The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I'm running for Idaho state senate I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Friday, April 18, 2003
Here's A Town Name That Makes You Want To Buy The House Smelterville, Idaho. On the other hand, there is a house for sale in this very attractively named city: Clayton, Idaho. Who Looted The Museum? And When? From an AP news story, some interesting tidbits that make me wonder how much of the looting is actually stuff moved for safekeeping: It remained uncertain Friday just how much of the museum's collection was relocated for safekeeping before the looting. Journalists in the weeks leading up to the war saw a number of goods carted out of the museum by staffers.And this account from one of the Australian papers indicates some of the stolen goods are already in Europe--suggesting that these items were stolen more than a couple of days ago--remember, there's no air service out of Baghdad at the moment: Eyewitnesses have described some of the looters as being directed by well-dressed men who knew what they wanted to take. The Hi-Tech U.S. Military From Ananova: US marines hunt gazelles with rocksIt's actually an interesting article of Marine resourcefulness--but I couldn't pass up that headline, and the amusing contrast between 21st century soldiers and the most primitive (and hardest) of hunting techniques! Thursday, April 17, 2003
ABC Covering Up Governmental Wrongdoing Again Here's a press release from one of the people interviewed for ABC's Prime Time program tonight: Press ReleaseThis was relayed to me by Dan Gifford, one of the producers of Waco: The Rules of Engagement. Let me also recommend that you read Dave Kopel and Paul Blackman's No More Wacos: What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement, and How to Fix It. (Unless, of course, you think dozens of people burned to death, massive cover-ups by the FBI, the FBI's loss of critical evidence for a criminal trial, as well as $50,000 worth of gold, platinum, and cash from the Branch Davidian safe after the fire, represents acceptable behavior by the government.) Bush's Position on the Assault Weapon Ban Glenn Reynolds is making a bit out of an article on WorldNetDaily about Bush's support for renewing the assault weapon ban, scheduled to expire just before the election next year. I am disappointed that so many people don't recognize this for what it is: Bush saying, "Sure I'll sign a renewal of the bill" knowing that it is not going to make it to his desk. The assault weapon ban--in spite of its complete and utter irrelevance to crime control--enjoys wide but shallow support in the United States, largely by people who mistakenly think it prohibits new manufacture of automatic weapons. Bush could either spend a lot of political capital educating the American people that the mainstream media have been lying to them about this, or he can support a bill that isn't going to come to his desk. The current House is simply not going to pass a renewal of this law. There are a lot of gun rights activists in the U.S. who want Bush to say the right thing--and don't realize that saying the right thing and doing the right thing aren't at all the same. You'll notice that NRA is taking exactly the right tone on this--not agreeing with Bush, but not making a big issue of it: Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.This was relayed to me by Dan Gifford, one of the producers of Waco: The Rules of Engagement. Let me also recommend that you read Dave Kopel and Paul Blackman's No More Wacos: What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement, and How to Fix It Is The ACLU's Ad About the Patriot Act Accurate? Orin Kerr--who is a law professor at George Washington University--says that the ads that ACLU is running right now in opposition to the Patriot Act are incorrect in their description of what the law allows. I haven't check the claims myself, but shall we say it wouldn't be the first time that I have found the ACLU less than accurate in the pursuit of its political agenda. There's Hope For America Fortunately, most of our population is doing a better job of raising their kids than I saw the last few years in Sonoma County, California. From a very worthwhile article in National Review Online that I really encourage you to read in full: But the lethality of the military is not just organizational or a dividend of high-technology. Moral and group cohesion explain more still. The general critique of the 1990s was that we had raised a generation with peroxide hair and tongue rings, general illiterates who lounged at malls, occasionally muttering "like" and "you know" in Sean Penn or Valley Girl cadences. But somehow the military has married the familiarity and dynamism of crass popular culture to 19th-century notions of heroism, self-sacrifice, patriotism, and audacity. Iraqi Museum Looters Apparently Had Keys to the Vaults From an AP story: Some of the looters who ravaged Iraqi antiquities appeared highly organized and even had keys to museum vaults and were able to take pieces from safes, experts said Thursday at an international meeting.Gee, do you suppose that the former government of Iraq might have regarded these treasures as their own personal 401(k) plan? Think about the crowd that the former government most resembles--the Nazis--and how they looted art treasures from across Europe. Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Chirac Demonstrates His Moral Authority A co-worker tells me that he heard on the radio that that Chirac is now claiming to be America's best ally in the war against terrorism. This isn't quite as silly as it sounds--they have done a bit in pursuing al-Qaeda through the French justice system. But still... How do you say "brown-nosing" in French? Pacifists As Free Riders Eugene Volokh points out that pacifists, whether they like it or not, are beneficiaries of soldiers being willing to kill. Well, I think that in practice very many self-described pacifists would, if they were candid with themselves, thank the soldiers who fought and killed to keep them from being murdered or enslaved. But even if I'm mistaken, and most pacifists said "No, I never asked you to kill anyone to protect me from murder or slavery, and I'd rather that you hadn't," what about their loved ones who were saved from death or slavery by what a soldier did?In economics, one of the rationalizations for having government tax everyone for a service is what is called the "free rider" problem. That is, there are services whose benefits accrue to everyone in the society, and there is no practical way to charge individual beneficiaries for those services at the time they use them. One example is weather forecasting. It is practically impossible to limit the benefits of a weather forecast, and yet almost everyone benefits from such a service, either directly ("I won't try to drive to Yellowstone today--it's going to be pouring rain") or indirectly (Farmers harvest their crop a couple of days early, which lowers market prices). Pretty obviously, national defense is another. Good News: Prominent Republicans in the House Opposing Making Temporary Patriot Act Provisions Permanent Newsday has an article about Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and his opposition to making some of the temporary measure permanent. Sensenbrenner maintains that because the department refuses to be forthcoming, it is losing the public relation battle needed to extend the law beyond its October 2005 expiration, much less expand it.If even the statistics are top secret, how can we, the public, tell whether these provisions are being appropriately used or not? Robbins Says First Amendment Suffering From an AP wire story: WASHINGTON (AP) - One casualty of the war with Iraq is the First Amendment right to oppose it, actor Tim Robbins says.Another reminder that being a Hollywood celebrity doesn't mean that you know anything. The First Amendment is not a guarantee that dissenters will be liked. It is not a guarantee that dissenters will have a platform from which to express their opinions. It is not a guarantee that your audience won't use their right to not watch your movies, or show up for your performances. The First Amendment only guarantees that the government won't prevent you from expressing your opinion. So far, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the government has prevented any opponent of the war from speaking. I seen plenty of evidence that opponents of the war are not being prevented from speaking--daily, in the Boise newspaper, and of course, before the National Press Club (see excerpt above). Dear Mr. Robbins: Go read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your ignorance about foreign affairs seems to be exceeded only by your ignorance of the First Amendment. Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Why Am I Blogging So Little Yesterday and Today? I am busily rewriting the book that no one will publish about gun ownership and hunting in early America so that it is no longer a refutation of Bellesiles's claims in Arming America, and no longer a demonstration that Bellesiles engaged in fraud. It turns out that there is no market for such a book--which tells me something about how to be successful in America--make things up, alter quotes, lie up a storm--no publisher will publish any book that unmasks your actions. So, I have been busily rewriting the book so that it barely mentions Bellesiles at all. The experience is, in places, perilously close to the koan of, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Worrisome Change in NCIC Database Procedures This article from ABC News reports that the FBI is changing its requirement that information about individuals added to the National Crime Information Center database be accurate and timely. The Justice Department lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database.Here's the problem: there is doubtless information that the FBI gets about suspected terrorists that they can't confirm--and yet, it would be most unfortunate if an unconfirmed piece of information about a terrorist meant that a police officer who stopped a car outside of a nuclear power plant didn't have the information that the FBI believed that a particular person had ties to terrorist groups. I can see why the FBI might feel that public safety requires information be available to law enforcement immediately--not two weeks from now, when the accuracy of the data has been confirmed. On the other hand, this change means that an erroneous piece of information could prevent a law-abiding person from buying a gun--or cause a police officer to approach your car with a heightened and inaccurate level of fear, with perhaps tragic consequences. Terrorism is increasingly driving a lot of the decisions our government makes. I can't say that they are wrong on this, either. But I sure don't like the results. Monday, April 14, 2003
Bush & The Assault Weapons Ban You may have seen this news story: The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.But a little later in the article: Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.My suspicion is that Bush is going to tell the electorate during the campaign next year, "I was willing to sign a renewal of the ban, but Congress never put it on my desk, so there wasn't much I could do about it." For those of you who can't imagine why anyone would oppose such a ban, see this article I wrote a while back. The Clinton Administration paid some researchers to study the effects of the law--and they concluded that: it made no statistically significant difference in murder rates, "The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds." no statistically significant reduction in gun murders of police officers. Sunday, April 13, 2003
A Bit More About Sean Penn, Peace Activist, and His Concealed Weapon Permit This is from the Marin Independent-Journal: Applicants are disqualified if they have been convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, including assault and battery, according to the state Department of Justice. But the misdemeanors do not count if they occurred more than 10 years ago.I suspect a bit more than "some diligence" is required. Marin County is notorious for how difficult it is get a concealed weapon permit if you live there. Judges are often turned down for permits. Unless many other states, where permits must be issued to anyone that meets the legal requirements, California law gives nearly unlimited discretion to a police chief or sheriff about issuing a permit--and the vast majority of the time, especially in counties like Marin, they exercise that discretion by refusing to issue a permit. In most of the Bay Area counties, you can't get a concealed weapon permit even if you have a completely clean history--no arrests, much less convictions for violent crimes. And this guy gets a permit? UPDATE: Here's a site with a bit more about Sean Penn's history of convictions for violence. Possible Disinformation--Possible Sign of Russian Treachery It's an article in the Telegraph about documents found in the Iraqi intelligence service headquarters in Baghdad: Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph in Baghdad show that Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.That last paragraph is a bit ambiguous, and I would proceed cautiously in making assumptions--the rest of the article is worth reading. |
