The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, December 06, 2003
The Telescope Dilemma I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was about to buy a new apochromatic telescope. That deal fell through; the seller and I could not come up with a method for performing the long-distance transaction that was comfortable for both of us. (When you are looking at a $1200 purchase, it's hard to be too trusting of someone that you don't know.) At the moment, I am in the weird position of rethinking purchase of an apochromatic refractor. I have had a chance to look through a variety of refractors in the last few years: an Astro-Physics 4"; a Televue 102; a Televue 101NP; a Stellarvue 102EDT. All were very nice, but also quite expensive, all of them $2200 and up (in some cases, way up)--and that's just for the tube, not for a mount! There are some less expensive refractors out there, such as the Celestron C6R (their 6" achromatic refractor, available for about $799 with equatorial mount), that might make up in aperture what they lack in optical sophistication. Some people I have talked to with experience with both apochromats and the Celestron 6" refractor say that it will provide an image superior to in planetary detail to a 4" apochromat. Others insist that this is a sign of tinfoil in the hat. I can't immediately discount either possibility. The advantage of the apochromat is that brings all the colors to a single focus (or darn close), while achromats start to have bigger and bigger problems with this as the aperture increases, the f/ratio drops, and the magnification declines. Pretty clearly, however, a 6" achromat at 200x would provide superior images to a 1" apochromat at 300x. Where, exactly, is the crossover point? Here's the problem: I really, really need to have a chance to look through the following scopes at Saturn and the Moon: a Celestron C6R (or the previous model number, the CR150HD); the Photon Instruments 127mm; and the Meade AR-6. If you know someone who lives within two hours drive of Boise who can help me scratch this itch, please have them get in touch with me. Friday, December 05, 2003
The Lancet Calls For a Ban on Cigarettes The respected British medical journal The Lancet has called for a ban on the sale of cigarettes in Britain. All the usual liberal arguments are present: it will save lives, reduce second-hand smoking health effects. But there is one claim that left me absolutely astounded: An editorial in the Lancet argued that 80% of people in the UK were non-smokers, saying they had "the right to freedom from exposure to proven carcinogens".From my experience traveling to Britain in 1999, I would have guessed the opposite--that 80% of people in the UK were smokers. Smoking is a really vile habit. If I could make the tobacco plant disappear, I would. A ban on lawful sales would probably reduce smoking to some extent. The corruptive effects on police and judicial officers, however, would certainly be quite severe. Signs of the Times From the Houston Chronicle concerning a case in Michigan: An 8-year-old boy accused of fondling four female classmates will be the youngest participant in Wayne County's sex offender rehabilitation program, prosecutors said.Some years back, my wife and I attended a class about identifying and preventing child molestation. (To our surprise, the vast majority of the other students were in the health profession.) At least back then, in the mid-1980s, one of the signs that was considered an indicator that a child might have been a victim was age-inappropriate sexual knowledge or behavior. A child under 10 who knew the details of sexual activity, or seemed to be acting in such a manner, might well have acquired that knowledge first-hand. I suspect that this isn't such a reliable indicator today, when a surprising number of parents make no attempt to keep their chidren away from explicit and even perverted materials. Of course, there's always MTV around to make sure that the under 8 set learns the really important age-inappropriate lessons: that women exist primarily as sex toys for men, and to inform them about oral and anal sex. So, is this eight year old's behavior an indication of sexual abuse? Or just that he is keeping up on the popular culture? Liberals seem terrified that there might be even a few years of innocence left in the lives of children--and they are doing their best to make sure that every child is exposed to sexually suggestive--and usually perverted--materials as young as possible. Let me give you one outrageous example. I was watching a local television program in the Bay Area at 7:30 in the evening with my son. It started out tame enough: a magician doing tricks. His female assistant was dressed in the typical flashy stylized tux--and then, she handcuffs him to a table, strips off the outer layers of clothing to reveal a leather leotard--and then pulls out a whip. At that point, I turned off the TV. Labels: child sexual abuse Thursday, December 04, 2003
When You Can't Tell If A Commercial Is Parody...And The Problem Of Stupidity I was watching Cops this evening, and a commercial came on that was so bizarre that I at first assumed that it was a parody, at any moment about to be interrupted by the real commercial. Nope! It was an ad for a "male enhancement" product, encouraging you to order by phone or web. The picture of "Bob" on the web page doesn't even begin to convey the true silliness of the ad. Oh yeah, why do I watch Cops? To keep me in touch with why libertarian ideas fail at the margins. On Cops you get to watch representatives of the bottom 10-15% of Americans screwing up big, and unfortunately, it isn't just their own lives that they leave in a sorry state. It's the lives of their kids, their spouses, their parents, neighbors, and sometimes strangers that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. A majority of Americans drink responsibly, use guns responsibly, drive responsibly, and treat their families responsibly. (This statement is only an average; in some places where I have lived, your mileage may vary.) The fraction of Americans who are overrepresented on Cops seem incapable of operating a toaster in a responsible manner, much less anything dangerous. Watch it for a while. Tonight's episode involved filming Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department at work. I don't approve of all the laws that police are required to enforce in this country. Some are arguably counterproductive to the public good; others I could argue cause more suffering to the offenders than the good that they do for the society. The methods by which the police enforce some of these laws sometimes make me very, very heartbroken for the difficult choices that the police impose on offenders. I recall vividly an episode some years ago where the police had probable cause to enter an apartment--and they find a baggie filled with white powder on the coffee table. The two guys and a woman in the room, of course, have no idea to whom this controlled substance belongs. The police explain to the woman that she either tells them who owns it--and be prepared to testify--or they will take advantage of her probation status to send her back to prison for five years. "Your little girl asleep in the next room won't even remember you when you get out." The expression on her face was a mixture of hurt, fear, and frustration that just melted my heart. At the same time, there's no way to regard the vast majority of these offenders as victims, except, perhaps, as victims of their own stupidity, bad upbringing, and incredibly weak character. Why would you try to break into a house by smashing into a window, get wrestled to the ground by the person inside and his neighbor--an off-duty cop--and then try to argue that you weren't engaged in breaking and entering? Why would you then try to defend your position by claiming that you were told to break in by someone else, who was owed money by the resident? Why would you try to argue to a cop that the heroin and hypodermic that he finds--on camera--in your purse must have been put there by someone else, when one of the arresting officers had just arrested you a few weeks earlier for heroin possession? Why would you try to tell a cop that caught you trying to lift a bike over a chain link fence from the outside in the middle of the night, that you were trying to return the bike to the storage facility? Why would you get argumentative when the owner of the bike showed up, and identified it as having been stolen a few minutes earlier? Many years ago, some fellow students at Sonoma State University used the expression, "Too stupid to buy bread at the market without assistance." It was a cruel sentiment, but there are people for whom either intoxication, mental defect, or really, really severe upbringing has rendered incapable of operating at anything but the limbic level. These people are one of the reasons that all the good ideas of libertarian thought sometimes fall down. If you spend all your time hanging out with bright college students, your fellow professors, and other smart professionals, you could easily develop the notion that just about everyone is capable of making intelligent, rational, farseeing choices. It is simply not so. A society's rules must operate based on the more realistic assumption that a significant fraction of the society is too damaged to make sensible decisions. If you want to construct a society where intelligent and rational people enjoy a fair amount of freedom, I agree. "One size fits all" makes lousy laws; a little recognition of this--that there are some legitimate distinctions, of which the problem of mental illness is a good example--would go a long ways towards correcting this problem. An Acquaintance Is Looking For Work Patrick Cox patrick [at] the-island [dot] net SUMMARY An experienced writer and public relations professional with a diverse background in journalism, entertainment, high-tech and policy analyses. Extensive media experience includes television, radio, magazine, newspaper, and the Web. HISTORY 2001 to 2003 -- Conservative/libertarian opinion columnist for both the Villages Daily Sun and Sumter Sun in Central Florida. Also produced occasional commentary for USA Today and TechCentralStation. 2000 to 2001 -- Writer/Editor, THG Publishing. Wrote and edited proto-blog Tech News Department for Tom's Hardware Guide, Web's second-most visited PC hardware review site, while producing strategic marketing plans and materials. Doubled Tech News traffic during tenure to more than a million unique visitors daily. 1998 to 2000 -- Writer/Producer, Corey Bridges Productions. Exercised creative control of promotional video materials and major events for enterprise-software clients including Netscape, Portal Software and Borland. 1997 to 1998 -- Executive Producer, contract, Netscape Communications, Mountain View. Wrote, directed, shot, and edited a series of instructional videos and presentations, including international public relations communications with Marc Andreessen and Jim Barksdale, international sales conference multi-media presentations, and a half-hour orientation sitcom. Arranged, produced, and co-wrote two live-television publicity events promoting Netscape in conjunction with public television station KCSM. 1996 -- Consultant, encryption concepts, Netscape Communications. Wrote explanations of public/private key encryption and secure e-commerce. Contributed to documentation for Certificate Server and Fortezza encryption products. 1995 -- Writer, contract, Aaron Russo Productions. Worked on series pilot "Mad As Hell With Aaron Russo" and film script projects. 1992 to 1995 -- Executive Director, Arts Research Center, Menlo Park. Directed not-for-profit organization assisting producers, directors, and writers with technical financial and scientific issues, emphasizing free-market perspectives. Simultaneously wrote op-eds on entertainment issues for outlets including The Wall Street Journal. Maintained relationships with executives at major studios and production companies and published newsletter, Liaison. 1991 to 1992 -- Public Relations Director, contract, First Class Plus, San Francisco. Designed and implemented business promotions and direct mail campaigns for clients including the Westin Hotels & Resorts restaurants and Seton Medical Center fundraisers. Wrote juvenile pedagogic novel, The Orb and the Hourglass, and programmed a personalization program that integrated 28 variables into each book, receiving commendations from the Director of the United Nations Education Sector and other educators. 1987 to 1990 -- Writer/Public Relations consultant, Co-op Banking Group, San Francisco. Promoted international group of banking and investment companies. Ghosted book and collateral materials. 1987 -- Director of Public Affairs, PC-SIG, software distributor, Sunnyvale. Managed PC-SIG media relations, working directly with the president. As Publisher and Editor, turned PC-SIG catalogue from a cost to a profitable rack-distributed magazine. Conceived and created Video-SIG, a subsidiary group that sold educational videos through direct mail. 1983 to 1986 -- Director of Public Affairs, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. Publicized the Institute, its books, and scholarly works. Wrote and placed articles for publications such as the Los Angeles Times, Barrons, and Fortune. Handled media for major events such as National Banquet for Milton Friedman. 1980 to 1983 -- Writer, Reason Magazine, Santa Barbara. Wrote monthly profile column and the Reason Foundation's monthly newsletter, as well as various feature articles. BOOKS * The Orb and the Hourglass -- pub., First Class Plus. Children's pedagogic novel. * The Transnational Money Game (ghosted) -- pub., Co-op Banking Group. International banking guide. * The Space Place (ghosted) -- pub., Winston-Derek Publishers. an economics text for children in novel form. * Top 100 Shareware Programs (editor) -- pub., Infoworld. PUBLICATION/MEDIA SUMMARY * Over 150 editorials for USA Today. * Wrote and recorded scores of syndicated radio spots for Perspective on the Economy -- broadcast by over 160 stations. * Contributed to numerous publications including Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times Book Review. * Wrote several financial chapters in regulatory anthologies. * Television appearances include Nightline, Crossfire. EDUCATION/MISC. * B.A. Economics. Boise State University. President, chapter Omicron Delta Epsilon, economics honor society. * Read and speak "passable" Spanish. My, How The Media Are Changing The Story I blogged about this homosexual cannibal a few months back. But now that he's on trial, some of the details are getting left out--presumably so that no one starts to ask any questions. This Reuters account no longer mentions the homosexual component of the contacts and crime, even though the penis amputation isn't exactly unknown among homosexual murders. (Caution: most of the story is quite gruesome.) Oh yes, the cannibal's description of his upbringing? The gaunt, bespectacled defendant said that during his upbringing alone with a dominant mother he had longed for a little brother he could make "part of me."One of the Freudian theories for homosexuality--now discredited--asserted that weak or absent father figures and domineering mothers caused it. Part of why this theory fell out of disfavor is that there were enough counterexamples to demonstrate that this wasn't an adequate explanation. I sometimes wonder if psychologists may have been too interested in finding a single factor. Perhaps there are multiple causes of homosexuality, and the inability of any single theory to explain it caused psychologists to abandon their work on this too early. Myths About Prohibition Instapundit is linking to Radley Balko's argument that asserts that drinking increased during Prohibition. It's a great libertarian argument. But what are the facts? Click here, and scroll down to pages 5-6 for details of cirrhosis of the liver mortality from 1910-1998. Prohibition was implemented state by state until 1919, when Prohibition was nationalized. On page 2 of that report, they describe the literature evidence concerning the part that alcohol consumption plays in cirrhosis of the liver deaths--and cirrhosis of the liver deaths turn out to be a pretty good measure of cumulative alcohol consumption. Now, I don't dispute that Prohibition created some very serious corruption problems in the U.S. Certainly, murder rates rose during this period and some significant part of that increase was caused by Prohibition. But even if all of that increase was associated with bootlegging and related violence (an arguable claim, since this was also the Jazz Age), it still wouldn't compensate for the drop in cirrhosis of the liver deaths. Of course, there are a lot of negative consequences associated with alcohol abuse, not just cirrhosis of the liver. About 40% of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol or alcohol and another intoxicant. Large percentages of rapes, both sexual and physical abuse of children, spousal abuse, and even crimes that you wouldn't expect (such as robbery) are done under the influence. Prohibition may have been a failure, but it wasn't based on bluenoses who didn't want anyone to have any fun. It was because alcohol abuse was a big problem. Instapundit's proposal to lower the drinking age 18 is irresponsible. Maybe he was a responsible 18 year old with alcohol. From what I can see on college campuses, the irresponsible 18-20 year olds with alcohol are the rule, not the exception. Would lowering the drinking age to 18 help or hurt? I don't buy for a second that it would help. My daughter tells me that in her generation, the 21st birthday is usually followed by a "21 run," in which the birthday boy or girl goes and gets vomiting drunk. I see no reason to think that lowering the age to 18 wouldn't cause this to become an "18 run." Does anyone seriously think that lowering the legal drinking age to 18 would not increase, at least slightly, the consumption of alcohol consumed by 18-20 year olds? Yes, I know that at many colleges, alcohol is readily available to 18-20 year olds. But unless you want to argue that the current age limit does nothing at all, lowering the age is going to increase alcohol use and abuse. If you argue that the current age limit does nothing, then why bother lowering it? More Signs of Where Multiculturalism Takes You From one of the Australian papers: When Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen and Superintendent Kim McKay addressed a conference on the prevention of violence against women earlier this year, they didn't expect a hostile response from any of the feminists present.Read the whole article. It gets more depressing. Does it surprise me that there are criminal gangs who use their low socioeconomic status to justify gang rape? Not in the least. What is surprising and horrifying is how much of what calls itself liberalism has decided that cultural relativism is more important than punishing gang rape. Of course, once you have completely rejected the notion that right and wrong are absolutes, what else would you expect? The Continuing Resistance to Occupation Read all about it--more than six months after the end of formal hostilities. It's from the New York Times--in January, 1946. Wednesday, December 03, 2003
The Case Against Multiculturalism A disturbing article about the rise of traditional Islamic practices in Europe: Young women killed for dating. Limbs amputated for petty theft. Makeshift courts deciding the fates of members of local Muslim communities. The Western world has grown accustomed to hearing about the brutalities of Islamic law. However, these primitive practices are no longer limited to the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or oppressive, mullah-dominated Iran. Today, thanks in large part to a massive flow of immigration from Muslim countries, sharia law and medieval customs are becoming increasingly common in the heart of Christian Europe.It's all worth reading. Liberals are very partial to the idea that there is nothing intrinsicially right or wrong (except, of course, for Republicans, who are evil), and therefore we must accept all cultures as equally valid. I do wonder when liberals are going to wake up to the fact that we are engaged in a struggle against a culture that makes Jerry Falwell look like a liberal. Differing Definitions of Indecency It does sound like the teacher and school overreacted in this case that has the ACLU up in arms, in which a 2nd grader was punished for explaining to a classmate that he had two Mommies, and what "gay" meant. I think the appropriate action would have been to take the child aside and explain that some topics just don't belong in school, and please avoid this topic in the future. A formal written reprimand--especially to a 2nd grader--is way over the topic. This is a reminder, however, that this country is engaged in a serious struggle over right and wrong. Pretty clearly, there are still teachers and schools in this country that believe that homosexuality is not something that 2nd graders should be discussing at school. Yes, this shocks me--the National Education Association's mind control rays haven't turned every school teacher into a Politically Correct zombie--but notice that there isn't any moral difference between the teacher and the ACLU. Both believe that there are some ideas that are just wrong, and do not belong in the classroom. They are only disagreeing about what is wrong. The teacher and the school clearly believe that discussions of homosexuality do not belong at school, at least in 2nd grade. This should not be any great surprise; the courts have generally recognized that especially in the lower grades, the school has considerable authority to regulate what is said in the classroom. As an example, the ACLU did manage to score a victory against free speech in the classroom in this decision. Of course, the child was distributing pencils that siad "Jesus loves little children" at a class party--clearly, a far more offensive form of speech than explaining to a classmate what "gay" means. The ACLU should stop the pretense. They do not support freedom of speech as a general policy, or they would have taken the side of Daniel Walz, handing out those pencils. I used to hear conservatives grumble that the acronym "ACLU" really stood for "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit." The ACLU's continuing cynical hypocrisy in supporting free speech in schools some of the time, but opposing it when it carries a Christian message, has persuaded me that the grumblers were right. Monday, December 01, 2003
Using the Lawrence Decision Trust me, this article shows us the future: SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his bigamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.My, what a narrow-minded person the Utah Attorney General is! The ACLU a couple of states over is arguing that laws prohibiting adults from having sex with minors interfere with a teenager's "sexual autonomy." What is really tragic about all of this is that Lawrence is based at least in part on a lie, and therefore the decisions that are based on Lawrence such as the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision requiring homosexual marriage, are also based on a lie. Click here to see some examples. I Always Love To See The Signs of Fully Instantiated Fantasy In this case, it is the oddly named Race Traitor magazine. Under the heading "What We Believe": The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.Let's see, let me draw up a list of "most exalted persons" excluded from "white skin," and see where my status is relative to theirs: 1. Colin Powell. Secretary of State. He has armed bodyguards and police escort whenever he goes anywhere. 2. Bill Cosby. His wealth (largely built on his ability to act in, direct, or produce wildly successful television shows, of which the 1960s series I Spy was an especially good example) would allow him to live comfortably on the interest, on the interest, on the interest--without ever touching a penny of his capital. Yeah, I definitely have a higher status than Bill Cosby, no question! 3. Kobe Bryant. If I went into a hotel room with a young lady, committed adultery (at least), I somehow doubt that it would get national attention. I also somehow doubt that anyone would be contacting me, offering to silence the young lady. Nor would newspapers carry opinion pieces claiming that I was a victim. 4. Condoleeza Rice. Oh yes, another one of those people at a lower status than myself because of the color of her skin. 5. O.J. Simpson. Enough said. 6. Justice Clarence Thomas. Yup. Another victim of being black. Why, he's just a Supreme Court Justice. I, on the other hand, because of the enormous status derived only from being white, exercise vastly more power and authority than he ever will. I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Yes, there is still racism in our society. All things considered, I would not want to be a black guy getting pulled over by the cops in most cities. On the other hand, applying to college, or to law school, or to teach at any college in America (except, perhaps Bob Jones University), being black is an enormous advantage. I can remember the sense of smoldering resentment I felt when a professor handed out scholarship applications to the black students in a class--whites need not apply. The university that I attended--a public university, funded by tax dollars--publicly announced that they were offering scholarships for which one of the requirements was that the applicant was Hispanic. When I wrote the university's EEO office, and pointed out that they were technically in violation of the law, by discriminating based on race, they didn't even bother to respond. Like most "racial differences," the differences within race are vastly more important than the differences between races. Only morons--or people that don't spend much time outside faculty meetings--would think that being white automatically puts you at a higher status than being non-white in America. Michael Jackson Again From a newsgroup posting in (of all places) sci.astro.amateur: Yeah, MJ proves that only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman. Historians & Accuracy A reader brought to my attention this article by Timothy Noah in Slate concerning the attempts to excuse Doris Goodwin's plagiarism problems: Chatterbox never intended to revisit the Doris Goodwin plagiarism case. She's paid her dues, however unwillingly, and her forthcoming book about Abraham Lincoln deserves to be judged on its merits. But when the New York Times publishes a letter denying Goodwin ever committed plagiarism—signed by a pack of distinguished historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Morton Blum, Robert Dallek, and Sean Wilentz—the violence done to the truth is too much to bear silently. Historians, of all people, should know better than to rewrite history.Now, I haven't followed this scandal closely. Plagiarism, if done from the right sources, has the potential to at least be accurate history, and I reserve my energy for those who operate on the "it's okay to lie to your readers" model. I do find it interesting how much energy seems to be devoted to protecting the profession, rather than shaming those who can't seem to do their job right. I mentioned a few days ago about my surprise at seeing an article by Michael Bellesiles distributed by the History News Service. For those who haven't been following the scandal, Bellesiles used to be a history professor at Emory University, until careful examination demonstrated that he was more a writer of historical fantasy than a historian. You would think that the profession's embarrassment about Bellesiles would be enough to cause historians to back off from him. But apparently not. Oxford University Press, who considered a book of mine recently, and concluded that it was "very persuasive; almost unrefutable" but they weren't interested in publishing it--is publishing a new book by Michael Bellesiles. I guess we know what standards they have at Oxford University Press. So far, I have sent query letters to many dozens of publishers, and overwhelmingly, I have been told that there is no place in their list right now for a book like mine. I know that it meets the standards of scholarly work. You can see two chapters of it right here. So far, only one tiny university press has even expressed a desire to see it. Yet a liar like Michael Bellesiles gets his Bancroft Prize revoked; is effectively pressured into quitting a tenured position because of deception; and becomes the laughing stock of almost anyone who knows anything about the subject--and yet Oxford University Press decides to publish a book by him. I am beginning to think that the elite of the historical and publishing professions have simply abandoned all pretense of concern with accuracy and honesty. Silveira Suit Will Not Be Heard By the Supreme Court I think we dodged a bullet on this. This AP news story, however, is a bit misleading: Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rife Association, the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.Actually, NRA was in opposition to this case going to the Supreme Court. It wasn't the perfect case, because it involved several different questions: 1. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right? 2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate this right against the states? 3. Are assault weapons included among the protected arms? Any consistent reading of the evidence--including some of the cases that 9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt cited in his nonsensical decision--would answer #3 with YES. Indeed, the Aymette case that Reinhardt relied upon found that only weapons suited to military duty were constitutionally protected for individual ownership. There are many other problems with Reinhardt's decision. Supreme Court justices, however, are not required to be honest or consistent, and I suspect that the prospect of striking down California's useless assault weapon ban would have caused the the Supreme Court to look for some way to uphold California's assault weapon ban, leading to at least a NO on #2, and perhaps a NO on #1. There's a sequence for winning constitutional issues: win the simplest and least offensive case first; then use then as a wedge to win the less popular situations. The ideal sequence of cases: 1. A clear-cut modern statement from the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms from federal law. (Example: DC's handgun freeze, which prohibits law-abiding citizens from registering a handgun in the District of Criminals.) 2. A decision that incorporates the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the authority of the states. (Example: strike down discretionary licensing of handgun ownership by law-abiding adults in New York.) 3. A decision that recognizes that the right to "keep and bear arms" includes the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense in federal jurisdictions. (Example: strike down the ban on possession of loaded firearms in national parks.) 4. A decision that then combines #2 and #3 to strike down state laws banning open carry by law-abiding adults. Labels: gun rights Remember the Two Minute Hate from 1984? Drudge Report informs us that: Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as "Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!Now, as far as I am concerned, Drudge should have put "intellectuals" in quotes. Barbara Streisand is as close to an intellectual as Hollywood can manage, and that isn't saying much. It does say quite a bit about this crowd's ignorance of history that they would miss the obvious parallel to 1984's regularly scheduled "two minute Hate" when sending out an invitation to a political event. The Hollywood Left's reactions are visceral--not intellectual. Sunday, November 30, 2003
My Heavens! Perhaps There Is Hope For America! Instapundit! links to this story from the Boston Globe about the rise of evangelical Christianity in New England, and at places like Harvard and MIT: It's the fall student activities fair at MIT, and the place is packed.Well worth reading--and the discussion of how opposition to homosexuality is becoming the defining characteristic of evangelical Christianity even in these very liberal, very pro-gay enclaves, is quite interesting. This should not be a surprise. For an awful lot of young people, college is a time of seeking an identity. If you have grown up in a fiercely secular society, as much of America is, you want something that answers the deeper questions of life: What is my purpose here? Are there values that are universal, or are today's fads the real measure of all things? For me, the defining moment was sitting in a symbolic logic class, trying to figure out what defines moral right and moral wrong. Was there any set of assumptions from which I could derive an intellectually satisfying definition of right and wrong? As much as I wrestled with this question, I could find no answer. The following week I wandered over to the Santa Monica Church of the Nazarene, full of questions, and uncertain what answers I might find. I can understand why so many college students, growing up in Bill Clinton's world, are looking to a faith in Jesus Christ for answers. Imagine if the Teacher Were Trying To Promote Understanding & Empathy Towards Christianity I always take World Net Daily with a grain of salt, but this is so California: The teacher at Royal Oak Intermediate School in Covina, Calif., wrote parents of students in his world history class, saying he wanted to take advantage of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan "to promote a greater understanding and empathy towards the Muslim religion." Conservative Club in a Most Unlikely Place I used to live in Rohnert Park. Imagine a place where: 1. Drug abuse and intoxication are encouraged by many parents. Ninth graders have beer busts, with the parents buying the beer. 2. Parents reward good grades in middle school with marijuana. 3. Oral sex is common by seventh grade, and sexual intercourse is the norm in high school. 4. Kids push their parents to pay not only for the limo to take the kids to the prom, but to pay for a hotel room for the kid and his date to spend the night--and some parents do so. 5. A parent who finds a used condom in the bathroom won't call the parents of any of the three 13 year old girls that he knows his druggie son has been seeing. 6. A drug rehab counselor is treating 2nd graders (yes, that's plural) for their marijuana addiction problem. 7. A friend who works security for the local drug store is called in by the photoprocessing operation because the pictures they are developing are all of elementary school girls rear ends. A couple of days later, he is picking his daughter up at school, and he finds the "photographer" on campus taking more pictures of little girls. He drags the creep into the principal's office, who quickly establishes that the "photographer" is lying about who he is, what he is doing there, and why--and the principal is more concerned that my friend dragged this pervert into the office, than he is concerned about the pervert on school grounds. 8. The District Attorney's office had a staff devoted just to prosecuting rapes of minors while passed out at parties--and this isn't just something that you see in the newspaper, but you don't have any problem finding people who know of more than one such incident among their circle of friends. Yeah, that's Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. And before any of you racists get the wrong impression: it's very white, and very affluent. In short, it's liberalism incarnate. So now I see news coverage of the formation of a Conservative Club at the high school there: Tim Bueler, a 16-year-old junior whose heroes include right-wing talk show hosts Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly, is the founder, president and driving force of the club. Passionate and articulate, he said he's using his First Amendment rights to promote a conservative Christian viewpoint that he said is generally unpopular with most students, teachers and administrators.UPDATE: For those who wonder why we didn't take our kids out of public schools. We did move our daughter into the best private high school in the county, to get her away from these negative influences. Ursuline High School (a Catholic school, although we aren't Catholic) was definitely a fine college prep school--a bit superior to the public high school that my wife and I went to in the 1970s, Santa Monica High. My daughter later told me that figured out in pretty short order that the difference between public and private was: more and better drugs. Many of the students would go smoke pot at lunch, and even when she made it clear that she could no longer be part of that scene, because it would cause medication interactions--the volume of drugs offered increased. Perhaps the most depressing part of the situation was being lied to by school officials at the very start. "Ursuline has a reputation for having a bit of a drug problem. Any truth to this?" I asked, and I told flat out that it was no different from the rest of the county. Only much later, after too much time talking to psychiatrists and shipping my daughter a thousand miles away for treatment did Ursuline officials acknowledge that they knew that they had a huge drug problem, but they were reluctant to confront it, because that problem wasn't just the students, it was the parents of the students as well. Of course, we wuz the po' folk there. Think of a school where many of the students arrive in 2-3 year old BMWs (the parental hand-me-downs), while the teachers are driving 10 year old Chevys and Fords. One set of twins received new Mustangs on their sixteenth birthday. A student at the adjacent Catholic boys high school racked up his new Ford Escort three days after he received it. Something about being very high while driving at freeway speeds in a residential neighborhood... For a couple of days, he didn't go home, rather than face his parents. But no problem! They had another car available for him. My daughter went to far too many funerals there for a while. Drunk driving deaths, mostly, but one was a cirrhosis of the liver death--in high school. My daughter tells me that this gal had been a heavy drinker, back in middle school. I guess so. One of the comments on Iain Murray's link to this article was by Iain's wife, suggesting that she was glad that she was a stay at home mom. So was (and is) my wife. Do everything you can to provide a loving, positive, healthy, safe home for your children; they are going to be going to school with barbarians in many parts of America where there is more money than parent. You will probably lose. An Article About Hugh Hefner and His Influence on American Society Since it appears in Christianity Today, you will not be surprised that it is less than positive: Hefner's Playmates—and, in the culture he has done so much to shape, all women—are primarily visual objects, metaphysically truncated to their improbable physical attributes. Among the consequences: all female rock stars are now obliged to be beautiful, contributing to a dearth of quality female vocalists—not because women can't sing, but because pornographic culture won't allow any but the most beautiful women to get on the stage. |
