midnight, June 30, 2007!
Take advantage of this opportunity immediately.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

Here's the links:

Front Sight Firearms Training

Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight

Ignatius Piazza Blog

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury

Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review

Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat

Front Sight - on CNN

Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer

Front Sight - in Icon Magazine

Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune

Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World

Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle

Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram

Front Sight - in Financial Times

Front Sight - on BBC News

Front Sight - in Gun Web

Front Sight - in New York Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review

Front Sight - in Sierra Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine

Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily

Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo

Front Sight - on USA Today

Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel

Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life

Front Sight - in US News & World Report

Front Sight - in London Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post

Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal

Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register

Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine

Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service

Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio

Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy

My Experience at Front Sight

Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America

The Flying Gun

2007-05-03T23:43:00.000-04:00

My roommate traveled to Florida on AirTran recently, and he wanted to take his firearm along with him. BTW, yes you can do that, and it's completely legal. However, he ran into some trouble along the way.

This is his story:

This is the story of my first experience checking a gun & ammunition on a commercial flight.

I decided to take a last minute trip to visit my sister and brother-in-law in Daytona Beach, FL. It was my brother-in-law's birthday and my sister and I thought that it would be fun to surprise him (Plus ? when you live in Ohio you will use any excuse you can find to head south). Since Florida honors my Ohio CCW I decided that I would check my Kahr P9 Covert, 20 rounds of Winchester Supreme S9, and my 6 & 7 round magazines.

Before leaving I decided to do some research. I looked up stories that others had shared about their experiences on traveling with a firearm. I also looked up and printed the rules for traveling with hazardous materials from both the TSA and AirTran.

TSA: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm
AirTran: http://www.airtran.com/policies/permitted_and_prohibited_items.aspx#6

The AirTran policy is more restrictive than the TSA policy. AirTran does not allow you to transport your ammunition in the same container as the firearm.
Now with the specific policies in hand I decided to purchase an appropriate case to transport my gun with. I bought several different cases but finally found a Winchester case for $40 that I really loved. This case was a little bigger than what I had planned on purchasing but I knew that it would protect my firearm and I could carry two guns if I wanted to. I also picked up two padlocks to attach to the locking rings on the case.

Since I was only taking a short trip I decided to pack this case inside my checked bag with my clothes and toiletries. I felt that it would be safer to keep this case inside my baggage since anybody can tell exactly what is in this case by looking at it.

Here is a picture of the case packed inside my checked bag. Keep in mind that the suitcase this is packed in is not really a "checked" bag but is actually a full-size carry-on (Hence the limited space). Again, I was only taking an extended weekend trip and didn't need to take much since I was staying with family. You can also see the 20 rounds of 9mm in the factory box in the zippered pouch. My handgun and both magazines are locked in the hard-sided case and have no ammunition with them.

Because of the wording of AirTran's policy I decided to call 1-800-AIRTRAN the day before my flight to get clarification on their policy. The specific wording of their policy is as follows: "Ammunition ? small arms ammunitions for personal use must be securely packaged in the original manufacturer's packaging, or in a fiber, wood, or metal box specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. Ammunition must be packed in baggage separate from the firearm."

The final sentence of their policy is what concerned me and I decided that clarification was in order. Upon calling 1-800-AIRTRAN I quickly realized that the representative who answered the phone was not prepared to assist me with my question. At anytime during the process of transporting a firearm when someone working for an airline asks you if you are a LEO after asking them a firearms related question then it is a pretty good bet that they are operating out of their element and will be incapable of assisting you. I asked the representative if I could speak with a supervisor and she put me on hold. The female supervisor that answered the phone was extremely helpful and knowledgeable. It was immediately apparent that this was not the first time she had been asked a firearms related question. I explained how my bags were packed and she assured me that I had met AirTran's requirements and that I would have no problems checking in. She said that since my gun case was locked separately from the ammunition in my checked bag that it was okay to transport the ammunition and firearm in the same baggage. I had attempted to record this conversation on my mobile phone but I ran out of memory before even speaking to the supervisor and thereby making my recording useless.

I still wasn't 100% confident that I would have no problems at the airport but I was determined to take advantage of my rights and take my firearm with me to Florida. Just in case I ran into any problems when checking in I brought my brother with me who is an employee at the Dayton International Airport to walk me through security and to my gate. This turned out to be completely unnecessary. The gentleman who was working the AirTran counter when I checked in had obviously checked in a handgun before. The process was very simple:

I declared my firearm and ammunition to the agent as I was setting my bag on the scale.
The agent asked to see my boarding pass and my ID which I presented to him.
The agent asked me to open my bag at which time I showed him the case and pointed out where the ammo was stored.
The agent then asked me to open my gun case so that he could verify that the gun was unloaded.
I unlocked and opened the case and showed the agent my unloaded firearm with the two empty magazines. (At no point did the agent or I touch the firearm.)
The agent had me sign a bright red firearm inspection tag which he initialed and then I placed this tag inside the case.
I then relocked my gun case, placed it back inside my checked bag, and closed my checked bag.
I walked my bag over to the TSA screeners and again declared my firearm and ammunition to the screeners. (The AirTran agent was very careful to point out that I had to remember to declare my firearm and ammunition to the TSA screeners even though I had already declared it to him. The agent made sure that I understood this point and explained that a lot of people get in trouble because they forget to declare the firearm and ammunition to the baggage screeners. The agent also made a comment about checking the gun being no big deal as he could probably see that I was nervous about the whole process. I made a point of thanking the agent for his professionalism.)
The TSA screeners then asked me to wait while they screened my luggage. I actually got to see my gun on the X-ray display screen and was rather impressed by the resolution. The screeners said everything looked fine and sent me on my way.

I had no troubles when going through the security checkpoint and was not pulled aside for additional screening. I landed in Orlando and my baggage popped out of the chute just like everyone else's. I inspected the bag and could find no evidence that anyone had so much as opened my bag after it was out of my sight.

The trip down to Florida was very simple and I felt very comfortable with the whole manner in which everything was handled. Everyone that I had dealt with was extremely professional including my dealings with the TSA baggage screeners.

For my return trip I was much more at ease with checking my gun at the counter. I had packed my bag identically to the way that it was packed on the way down. I saw no reason why I would run into any issues on the way back.

I showed up at the AirTran counter about 1 hour and 20 minutes before my plane was scheduled to depart. I had to wait in line this time because I got there right behind a high school class trip. There were about 10 AirTran agents working the counter in Orlando as opposed to the 2 agents I saw in Dayton. When my turn came I followed the same procedure as before and declared my firearm and ammunition as I was placing them on the scale. This agent had never checked a gun before so he asked me to wait while he went and asked another agent for assistance. The other agent came down the line and I already had my suitcase opened for him when he arrived. I explained how the gun case was locked with no ammunition in it and that the ammunition was stored in the factory box separately in my suitcase. The agent immediately told me that I could not transport the gun and ammunition in the same baggage. I again explained to him that the gun case was locked and that the ammunition was separate from the firearm. The agent then repeated his previous statement to me and I asked him if I could speak to his supervisor. The agent went down the line and spoke with his supervisor and when he returned he told me to take my baggage to the other end of the line to speak with her. I repacked my bag and carried it down the line.

The supervisor was already in defensive mode and was in the middle of printing copies of AirTran's baggage policy for me when I arrived. I explained that this would be unnecessary since I was already carrying copies of AirTran's and the TSA's baggage policies and was quite well versed in them. Over the next ten minutes I tried to explain how I had spoken to a supervisor at 1-800-AIRTRAN and had transported my firearm and ammunition in the exact same manner on the flight from Dayton. At one point I was actually able to show the AirTran supervisor how my bag was packed at which time she turned to another one of the agents (who apparently outranked her) and told her that my bag was packed correctly. To this the other AirTran agent/supervisor immediately responded that she was incorrect. Another agent actually suggested to me that I give my ammunition to the security personnel and not take it with me. I explained to her that I had no intention of throwing away my ammunition and that this was a ridiculous statement and I could not believe that she would even suggest such a course.

At this point I was starting to worry about missing my flight and decided to relent and allow them to check my gun case as a second piece of luggage. I told the agents that I felt this way of transport was much less safe than how I had originally packed the firearm. I also informed them that I would never fly with their airline again (I'm sure they care).

After all of the disagreements were out of the way the process went pretty much the same as it had in Dayton. The agent had me sign a red tag again and place it inside the gun case. Once both my gun case and my suitcase were closed back up the AirTran agent actually walked with me to the TSA screeners and told them herself that I had a firearm and ammunition in my bags. The TSA screeners asked me to wait and were obviously confused as to why the agent felt the need to inform them herself. Once they got to my bag the head TSA screener at this screening station immediately noticed that my gun case was separate from the rest of my checked baggage and asked me if I was sure that I wanted to transport it this way. He pointed out that the gun case would be much safer in a regular piece of luggage so that people (baggage handlers) would not have knowledge that I was transporting a firearm.

At this I threw my hands into the air and explained to the screener that I had just spent the last 10 minutes trying to explain the exact same point to the AirTran agents. He conferred with his colleagues and was obviously uncomfortable with the firearm being transported in this manner. The screener then asked a TSA security guard to go and speak with the supervisor at the AirTran ticket counter to try to get them to change their minds. I could see the faces of the AirTran agents and the supervisor and they were obviously upset that someone else was now arguing the same point that I had argued only minutes before. The security guard returned from the counter and told us that AirTran would not reverse their position. The screener was still not uncomfortable with this so he asked a TSA security guard to carry the gun case to the plane so that it would not be handled by baggage handlers. I thanked the TSA personnel for being understanding and headed off to the security checkpoint. My gun case and my suitcase arrived in Dayton without incident.

My complaint here is that AirTran's policy is ambiguous enough that their employees feel that they can interpret it in different ways. AirTran needs to review the wording of their policy and decide if they want to allow passengers to check their baggage in the manner in which mine was packed or if they always want their customers to have to check two separate bags when flying with a firearm and ammunition. If the answer is the latter then they can count on never seeing my business again. I find the TSA's policy to be completely adequate in protecting passengers from any danger from firearms and see no reason for AirTran to add their own complexity to traveling with firearms.

Answers to "What If"

2007-04-18T03:31:00.000-04:00

I asked in my last post, "What if someone had been armed?". Today, I'll give you some answers.

How about the last time there was a school shooting in VA?

[Student Orest J.] Jowyk began researching his law school's gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

Jowyk was heartened by the students' intervention. But looking into GMU's gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school's board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.

Anyone who violates the school's gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.
[...]

So two students had the nerve and the ability to do something about the situtation, and they managed to subdue the attacker. But, being law abiding CCW licensees, they complied with their university's no-guns policy, and had to run back to their cars to get their weapons. How much time did that take? How many other lives hung in the balance in the meantime? If the school had trusted them as much as the state of Virginia does, they could've ended the threat a lot quicker.

In another state, a different school, the same situation:

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week."

The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.

But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said.
[...]
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.

In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time.

Joel Myrick stopped a 1999 school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi after taking several minutes to leave his office, run all the way to the parking lot, unlock his truck, unlock a gun case, retrieve ammunition, load his gun, run back to the school, and confront the shooter? How many more people would have been slaughtered if not for the brave actions of [Myrick]? How many children were killed while Vice Principal Myrick retrieved his self-defense tools that he wasn't permitted to keep with him?

Zero-tolerance laws again prove themselves to be merely zero-thought. Short of having cops on duty in all classrooms, at all entrances, what could possibly protect those kids? Hmm, perhaps we could find a few responsible adults and pay for some firearms training? Oh, and actually allow them to possess tools for self-defense on school grounds? Or does that just make too much sense?

Being able to protect yourself is very good - but to be fair, self-preservation is a strong natural instinct. However, sacrificing your own protection for the sake of protecting others, others you don't even know - that's downright supernatural. That's the story of Mark Wilson:

First we have a story about the Tyler Texas shootings, recounting how Mark Wilson lost his life protecting the unarmed, including the shooters own son, from David Arroyo Sr.

Wilson gave his life to protect those around him. I can think of no finer thing to say of a man.
David Arroyo Sr. killed his wife, shot his son, critically wounded a deputy and blown the glass doors out of the East end of the Smith County Courthouse before Mark Wilson lined up the sights of his 1911.

Mark had heard the boom of gunfire from his loft apartment overlooking the Spring Street side of downtown Tyler. When Mark moved into the apartment, he told friends that he expected a shootout sooner or later on the street below. A glance out his windows would have shown the scene completely: the gunman advancing, the victims sprawled on concrete. Mark grabbed his Colt, bounded down the staircase to the sidewalk, crossed the corner intersection and sprinted to cover behind the first vehicle on the end of the block.

Though Wilson couldn't have known it, the extended cab truck parked head into the loading zone belonged to David Arroyo who was at that moment stepping forward to finish killing his own son on the courthouse steps. Arroyo had followed his wife and child to the courthouse, or waited there until it was time for their child support hearing, then intercepted them on the courthouse steps. Mark lined up the sights on the gunman's bulkyb ack. He shot once, perhaps twice. The range is inside 20 yards. Less than 60 seconds had passed since he heard the first shot.

In the streetside restaurants and shops people were running for backexits. Waiters and cashiers were locking doors and dialing 911. Arroyo was burning through 65 rounds of 7.62X39 ammunition. Over 100 witnesses were listening or watching. Bullets began to tick in the window glass of lawyers' offices, splinter through woodwork of shops, and whine off plaster walls. In the courthouse judges locked themselves in their chambers. Witnesses and juries huddled while deputies and bailiffs scrambled to secure the building and return fire.

Mark Wilson was in street, firing.

The courthouse security camera shows Arroyo turning away from his son bleeding on the steps and running back to his truck. In the truck was more ammunition, a loaded Remington 243, and escape. On camera, three sheriff deputies in the courthouse door began to fire steadily. Mark shoots again to no effect. The gunman is wearing an army flak jacket over body armor. Pistol shots will not penetrate. Mark is wearing a red pullover sweatshirt and jeans.

Wilson and Arroyo exchange shots across the truck bed popping up and down, perhaps three shots each before Mark falls to the red bricks, facedown. Arroyo walks around the end of the truck, steps over him and shoots repeatedly. He starts his truck and backs out, stopping at the corner stop sign and looking both ways before driving north on Spring Street. A Tyler police car sits at the intersection. Michael Mosley, a uniformed security officer assigned to the US Attorneys Office chases the truck on foot, unfired pistol in hand.

Tyler Police will intercept and kill Arroyo with his Mak-90 in his hands two miles up highway 271 North.

Mark Wilson was a shooter and an athlete in many sports. Hee nthusiastically held a Texas CHL. He was the former operator of a state-of-the-art indoor gun range in Tyler. He believed in the Bill of Rights. His family and many friends in Tyler will miss him.

Donations to:
Children's Village
P.O. Box 6564
Tyler, Texas

John 10:11-13 - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep."

Dan McKown will be the first to say he's not a hero, but his actions speak otherwise:

Once he turned 21, McKown obtained a license to carry a concealed weapon because he believed - and still does - that firearms offer the best protection from violence.

On a Sunday afternoon in November, McKown was confronted with the type of situation he had spent most of his life preparing for. With his ever-present handgun in his waistband, McKown was walking through the Tacoma Mall just as an angry man began spraying customers with gunfire.

McKown pulled his gun. When he didn't immediately see the gunman, he put his gun back in his waistband. Seconds later he spotted the gunman, but it was too late.

"I'd spent my life carrying a gun to protect people and when the situation came, I failed," McKown says. "All I had to do was keep my gun out, but I didn't. I felt humiliated."

Of the seven people wounded by 20-year-old Dominick Maldonado, McKown was the most seriously injured by far. He was shot five times, with one bullet severing his spine. He was initially told he might never walk again.
[...]
The man who aspires to be a stand-up comedian cannot stand. But he tries to put a positive spin on his situation, sprinkling his routine with jokes about the shooting:

"So then I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put down your weapon,' which apparently translates in street lingo to 'Shoot me right now.'"

But there's no mistaking the impact the shooting has had on the 38-year-old's psyche. His decision to put the gun away hurt him as much as the bullets that slammed into his body that Nov. 20 afternoon.

He wrestles with feelings of failure and bouts of depression. He's grappling with the idea that he is now, and may always be, disabled. His faith in a Christian God has remained intact, he said, but his faith in some people has been shaken.

"I feel grateful, but it angers me when people say I will walk again. I'm trying to accept the possibility of not walking. I'm trying to accept that God might want me in this chair," he says.
[...]
He was working at Excalibur Cutlery and Gifts store in the Tacoma Mall where he had been employed for seven years. He was walking to a mall bank branch to make a store deposit when he heard the gunshots.

McKown immediately pulled out his 9-mm handgun and looked around. "Where's the shooter?" he called out to the people around him. "Do you see him?"

The gunshots ceased, and in the silence it occurred to McKown that it might not be safe to have a gun out in the mall. He remembers thinking: Is this legal? Is this safe? The cops could mistake me for the shooter.

He tucked the gun back inside his waistband just before Maldonado walked by.

"He brings his gun up, I draw my gun and I sight him and that's when I got shot. I was too late," McKown said.
[...]
"I lay there and I was talking to God, apologizing for failing him and kicking myself the whole time," McKown said. "I'd had him in my sights, but when the shooting stopped, I started thinking and I over-thought. I was a half a second too late."

McKown, the last person wounded in Maldonado's shooting spree, was later told by police that his injuries may have stopped Maldonado after all. The gunman fled into a store immediately after shooting McKown.

McKown takes comfort in the fact that "no one else was hurt after me."

"Dan is always one who believed in protecting people and he put his life on the line for other people," McKown's father said. "His actions and the actions of others like him may have prevented additional casualties by confronting the aggression and possibly changing the gunman’s action early in the conflict."

Just recently, there was another shooting in another "gun-free" shopping mall. But thankfully, there was another man with a gun:

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who shot five people to death before he was killed by police.

A day after the shooting, investigators struggled to figure out why a trench-coated Sulejmen Talovic opened fire on shoppers with a supremely calm look on his face.

The teenager wanted "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

John Lott has this to say:

I have been arguing this point for years, but here is one reason why police officers should be allowed to carry concealed handguns when they are off-duty. Fortunately, the off-duty officer ignored the "no guns allowed" sign at the Mall. The killer apparently also ignored the sign.

Unless there are security guards and metal detectors, there's no such thing as a "gun-free zone". Even then a demented soul could probably still find a way. News flash: criminals don't have a problem breaking laws.

It appears as though off-duty Ogden police Officer Kenneth Hammond, who carried a concealed weapon, stopped the killing spree, said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.

Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.

"But we do know what happens when there is no one with a concealed weapon in these situations - people die."

"Those without swords can still die upon them"

Eowyn, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien

So, in light of these stories, I must again ask:

What if?
What if there had been a Joel Myrick at Columbine?
What if there had been a Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges at Virginia Tech?
What if it happens to you, my dear reader?

My hope is that I got you thinking. Regardless of whether or not you choose to carry a concealed weapon, at the very least I expect you to be aware of the possibility that someday you may tested. Thinking now about what you would do in certain cases saves you a lot of time later - saved time that may save lives.

What if?

2007-04-16T12:58:00.000-04:00

You've probably heard about the VT shooting by now:

Gunman Kills 21 at Virginia Tech
Apr 16, 12:31 PM (ET)
By SUE LINDSEY

BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech on Monday, killing 21 people and wounding another 21 before he was killed, police said.

A horrible tragedy, in its own right.
However, it's even worse in light of this:

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
[...]
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (emphasis mine)
[...]
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
[...]
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

It won't be long before both sides of the argument starts comparisons to Columbine:
The anti-gun group will again argue for tougher restrictions and more gun control, even though such methods are proven time and time again to be more harm than help.
The pro-gun group will again be proven correct in that gun control only affects the law-abiding, and not the criminals.

So, the rhetorical questions begin:

What if one teacher at Columbine had been armed?

What if one student at Virginia Tech had been armed?

Now, college students are not known for a developed sense of personal responsibility, so maybe allowing them to CCW may not sound like the wisest choice. However, that's a training issue. We allow college students to drive cars and keep keys in their rooms, even though there's a very good chance of drunkenness and stupidity. But we hammer into their heads every chance we get to not drink and drive. Why not simply apply the same method to firearms? Now I can't back this up with data (although if anybody comes across some, let me know), but has the drunk-driving rate been affected by tougher drunk-driving penalties? Likewise, why not do the same thing with firearm offenses?

Besides, in many states, having a CCW permit implies 2 things: that 1) you have a clean criminal record, and 2) you have taken a handgun safety course. And statistically, CCW licensees have been proven to be a very law-abiding and responsible group (there are, as always, a few bad apples - but such in the CCW community are exceedingly rare). I'd like to think that we can reliably count on a CCW licensee, even one in college, to be responsible enough to maintain control and be responsible with a firearm.

But Virginia Tech, like most campuses, has forbidden everybody, even the responsible, the option of self-defense. It's my contention that if you're going to take away the ability to self-protect, then you better darn well provide it for me. Otherwise it's just plain irresponsible. For that reason, I will not do business with any bank that will not allow CCW (especially in the Dayton area). BTW, compared to other cities with populations between 135k and 185k, Dayton (160k) ranks 1st in robbery, 3rd in forcible rape, 3rd in murder, and 7th in overall violent crime (source: FBI UCR 2005).

So, in the end, you have to find your own answer to this question:
Would you rather ask "What If?" - or would you rather have the answer?

Read my next post for some answers.

DISCLOSURE:
Yes, I'm an asian male, and I enjoy the proper use of firearms.
No, I've never been to Virginia Tech.

UPDATE 04/17/2007 01:05AM
Some more discussion in the comments:

By tim, at 4/16/2007 09:30:00 PM
Ridiculous. In Valparaiso, Indiana, where I go to school, a cop shot a kidnapped woman instead of the kidnapper. If a trained officer can make a mistake like that, what is going to stop me from getting shot on campus by some jack off with a concealed gun who thinks he's protecting everyone?

Maybe with a gun in your own hand, you could defend yourself. Because the only person ultimately responsible for your well-being is YOU.

But no, you don't feel confident enough in yourself and your abilities to be able to defend yourself. And apparently, by extension, you don't feel anybody is capable.

As your argument goes, if a law enforcement officer isn't capable of protecting himself, or others, then how could a non-law enforcement officer be capable?

That's like saying if a Nascar driver gets into an accident, then no one should drive, because it's obviously too dangerous.

By Anonymous, at 4/16/2007 11:47:00 PM
Guns are what's wrong with America. Guns should be outlawed. I don't get this post at all. You're saying you're bummed because the right to carry a concealed weapon on campus was shot down? Hallelujah! I live in Europe and we don't have this kind of stuff happening because it's hard as hell to get a gun in the first place and no one I know can understand Americans' obsession with guns.

You're right, Europe doesn't have the same problems. Europe's got a completely different set of problems, like "youths" "torching" cars, or yobs overrunning British society, or senior citizens dying in mild heat waves.

But enough fun at Europe's expense.

Anyways, ask a British subject what their crime rate was before handguns were banned, and after they were banned. Ask an ozzie. Ask a Jewish holocaust survivor. Ask a white South African.

By Anonymous, at 4/17/2007 12:41:00 AM
As horrific as this situation is...and countless lives are affected by this siuation and it is going to be a lot pointing the finger at what is to blame for this situation. Some say MORE GUN CONTROL... others say HEY WE SHOULD CARRY WEAPONS... the real problem is folks who have no regard for human life and decide to go on a rampage like that kill innocent people. But we are assuming that our problems would be solved if at least one person carried a weapon today other than the shooter. We cant begin to imagine the terror and stress that the students and faculty went through. Under perfect situation the ONE person carrying the gun would ignore all the fear and pull out the gun and fire perfectly and save the day!!! But like someone already said, Police officers hesitate all the time and they get paid to do it. Like it is nice to think in hypotheticals and try to make this situation seem better by finding something that we could have changed that would have made the situation better. We do that so we dont have to admit to ourselves that we live in troubled times. People are being slaughtered all over this world and until recent years the US has not understood how quickly things can happen and how sadistic some people are.

Now I do agree that making strick gun controls does not change a thing because I know people who have guns without permits. So I know that changing that aspect would not make anything better. However I dont think it is as black and white as saying okay every one who meets the criteria should go apply for CCW or whatever. This situation this tragedy opens up a whole sea of ideas about what needs to be done and It is not even close to being one dimensional.

You make some very good points, Anonymous.

Clearly, not everybody will have either the will, discipline, or proper mindset to use a firearm.

But here is the cold, hard, reality.

The police are not responsible for your safety. They can boast of 5-minute emergency call response times all they want - but that doesn't help you at all if the trouble is a bit closer than that, does it? And plenty of lawsuits have proven that the police will not and can not be held responsible for their inability to protect you from harm.

The person ultimately responsible for your safety is yourself. You may use a gun, or you may not. Statistically speaking, the firearm has been proven to be most effective self-defense implement. However, at the very least, you have to decide that your life is worth preserving.

What strikes me most is that this crazed man killed/wounded 50+ people, and wasn't stopped until he killed himself. I don't care if you're John Wayne reincarnated, there's no way you can take out that many people with a handgun (or 5!) if they are fighting back. The high kill count and suicide of the gunman doesn't speak to me of resistance. It sounds like a slaughter.

Now, i'm not going to speak for the dead, or even pretend to know what happened there that morning, but it certainly seems to me, at this time, that these poor kids were told so often that "it could never happen here" that they believed it even when the exact opposite happened before their eyes.

Should everybody carry a gun? Certainly not.

But why not for those who are capable and willing?

And, what if, today, one had?

UPDATE 04/17/2007 01:21AM
From The Countertop Chronicles, a first-hand account of a VT student/victim/CCW licensee:

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech’s student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech’s campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.
[...continued...]

Ever wonder what the easter bunny does on the other 364 days of the year?

2007-04-09T15:18:00.000-04:00

An oldie but a goodie:

Blatantly stolen from Ace

Har!

2007-04-09T13:54:00.000-04:00

A 2006 study by Clemson University found that the average American walks about 900 Miles per year.

Another study by the American Beer Institute found that Americans drink an average of 22 Gallons of beer per year.

That means, on average, Americans get 41 MPG.

Not bad!

Blatantly stolen from RNS

The Fred Thompson Bandwagon

2007-03-27T20:04:00.000-04:00

Oh, I'm on it, all right.

But just who is Fred Thompson, you ask?

He's an actor.

He was a US Attorney.

He was a Senator for Tennessee.

And soon, he could be President. There's been a lot of talk lately about a Fred D. Thompson candidacy, and all of it exciting.

On 03/11/07, he went on Fox News to talk about that possibility:

On 03/17, he had an interview with John Fund:

It is a slightly surreal setting to be talking big-league politics. But not unprecedented. In 1965, Ronald Reagan held early strategy meetings on his nascent race for governor of California on the set of "Death Valley Days." In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped off a plane from a world-wide publicity tour for his last "Terminator" film and immediately huddled with advisers on his own campaign for governor. Both men effectively used their celebrity status to completely transform the races they entered.

So too may Fred Thompson. When we meet on Thursday night, it's only been four days since he appeared on Fox News to merely announce he was "looking at" running. Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News, notes in amazement how "a retired senator can show a tiny bit of interest and literally shake up the race overnight."

And he is shaking up the race. Every GOP candidate is nervously watching the reaction to his possible entry. J.C. Watts, an Oklahoma congressman from 1995 to 2003, has endorsed him: "I define Fred Thompson as AC, what's AC? All class."
[...]
Fred Thompson clearly hasn't decided whether to run for president; and he underestimates just how much the traditional fund-raising he disdains may be necessary for his long-shot campaign. But he has assets that add up to an impressive portfolio.
[...]
So many voters remain unsold on any of the current GOP contenders that Mr. Thompson just might trade his TV sound stage for a campaign microphone. As this is the first truly open Republican nomination fight in decades, the party might as well revel in the competition it claims to cherish in other parts of life.

On 03/22, this was said:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton coined the "I'm in it to win it" phrase first, but friends of Law & Order actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson say he's thinking the same thing.

"Very simply put, he is seriously considering a run," says one.

And Possible Fred Thompson Candidacy Animates Conservatives

The possibility that former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee might run for president has animated many conservative leaders who are unhappy with the GOP choices that exist now.

They consider Thompson a strong conservative with stellar communications skills and an interesting resume that includes success and fame as a movie and TV actor. All this reminds many of Ronald Reagan, an icon of the right.

On 03/23, The "Draft Fred Thompson 2008" campaign is still gaining steam.

There are now over 4,000 committed volunteers in all 50 states that are ready to give their all to make sure that Fred is the next President of the United States. The organizers believe that they may have as many as 10,000 volunteers signed-up soon.

Bumper sticker requests are pouring into Nashville at an astounding rate.

On 03/24, Bill Hobbs thinks Fred can get a lot of support:

How many current self-professed McCain supporters will ditch him for Fred Thompson if the chance arises? Unknown - but at least some will.

A number of political observers believe the "Big Three" candidate most vulnerable if Fred Thompson enters the race is Mitt Romney - whose support might rapidly shift to Thompson as there is little that Romney offer the electorate that Thompson can't match. Simply put, conservative Republicans voters - who will decide the nomination - have many fewer reasons to worry about Thompson than they do about Romney.
[...]
[A]nalysis of recent polls suggests that Giuliani's recent surge in the polls is driven in part by conservatives who, despite his liberal social views and support for gay marriage and abortion rights, are backing Giuliani because they think he's the only candidate in the race who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Fred Thompson is clearly electable in November - the latest Rasmussen poll shows Thompson virtually tied with Clinton, leading her 44-43. Would his entry into the race cost Giuliani some of his support amongst conservatives looking for a horse who can best Hillary? It's hard to see how it wouldn't.

My prediction: The first reliable national polls after Thompson announces his candidacy will have Thompson roughly tied with Giuliani, and both of them at least 10 points ahead of McCain and Romney.

On 03/26, George Korda writes in Fred Thompson and the hunt for a red November:

If Thompson seeks the Republican nomination, he’ll win it, unless there is some as-yet-unknown oversized skeleton lurking in his political closet.

He’ll win for three reasons:
He’s a southerner with conservative credentials in national government service

He’s a personality in an age of personality-driven politics

He will out-presence his opponents

[...]
Assuming he runs, on the immediate plus side, the man’s a movie and television star (my personal favorite: The Hunt for Red October).
[...]
Assuming he decides he’s willing to make the run, being a famous southerner with conservative credentials gives him the move to the inside part of the track, particularly when the Democrats seem fully intent on repeating history.

Since 1964 the only winners of the presidency are those with roots in the south and the west. (George Bush, the 41st President, has New England ties, but his eyes have been on Texas for many an election cycle. The GOP didn’t hold the 1992 Republican National Convention in Texas for no reason).

The lineup of Lyndon Johnson (Texas); Richard Nixon (California); Jimmy Carter (Georgia); Ronald Reagan (California); George Bush (Texas); Bill Clinton (Arkansas); and George W. Bush (Texas) suggests that the Democrats’ traditional selection of northern liberals just doesn’t work well. Yet, Sen. Hillary Clinton (New York) and Sen. Barack Obama (Illinois) are sucking up all the oxygen in the Democratic contest.
[...]
Another Thompson advantage is that he’s a personality in a personality-driven political culture. And with his size, voice and demeanor, he’ll out-presence any contender he’ll face.

Barring some remarkable calamity, if Thompson is at the top of the ticket it’s hard to envision red states going blue in November 2008. The reverse is more likely.

Fred Thompson and the hunt for a red November.

It could be an ending for the movies.

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, he took a nice chunk of support from both Romney and Guiliani:

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, on the presidential race is out, and it's a humdinger. It's hard to say what the headline even is. Here are a few tries, though:

* Romney's support drops to within the margin of error of not existing (that's 3% support in a poll where the margin of error is 3%).

* Giuliani's support drops 13 percentage points since the last USA Today/Gallup poll, March 2-4 (that's gotta hurt).

* Fred Thompson (not running, by the way) is now the No. 3 in the GOP field, at 12%.

Ultimately, however, I'll go with the headline I've chosen above: "Thompson Takes Bites Out of Giuliani, Romney." While the usual caveats apply about the ridiculous earliness of all of these polls - and, now, the fact that voters know precisely zero about Fred Thompson past what they know of him from "Law & Order" - this is a clear data point on the question of just who is hurt by a Thompson candidacy.

On 03/27, World Net Daily writes

[W]hen former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee casually mentioned he "might" be interested in throwing his hat into the ring this summer, it seemed to rekindle hope under Republicans ever-seeking the next Ronald Reagan.

The Internet especially is abuzz with new political excitement.

A movement to draft Thompson got started. Or, more precisely, several such movements got started.
[...]
"It is becoming increasingly obvious that a growing number of Americans want Fred Thompson to join the 2008 presidential campaign," said Wamp. "Senator Thompson's ability to communicate an optimistic vision for America, coupled with his strong conservative credentials, makes him an ideal choice for thousands of our fellow citizens."
[...]
"I believe that thousands of Americans from every walk of life will join this grass-roots effort," Duncan said. "They will help us send a clear message to Senator Thompson that he should take the next step and announce his candidacy."

Wamp said Thompson "personifies strength and trust. His charisma, eloquence and exemplary public service have inspired Tennesseans and Americans alike. When I ask my conservative colleagues in Congress if Fred should run, it's like setting off fireworks above the Capitol."
[...]
One of the reasons a Thompson candidacy is so appealing is because of his successful career in Hollywood. His ability to perform reminds many of the overwhelming support Ronald Reagan had from both Republicans and Democrats.
[...]
His 6-foot 4-inch body, his deep rich voice and his country wit and wisdom immediately convinced many he was presidential timber.
[...]
Recently, Thompson has been sitting in for the aging radio institution known as Paul Harvey. The daily short-form program has familiarized him to millions of Americans who listen to it. It was short-form radio that also gave Ronald Reagan the opportunity to share his views with Americans from coast to coast.

Can lightning strike twice?

Can an actor reunite the Republican Party behind a conservative candidate known for his communication ability?

Some Republicans just can't wait to find out.

And, as of the time of this posting, he's leading a GOP Straw Poll. Not just leading, but DESTROYING:

F. Thompson 2309 (40.2%)
Giuliani 929 (16.2%)
Gingrich 697 (12.1%)
Romney 664 (11.5%)
Hunter 326 (5.7%)
Tancredo 254 (4.4%)
(none) 199 (3.5%)
McCain 135 (2.3%)
Brownback 119 (2.1%)
Huckabee 63 (1.1%)
T. Thompson 38 (0.7%)
Gilmore 10 (0.2%)
Pataki 7 (0.1%)

But in a crowded field, why am I so psyched about Fred Thompson?

First, let's consider the current leaders for the Republican nomination:

John McCain - He's more in love with himself and the adoration of the news media than with conservative values. His "maverickism" has earned him the adulation of journalists but the enmity of the party. He won't have the support he needs from conservatives, and the people he seems to be actively courting are going to vote for either Obama or Hillary. He's not conservative and unelectable.

Rudy Guiliani - He has the electability and the popularity, and conservatives hate him less than McCain. However, he's more liberal than John is. Rudy's done a great job of leading NYC after 9/11, and cleaning it up before that, but conservatives will be put off by the fact that he was the mayor of an extremely liberal city, and as such, had likewise liberal positions on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. He's electable, but a RINO.

Mitt Romney - He seems to have decent conservative credentials, however, his records show several flip-flops regarding gun control and abortion, which will hurt him. Also, his Mormonism will probably be an issue for a lot of folks (Christian and atheist alike), however benign it may be. He suffers from the same problem that Rudy does in that he's the governor of an extremely liberal state.

There are other runners who are actually conservative, such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich; however they either lack the popularity, the experience, or have too much baggage to be a serious contender.

So we need a candidate who is a) an honest-to-God conservative and b) electable.

That's where Fred Thompson comes in. Let me tell you why.

He's actually conservative

[tosok] Thompson’s record as a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003 shows that he was on the right side of every critical issue. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997 to 2001, he voted for national-debt reduction, the all-important balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a presidential line-item veto to eliminate congressional pork and efforts to privatize elements of Social Security. He supported legislation in the interest of free enterprise and opposed many regulatory and tax measures. He opposed growth in social-welfare programs, including expansions in Medicare and welfare for immigrants. He supported efforts to decentralize or disenfranchise unconstitutional government programs.

Fred voted for limits on death penalty appeals, product-liability punitive-damage awards and class-action lawsuits. He opposed decreasing restrictions on wiretaps. He supported increased oil exploration, including ANWR drilling permits, and is an advocate of free trade, understanding well the underlying national security implications. He supported an amendment to prohibit flag burning and voted for numerous measures in support of Second Amendment rights. (Charlton Heston campaigned for him in ‘94.)

On family and social issues, he opposed "marriage" between homosexuals, partial-birth abortion, cloning, the addition of "sexual orientation" to hate-crimes legislation and legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted for many education-reform measures, including the provision of school vouchers.

Most important, Thompson’s support for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom was, and remains, steadfast. Thompson has the authoritative grasp of national-security issues necessary for a commander in chief, particularly with respect to the long-term jihadi threat.

He's a champion of the Right

[wiki] Thompson did voice-over work at the 2004 Republican National Convention. After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, he was given an informal position by President George W. Bush to help guide the nominated John Roberts to the confirmation through the United States Senate. He also is the chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats. In 2006, Thompson signed on with ABC News Radio to serve as a host, commentator, and fill-in for Paul Harvey.[9]

He's a straight-shooter

[tosok] After earning his J.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1967, Thompson had a private law practice and later served as an assistant U.S. attorney-making his mark weeding out corruption. After his prominent role as Republican counsel during Watergate, it was Thompson’s 1977 investigation that toppled the crooked administration of Tennessee Democrat Gov. Ray Blanton. In 1980, Thompson was tapped to serve as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in 1982, special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[wiki] In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton from power on charges of selling pardons.

He's right on the 2nd Amendment

[fox] WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court - appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. - you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.

He's politically savvy

[tosok] In 1993, Tennessee’s Republican leadership convinced Thompson to return to public service in a campaign bid to fill the unexpired Senate term of then Vice President Albert Gore. Fred then demonstrated his formidable skills on the campaign trail. Despite all the support Bill Clinton and Al Gore could muster for popular six-term Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper, Thompson won a landslide victory in 1994, garnering 61 percent of the vote to Cooper’s 39 percent-the largest victory margin in any statewide political contest in Tennessee history.

Thompson’s success in his first campaign for national office did not pass without substantial note from the Democrat National Committee. He won by an even wider margin in his 1996 re-election bid. Rest assured, the DNC fears a Thompson draft for the presidency.

He's well-known

[tosok] In 1985, the Blanton scandal was the subject of the film "Marie," in which Thompson played himself-because the director could not find an actor who could capture Thompson’s power and determination. His success in that film led to his roles in more than 20 other big-screen hits including "No Way Out," "The Hunt for Red October," "Class Action," "Cape Fear" and "In the Line of Fire."

Let's not forget Die Hard 2, as well as regular role on all the various Law and Order series.

He's electable, or at least people can easily imagine him as president

[wiki] A 1994 New York Times profile described his roles as ones that portray authority: "The glowering, hulking Mr. Thompson has played a White House chief of staff, a director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a highly placed F.B.I. agent, a rear admiral, even a senator. When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to him."

[tosok] While there are conservative candidates for the GOP nomination, any of whom could deservedly win the Republican primary, none of whom would be likely to carry a majority in the general election. This list includes some true luminaries of the conservative movement: Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Jim Gilmore, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Gov. Tommy Thompson and possibly former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

However, if conservatives and the rest of the Republican electorate want to line up behind the most capable, qualified and electable candidate in the ‘08 presidential race, a man who can carry the Reagan mantle and draw an enormous crossover vote (as President Reagan did in 1980 and 1984 see 1984 election map), then call out Fred Thompson.

He's got good taste in movies

[pjm] "300," shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen AND the seeds of modern Democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the sheer numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, that’s exactly what happened.
[...]
I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

He kicked Gandhi's ass

[nro] [W]hen Saddam Hussein was being given a last chance to open Iraq to U.N. weapons inspectors, posters appeared around America asking "What would Gandhi do?"

And that’s a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?

It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." "Collective suicide," he told his biographer, "would have been heroism."

The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.

Gandhi probably wouldn't approve, but I can live with that.

He's AWESOME

[imao] * Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.
* The masked executioner of Saddam Hussein: Fred Thompson.
* Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.
* The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.
* Fred Thompson took over what was Al Gore's Senate seat, thereby dramatically reducing the Senate's carbon footprint. Fred Thompson then created carbon offset offsets by wastefully burning hippies.
* Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.
* Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.
* Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.
* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator's heart and showing it to him before he died.
* The actual cause of global warming: Fred Thompson's burning rage.
* The budget to Law & Order was dramatically increased when Fred Thompson was added to the cast because he has to be digitally inserted into the scenes since anytime he's near Hollywood liberals, he kills them.
* Fred Thompson once stood on our south border and glared at Mexico. There was no illegal immigration for a month.
* Fred Thompson vows not only to win in Iraq but also to forcefully free Vietnam from Communism, thus giving America a perfect win/loss record for wars again.
* Webster's Dictionary defines "conservatism" as "how closely one's views resemble those of Fred Thompson."
* Fred Thompson's sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.
* Fred Thompson can know both the exact position and momentum of a particle. Furthermore, he knows Schroedinger's cat is dead because he personally strangled it.
* When terrorists get to the afterlife, they'll find that none of their seventy-two women are still virgins. Why? Because of Fred Thompson.
* In a butterfly ballot, no matter where you punch it the vote goes to Fred Thompson.

Now, all that being said, he does have some things going against him:

He doesn't have the history of executive leadership that other Republican candidates do

[elephantbiz] Romney's one clear advantage over Thompson may be the fact that he's been both a business executive and a "chief executive" in government (as a governor), while Thompson has been a senator, attorney, prosecutor and actor but never has served in a conventional executive role leading either a large private-sector organization or as a governor or big-city mayor.

[rwn] A Fred Thompson candidacy seems to leave me with a suspicious grin, saying, "Okay, what's the catch?" Aside from his superficial qualifications, he's got a sterling, conservative record while he was in the Senate. The only flaw I can see is that the most dependable candidates for as long as I can remember have been former governors. ("dependable candidate" means those with the most hope of winning) Bush2, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, all former governors. Bush1, Ford, Nixon and Johnson were all vice-presidents. You have to go all the way back to JFK to find a president who wasn't either a governor or vice-president. If you dismiss those not initially elected (Ford and Johnson), or had a shoo-in election following an already popular president (Bush1), Nixon was the only former vice-president that was elected "on his own" (so to speak) and in that case it was actually eerily similar to this upcoming election: the DNC torn apart by anti-war idiots, leaving them with a moron for a candidate.

[ace] Although I like Thompson, it should be noted he only served one full term in the Senate, and wasn't considered particularly influential, innovative, or even hard-working. His "executive experience," such as it is, came long, long ago as a corruption-bustin' prosecutor. Good experience, to be sure, but he hasn't managed anything lately except a senatorial staff and the small corporation that forms around a working actor.

And Vox Day doesn't think Fred has the will:

But the silliest idea is the notion that a man who can't even decide if he wants to run for president or not can defeat a woman who is perfectly willing to devour alive every puppy and kitten who happens to find itself in between her and the Cherry Blossom Throne.

But will he run?
These negatives aside, Fred Thompson still stands head and shoulders above the current crop of candidates on both sides of the aisle. He certainly seems like the best man for the job. How can we help him decide to run?

Check out the following sites:
Fred `08
Draft Fred Thompson
An online petition

Finally, Frank J. has some tips on improving the chances of a Fred Thompson candidacy

* Eat Breakfast: Fred Thompson knows that breakfast is the the most important meal of the day. If you don't care enough about yourself to eat breakfast, why should Fred Thompson care about you? Fred Thompson will not be the president of just any country.
* Control Your Children: Make sure your children are well behaved. Fred Thompson is not going to run a country full of screaming kids running around.
* Clean Your Guns: Guns are an important right, and if you don't care enough about that right to maintain your guns, then Fred Thompson is going to wonder whether you deserve his leadership.

Other Fred Thompson links
Bud Simmons makes The Case for Fred Thompson

Shooter misses the mark

2007-03-23T22:52:00.000-04:00

Just got back from seeing Shooter tonight. I have to admit: I'm a bit pissed.

I'm going to pull kind of a jerk move right now.

I'll just have to say it: The book was much better.

No, wait: the book was infinitely better.

The movie diverged wildly from the book about 30 minutes in, and coincidentally that's about the time it started to suck.

You know how faithful the LOTR movies were to the source material? Shooter is just like that. Except exactly the opposite.

Now, I can understand certain changes - such as updating Bob's character into a desert war vet vs. a vietnam vet. I can also understand cutting out certain subplots for the sake of time - because to do POI just like Hunter wrote it would probably require a 5-hr miniseries.

But they cut out the best parts! The battle of Bone Hill, the dog rescue, the finale - gone. What remains is merely coincidence.

The movie has diverged so far off course that I am actually insulted. Because the changes had to have been done on purpose. The changes are so major that they had to have been done with a will. Shooter isn't a movie for gun nuts. Instead, it is a movie for what Hollywood thinks are gun nuts. This is a movie that Hollywood thought mindless, retarded, firearm fanatics would like. It is 2 hours of condescension.

There are some high points- the first 30 minutes, some of the action scenes (although outlandish at times, still enjoyable), Kate Mara.

There are some very low points- the story, Mark Wahlberg switching hands/eyes halfway through the movie, the easy explosion of gas tanks, the ending.

That all being said: I don't regret paying money for this movie. Because in the end, some of that money's got to get to Stephen Hunter, and that's just fine by me. And if it does well enough, then maybe they'll do another Bob Lee Swagger flick, and maybe they'll do it right next time.

UPDATE
Ok, after a few days' distance from the movie, I offer the following caveat: That Shooter is, at the very least, an okay action flick. Nothing more than mediocre, however. The direction was competent, the action satisfying. I'm still pissed about the silly script, though.

Related links:
Anarchangel's review

Prepare for glory

2007-03-12T13:50:00.000-04:00

Short review of 300 (imdb):

Imagine a cross between Gladiator, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, The Alamo (not the recent movie), and with a dash of Dangerous Liaisons.

Yeah, so it's pretty much an instant classic for any red-blooded American male.

The storyline is as emotionally gripping as Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan. Men are allowed to cry during this movie. Frankly speaking, if your heart is not moved by King Leonidas' rallying speech, then you're lacking in man-parts or a heartbeat.

However, the story takes a backseat to the visuals: the look and feel of the movie is visually stunning, truly jaw-dropping. Each frame is a work of art worthy of an oil-canvas painting. The colors are vivid, edits done with precision, framing, timing, all top-notch. This is a very technically well-done movie. The fact that it was done so well with a shoe-string budget makes it an even more impressive feat.

The action is top-notch, more exciting than Normandy Beach, more savage than the colosseums of Gladiator, more futile than the Alamo. Gory at times, but stylishly and abstractly so - definitely easier to take in than the all-too-real blood and guts of Saving Private Ryan.

I absolutely loved this movie. Not completely, for there were a few uneven spots (some minor dialogue issues, some over-the-top scenes), and the extraneous (but short-lived) nudity. However, none of these issues were enough to make a dent in my overall impression. I recommend any man to see 300, although you may want to keep the remote handy.

Related:
Anarchangel's review, and history behind the movie

Should you vote?

2007-03-09T15:11:00.000-05:00

I'm fine, I got 30/30.

Of course, the test isn't really all that comprehensive; after all, it's not all that important to know by sight who a person is and what they do. But that being said, it's probably indicative of greater-than-average political knowledge in general.

However, what's most important to know is the what, how, and why of government, the constitution, and civil rights. Everything else is just minutiae.

I rage

2007-03-08T11:55:00.000-05:00

Hell hath no fury as a man betrayed -
and betrayal by one's own flesh and blood, most vile.

Mushroom clouds explode in the visions of my wrath.

Entire cities are swept away by my anger.

I do not see the source of my rage, but I feel fully its effects. My blood boils at the sheer gall, the impudence, the disrespect.

I am left with but a single choice.

I must destroy my sinuses.

Maybe not all; for I believe that the frontal, sphenoid, and ethmoid sinuses are innocent in this matter. No, the attack is clearly coming from the maxillaries. But of what good is it if I quell the maxillary riot, only to have to deal with a ethmoid rebellion later? Nay, I must destroy them all, and let all my other organs learn a lesson in deterrence.

I must nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

It didn't have to be this way. It was just a little bit of pollen in the air; a mote of dust; a speck of mold, perhaps. Just a tiny little atom. And yet the sinuses chose war over a tiny provocation of their sovereign territory. It will prove their undoing.

Even now, I feel the maxillary sinuses prepare for another attack. The little tickle in the space underneath the left eye means that they are damming the gates, and readying an devastating flood of watery mucus. I must strike quickly.

It is not easy to stick a .40 caliber barrel up one's nose, but I do it, because it must be done. Now some may say that a .40 is overkill, that a .22 would do just as well - but I want to be absolutely sure that my sinuses are dead. No sense in half-measures, not now.

I'll show them.

I'll show them all.

A matter of experience

2007-03-02T13:08:00.000-05:00

Take the experience test!

Hey, I think an 82% score deserves a better rating than that!

It's a fun waste of time 5 minute work-break!

And now for some hack poetry

2007-02-14T12:06:00.000-05:00

Given the day, I might as well repost this lame limmerick:

Valentine's Crock

What is up with Valentine's?
It's just a holiday of the times.
A day of mandatory affection,
But let me offer a contradiction-

Whyfore should I show attraction
Just because it's the thing to do?
How about I give affection
Whenever I bloody well want to?

But don't get me wrong,
Don't be misled by what I say;
It's just that I think that
We shouldn't set aside a special day.

This is not how to love, as Christ shown on Calvary,
For His love acts on eternity, not just a day in February.
Valentines will come and go, and flowers fade away,
So let the love shine out on every single day.

But then again, who cares, it's fun.
Happy Valentine's, to each and every one.

Happy Singles' Awareness Day!

Super-Reversal

2007-02-05T08:19:00.000-05:00

Seems like the NFL had a recent change of heart, no doubt due to this controversy.

Super Bowl viewing OK on big screens according to NFL
Churches across the U.S. planning Super Bowl parties Sunday, as the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears meet in the 41st edition of the classic first won by the Green Bay Packers, have been given sweeping permission by the NFL to go ahead – just as long as no admission fees are charged.

A dispute arose several days ago in the Midwest when the NFL sent a letter to one church based on its website advertisement for a "Super Bowl Party." That letter to Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis said the church couldn't use the words "Super Bowl," it couldn't charge admission, it couldn't use its projection screen for the game, and a number of other things.

Those limits, coupled with the fact no church felt willing to take on a financial behemoth like the National Football League in court, sparked a series of cancellations of those parties.
[...continued...]

Namesake News

2007-02-05T08:08:00.000-05:00

Nobody tells this Wookiee what to do

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Chewbacca impersonator was arrested after being accused of head-butting a Hollywood tour guide who warned the furry brown Wookiee about harassing two Japanese tourists, police said on Saturday.

"Nobody tells this Wookiee what to do," "Chewie" from the "Star Wars" movies said before slamming his head into the guide's forehead, the Los Angeles Times newspaper reported.

The 6-foot, 5-inch-(1.96-metre-) tall 44-year-old man was charged on Friday with misdemeanor battery and later released on $20,000 bail, the Los Angeles Police Department said.

"Superman" and other movie and cartoon impersonators were reported to be witnesses to the aggression in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater amid concern that such behavior could endanger their livelihoods.

Street performers at the world-famous cinema collect tips from tourists by posing for photos, but some are known to turn hostile if they don't get money.

Two years ago, Mr. Incredible, Elmo the Muppet and the dark-hooded character from the movie "Scream" were arrested for "aggressive begging," the L.A. Times reported."

Blatantly stolen from Dave Barry

Saints Preserve Us!

2007-01-26T10:07:00.000-05:00

Saint Valentine, that is.

One of the things I looked forward to from the end of the Christmas season was the end of the advertisement blitz. It's been mercifully peaceful for the past few weeks... until this morning, when I heard another @#%&! jewelry commercial.

Ah yes... Let the valentine's day jewelry blitz begin.

And I thought the Christmas season was bad - how bad is it going to be when it's nothing BUT jewelry commercials for a month?

Curses upon you, Jared's, Ostermann's, JBR, (more as I hear them).

Real Friends

2007-01-25T10:31:00.000-05:00

"Friends help you move, real friends help you move bodies."

No, I think this is backwards. I would rather help a friend move a body than help them move furniture. Bodies are light, usually from 100-250 lbs. Rarely is there more than one to deal with. They can be made easier to carry with simple application of a hacksaw. And there's usually a good reason, or at least a good story, behind a body, unlike reasons for moving.

Furniture, on the other hand, is heavier, denser, and more unwieldy. And there's usually a set of them. And never a big enough truck available. But then again, they don't bleed everywhere.

So friends, please: think about if you want to kill someone before asking me to help you move. Because I'd rather help you with that.

You might just save us all a lot of time. And my back.

iPhumble

2007-01-13T02:44:00.000-05:00

So, yeah, the Apple iPhone has been revealed. Yes, it looks sexy. Yes, it's loaded with features.

However, there's some glaring flaws with it that will become readily apparent once people start getting their grubby hands on it.

1) No physical keyboard. You may not think this is a big deal - but that's only because you've never dealt with an all touchpad phone before. Having had a Samsung SPH-I330 for 3 years, I know very well the pain of having to use the touchscreen for everything. I didn't realize how bad it was until I got a Palm Treo 700wx, which has a nice physical qwerty keyboard, and having a real keyboard makes a HUGE difference in usability.

2) It's a crippled smartphone. Sure, it runs OS/X, but it will not support any non-approved third-party software. Say hello to limited functionality and high prices. Palm OS and Windows Mobile has a huge edge in software availability because anybody can create software for it. Fortunately, if Apple changes its mind, then enabling third-party software is a simple software update. Here's a petition for enabling third-party applications.

3) Limited storage space. 4/8 GB? Really? In the age of 60/80 GB iPods? Combine that with the lack of removeable storage (SD, miniSD, microSD, etc) and you'll feel that crunch every single day.

4) Non-removeable battery. Hmm... MP3, cellular, photos, videos, wi-fi, internet surfing, email. And you think that battery's going to last more than a few hours? PER DAY? And cellular batteries are notorious for losing their overall capacity rather quickly. So once that battery is dead, so is the phone.

5) High price & required 2 year contract with Cingular. So you're buying a phone for $500/$600 even AFTER a 2 year contract. And you can't get one without a contract. I've never had Cingular service, but from everything I hear about it in the Dayton area, it's horrible.

6) No wireless sync! Huge disappointment. How convenient would it be for the iPhone to start syncing as soon as it comes in range? Or, how about being able to download from iTunes directly to the phone over the cellular/wi-fi internet connection? But again, this can be added with a software update, so it's not that big an issue.

Don't get me wrong - the iPhone looks like it's going to be a revolutionary device. The screen, gesture interface, user interface, all seem amazing. However, given the above issues, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed.

My predictions of the people who get the iPhone:
25% don't like it and sell it on eBay for a nice profit.
30% like it, except for some small issues, but they can live with it.
20% love it, it's the best gadget ever, have apple tattoos on their bicep.
25% hate it, but pretend they're in the previous group.

Ah well, no doubt it'll do tremendous business regardless. But as usual, it'll be the 2nd iteration i'll look forward to :)

Hang on

2007-01-10T15:37:00.000-05:00

It's going to be an... interesting... two years.

Thanks to The Mad Ogre for the inspiration.

An Ohio Sports Fan's Conundrum

2007-01-09T09:30:00.000-05:00

1987: Go Bengals!
1988: Well, at least we can root for the Reds.
1994: Hey, where did the Browns go?
1995: Maybe the Indians aren't that bad.
2005: We can root for the Bengals again!
2006, December 31: ... there's always OSU football.
2007, January 8: SUNOVA !@#%

I Write Letters

2006-12-11T16:32:00.000-05:00

I've never written a politician, until today.

But HB347 (dealing with CCW law) is important enough for me to do so.

Thanks to VikingSpirit, I picked two state senators from nearby districts representing Columbus, and sent them the following email:

Dear Senator:

I write to you as a neighbor in district 10, and fellow Ohioan, urging you to reconsider your position on HB347. You're undoubtedly aware of your minority position in this matter, and while I honor the courage it takes to stand up for your beliefs, it is my hope that I can reason with you and change your mind.

HB347 has two main points: the first being a change of the "in plain sight" car carry law, which I don't believe you've stated you have a problem with. This, quite frankly, is the part of the bill that is most important to me as a CCW holder. I would rather not become a criminal simply due to a badly-written and ultimately useless law (None of the other states with a shall-issue CCW law have this provision, and they haven't seen any problems due to a lack of it).

I understand that your main point of contention with HB347 is the overriding of home rule. I can understand your stance against it, as the state would override local Columbus law, and that you may feel the state is overreaching. But CCW law was enacted at the state level, and not the local level. Much like an Ohio driver's license, the law must be uniform across the entire state. It would be utter chaos if each locality operated on a different set of vehicular laws.

But in the realm of CCW law, the stakes are much higher, for breaking a locality's CCW law carries a much stiffer penalty than a traffic violation. It is completely ridiculous, unjust even, to be able to felonize an otherwise law-abiding man for violating a local gun law which does not exist in an adjacent county. All the while, the real criminals ignore federal, state, and local gun laws alike. On the whole, CCW licensees are some of the most law-abiding citizens a state could hope for - they have no felonies - no drug convictions - no mental illnesses - and yet arbitrary and inconsistently applied gun laws could turn these people into felons.

Home rule gun law makes criminals out of the innocent and does nothing to protect the innocent from criminals.

Allow me to quote from the Ohio State Constitution:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

20 other state senators voted yes for HB347; all of them Republican. You are one of 3 Republican senators who voted no. On your side of the issue lies the nation's most unpopular governor, and every Democrat senator.

Of your counterparts in the house, every single Republican representative voted yes for HB347, as well as 25 out of 39 Democrat representatives.

I'm not saying that might makes right, or that the majority view is always the correct one; however, I am asking you to entertain the possibility of the majority view having some merit. The strength of the bill on both sides of the legislature, the bi-partisan support in the house, and the urgings of many other citizens of Ohio filling your mailbox right now, should be telling.

Please consider voting to override Gov. Taft's veto on HB347.

Respectfully,
Chublogga

ApexBlogs.net readers...

2006-12-10T02:05:00.000-05:00

Here's my newest post. It doesn't show up on the site since they order it by post number and not by timestamp. Anyways, go read it, I think you'll get a kick out of it.

Don't Patronize Me

2006-12-08T08:00:00.000-05:00

Or I won't patrionize you.

Let me explain.

No, there is too much.

Let me sum up:

I enjoy listening to talk radio. But just as each segment really starts to take off, it gets rudely interrupted by advertisements - a reality of our capitalistic society. Most ads are, at best, unobtrustive and easily ignored.

Recently however, there has been one type of egregiously outrageous spot that completely and utterly grates at my ears - one that causes me actual physical pain - one that makes me turn off the radio in disgust - one so wholly demeaning, patronizing, and debilitating to the soul of man:

Yes, i'm talking about jewelry commercials.

Most of them have the same theme, but JBR's in particular is particularly loathsome. They all go something like this:

Woman speaking: Honey, you're an absolute moron when it comes to satisfying my lust for shiny baubles with no functional value. You wouldn't want me to buy you tools because I don't know a power drill from a power toothbrush. Likewise, you also have no clue when it comes to choosing an aesthetically pleasing hunk of metal and carbon, because let's face it honey, you're a man, and men don't have style or an eye for beauty. Also, you could never satisfy my wants without outside help, because even though I'm apparently important enough to you that you would spend gobs of your hard-earned money on a small trinket, you don't know me well enough to choose something I'd like. So go to [insert jewelry store], and ask one of their salespeople for help in choosing the most expensive item available. Because if you don't, you obviously don't love me.

And i'm only slightly paraphrasing.

Does this sort of demeaning advertisement actually work? Do they really think that by insulting our intelligence serves to increase their sales? Is it really the case that men have so little sense of aesthetics?

I submit that it is not the case. I have no actual data on this, but I'd bet that the majority of mass-market jewelry has been designed and crafted by men. After all, the entire idea of jewelry, the basis of its existence, is to help men impress women. Obviously the market was created by capitalistic men seizing the opportunity to make a buck so that another man may woo a lady.

Unfortunately, this type of emasculating advertisement is merely the latest salvo in the long battle against the traditional man. A few decades ago, the traditional man was respectable: logical, practical, well-rounded, and eminently capable. Today's image? Clueless, lazy, inept, and utterly useless without a woman's guidance.

Some people may say that this is merely a reversal of perception - that decades ago, the roles were reversed. These people are feminists. And again, with no facts but feeling, I will wager that even if the reversal was true, that there is no way that the women back then were treated with as much disrespect and contempt as today's man.

I worry for the upcoming generation of men breast-fed this steaming pile of lies, this outrageous caricature of the common man. How can they grow up to be logical, pratical, well-rounded, and capable when they don't even know that's an option?

Kim du Toit sums it up in The Pussification of the Western Male:

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I’m going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball—perhaps the beginning of the trend—BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: “Wait until your father gets home!").

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven’t seen this piece of [filth], I’m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that’s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy’s little dig: Yes, Sally, that’s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That’s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.
[...]
Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.
[...]
I don’t see why men should have become feminized, except that we allowed it to happen—and you know why we let it happen? Because it’s g-d easier to do so. Unfortunately, we’ve allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.
[...]
I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: “to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.”

In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

Companies, beware. I do not enjoy being patronized and belittled. I don't mind the occasional well-deserved lampooning, for if anything I am a man of humor. However, that doesn't mean I'll let you get away with slandering my character. If you're going to mock me, then I simply won't buy anything you.

It's just not good business practice to insult your potential customers.

Oh, and one more gripe: "Every kiss begins with Kay?"
I guess they also think that women are whores for jewelry.

It's Beginning to Look...

2006-12-07T10:44:00.000-05:00

...somewhat like Christmas.

Ah, yes, the beginnings of an Ohio winter.

The light dusting of snow.

The new-found morning brightness.

The inevitable traffic jams and accidents.

It never fails to astound me, that for a region that is no stranger to frosty weather, we Southwestern Ohioans seem to forget how to drive in the winter. Well, I say we, but what I really mean is everybody else. We have snow every year. We have ice every year. And yet the first onset of precipitation is enough to send thousands of cars off the road and cost untold hours of job productivity as traffic comes to a standstill.

My friends questioned my purchase of a heavy AWD 4-door sedan, instead of a faster, lighter, sexier sports car. Sure, it would have been more fun, but if anything, I am practical; and my foresight pays off every winter as I speed on by the Nissan 350Z stuck in the intersection. Therefore, I always take an opportunity to send out an "I told you so" when the snow starts to fall. Of course, that's of little consolation when I'm breathing someone else's exhaust the other 9 months of the year.

But regardless of vehicle type, there are several basic rules that will serve you well for winter travel:

If the road is curvy, slow down
If there is a lot of traffic, slow down
Maintain a healthy distance from other cars
Always keep an eye out for accidents ahead
Don't make any sudden moves
Signal!
Brake gradually

Simple rules that really apply all-year-round, yet so many of our fellow drivers forget them winter after winter, and end up in a ditch somewhere.

So, friends, it's probably nigh time to ensure that your car is outfitted properly for your survival. In the worst case scenario that you get stranded out in BFE, you should probably make sure you can survive the night. I recommend you keep some blankets, gorilla tape, motor oil, jumper cables, water, etc in your trunk. And if you are like-minded, then also firearms, scotch, and pipe. No point in looking helpless AND uncivilized.

A minimum wage law that makes sense

2006-11-22T13:24:00.000-05:00

This is a law I could get behind (too bad it's satire):
Democrats to Boost Minimum Wage, Minimum Service

(2006-11-17) — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, yesterday said his priority during the new Congressional session next year will be to require employers to boost the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, and to increase the minimum levels of service required to earn such a wage.
[continued]

Christmas deals

2006-11-21T13:42:00.000-05:00

I love finding a good deal - especially when it concerns electronics or video games.

Which is why I just bought an Xbox 360.

So here's the deal:
Buy an Xbox 360 Core ($300) or Premium ($400) system from Microcenter between 11/16/06 and 12/03/06 and get a $100 mail-in rebate. That in itself is a good deal.

But here's what makes it a GREAT deal: if you apply for a Microcenter credit card (through MBNA/Bank of America), get approved, and put $400 on it, you'll get 13,000 world points (which can be redeemed for $100).

Of course, this is assuming you can be financially responsible with another credit card. I plan on paying mine off as soon as possible, then cancelling it after a year (a card with a short life span has a negative credit rating).

So, if you get the Xbox 360 Premium for $400, you'll get $200 in rebates. The downsides are you have to pay tax on the $400 ($26 @ 6.5%), and it'll take a couple of months to get your rebates.

Even though it causes me to lose a little bit of my soul to say this, I must recommend an extended warranty. Microsoft's warranty only runs 90 days, and I've heard too many horror stories about 360s dying or malfunctioning. Microcenter's 1 yr extended warranty is $33, and 2 yrs for $60. It's not a huge price to pay in light of the $200 you're saving.

The differences between the Core and Premium: The premium comes with a 20g hard drive ($100), wireless controller ($50) instead of wired ($40), component video cables ($40) instead of s-video ($30). It's a $120 materials difference for a $100 price difference; however, to buy everything you need to upgrade from the core to the premium is a difference of $190. I recommend you go with the premium for convenience' sake.

Now that you've got a system, you'll probably want games and accessories - that's where Best Buy comes in.

If you get a Gamer's gift card, you'll get a $5 off coupon on videogames and accessories (all systems). So here's what you do:
1) Pick up all the videogames and accesories and take them to the cashier.
2) Get a gamer gift card for each item.
3) Buy the gift cards separately - charge each card with $5.
4) Ring up everything else, have the cashier scan the coupon on the back of the gift card holder.
5) Apply the gift cards to the order.
6) Profit.

I picked up Project Gotham Racing 3 and Perfect Dark Zero for $15 apiece, and Gears of War for $55, and a wireless controller for $45 - not a bad deal. If I had wanted to wait, I could've gotten the same wireless controller for $40 on amazon, but that would've taken a week to get to me.

Anyways, I hope this saves you some money (as opposed to making you spend it), and i'll see you on Xbox Live.

Jumping on the Bondwagon

2006-11-16T22:43:00.000-05:00

I must admit, I was pretty skeptical about the quality of the new Bond and the new Bond movie (Casino Royale).

I mean, come on:

Him?? A BOND? His face looks like 2 miles of bad road.

He's terrified of guns

The star told Britain's OK! magazine: "I hate handguns. They are used to shooting people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other.

He didn't know how to drive a manual

He got his two front teeth knocked out during a stunt fight with a lowly henchman

He whines about getting sunburnt

He can't stop eating dumplings and ruins his girlish figure

YET, despite all this, the trailers for the new movie look completely kick-ass.

The reviews are glowing.

Yup, they've done it, in spite of the actor's general non-Bondishness. I'll go see the movie.

Post-Election thoughts

2006-11-16T19:39:00.000-05:00

It pretty much all went down as I had expected, albeit with not as much of a fight as I had hoped.

Locally, Bob Taft screwed Ohio. You can lay the loss of the Governorship, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, etc. at his feet. He and his administration, along with the Ohio GOP, are responsible for the poisoned attitude the people of Ohio have towards Republicans. Now we get Tax Strickland for Governor, with his Lt. Governor Lee "Gun Control" Fisher (NRA rating: F-).

Issue 2, the minimum wage increase, passed, as apparently Ohioans are ignorant of basic economics. Higher minimum wage = higher prices. The national percentage of people making minimum wage is small, about 5%, but it affects much more than that - many US workers' (non-minimum) wages are tied to the minimum wage, specifically union workers. So you can expect the cost of anything manufactured in Ohio to go up, and manufacturing jobs leaving the state. And mark my words, jobs will leave the state over this. Companies will have to either make up the difference from their profit margin, or they'll have to raise the cost of their product. Either action will lead to reduced profits, and jobs lost.

And of the 5% making minimum wage, the vast majority of those will be high-school or college kids working their first job. Do people believe they should be making more money for unskilled labor, for crap jobs like that? Ostensibly, the bill was for helping that single mother working 4 minimum wage jobs so her kids can eat. In reality, we know while situations like that exist, they are few and far between. The bill was completely unnecessary and overreaching. I'm not enthused about the government taking even more of my hard-earned money and giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it.

Of those 5% jobs, many of them are in the service industry or manual labor - in other words, foundational to other businesses. Other sectors depend on the work done by minimum wage workers. When the minimum wage rises, the cost of their services rise, and therefore the other sectors are forced to adjust their prices upwards. Call it trickle-up inflation.

Morgan Spurlock (the creator of super-size-me) tried to make a documentary based on 30 days of minimum wage living in Columbus. And he couldn't do it without cheating! He had to look long and hard for a job that only paid minimum wage, passing up many others. The cold hard fact is, that if you're only making minimum wage, it's only because you're doing work that pays minimum wage. If people would get off their fat, lazy, asses, they can earn more money.

Another big fat downside to Issue 2 is that now tip-based employees' (such as restaurant servers) base pay must be at least half of the new minimum wage ($3.425). A friend I know who works as a server makes $2-something in base pay - so now all restaurant employers must pay their employees another few dollars or so in base pay. Guess who's pocket that is coming out of? Not the restaurant's, but ours! Look for immediate price increases on new menus at your favorite restaurant.

UPDATE 12/11/06
I now have some actual numbers:

Vote may raise eating-out cost
It won't be long before visitors to Ohio restaurants see higher prices after voters approved Tuesday a constitutional amendment to increase the state's minimum wage, one restaurant chain executive said Wednesday.

Starting next year, the minimum wage for servers, who rely on tips for most of their pay, will increase to $3.43 per hour from $2.13 per hour. Craig Maier, president and chief executive officer of Frisch's Restaurants Inc., said the measure would cost his company about $3 million a year and will mean increased prices early in 2007.

"The guest will have to pay it," Maier said.

h/t Blah Blah Blog

There are other onerous parts of the Issue that I won't go into here, such as the 3 years' records compliance portion, the employee narcing portion, its enshrinement in the state constitution; mere rabbit droppings on top of a huge steaming pile of dung.

I think I've made the argument that the cost of goods and services will rise with the minimum wage increase. And that is why the final part of Issue 2 is so ruinous. The minimum wage is now tied to the Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price Index is tied to the cost of goods and services. The minimum wage is re-evaluated every September 30th, and adjusted upwards based on the CPI. Follow me?

Minimum wage goes up -> CPI goes up -> minimum wage goes up -> CPI goes up -> minimum wage goes up -> CPI goes up -> etc.

Way to go Ohio, you picked yourself a doozy of a law.

Issue 3, Learn & Earn, failed. I won't go into comprehensive detail - obviously the measure was shady enough that most Ohioans didn't trust it, and rightfully so.

Issue 4 & 5, partial / full smoking ban. Well, looks like Ohioans don't like smoke at all. Even though it's invading the rights of private property owners, I find myself somewhat ambivalent about it - while I don't like any restrictions on liberty, the fact that we the people voted for it satisfies my penchant for self-determination. If the government had implemented it on their own power instead of putting it up for a referendum, then i'd be all against it. But i'll go with the will of the people on this one.

I'm not upset at all about Mike DeWine losing his seat, other than the fact that it gives the Democrats control of the Senate as well as the House. I'll bet he and the rest of the Republican party are regretting their complete cave-in (Gang of 14) over judicial nominees. We had our chance to get a conservative (or at the very least a originalist) majority for the supreme court - and now with the high probability that another judge will step down in the next 2 years, we will not get another chance for a few decades. As the bumper sticker says, Don't blame me, I voted for Pierce (Bill Pierce in the primary).

No, the Republican loss at the national level does not rouse me in the slightest. Sure, I'd much prefer them over the Democrats, and I voted that way, however, I (and I suspect most Republican voters) held my nose while doing so. The Republican National Party has lost touch with it's base - you know, conservatives.

I'm at a loss for how inept the RNC is - how politically tone-deaf they are. It's as if they have lost the ability to communicate and understand the needs and wants of their constituents. Case in point? The illegal immigration amnesty bill put forth by the Senate. The House at least got it right on illegal immigration (or should I say, more right rather than perfect), but they are more dependent on (and therefore more in tune with) the base. In the Senate, 19 (out of 51) Republican senators broke rank and voted for the amnesty bill, despite overwhelming sentinment by their constituents against it.

Need more examples of their tone-deafness? Harriet Miers. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-MI) defending "Cold Hard Cash" Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) (and all legislators) from being investigated by the FBI. Nominating wishy-washy Mel Martinez (R-FL) for RNC chairman, instead of a firebrand like Michael Steele. Trent Lott as minority whip. Republican leadership, meet Insanity.

Actions like these and more serve to discourage the base. We are no longer voting for our leaders, but against the opposition. Democrats understand all too well the lack of enthusiasm that sentiment brings.

And if the GOP is tone-deaf, then the DNC are too tuned-in. They are so tuned-in, all they hear are the high-pitched shrieks of the far-left liberal wackjob minority, instead of their more plentiful and moderate base. Truly, it is rambling of idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. One need only look at Lieberman's defeat of Lamont, or Pelosi's big mis-step in trying to get Murtha as majority leader. The house democrats, especially the new ones, are much more moderate than their leadership - and they rejected Murtha and his far-left views.

This is the best way to sum it up: "The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason -- they distanced themselves from their base." -- Dave S. from Tim Blair's comment section (h/t RWN)

It will be an interesting (nay, horrifying, since I must live through it) experience during the next two years, seeing how the Democrats spend their fortunes. If they cater the far-left, they risk alienating their base and enragenizing (enraging and energizing) the conservatives. If they cater to the center, then they risk having the far-left turn on them, which is especially damaging because they're the ones with the biggest megaphones and deepest pockets.

But, I take heart in the hope that Republicans, as a national party, use this opportunity to analyze just why they lost and try to reconnect with their base, get back on track (however, this isn't an effective long-term strategy, otherwise the Democrats would be the best party ever). Their recent "changes" in leadership proves me wrong for now - but I hope that we can pull a Harriet Miers on them and get them to consider a new direction instead of new leaders in the same failure.

At the least, people will look back 2 years from now and wonder if the Republican weren't so bad after all. At the best, the Republicans will start to turn conservative again, renewing hope and enthusiasm.

UPDATE 11/22/06
Ian comments, I rebut

Football quick hits

2006-11-13T15:29:00.000-05:00

O! H! I! O!
Wikipedia article on THE GAME (no, not the movie). Be sure to watch it this Saturday (11/18) @ 3:30. Unless you're rooting for Michigan, in that case, you can skip the game and go ahead and start crying in your corn flakes.

A couple notes on this week's Bengals game vs. the Chargers:

Best 1st half ever
Worst 2nd half ever

Should the offensive and defensive coordinators be fired?
Should Chris Henry be let go?
Sound off in the comments.

Which led me to develop Bengals slogans for the past few years:

Bengals sore in 2004
Bengals alive in 2005
Bengals sick in 2006

Lauren suggested "Bengals revvin' for 2007".

However, if they keep playing the way they've been playing this season, it'll be "Bengals 5-11 in 2007"

Today's Top 10: Bengals

2006-10-16T03:11:00.000-04:00

The Top 10 things rougher than yesterday's bogus roughing-the-passer foul against the Bengals during the Bengals/Buccaneers game:

Kittens fighting
Cub Scouts' Pinewood Derby
National Spelling Bee
Calculus Midterm
Going over a larger-than-usual speedbump at less than 20mph
Dentist appointment
The ball pit at a McDonald's playground
The Rock, Paper, Scissors National Championship
Valentine's Day-themed Charades
The mosh pit at the Lilith Fair

Yeah, we're all pissed off.

Vote for Blackwell

2006-10-13T01:43:00.000-04:00

Rudy says so.

Just don't vote for anything else Rudy supports (like abortion and gun control).

The Best of Weird Al

2006-10-02T22:48:00.000-04:00

I always bring you the absolute best in self-entertainment!

Enjoy the Top 10 Weird Al Music Videos.

Whereupon Cars Double in Price in California

2006-09-21T10:54:00.000-04:00

Just saw this on Slashdot:

RPT-UPDATE 6-California sues carmakers over global warming

By Michael Kahn

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 20 (Reuters) - California sued six of the world's largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.

It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation's first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

First of all, greenhouse gases as a cause for global warming / global cooling is so far from being an established truth that passing legislation on it at this point in time is worse than useless. I personally have major doubts as to man's impact on global temperatures, but even if it were proven to be completely true, this is still an idiotic piece of legislation. It's akin to blaming firearm manufacturers for firearm deaths, blaming swimming pool installers for drowning deaths, or blaming McDonald's for obesity.

In the end though, this sort of feel-good-do-bad legislation doesn't have as much an effect on the automakers as it does its customers - regardless of them winning the lawsuit or not - the cost will just end up being passed down to the us, the consumers. And not just the California consumers - but nationwide.

You can see this effect in the California emissions requirements - both cars and gasoline in California are much higher than the national average. The costs of such legislation are always passed onto the consumer.

And all for a dubious benefit of "reduced"* greenhouse gases.

A few years back, California tried to ban "high-powered sniper rifles", specifically the Barrett .50 cal rifle. You know, the ones you could shoot down an airliner with, assuming you have the capability to hit a small portion of a large target moving at a few hundred miles per hour, from a few hundred meters away, adjusting for elevation and windage. You know, the ones that no terrorist has ever been caught using, that no crimes have been committed with. But of course, California law enforcement was exempt from the ban. Guns for me but not for thee (which can be applied to many different things whenever the government is involved).

As part of the ban campaign, the LAPD paraded around a Barrett .50 cal rifle, using it for photo ops, showing how scary it was, etc. Never you mind that the Barrett was already outlawed in California due to its detachable magazine. Why let a little thing like the law get in the way of making a point?

Here's where it gets delicious: When the LAPD sent one of their Barrett .50 cal rifles back to Barrett Firearms for service.... well, I'll let Ronnie Barrett do the talking:

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of L.A. taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rile for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

The parallels are obvious, but not completely symmetrical - for there is no constitutional right to produce automobiles. But I await with great joy for the time when California pushes an automaker too far and they decide to stop selling to California altogether.

There just aren't enough Prius (Priii?) in the world to fulfill that demand.

* I say "reduced" because no matter how much we Americans reduce our greenhouse gases, we are far outpaced by China and India's production and growth, who have no such desire nor pressure to reduce their output.

Both Busy and Lazy / Muslim Violence

2006-09-20T15:52:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not blogging lately, but i've been too busy to blog, as well as too lazy to blog. I guess that just means that blogging isn't terribly high on my list of priorities.

I'll try and get some new content up soon.

Anyways, I ran across this gem at Instapundit:

If it weren't so sickening, it would be farcical: A line in the pope's speech suggests that Islam has a dark history of violence, and offended Muslims vent their displeasure by howling for his death, firebombing churches, and attacking innocent Christians. One of the points Benedict made in his speech at the University of Regensburg was that religious faith untethered by reason can lead to savagery. The mobs denouncing him could hardly have done a better job of proving him right.

Or, to paraphrase:

Pope: Some of you Muslims are really violent.
Some Muslims: %!@$@ YOU I WILL KILL YOU SO HARD!

It's like the pot calling the kettle a kettle, whereupon the kettle declares pot-jihad and says "YES I'M A KETTLE, YES YOU DESERVE TO DIE, AND I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL!"

Alas, the reality, while farcical, is also very, very, real, and very disturbing. Read the rest of Jeff Jacoby's article.

Oh, and in case you need help figuring out the current level of Muslim outrage:

UNSpace

2006-08-29T13:24:00.000-04:00

What if... the Bobs from OfficeSpace interviewed the UN?

BOB SLYDELL
So you say you wear blue helmets and sit in bunkers, observing as people kill each other?

UN PEACEKEEPER
That, that's right. Sometimes we give one side information about the other, if their enemy is Israel.

BOB SLYDELL
But you don't disarm anyone and don't actually have the strength to enforce any sort of peace or treaties?

UN PEACEKEEPER
We keep the peace, we're the last, best hope of mankind to stop the violence.

BOB PORTER
Well, then I gotta ask, then how exactly are you keeping peace if you don't, you know, do anything?

TOM
Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, the flag of the UN stands for peace and our presence reminds them of the world's opinion. We stand for peace.

BOB SLYDELL
You physically stand in their way?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, no, the, the, US or UK does the actual fighting, if there is any to be done

[...continued...]

Strange Visitors

2006-08-23T12:59:00.000-04:00

Referral logs are fun things, letting you know how people are being directed to your site. I get a lot of google hits on things like blogspot hacking, S&W guns, random sayings, Chuck "Norse", Jack "Baurerr", and the like.

However, sometimes I'd rather not know...

Profiling

2006-08-23T10:31:00.000-04:00

What it all boils down to:

And illustrated comprehensively in this short quiz:

1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
(a) A salesman from Utah
(b) An construction worker
(c) A college student on Spring Break
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

2. In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by:
(a) Your grandmother
(b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer
(c) A mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) A bluegrass band
(b) Dallas Cowboy fans
(c) A tour group of 80-year-old women
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

4. During the 1980’s numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) A family on their way to Disney World
(b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

5. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) The UPS guy
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) A girls’ choir
(b) A hardware store owner
(c) A secretary
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
(a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom
(c) A Catholic nun
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) A college-bound freshman
(b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston
(c) A waitress
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

9. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by:
(a) A starving actress
(b) A mom with a newborn
(c) Twin six-year-old boys
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

10. In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over the Pacific was attempted by:
(a) Hawaiian school kids
(b) A decorated Vietnam veteran
(c) Twin sisters on their way to Paducah
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

11. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman
(b) A dad and his two sons on a ski trip
(c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

12. In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in Yemen by:
(a) A child in a stroller
(b) A high school class on their way to visit Washington, DC
(c) Newlyweds on their way to Miami
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked—two flown into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by:
(a) A retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti
(b) A firefighter going to Maryland for training
(c) A paramedic on his way to vacation in Hawaii
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped and beheaded by:
(a) The Peace Corps
(b) Scottish clansmen
(c) Cuban refugees
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

15. In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in Moscow were murdered in sieges by:
(a) American exchange students
(b) The Red Guard
(c) Church planters
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

16. In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from “The Butcher of Baghdad,” but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls
(b) Street vegetable vendors
(c) Women without burkas
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

17. In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains by bombs in Madrid, detonated by:
(a) Morning commuters
(b) A three-year-old Chinese girl
(c) Flamenco dancers
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

18. In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains in London, detonated by:
(a) Rail workers
(b) Those unable to hail taxis
(c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

19. In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These innocent civilians were murdered by:
(a) Construction workers
(b) Farmers
(c) Christian missionaries
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

20. In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led by:
(a) “Youth”
(b) Soccer fans
(c) Catholic nuns
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

21. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500 Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men, women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs detonated in civilian population centers by:
(a) Portuguese fruit vendors
(b) Disgruntled transit union workers
(c) Nebraska schoolteachers
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

22. In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets launched by:
(a) the Salvation Army
(b) remnants of the ‘Jackson Five’
(c) the cast of ‘Friends’
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

23. In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was attempted by:
(a) members of the Royal Family
(b) Japanese tourists
(c) Metallica groupies
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

24. Since 2001, the FBI has reported that there are major terrorist cells still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the terrorists cell members were:
(a) elderly Southern Baptists
(b) Lutheran Youth Groups
(c) Presbyterian ministers
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Blatantly stolen from Kim Du Toit

Monk Fight!

2006-08-17T17:06:00.000-04:00

Please God let there be footage of this.

Monks brawl at peace protest

COLOMBO (Reuters) - Protesters calling for an end to recent violence in Sri Lanka found themselves brawling with hardline Buddhist monks Thursday, after a rally dubbed a "peace protest" turned unexpectedly violent.

Organizers said there were around 1,000 people in a park in the capital, Colombo, listening to a range of speakers when hardline saffron-robed monks opposed to concessions to Tamil Tiger rebels mounted the stage and erected banners.

Some more moderate Buddhist monks, protesting for peace, were already on the stage when punches were thrown. Soon, monks' robes and fists were flying, although no one was badly hurt several hundred monks were dismembered, with the rest beaten senseless in a magical display of martial arts prowess, witnesses said.
[...]

Tell me, were there nunchuks involved? Tonfas? 3-section staffs? Big honkin' swords? I must know.

I think i'll watch a classic Jet Li movie tonight.

h/t Drudge

Ladies: Use Protection

2006-08-15T12:57:00.000-04:00

It's for your safety:

Breast implants saves woman after Hezbollah attack
Aug 15 8:07 AM US/Eastern

One Israeli woman has received an unexpected boost from her breast implants during the Lebanon war -- the silicone embeds saved her life during a Hezbollah rocket attack, a doctor said.

"This is an extraordinary case, but it's a fact that the silicone implants prevented her from a more serious and deeper wound," Jacky Govrin, of the hospital in Nahariya that treated the woman, told army radio Tuesday.

"The young woman went through surgery two years ago to have a larger chest," he said. "During the war she was wounded in the chest by shrapnel" that got stuck in the implants instead of penetrating further.

The woman did not emerge from her ordeal completely unscathed, however.

"The shrapnel was removed but the implant had to be replaced," Govrin said.

Hmmm.... do they come in kevlar?

Blogger.com gets updated!

2006-08-15T12:16:00.000-04:00

News here and here.

Highlights, with commentary:
WYSIWYG template editor - It's a nice feature for those who don't like to muck around in the HTML, but one I won't be using. My template's way too complex to trust to an editor. Though I must say, I really like what they can do with AJAX and websites nowadays.
Access control - you can now specify exactly who can and can't read your blog. Great for those livejournalers/myspacers/xangers who love to put juicy content online and yet hide it from everybody. My mindset is, if it's private, it shouldn't be online in the first place.
Post Labels/Category Tags - ABOUT FREAKING TIME. Finally, categorized posts, no more of this manual template editing like i'm doing currently. This has been THE major feature I have been waiting for blogger to implement. But boy is it going to suck going back through all my posts and categorizing them - but it'll be worth it.
Dynamic pages (No more republishing worries) - this feature i'm kind of on the fence on. Yeah, it'd be nice having each page be loaded dynamically, but i'm worried about the performance hit. The nice thing about a non-dynamic system is that blogger only has to render the page once, but you have to re-render after every change - as opposed to a dynamic system, where the pages are rendered every time they are accessed. Multiply that by every single user browsing a blog page and you have a recipe for performance issues. The one thing that will keep this feature viable is google's deep pockets and server resources. A lesser webserver wouldn't be able to keep up with a lot of hits.

Go and try the beta!

Reutergate Roundup

2006-08-10T11:14:00.000-04:00

Last week's post was the mere tip of the iceberg, folks.

07/31/06 Questions arise about photos being staged.

But staging is for amateurs. Why force real life onto film, when you can digitally manipulate it?

08/05/06 Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?

More here, and an animated explanation here.

Then another photo-fraud (LGF came up with the term "fauxtography" - I like it!):

08/06/06 Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon

After recalling these two pictures, Reuters decided to kill all photos posted by Adnan Hajj. Who is Adnan Hajj? Why does that name sound familiar? Probably because he showed up in last week's post!

08/06/06 And another set of staged photos featuring the same actress. Obviously the Lebanon acting agency talent pool is a little shallow, they need more depth to fill the roles without becoming repetitious.

08/06/06 Forget about repeating actors, how about repeating buildings? Powerline finds the same buildings being used in multiple stories, weeks apart.

08/08/06 Followed by more obviously-staged photos.

08/08/06 The Passion of the Toys!

08/08/06 And more staging / creative captioning fraud:

08/08/06 Mypetjawa finds some extremely similar photos, and wonders if Adnan Hajj is working under a pseudonym.

Sorry to overwhelm with information here, but there's a lot of it, attributable to two causes: 1) An overwhelming amount of fauxtography coming out of Lebanon (and the middle east in general) and 2) the conservative blogosphere's desire to bring the MSM to account for its bias.

A lot of evidence has been presented here, with no doubt that more fraudulent photos exist. But as we have seen with these examples, these fauxtos are not subtle, they are not difficult to spot, they are not dead-ringers for reality. They are blatant examples of photo fraud. It is only with the MSM's complicity that they are published, whether it be by their incompetence or their outright cooperation.

ZombieTime has a great summary:

It's important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:

1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.
2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.
3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.
4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

Read the rest, it's the most comprehensive summary of the situation available.

Where does it stop?

2006-08-10T10:32:00.000-04:00

An airline terror plot was foiled last night in the UK:

(BBC News UK) A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.

Police are searching premises after 21 people were arrested. Home Secretary John Reid said they believed the "main players" were accounted for.

Here's the interesting part:

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said those arrested were mainly young, British-born Asian men.

Aw crap, i'm going to have a hard time traveling now. I better lay off the british accent and go straight southern.

The explosives would have been smuggled aboard at least six airliners as hand luggage - and could have been missed during x-ray screening.
[...]
Security sources believe that liquid explosives would have been used which could have been mixed during the flight into a lethal concoction.

I guess they've seen Die Hard 3. For those of you cinematic non-entities who might've missed that particular magnum opus, the plot revolves around combinatory liquids that are inert when separate, but explosive and unstable when mixed, aka binary explosives. Their plan appears to have been to smuggle aboard a detonation device and enough liquid to cause a significant explosion. I'd guess the targets were the airplanes themselves rather than using the airplane against anything else. I imagine it'd be difficult to gain control of the cockpit armed only with a liquid explosive, so it was probably for pure destruction.

The FAA responds to the threat thusly:

Heightened security caused long lines and delays at airport security checkpoints. The government banned passengers from carrying all liquids and gels, including toothpaste, makeup, suntan lotion. Baby formula and medicines were exempted.

And

"Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane. This determination will be constantly evaluated and updated when circumstances warrant," the statement said.

But if you think that's bad, here's the situation in the UK:

"British Airways, acting on instruction from the UK Government, wishes to advise passengers that no items of hand baggage can be carried on board any aircraft departing any UK airport," the airline said in a statement.

"The UK government has advised that this instruction will apply to all airlines operating from UK airports."

Which brings me to my overall point:

Where does it stop?

The traveling restrictions, that is. Homicidal madmen aren't completely without ingenuity, as today's foiled attack proves. If there's any hole in the security at all, they can find it. Today it's liquids, tomorrow it's woven into a shirt, and the next thing you know, the only way to fly is starkers, chained in, and after an invasive probing.

They can always find a way. Even if only by sheer dint of high-volume effort, they will eventually find a way. Then the airlines will rush to fill that security hole, again at the cost of the citizens' civil liberties, privacy, and most importantly, convenience.

You may think I'm making a big deal out of convenience, but it is important - convenience is the reason people fly in the first place. If the airlines reach the tipping point to where it is more inconvenient for a 90 minute flight than an 1000 minute drive, then they are done for. And as american air travel dissipates, so does american productivity - as business and tourism grinds to a screeching halt.

The intrusion into convenience does not start and end at the airport - as protections against terrorism intrudes into every aspect of life, as we can see in our shopping malls, landmarks, and other population centers. How far are we going to take our defense? Now, Americans have been and still are troopers about it - but how long will it take for these trivial inconveniences to become intolerable?

There is a point at which we must ask if there's another way to stop the threat other than playing the dutch boy with his fingers in the dyke, plugging up every new leak - and there is - we need to stop the flood from happening rather than shore up the dyke. Mid-level managers would call it being pro-active. The solution is not to have better security - the solution is to stop radical Islam.

Damning Photography

2006-08-01T13:01:00.000-04:00

Y'know all those "civilians" being killed in Lebanon? They're probably Hezbollah:

Photos that Damn Hezbollah

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.
[...]
The release of the images comes as Hezbollah faces criticism for allegedly using innocent civilians as "human shields".

Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as "cowards" for operating among civilians.

"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," he said.

Kinda hard to complain about "civilian deaths" when all the combatants are dressed up as civilians. It's also a bit, say, hypocritical, to complain about Lebanese "civilian" deaths when Hezbollah exclusively targets Israeli civilians (who aren't combatants, by the way).

Secondly, are you trying to manufacture outrage and stir up emotion? Why don't you cart around a dead child for photo shoots? Each dead child will last for about 6 photo sessions.

In this first of the two sequences, we see a shot by Reuters and taken by Adnan Hajj, timed at 2:21 pm.
[...]
The next shot in this sequence is credited to AP's Kevin Frayer. Timed at 4.09 pm, it shows the same "rescue" worker
[...]
Just in case you missed it, however, we get another view, courtesy of Reuter's Adnan Hajj, with a time given of 4:30 pm - some 20 minutes after the first shot.
[...]
But now, timed at 12:45 pm, an hour and twenty minutes before the child's body is pictured being pulled from the ruins, we get a picture from AP's Kevin Frayer of the same child's body being paraded by our ubiquitous helmeted rescue worker.
[...]
At 12.53 pm, after an interval of eight minutes, Frayer photographs the child's body again, from a different angle. The caption is the same. This time, though, our helmeted worker is showing some distress, which was absent in the previous photograph.
[...]
Then, timed at 1:01 pm, eight minutes on, we get another picture from Frayer.

Check the link for the damning photos and more updates.

Today in International News

2006-08-01T12:56:00.000-04:00

The Bridge To Awesomeness:

Tue Aug 1, 8:51 AM ET

BUDAPEST (Reuters) - A new bridge in Hungary could be named after Hollywood action movie actor Chuck Norris unless the trend turns in an Internet vote organised by the Economy Ministry.

Votes for the "Chuck Norris Bridge" had attracted 8,725 votes or 11 percent by Tuesday morning, just ahead of those cast in favor of naming it after Hungarian humorist Geza Hofi and three times more than for Szent Istvan, founder of the state.
[...continued...]

Chuck Norris needs your help! He's currently in 2nd place, with 13% of the vote, behind "Szent Korona" with 16%. You can vote here.

Fact: The Chuck Norris bridge was opened in 2008, but due to an abnormally high death rate, renamed a month later. Nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives.

Firearm Myths, pt. 2

2006-07-27T12:00:00.000-04:00

Firearm Myths
part 1

I must admit a bit of laziness on my part: I compiled most of these back in 2002, therefore it may be a bit dated. However, if anything, the lapsed time has only reinforced my points.

The Myth of Your Gun Being More Likely to Kill Your Friend than Save Your Life

The exact myth is that "a gun kept in a home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know then to kill a stranger in self-defense."

No words of my own, so I'll quote from James S. Rustad's Gun Control FAQ (original link lost, alternate source here)

Response:

"In a 1986 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs.
Kellerman and Reay described the proper way to calculate how many
people are saved by guns compared to how many are hurt by guns. The
benefits should include, in the authors' own words 'cases in which
burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or
display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have
purposely avoided a house known to be armed...'"

"However, when Kellerman and Reay calculated their comparison, they
didn't include those cases, they only counted the times a homeowner
killed the criminal. Because well under 1% of defensive gun usage
involves the death of a criminal, Kellerman and Reay under stated the
protective benefits of firearms by a factor of at least 100! They
turned the truth on its head!"

"GUNS: Facts & Fallacies" -- "Doctors for Integrity in
Research & Public Policy",
Edgar A. Suter, MD, Chairman.
Phone # (510) 277 0333
SOURCES:

The original study was published as:

"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home"
Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay
The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24
(June 12, 1986):1557-1560.

It was then reprinted in:

"The Gun Control Debate, You Decide"
ed. Lee Nisbet, Prometheus Books
1990, 239-244.

SUMMARY:

43:1 ratio breaks down as follows:
37 suicides
4.6 criminal homicides
1.3 accidents

Note that the definition of defensive uses includes only cases where no
charges were ever filed. If charges were filed the case was considered
to be a "criminal homicide" even if the case was dismissed or the jury
found "not guilty".

Also note that the definition of defensive use requires killing the
attacker -- apparently the researchers don't count wounding or driving
off the attacker as defensive. Less than 0.5% of successful self-defense
uses result in the death of the attacker (0.5% is based on ~400
justifiable homicides by civilians each year, FBI Uniform Crime Report,
and the National Crime Survey's 80,000 self-defense uses which is a
reasonable minimum estimate of the number of civilian-with-gun self-
defenses.)

Additionally it is useful to know that in ~85% of the cases where
someone is killed by a friend or a family member, there was a police
record of violence (criminal records, police calls over "domestic
disturbances, etc...) In other words, if you have no history of
violence, you are about five times less likely to kill a friend or
family member.

UPDATE 08/07/06
Ninth Stage Extends the Debunk:

Reading the latest Carnival of Cordite I saw the link to ChuBlogga’s post. It reminded me of what I had read years ago about the definition of the “someone you know” that you gun owners are “more likely to kill”. I had read that among the “someone[s] you know” are the fare that shoots you, the cabbie; the psycho neighbor who everyone is afraid of; the stalker abusive ex who ignores all the restraining orders you’ve taken out; your rival drug dealer/gang member (as if dead drug dealers and gang members should count in murder statistics) that you shoot dead.
[...continued...]

The Myth that "More American Children Die from Guns Each Year than All Other Natural Causes Combined."

According to the National Safety Council's "Accident Facts: 1997 Edition," (link dead) there were 6,700 accidental deaths for children age 0 to 14. These accidental deaths break down to:

3,300 or 49.3% due to Motor-Vehicle accidents
1,000 or 14.9% due to drowning
660 or 9.9% due to fires, burns and deaths associated with fire
250 or 3.7% due to suffocation by ingested object
240 or 3.6% due to firearms
190 or 2.8% due to falls
100 or 1.5% due to poisoning by solids or liquids
60 or 0.9% due to poisoning by gases or vapor
900 or 13.4% due to all other types

6,700 or 100% due to all causes

A legal definition of children would include those up to age 18 (depending on the state). However, the statistics compiled by the National Safety Council aggregate persons into 5-year increments. As can be seen, firearms are either the *FIFTH* leading cause of death, or the *SIXTH*, if "all other types" is included as a categorical cause, excluding deaths due to perinatal conditions, congenital anomolies, and infectious disease. Regardless of its rank, it can be seen just from the data above that only 3.6% of all accidental deaths under the age of 15 are caused by firearms. That is far less than those killed in motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, or in fires.

The Myth that "The Number of Kids Killed by Firearms [in the US] Has Quadrupled in the Last 10 Years."

According to the NSC, from 1985 to 1995, fatal firearm accidents for all ages has decreased 15%

Since 1930, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has been cut by half, even though the U.S. population has doubled and the number of privately owned firearms has quadrupled.

The Myth that Strict Gun Control Reduces Death Rates

Many gun-control advocates cite that Japan's murder rate is much lower than America's, thanks to their strict gun control laws. However....

Japan's murder rate averages 0.9 per 100,000, but its suicide rate is 20.3, for a combined rate of 21.1 per 100,000.
The U.S. murder rate averages 7.4 per 100,000, and the suicide rate is 12.0, for a combined total of 19.4 per 100,000.
Thus, the combined murder and suicide rates in Japan and the U.S. are nearly equal even though firearms are virtually non-existent in Japan.
(Source: National Safety Council's 1997 Accident Facts and the United Nations Demographic Yearbook)

Other misleading statistics used by gun control advocates include statistics on lower murder rates in selected countries with strong gun control laws, as compared to murder rates in the United States. What these advocates studiously avoid mentioning are higher murder rates than ours in other countries that also have strong gun control laws (Brazil, Russia) -- or lower murder rates in some countries, such as Israel, where guns are more widely available than in the United States.

The U.S. does not have the highest rate of gun-related deaths among industrialized nations. The United Nations' Demographics Handbook, has the U.S. ranked 12th.

Hmmmmm.... makes you wonder what kind of yardstick they're measuring Japan by.... A different one!

The Myth that Strict Gun Control Reduces Crime

The most common comparison is against Britain - however, comparing simple crime rates between America and Britain is inaccurate. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. (Gallant , Hills, Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independence Institute, July 18, 2000) (Daily Telegraph, 1996).

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime.
Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of
robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. (Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001)

Contact Crime Victimization Rates (%)
1. Australia - 4.1
2. England & Wales - 3.6
3. Scotland - 3.4
4. Canada - 3.4
5. Finland - 3.2
6. Poland - 2.8
7. N. Ireland - 2.4
8. Denmark - 2.3
9. France - 2.2
10. Sweden - 2.2
11. Switzerland - 2.1
12. Netherlands - 2.0
13. USA - 1.9
14. ...

That's right! USA ranks 13th in victimization rates despite having looser gun control laws, and high and mighty England ranks 2nd despite having extremely strict gun control laws.

Using John Lott's International Crime Victimization Survey data from 2000,

Victimisation in the year preceding the survey: number of offences per 100 inhabitants (incidence rates), Assaults & Threats
Country 1989 1992 1996 2000
England & Wales 2.4 5.5 9.7 12.4
Australia 9.7 8.1 N/A 11.2
US 10.1 N/A 10.0 6.5

As you can see, at least in the time period here, English and Australian assualt crime rates rose, while US rates fell. England enacted their ban in 1997 (already having stringent controls on firearm ownership since 1968), Australia's in 1996. Meanwhile, US gun ownership rose while it's assault rate decreased. While gun ownership is hardly the only factor influencing the rate of assault, it can certainly be seen to have a substantial effect.

My conclusion: The more able a people are to defend themselves, the less able they are to be victimized.

Got more myths for me to refute? Send'em my way, i'll cover them in the next installment!

Liberal Law of War

2006-07-26T12:46:00.000-04:00

Dafydd has an excellent post on The "Proportionality" Fallacy, and comes to a insightful conclusion:

To [liberals], all war is a criminal-justice program. Why should the war on jihadi terrorism be any different?

And because they think war in general is a punitive action designed to punish transgressors, they also believe:
It's wrong to punish countries disproportionately to their "crimes," such as killing more of their soldiers than they killed of yours... it's too much "tat" in the tit-for-tat equation;
It's wrong to "collectively punish" the people living in the enemy nation by, e.g., dropping bombs;
In fact, killing enemy combatants is wrong in general, because we're against capital punishment;
It's wrong to "punish" a country for the actions of a terrorist group within that country;
It's horrifically wrong to "punish" a country before it has actually committed the crime or even taken steps to commit the crime (pre-emption); that would be the same as putting someone in prison because you thought he might commit a crime in the future;
It's wrong to go to war without first holding a criminal investigation and finding the enemy country guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the transgression;
Captured unlawful enemy combatants must be tried in civilian courts (presumably for "conspiracy") with all the protections afforded ordinary criminal defendants;
Captured unlawful enemy combatants may not be interrogated unless they have a lawyer present, and they cannot be interrogated at all if they "take the Fifth;"
Once combatants have "served their sentences," which must be "proportionate to the crime they committed," they must be released, even if there is a chance they will return to the front lines and "commit more crimes;" after all, they've paid their debt to society.

RTWT

h/t Wizbang!

Knights of the Trek Table

2006-07-25T23:56:00.000-04:00

Mix 1 part Holy Grail, 1 part Star Trek, shake.

h/t Ace

All the Time in the World

2006-07-21T13:25:00.000-04:00

What would you do, if you had it?

Here's the premise: Say you inherit/obtain/earn a modest fortune. Not enough to be wildly extravagant, but enough to keep you from working, while providing for just about whatever you could want. What would you do with your time?

(Try to leave out the pat and simple one-line answers, here).

If you are a blogger, post your answer and trackback/comment back here. If not, then feel free to post in the comments.

This should be a fun little thought experiment.

If I had all the time in the world, I would...

...spend the first few years developing myself. Mostly survivalist skills, which will never go out of style. I choose to be hedonistic and simplistic here; however, I will qualify my apparent selfishness with the assertion that whatever I do would be done with the intent of making me a better servant.

During the first year: Preparing! Hit the basics - a strict physical regimen, brush up on my martial arts/weapons fighting. Learn gourmet cooking skills, automobile mechanics, and read as much classical literature, as well.

Second year: Adventuring! Hunting/safari, sharpshooting, tactical/squad-level weapons training, and sailing. Also, time permitting, learn how to fly a plane.

Third year: Thinking! Hard-core logic, debate, and apologetics study. This might as well be an intensive brain-skills year. Hmm, let's throw in archery just to keep things interesting.

Fourth year: Creating! Focus on musical training - guitar, bass, piano, voice, whatever I can learn. An excellent time to learn the drums, as my physical coordination skills should be peaked at this point.

Fifth year and beyond: At this point, I probably will have done most of what I have ever wanted to do. I might as well combine all my skills and become Batman. Actually, I would probably become a Jungian/Hemingway type - write, explore, do just about everything. Although minus the suicidal depression.

UPDATE

AlanDP's comment reminds me that I need to buy a nice strip of land (at least 2k long at some point) somewhere so I can set up a shooting range right next to the house. Make a nice zombie/SHTF/EOTWAWKI setup - house on a slight hill, clear lanes of fire all around, ammo reloading facility, long range and short range shooting areas. Maybe a moat. TONS of high-tech, EMP-hardened commo gear, enough stored provisions to last a year.

Might as well throw in the private airstrip and helicopter pad. That's another goal, along with general aviation skills, I'd like to learn how to fly a helo as well. Never hurts to be well-rounded.

Oh, and several large dogs. Can't forget those.

Capital Crimes

2006-07-21T08:00:00.000-04:00

Nation's Capital Declares Crime Emergency
Two groups of tourists were robbed at gunpoint on the National Mall, just hours after the police chief declared a crime emergency in the city in response to a string of violence that included the killing of a British activist.

The activist, Alan Senitt, was attacked in the Georgetown area on Sunday, his throat was slit and police say the attackers attempted to rape his companion. It was the 13th homicide in the city this month. Robberies are up 14 percent, and armed assaults have jumped 18 percent in the past 30 days.
[...]
District of Columbia Police Chief Charles Ramsey declared a crime emergency in the city after Senitt, a volunteer for the potential presidential campaign of former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, was killed.

It is a terrible shame when the capital city of our great nation is more of a crime zone rather than a crown jewel. Despite being the seat of power (for the world!) Washington DC consistently ranks high in violent crime, among such distinguished cities as Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

There are multiple correllations I could draw between these cities: they all are urban centers, they are overwhelmingly liberal, and they all have an anti-gun attitude. Detroit and Philadelphia seem to be somewhat of an aberration in this fact, as Michigan and Pennsylvania are fairly firearm friendly - however, both cities are very anti-gun. Perhaps liberalism contributes more to high crime rates than gun-control? But I digress.

If I have any choice about it, I will never live in Washington D.C., or any other city that disarms me. It's one thing to have a high crime rate, but the ability to easily defend yourself. It's quite another to have a high crime rate, but having to rely on luck instead. Depending only on luck, or the police, leads to headlines like these:

14 deaths in 13 days

The surge in killings started just after midnight July 1 and has barely let up.
[...]
There have been 14 homicides this month: Three on the 1st. Two on the 2nd. One each on the 4th and 5th. Two on the 7th. And one each day from July 8 through Wednesday.

As killings go, this is far from the District's worst stretch, nothing like the one starting in 1988 when the city averaged more than a homicide a day for eight of nine years.

Yet after a decade of declining numbers, this month's killings have so alarmed city officials that D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a crime emergency.

The Tipping Point

2006-07-18T10:44:00.000-04:00

Israel found theirs, and now the Islamic terrorists must deal with the full, unleashed fury of the Lion of Judah.

Blatantly stolen from Right Wing News:

Excerpts From The Speech By Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert To The Knesset On July 17, 2006

...Over the past few weeks, our enemies have challenged thesovereignty of the State of Israel and the safety of its residents - first in the southern sector, then on the northern border, and deeper into the home front.

Israel did not seek these confrontations. On the contrary. We have done a lot to prevent them. We returned to the borders of the State of Israel, recognized by the entire international community. There were those who misconstrued our desire for peace - for us and our neighbors - as a sign of frailty. Our enemies misinterpreted our willingness to exercise restraint as a sign of weakness.

They were wrong!

...The campaign we are engaged in these days is against the terror organizations operating from Lebanon and Gaza. These organizations are nothing but "sub-contractors" operating under the inspiration, permission, instigation and financing of the terror-sponsoring and peace-rejecting regimes, on the Axis of Evil which stretches from Tehran to Damascus.

Lebanon has suffered heavily in the past, when it allowed foreign powers to gamble on its fate.

Iran and Syria still continue to meddle, from afar, in the affairs of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, through Hizballah and the Hamas.

Even if last Wednesday's criminal attack against an IDF patrol was carried out without the consent of the Lebanese government and without the assistance of its military, this does not absolve it of full responsibility for the attack which emanated from its sovereign territory. Just as the fact that the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority opposes terrorism against Israel does not relieve him and the Palestinian Authority of their responsibility for the attack carried out from their territory against our soldiers in Kerem Shalom. They are both fully responsible for the safety of our soldiers who were taken hostage.

...And in Lebanon, we will insist on compliance with the terms stipulated long ago by the international community, as unequivocally expressed only yesterday in the resolution of the 8 leading countries of the world:

- The return of the hostages, Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
- A complete cease fire.
- Deployment of the Lebanese army in all of Southern Lebanon.
-Expulsion of Hizballah from the area, and fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559.

We will not suspend our actions.

On both fronts we are exercising self-defense in the most basic and essential sense. In both cases, it is a matter whose importance and significance go far beyond the size of the military units involved.

We are at a national moment of truth. Will we consent to living under the threat of this Axis of Evil or will we mobilize our inner strength and show determination and equanimity?

Our answer is clear to every Israeli, and it echoes today throughout the entire region.

We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel, and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere. We will persist until Hizballah and Hamas comply with those basic and decent things required of them by every civilized person. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of missiles or rockets against its residents.

Citizens of Israel, there are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more!

And I say to everyone: no more! Israel will not be held hostage - not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state.

In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence, of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual responsibility. I highly value and appreciate the way the Opposition has been conducting itself in the Knesset these days. The human competition and personal rivalries are dissolved and instead our feeling of mutual responsibility arises, our sense of partnership, and primarily, our eternal love for our people and our land.

This is such a moment!

All of us - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians now stand as one person, as one nation, subject together to the same hatred and malice, and fighting against it in consensus and partnership. When missiles are launched at our residents and cities, our answer will be war with all the strength, determination, valor, sacrifice and dedication which characterize this nation.

There is nothing we want more than peace and good neighborly relations - in the east, north and south. We seek peace, we pursue peace and we yearn for peace. At the same time, there is nothing we reject more than an attempt to harm us and make us give up our right to live here, in our land, in security and peace.

On behalf of the people of Israel, on behalf of all the residents of the country, I came here today, Madam Speaker, to announce to the world: we seek neither war nor direct confrontation, but we will not be deterred from them when the need arises. Only a nation that can defend its freedom truly deserves it. We are entitled to our freedom, and when necessary, we know how to fight for it and defend it.

...I wish to read from the "Prayer for the Welfare of Soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces". Millions of Jews - in Israel and the world - pray for the safety and success of those who defend our nation, from the Lebanese border to the desert, and from the Great Sea unto the approach of the Arava, on the land, in the air and on the sea.

"May the Almighty cause the enemies who rise up against us to be struck down before them.

May the Holy One, blessed be He, preserve and rescue our fighters from every trouble and distress and from every plague and illness, and may He send blessing and success in their every endeavor.

May He lead our enemies under our soldiers' sway and may He grant them salvation and crown them with victory".

The strength of a nation is measured not only by its military capabilities. The strength of a nation is measured by its welfare and morality, its strong and solid economy, its modern and developing market, its export of technologies and products for the most advanced world markets and its ground-breaking academic research. In all these, each and every one of us has good reason to be proud.

But above all, the strength of a nation is measured in times of trial, when the home front becomes the front, when the citizens of the country show admirable fortitude, patience and stamina and allow it to operate against its enemies.

I had the privilege of witnessing these inner strengths in the years when I was Mayor of Jerusalem. For years, our capital was subject to the most murderous terror attacks. The resilience, patience and restraint of the residents of Jerusalem and the entire citizens of Israel are exemplary.

I recall a conversation with Rudy Giuliani, who was Mayor of New York during the terror attacks of September 2001. I called to offer encouragement to him and the residents of New York following the collapse of the Twin Towers, and he replied: "Ehud, if the New Yorkers can withstand it like the Jerusalemites do, then we will defeat terrorism".

...Thanks to you, our enemies come up against a united nation, which fights together, shoulder to shoulder. We do not surrender and we do not panic. We believe in the justice of our cause, because there is no battle more just or moral than ours - a battle for the right to a peaceful and normal life, like any other human being, any other nation and any other state.

We fight for the right of children like Omer Pisachov, may his memory be blessed, a 7-year-old from Nahariya, who wanted to visit his grandmother Yehudit Itzkovich, may her memory be blessed, and enjoy the Sabbath dinner she prepared.

We fight for the right of citizens like Shmuel Ben-Shimon, may his memory be blessed, a 41-year old from Yokne'am who left every morning for work in the railway garage in Haifa to support his wife Natalie and their small children.

We fight for the right of citizens like Monica Lerer, may her memory be blessed, a 50-year old from Nahariya, to drink coffee on the terrace in the country to which she immigrated from Argentina.

We fight for the right of girls like Ella Abukasis, may her memory be blessed, a 13-year old from Sderot, to play the flute and read books, as Ella enjoyed doing.

We fight for everything that everyone in the enlightened world takes for granted and never imagined that they would have to fight for -- the right to a normal life.

It is a difficult battle! It may become even more difficult. It is a painful test, and we may have to bear more suffering. Such a battle is never easy. It is strewn with pain and suffering, sacrifice, and casualties.

But, we have no intention of giving up our desire to live a normal life. We will not apologize for this desire, and we do not need anyone's approval to defend ourselves.

Citizens of Israel, this is a difficult time of trial for all of us. The State of Israel has withstood much more complex trials - and triumphed.

...I see before me the kidnapped boys, those standing in the front line and in the line of fire, those brave and determined ones who are fighting today and who could - G-d forbid - be the target of tomorrow's kidnapping.

We will defend all of them, on behalf of all of them we will fight, and with all of them before our eyes - the civilians in the line of fire, the kidnapped fighters and their families - we will continue, without hesitating, without capitulating and without fretting, until our goals are achieved.

I wish to conclude by reading an extract from Prophet Jeremiah:

"Thus said Hashem: a voice is heard on high, wailing, bitter weeping, Rachel weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children, for they are gone.

Thus said Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your accomplishment - the word of Hashem - and they will return from the enemy's land. There is hope for your future - the word of Hashem; And your children will return to their land"

We will triumph!

Blackwell vs. Strickland on the 2nd Amendment

2006-07-17T15:20:00.000-04:00

Some people have asked me recently for my opinion on Ohio's gubernatorial race, specifically on my thoughts regarding Strickland's high NRA rating (regarding his voting record). At the time, I didn't have a solid opinion, other than an automatic knee-jerk opposition to anybody supported by the Kos crowd.

Today, however, brings a lot more fact to back up the feeling:

Tom Raga (Blackwell's LtGov candidate) Attends CHL Class

The number two spots on the Ohio Gubernatorial tickets represent vastly different views when it comes to the rights of gun owners.

Democratic running mate Lee Fisher was a member of the Handgun Control Inc. Board of Directors according to This NRA Fact Sheet.

In contrast, Republican running mate Tom Raga has been outspoken about gun rights, is the keynote speaker at OFCC's third annual Party In The Park, and recently passed the training required by law to obtain a concealed handgun license in Ohio.

And another interesting factoid:

In a 1994 edition of the "PROponent" the Columbus based People's Rights Organization had the following to say about Lee Fisher when he ran for Governor against Bob Taft:
Lee Fisher

While a member of the Ohio Senate, and later as Attorney General, has publicly supported all manner of gun control legislation including handgun registration, the Brady Bill, and the assault weapons ban. While a Senator, made the following statement: "I never met a gun control bill I didn't like." NRA rating F-
Lee Fisher was also involved in promoting a five-year plan to attempt to ban gun shows. His NRA rating of F- is the lowest possible, and is given only to the most rabid enemies of the Second Amendment.

Given that Strickland's LtGov candidate has received the lowest possible rating, and that I don't see candidates picking running partners that have diametrically opposing positions, I believe that Strickland's high NRA rating is more a result of pleasing his constituency (which is not a bad thing) rather than following his personal beliefs.

Now, pleasing the constituency is an important part of being a statesman - however, once in a higher office, you can count on a politician being less concerned with the constituency that put him there and more concerned with the national party line.

h/t WMD

Firearm Myths, pt. 1

2006-07-14T02:23:00.000-04:00

I'm starting up a regular series on Firearm Myths, where I get to the bottom of common misperceptions and offer up the untarnished truth. If you've got questions, ask away, and i'll answer it to the best of my ability.

The Myth of "Accidental" Discharge - Very few of the events categorized as "accidental" discharges are truly accidental. "Accidental" discharge implies that the firearm did something it was not supposed to - like firing by itself, without the user deliberately pulling the trigger. However, a gun has to be in pretty bad condition in order for this to happen. Thus, most "accidental" discharges are actually negligent discharages - in other words, user error. So KEEP YOUR DAMN FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO SHOOT (Rule #2). Shooting your friend because you're goofing around with a firearm is not an accident - it's negligence.

Quick Review of the 4 rules:

The gun is always loaded (treat every gun as if it was loaded)
Never point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy
Keep your finger off the trigger (preferably on the frame, outside of the trigger guard) until you're ready to shoot
Know what is behind, in front of, and around your target

The Myth that Automatic Firearms are Banned - Actually, they're not banned at the federal level. Municipalities or states may ban ownership and use of fully-automatic firearms, but otherwise they are legal for private citizens to own and use. However, they are restricted. Since the National Firearms Act of 1934/68, their importation and sale has been regulated with a $200 tax on each item. Nowadays, this doesn't seem like such a big deal (considering the normal price of a rifle), but keep in mind that this $200 tax has not changed since 1934 - the cost back then was so prohibitive it might as well been an outright ban. In fact, one of my goals in this life is to own a fully-automatic, suppressed MP5. Silencers (more properly, suppressors), as well as short-barreled rifles/shotguns are also subject to this $200 tax.

The Myth of "High-Powered" "Assault" Rifles - Whenever you see the words "high-powered" "assault" and "rifle" together in a sentence, you can be sure that the author is either ignorant about or biased against guns. They almost invariably proceed to claim that such rifles are a menace to society, and can kill cops wearing body armor. The problem with their description is that just about any rifle greater than a .22 caliber is capable of defeating body armor. Might as well classify most peoples' cherished deer rifles as "high-powered." The "assault" adjective is also misleading - usually it just means that the particular rifle platform has a military look to it. "Assault" means it looks scary - the basic functionality of the weapon is unchanged. There is practically no difference between an assault rifle and any other rifle.

The Myth of the "Gun Show Loophole" - Most people would call less government regulation a feature, rather than a loophole. What the "loophole" amounts to is that the government has no control over private sales between private citizens. You might as well use the term "garage sale loophole". For some reason, when new firearms are sold, or any firearm is sold across state lines, the government feels it needs to know about it. But beyond that, they don't need to know. Private sales cannot be regulated, nor should they be. However, this does not let the private seller off the hook completely - they are responsible for making sure that the buyer is legally able to own a firearm before they can sell it. There is nothing official they have to do, but at the very least, most sellers will have some sort of CYA form for the buyer to sign stating that the buyer is legally able.

The Myth that the 2nd Amendment Only Applies to Militia - This is still a major point of contention in contemporary times, although I can't see why. In the interests of brevity and time, I'll just post the following quotes, along with the most salient posts:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875)

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

Laurence Tribe in American Constitutional Law

Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Some may say that it is hard to understand the meaning of the words written 200+ years ago - but it becomes much easier to understand when you look at the contemporary writings, such as the court decisions from only 100 years after - and those are worded much more plainly.
The above quotes were blatantly stolen from Kevin @ The Smallest Minority

Other considerations:

The Bill of Rights (where the 2nd Amendment resides) are restrictions placed upon the government. Note the direction of power here - they do not give the government powers - rather, it takes power away from the government.
The Bill of Rights does not grant powers to the individual - it assumes the individual has these powers already, and guarantees that the government cannot take them away.
Each of the amendments applies to an individual person, or multiple individuals. The usage of "the people" is not in the singular collective sense, but rather in the multiple individual sense. For instance, the right of free speech does not apply to states, nor people groups, but rather all individual persons.

Got more myths for me to refute? Send'em my way, i'll cover them in the next installment!

"Props"

2006-07-12T18:39:00.000-04:00

This "Who's Line" clip is either the funniest thing ever, or the worst thing ever.

Possibly both.

Writing Discipline

2006-07-12T13:10:00.000-04:00

So the blog's been pretty lame recently. My apologies. Then again, as I have no obligations to you, apologies aren't exactly necessary - however, I'll admit I appreciate a certain amount of attention, and an outlet for my vast and wide-ranging commentaries. Therefore, I am going to try and commit to releasing one major post each week. The operative word here being "try". At the very least, i'll improve my writing and ability to finish an essay - and at best, perhaps some of you will actually like it.

At bat: Firearm Myths
On deck: Heinlein on Democracy
In the hole: Jesus vs. Diet Jesus

Best. Headline. Ever.

2006-07-11T12:32:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld arrives in Afghanistan; 30 Taliban killed
He's a one-man killing machine!

(The story is of little consequence, just think about the headline for a second)

Son of the Whiplash

2006-07-10T01:03:00.000-04:00

I'm not a big fan of wooden roller coasters, and this doesn't help:

At Least 27 Injured At Kings Island Park
9News has learned that as many as 27 people were injured after a malfunction on the "Son of Beast" wooden roller coaster ride at the Paramount Kings Island amusement park in Mason.

It happened around 4:45 p.m. Sunday afternoon.

The park remained open Sunday but the ride has been shut down, although empty cars could still be seen suspended on an incline going up the track.

Witnesses say they saw the roller coast stop with a "bump," like a car coming to an abrupt stop.
[...]
Seventeen riders had been released from hospitals within five hours of the accident and one had been admitted with injuries that weren't life-threatening, Maureen Kaiser, a spokeswoman for the park said.

Twelve people were taken to Bethesda North Hospital and 10 were taken to Bethesda Medical Center in Lebanon, said Mona Fuqua, a spokeswoman for both hospitals.

"At this point, we're looking at bumps and bruises," she said.

Reason #263 to sleep with a shotgun by your bed

2006-07-08T02:17:00.000-04:00

Blatantly stolen from Pious Agnostic, h/t to Hell in a Handbasket

Automotive Update

2006-06-30T15:17:00.000-04:00

I finally (after two years) started getting around to customizing my car. No, not spinners - do I look like a 16 year old inner city punk? Don't answer that.

I've had a bodykit sitting in my garage for about 2 years, and this month I finally got around to having it painted and installed. And it looks good.

And this week, I got my windows tinted:

I do believe i'm done with the car for this year. Next year: shocks/springs, 18" wheels/tires.

However, my timetable is only as good as I can withstand the inevitable peer pressure and purchase impulses.

You may commence salivating

2006-06-30T00:40:00.000-04:00

It's time for a little live-action Tranformers... action.

Probably my last post on Net Neutrality

2006-06-26T14:30:00.000-04:00

From a Slashdot discussion on Net Neutrality:

Lawmakers don’t know enough technically to make a law that wouldn’t have unforeseen and damaging consequences, even if they supported net neutrality.

That sentiment covers about the last 100 years of legislation.

Blatantly stolen from NixGuy

Weekend Entertainment

2006-06-17T02:37:00.000-04:00

Enjoy!

Got a question needs answering? Ask a Ninja

List of problems solved by MacGyver

Sin City Style Photoshop Tutorial

Deadly Handheld Coilgun (railgun/gaussgun)

Coffee, besides preventing cirrhosis, also shields from radiation! What can't it do?

Free Zombie Game? Count me in.

Penumbra is a horror adventure game featuring state of the art graphics and makes heavy use of physics. Penumbra was created as a technology development project, with the aim to explore new uses of physics in games.

Two quotes:
"The irreversible thermite reaction begins"
"This is a car, it's been specially chosen to be destroyed because it's old, it's white, but more importantly, because it's French."

Blatantly stolen from Dave at Garfield Ridge

"It's New Zealand's 4th most popular folk-parody combo!"
"Our next song is gonna be one of our sort-of gangsta-folk crossovers..."

Flight of the Conchords HBO special Part 1

Part 2

Even more goodness under the fold!

Ukeleles and... Nirvana?

Rollin' with Bob Saget (language warning)

Farting Preacher 5. Need to say more?

And lastly, a Star Wars reference by Gnarls Barkley

Net Neutrality or Free Market Neutrality?

2006-06-15T11:18:00.000-04:00

I wasn't planning on posting on Net Neutrality, but given how... vigorous the debate has been over at Abs' blog, I figure I might as well post on it here. After all, it'd be a shame to let so many words go to waste.

The heart of the matter: Should ISPs be able to provide different levels of speed by prioritizing internet traffic for certain customers? (They would do this with specialized hardware and by charging a higher price for this service). Or should the government step in and mandate that all traffic must be treated the same, and go at the same speed?

My take: get the government the heck out of the way, and leave it up to the invisible hand of the free market. Read on to find out why.

Abs starts out:

I have been following up Net Neutrality amendment for the past couple weeks on one of my blogs. In a one line summary, it is an ammendment that was supported by democrats to support neutrality on the web. Some broadband providers are providing higher speeds to some websites that pay them well. This causes partiality on the web. The websites which have more financial backing are successful as compared to good content websites. I have even set up an online petition which has around 4000 signatures so far. Here is a list of house representatives who voted in the recent net neutrality amendment. See where the Ohio representative stands on this issue.

Joel responds:

Sorry Abs. I’m going to have to sit this one out. As much as it sounds “unjust”, think about the principles of capitalism. What you are promoting is equality across the board, essentially a socialistic mindset of fairness, not the free-market mentality that the United States economy has always been based upon.

If a company can find ways to make more money, that is what causes jobs to expand, companies to grow and our market to continue to be the best there is. Through government regulation and interference, the free-market is hindered, if not hurt.

If I’m a little guy, of course I don’t want preferential treatment for my larger competitor, but the truth be known if I don’t have the funds to compete, I’m in the wrong market, and if I do have the funds, it is only fair, in a free-market, to be able to get what you pay for. More investment should equal better rewards.

I say, let companies continue to do what they do best: turn a profit. As long as it is within lawful means, ingenuity should never be stifled by government interference.

I’m sure you don’t see eye to eye with me on this. That is fine. It’s a different world view on economics.

Abs replies:

Joel, I understand you point of view. Good job being really clear…

But the problem here is that web publishers like me who can’t afford to spend awful lot of money feel cheated on by the Government if the net neutrality doesn’t come into effect. We feel that a website has to succeed because of its content and not anything else.

Democrats have the right vision when it comes to Net Neutrality and I am supporting them 100%.

Internet shouldn’t be a place where money should call the shots. The only place money be dealt with is in the backend and in marketing only…

Joel answers:

You stated:
“feel cheated on by the Government…”

This is the point I was attempting to make from the beginning. In a free market, the Government should play a very very minor role. The less the government has it’s hands in a market (thus making it more free) the more successful it will be. Take any other country out there that has even more government involvement in economic matters, and you’ll easily see the benefits of capitalism.

The Internet is unquestionably the way to do business. There is nothing (marketing, backend, supply chain, sales) that are independent of the internet anymore. If the Internet is so regulated as to prevent ingenuity and free-market advancement, we will begin to see oppression on those who would otherwise succeed.

I understand your dilemma. I do see where you are at a disadvantage. That’s where the entrepreneur in you has to take over and find a better way — that is not via running to the government for a “handout”. That may fix things for the near term, but it will not create a strong economy based on technology for the future.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this. I do sympathize with your situation. I just don’t empathize. There’s more at stake than the little man in this agreement.

I chime in:

Joel’s right, Abs.

Another thing to consider is ownership. In this case, who owns the internet backbone? Who is laying the cable? Who is deciding to spend more on high-bandwidth fiber-optic rather than a slower, cheaper, pipe? Who is paying for this?

The answer is not the government. The answer is the private companies that provide internet service for millions of private consumers and thousands of businesses.

Ever wonder why ISPs charge for different levels of service? Why they charge higher prices for higher bandwidths? Makes sense, right? The more you pay, the more service you get.

Net neutrality will basically take bandwidth from the high-paying business to give to the regular consumer. While that may appeal to many regular consumers as a good thing, those who have eyes to see identify it as a thinly-veiled attempt to implement internet socialism.

Much like socialism, if net neutrality is forced upon private businesses, then you will have
1) a lack of innovation and new technological development, because there’s no financial benefit
2) a lack of supply, as ISPs decide it’s not worth it to build an infrastructure which isn’t profitable
3) even more governmental intrusion in business, which I can assure you will have negative long-term effects.

I realize that many of the ideas that Joel and I promote are going to be foreign to you, well, simply because you are a foreigner. I don’t have much knowledge on what kind of government you have grown up with, although I can guess with some certainty that it, like a lot of european governments, is probably a lot more socialistic than America’s - hence your initial favorable impression of net neutrality and all it represents.

But once you get past all the feel-good hyperbole and start considering what is good for businesses AND consumers (rather than what is good for just the consumers) then you will start to see why free-market capitalism is simply the best way to do business.

Jason is confused:

I feel that the whole idea of the Internet itself being a market isn’t the right point of view. I was born and raised in America so I understand capitalism and how free markets benefit us, however I don’t believe that dividing up the internet into those sites who can pay and those sites who cannot will benefit the end user at all. One concern was that there would be less innovation and technological development because there’s not profit in it, but for the past decade Net Neutrality was in place, but almost everyone has shifted from a 56k connection to a high speed broadband connection. Wouldn’t you categorize this as a innovation or a technological development? The reason the ISPs developed broadband was because the end users wanted to access the internet faster and therein lay a market for high speed access. In regards to a lack of infrastructure, I guarantee that if an ultra-high speed broadband connection was made feasible and cost efficient at least one ISP would adopt it and make the necessary changes because then its customers would have access to it and pay a premium for this new service, and in order for the other ISPs to stay in the game they would adopt the new infrastructure as well, if only to keep pace with technology. And to address the third problem, the government is not intruding into the market any more than it already has, and passing the neutrality act will merely maintain the status quo, which is pretty pleasing I’d say. But that’s just my two cents.

Bob is greedy:

Don’t fix something that aint broke.

Leave the internet as is, as it always has been. If I am gonna pay Time Warner $50/mo. then they better be laying fiber optic cable. I want my 5Mpbps regardless of what site I’m visiting; I dont like the idea that some companies can just buy out the internet.

John is a foreigner:

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you, I fully understand the argument and, being an economics graduate in the UK I can see how your argument is a logical one.

However, I do resent the way that you slate socialism and say that ‘Take any other country out there that has even more government involvement in economic matters, and you’ll easily see the benefits of capitalism’. Other countries are economically stable and some of the best performing economies in the world currently (the UK, Sweden, Denmark as examples) have more state intervention in markets than the US.

However my main disagreement is with your idea of the internet as a money making machine where companies are of primary importance. The internet staying neutral will allow small companies to cheaply advertise and sell their products. This is a good thing for the market! This will mean that other companies will have to attempt to cut costs and become more efficient too. All your ideas seem to say that the large, powerful and established firms should have the advantages, why do you want to try and help these incumbent companies anyways? With net neutrality you are allowing the free market to work even better in my opinion and I think this idea of a tiered internet service would simply make things worse.

The internet should be about the free share of information in my opinion anyways but I would enjoy a reply to find out your opinions on the matter and to see if my ramblings make any sense!

Joel empathizes:

John,

Your insights are understandable. I don’t discredit your take on government involvement, based on the perspective that you know better than I do. With that in mind, the US market is one quite different from any other in the world. It may not be as “stable” as some may view stability, but it is by far the largest, most flexible and for the sake of argument, one of the most free (re: government involvement).

I do understand the plite of the little guy, but government intervention is not the solution. I am not a proponent of big-business monopolies or power hoarding. What I am in favor of is giving those who have worked hard to established themselves in the market the freedom to expand their operations.

Remember the Microsoft’s, Apple’s, Google’s and Amazon’s of the USA all started off as ideas in someone’s head. Despite the odds of success, which are indeed many, those founders stuck it out, lived through the tight times, and fought hard to make a way in a very very competitive market. How’d they do this? Through innovation, ingenuity, resourcefulness, and the help of a free market that didn’t hinder their abilities to prosper.

Putting everyone on an equal playing field in terms of the internet may happen by default of technology or business limitations (ie. 56k modems prior to broadband). That is fine. Those are ceilings that are not imposed, rather only temporary restrictions till the next innovation emerges based on someone’s inspiration. Imposing restrictions through governmental regulations is an artifical ceiling and one that will possibly help for the short term, but as Chublogga said it will ultimately hurt because everyone (the little guy or the big business) will hit that ceiling sooner or later and have no motivation or reason to expand — financial benefit based on investment will be marginalized or stifled.

Finally, time for my $1.05!

Jason

One concern was that there would be less innovation and technological development because there’s not profit in it, but for the past decade Net Neutrality was in place, but almost everyone has shifted from a 56k connection to a high speed broadband connection. The reason the ISPs developed broadband was because the end users wanted to access the internet faster and therein lay a market for high speed access.

Point 1: Net Neutrality is not currently law, and is not universal - look at any companies' intranet, you will find that a lot of them will have different priorities for different traffic. That's pretty normal.
Point 2: You pay a different amount for dialup than you do for broadband, don't you (or at least, there was a different price between the two)? Back when broadband was just beginning to come around, what would have been the effect if the government stepped in with regulation that ISPs couldn't charge more for broadband than they did for dialup? The effect would be that ISPs wouldn't even have provided broadband, as it would have been unprofitable, resulting in a broadband shortage. But instead, now that broadband is ubiquitous, the prices have stabilized, resulting in affordable broadband for everyone.

In regards to a lack of infrastructure, I guarantee that if an ultra-high speed broadband connection was made feasible and cost efficient at least one ISP would adopt it and make the necessary changes because then its customers would have access to it and pay a premium for this new service, and in order for the other ISPs to stay in the game they would adopt the new infrastructure as well, if only to keep pace with technology.

You're making my point here: "feasible and cost efficient", "pay a premium", imply profitability, which means that the ISPs are going to charge a higher rate for it. If the government steps in with meddlesome Net Neutrality laws regulating profit, then no company is going to want to do it. Providers aren't going to take a hit for altruism or charity's sake, not when they can avoid losing money altogether.

And to address the third problem, the government is not intruding into the market any more than it already has, and passing the neutrality act will merely maintain the status quo, which is pretty pleasing I’d say.

How do you think the government is going to "maintain the status quo" - by meddling even more with the market! Of course they're intruding into the market even more, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for legislation, right?

Bob

Leave the internet as is, as it always has been. If I am gonna pay Time Warner $50/mo. then they better be laying fiber optic cable. I want my 5Mpbps regardless of what site I’m visiting; I dont like the idea that some companies can just buy out the internet.

Oh, i'm sorry, did you buy the internet? I didn't realize it was yours. Bob, you don't own the internet. We the people do not own the internet. The government does not own the internet. ISPs paid for and own their own individual slices of the internet. Everyone who uses their networks basically rents the internet from them. Let me put it this way: "Leave the apartment as is, as it always has been. If I am gonna pay my landlord $500/mo. then they better give me the biggest room. I want my 200 sqft. regardless of whose apartment i'm in; I dont like the idea that some landlords can just own their own land." Sounds silly doesn't it? Rightfully so.

John

However, I do resent the way that you slate socialism and say that ‘Take any other country out there that has even more government involvement in economic matters, and you’ll easily see the benefits of capitalism’. Other countries are economically stable and some of the best performing economies in the world currently (the UK, Sweden, Denmark as examples) have more state intervention in markets than the US.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for to do good business because of government involvement - but rather, if the government weren't involved, business would be vastly better! Oh, and FYI, 2005 GDP growth figures: US 3.5%, UK 1.8%, Sweden 2.7%, Denmark 3.4%. Your example economies seem to be lagging a bit behind the US, eh?

However my main disagreement is with your idea of the internet as a money making machine where companies are of primary importance. The internet staying neutral will allow small companies to cheaply advertise and sell their products. This is a good thing for the market! This will mean that other companies will have to attempt to cut costs and become more efficient too. All your ideas seem to say that the large, powerful and established firms should have the advantages, why do you want to try and help these incumbent companies anyways? With net neutrality you are allowing the free market to work even better in my opinion and I think this idea of a tiered internet service would simply make things worse.

Tell me, what would be the result of your government stepping in and mandating that all vehicles travel at 100 mph? That would be highway neutrality. Many auto companies would go out of business - the cheaper vehicles can't go that fast, so the companies would just stop producing them altogether, limiting availability to the less-than-well-off. They would stop manufacturing the high-end components, because if everything goes the mandated speed, then what's the point of buying a Porsche, or a Ferrari? And if there's less supply, then prices go up. If there's less competition, then prices go up. Instead of more companies, we'll have less. Instead of cheaper prices, we'll have higher prices. EVERY SINGLE TIME the government implements some sort of price control scheme IT HAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT. Hawaiian gasoline in 2003. German bromide in the early 1900s. Floridian construction work since 2000. Any job in France in the past decade. Price controls (which would be the heart of Net Neutrality regulation) always end up hurting those it tries to help. It is downright silly that it continues to be an option in this day and age when we have mountains of evidence against it.

UPDATE 12:54PM

Abs fires back:

If anybody wants to invest money in a website, let them pour it into design and a good server. Let the big money websites have mirrors all over the world. Who cares. But, let the internet be free of certain prioritized lines. The internet belongs to everyone, not just a few folks here and there…

Net Neutrality Amendment should come into force and the only way that can happen is by voting Democrats in.

bling:

Remember when AT&T was going “under” and selling off their different branches? Remember when AT&T borrowed from the government to purchase the fiber they have? Dont tell me the phone and cable companies own their lines. Its bullshit. The AT&T is in bed with the government. These companies are making enough money that the CEO’s can just kick off a couple million in bonuses to allow these companies to put in these lines. LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE!!!

I find mockery and sarcasm to be an important tool for debate.

Abs:

The internet belongs to everyone, not just a few folks here and there…

Oh really! Show me the physical hardware you own. Show me the lines you paid to have run. Show me your business receipts for the hubs and switches. YOU RENT. YOU DON’T OWN.

bling:

Remember when AT&T was going “under” and selling off their different branches? Remember when AT&T borrowed from the government to purchase the fiber they have? Dont tell me the phone and cable companies own their lines. Its bullshit. The AT&T is in bed with the government.

Oh, so AT&T didn’t have to pay that money back with interest, they just got that money for free. I guess I need to get into the telecom business for all the free money. By your definition of being in bed with the government, I guess that means colleges, artists, defense contractors, auto companies, airlines, welfare recipients, senior citizens, farms and dairies are all owned by the government.

John Hawkins of RWN wrote last week:

In order to get a better idea of the industry perspective, earlier today, I talked to David Fish and Mike McKeehan from Verizon. Incidentally, this is completely off topic, but whatever they're paying these guys to deal with the media isn't enough. They were both extremely sharp, on message, and did a great job of explaining their point of view.

To begin with, they said the idea that the big companies would block, slow-up, or harm in any way, websites like Google, Ebay, or Move-On was nuts. They said that as is, if there's a problem with any sort of popular website, they get inundated with complaints. So, in order to keep their customers happy, they have to make sure they can get to these websites. On this point, I found them to be extremely convincing.

On the other hand, I wasn't as convinced by their explanation of why they'd never try to take out a small ISP or VOIP competitor. They said that the moment they tried to do something like that, the FCC and the public would jump down their throats -- which is probably true. On the other hand, if they can find a way to hurt their competitors, it has the potential to inflate their bottom line. So, I find it hard to believe that companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc., wouldn't lower the boom on their direct competitors if they can find a way to get away with it.

Then there's the issue of why they oppose net neutrality. Again, they made a strong case here. Fish pointed out that they want to build these massive new networks that are capable of handling not just the internet, but also telephony, video services (TV over the net), and wireless. He said that some of the net neutrality bills that Congress is looking at are written in such a way that they'd make the video services impossible to do and that without that component, suddenly these big new pipes don't work financially and they'll have to go in a different direction. That makes perfect sense.

UPDATE 3:44PM

Jason has questions:

Chu

You pointed out that many companies intranet allows relegates different priorites to different traffic. I don’t see how that can be universalized into the current issue, it’s not like the different departments need to pay in order for them to get faster access to the information they need. It’s a private network and as such the administrators can do whatever they want.

Second you made a few points about how users are charged more for broadband. I’m not debating that broadband charges more. The point I was trying to make was that websites did not have to pay to get ISPs to load their pages faster, and broadband STILL came about. You said that technology would stagnate because for some reason there wouldn’t be a need for ISPs to remain competitive and I’m saying even if Net Neutrality were to be introduced they would still be innovating.

I don’t quite understand what you say when you said “Providers aren’t going to take a hit for altruism or charity’s sake, not when they can avoid losing money altogether”. The money spent by ISPs to develop new technologies isn’t charity it’s called Research and Development, and Net Neutrality isn’t regulating profits.

By maintaining the status quo I mean currently internet websites dot no pay ISPs for them to allow faster access to their websites and so passing Net Neutrality would keep it like that.

Futhermore, I disagree when you say that ISPs own their own little slice of the internet. If by slice you mean their corporate website then yes they do, but if not I believe you’re mistaken. The ISPs merely provide the means to access the internet and as such should not have any say in what a person should be able to view or how quickly they can view it.

Finally I believe your highway neutrality argument isn’t really accurate. Currently the general speed limit (in California) is 65mph. I’d say the government has already “intruded” in the highway system, but then again the highways were built by the government and as such the government owns them and can do whatever they like. However, a more similar description of Highway Neutrality would be like the government lowering the speed limit to 35mph on the 10 freeway going to Los Angeles, and if Los Angeles wanted the speed limit to go up the city would have to pay something to the government in order to up the speed limit. Does that make sense?

And in response to your claim that auto manufacturers will no longer make faster (slower) cars based on speed limits, there are speed limits everywhere in the U.S. But that doesn’t stop people from buying sports cars that can easily surpass the local speed limits. The reason they’re expensive is because they’re high end cars, not because of speed limits. If speed limits suddenly disappeared, sports cars would still cost more than commuter cars.

Time to shine the light of reason.

You pointed out that many companies intranet allows relegates different priorites to different traffic. I don’t see how that can be universalized into the current issue, it’s not like the different departments need to pay in order for them to get faster access to the information they need. It’s a private network and as such the administrators can do whatever they want.

It’s not that relevant, I was simply stating the fact that Net Neutrality doesn’t exist in a lot of places. But you’re absolutely right that administrators can do whatever they want on their private networks. How are you connected to the internet? Through a lot of private networks which allow you access because you’re a paying customer. But it’s still their network, not yours, not the government’s, which allows them to do whatever they want. If you don’t like their service, you have many other providers you can choose.

The point I was trying to make was that websites did not have to pay to get ISPs to load their pages faster

Well, they kinda do. You go with a big hosting company with a big pipe, and your pages will load faster. Of course, you’ll pay a price premium for that. Or, you could with some fly-by-night company with a small pipe for cheaper. The more you spend, the better service you get. So there is a tangible difference in levels of service, and the differences entail a higher price.

You said that technology would stagnate because for some reason there wouldn’t be a need for ISPs to remain competitive and I’m saying even if Net Neutrality were to be introduced they would still be innovating.

I have no doubt innovation would continue, regardless of Net Neutrality’s passage. However, decreased profitability decreases such innovation.

I don’t quite understand what you say when you said “Providers aren’t going to take a hit for altruism or charity’s sake, not when they can avoid losing money altogether”.

Companies like Verizon “want to build these massive new networks that are capable of handling not just the internet, but also telephony, video services (TV over the net), and wireless. […]Some of the net neutrality bills that Congress is looking at are written in such a way that they’d make the video services impossible to do and that without that component, suddenly these big new pipes don’t work financially and they’ll have to go in a different direction.” What I was saying is that unless these companies stand to gain financially from offering these increased services and abilities, they won’t do it. (Successful) Companies exist for one reason, and that is to make money for their shareholders. With few exceptions, they’re not going to lose money out of a vague sense of public duty or fairness. They’d rather do nothing at all and maintain the status quo than lose money.

Futhermore, I disagree when you say that ISPs own their own little slice of the internet. If by slice you mean their corporate website then yes they do, but if not I believe you’re mistaken. The ISPs merely provide the means to access the internet and as such should not have any say in what a person should be able to view or how quickly they can view it.

Perhaps I was technically incorrect when I stated that ISPs own their slice of the internet - but nevertheless SOMEONE owns the network, someone owns the hardware, and if and when new high-bandwidth pipes get laid down, rest assured someone will own those, and charge for access.

Finally I believe your highway neutrality argument isn’t really accurate.

It isn’t when you put it like that. That’s why my analogy targeted automobiles rather than highways. Highway Neutrality was a misnomer. You are correct in shooting down the analogy you presented - however it was not my analogy. I analogized cars, you did highways. In mine, I mandated a car’s constant speed, you mandated a highway speed limit. While your analogy certainly fits better with the overall Net Neutrality argument, it fails in one respect - the government may own the highway (toll roads notwithstanding), however, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET. And I believe it’s in our best interests to keep it that way.

Keep the government off the internet!

Abs is beginning to see the light:

Hmm… I just thought about this and makes more sense…. Since the customer is the one who is actually paying for his / her broadband, he should have the choice of calling the shots. The customer should be able to specify which websites he needs to be faster.

Real life example : I am Abhinav and there are 5 websites that I go to regularly and I want those to be faster than others. So, its not partiality anymore since I am paying for my broadband.

So, in the same light, if broadband companies can give us free internet, they can make any website they wish to be faster than others. The irony is that we are paying for the internet and they still call the shots…

You are beginning to see!

Ok, if ISP A offers faster google service than ISP B, you can always switch! Think about it - what if some companies laid down bigger pipe so they could have higher bandwidth, and they prioritized their network so that youtube and google video had priority? Wouldn’t you sign on with that ISP? Or if one specialized in game bandwidth? Or if one charged a slightly higher price, yet offered everything at super-high-speeds?

Free Market competition. Best taken without Government. Apply daily.

Finally doing their job?

2006-06-14T15:43:00.000-04:00

Looks like somebody finally figured out that illegal immigration is a big deal to us legal residents:

ICE Arrests About 2,000 Illegal Immigrants

In a blitz that began May 26, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested nearly 2,100 illegal immigrants across the country. Officials said the raids are aimed at child molesters, gang members and other violent criminals, as well as people like Da Silva who sneaked back into the country after a judge threw them out.
[...]
ICE has a network of 35 fugitive teams across the country. The 2006 budget increased that number to 52, and the Bush administration is pushing for 70 by 2007.

The challenge, agents said, is staggering.

There are more than 500,000 "fugitive aliens" who have been deported by judges and either slipped back into the country or never left. There is often a disconnect between local and state prisons and the federal government that allows illegal immigrants to serve time and be released without being transferred to federal officials for deportation.

In a sign that i've been preparing for the GRE, I figured out how long it'll take to deport all the fugitive illegal aliens based on their current rates:

2100 fugitives / 21 days = 100 fugitives/day
100 fugitives/day / 52 teams = 1.9 fugitives/day/team
199 days left in the year * 1.9 fugitives/day/team * 52 teams = 19,700 fugitives arrested for the rest of this year
480,300 fugitives left at the start of 2007
1.9 fugitives/day/team * 365 days/year * 70 teams = 48,600 fugitives/year
480,300 fugitives / 48,600 fugitives/year = 9.88 years till we arrest all fugitive illegal aliens

`Course, i'm making some pretty hefty assumptions, like

the number of fugitive illegal aliens staying constant (which it won't)
that ICE will be working at a consistent pace 365 days a year (which it won't)
that the number of ICE teams will stay constant after 2007 (which will hopefully increase as years go by)

Also, these arrests don't even address non-fugitive illegal aliens, who range from either 12 million or 30 million in number, depending on the source.

Might take awhile to defeat the invasion, at this rate.

Country	1989	1992	1996	2000
England & Wales	2.4	5.5	9.7	12.4
Australia	9.7	8.1	N/A	11.2
US	10.1	N/A	10.0	6.5