The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
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.
Labels: child sexual abuse Labels: homosexuality Labels: abortion Labels: abortion Labels: gun rights Labels: telescopes
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).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
The Passion
Roger Ebert calls it the most violent movie he's ever seen. This review says it is violent, but much less so than say, Saving Private Ryan. A co-worker, who I never even thought of particularly religious, took his 12 and 14 year old to see it the first day. He said it was violent, but didn't consider it remarkably so. I've seen a lot of criticism that the film is just way over the top violent--presumably from critics who did not have a problem with Saving Private Ryan and Hannibal.
What Can We Deduce From the Priest Sexual Abuse Numbers?
It's always tricky working with statistics. Looking at this item by Michael Williams I found myself wanting to rewrite his ideas in a form that gave me more confidence in the conclusions. After pointing out that 81% of the sexual abuse victims were male, Williams argues that this suggests three possibilities:
1) Homosexuals are over-represented among Catholic priests compared to the population as a whole.
2) Homosexual Catholic priests are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual Catholic priests.
3) Some combination of the above.
Now, let me try to rephrase his points into a form with which I am more comfortable, because there are some logical leaps in his article that may be correct, but that leave out some assumptions or steps.
Male priests abuse male victims 81% of the time. Homosexuals like to insist that pedophiles aren't really homosexuals. Okay, fine. I don't buy this, because you would then expect roughly equivalent numbers of male and female victims. Homosexuals like to draw a line between "pedophiles" (those who victimize prepubescent minors) and "ephebophiles" (those attracted to pubescent and later minors). Most seem to admit that "ephebophiles" who pursue same sex minors are homosexuals.
According to this detailed report (on p. 58), a majority of the victims were males 11-17--showing that the priests were largely homosexual "ephebophiles" not "pedophiles." We've therefore established that at least half of the priests engaged in sexual abuse were homosexuals.
So here's the question, rephrased from how Michael Williams asked it: Why is it that at least half of the priests engaged in sexual abuse of pubescent minors were homosexuals? Obviously, half of all of priests aren't homosexuals; it is a lot more likely that this reflects higher rates of sexual abuse by homosexual priests than by heterosexual priests.
If homosexuals are proportionately represented among Catholic priests, this means that about 4% - 4.5% of Catholic priests are homosexual--and yet they represent, even taking the homosexual's preferred claim that "pedophiles" aren't homosexuals, at least 50% of the sexual abuse. In other words, homosexual priests who engage in sexual abuse of minors are at least ten times overrepresented from a normal distribution (Michael Williams' point #1).
Okay, maybe homosexuals are overrrepresented among Catholic priests. I'll buy the claim that someone who is conflicted about their sexual orientation might go into a line of work that requires them to be celibate, in the vain hopes that this will protect them from temptation. (That is Michael Williams' point #2.)
There is no way, however, that more than half of Catholic priests are homosexual in orientation. That would mean that homosexuals were at least 10x - 12x overrepresented in the priesthood. At best, part of the overrepresentation of homosexuals among molesters is #2. We are still looking at very disproportionate overrepresentation of homosexuals among molesters in the priesthood.
Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny's Human Sexuality, 4th ed., makes the claim that 26% of molesters go after boys only, with another 4% that go after boys and girls. The lowest claim that I have seen on this subject is from Janet Shibley Hyde, Understanding Human Sexuality, 4th ed., (New York, McGraw-Hill Co.: 1990), 422, which says that only 20% of child molestation is homosexual (and she uses that word). In conjunction with the data from Catholic priest molesters, and that only about 4%-4.5% of men in the general population are homosexual or bisexual, we see general agreement that the sexual orientation of child molesters is disproportionately homosexual.
This doesn't mean that every homosexual man is a molester, but it does mean that the traditional concerns about this have a factual basis. This is not simple ignorance. It is as valid a basis for discrimination as our laws that discriminate against drunk drivers (by prohibiting them from driving drunk) and against convicted felons (by taking away their right to possess firearms). Is this unfair to homosexual men who aren't interested in little boys? Sure.
Guess what? There's a lot of that sort of unfairness. If I walk down a dark city street at night, 200 feet behind a woman who doesn't know me, she will be afraid, and she will noticeably speed up her walking to get away. This isn't theory; I've had this experience before. I was at first offended and hurt, because I was a nice guy. If she had anything to fear from a guy, it wasn't from me; I would come to her defense. But she didn't know that.
Her "discrimination" against me for being a guy was completely rational, because she knows as a first approximation that a man is twice as likely to be a rapist as the average member of the population. (Simple math: effectively all rapes are done by men, who make up half the population. Ergo: any unknown man is twice as likely to be a rapist.) She loses nothing by assuming the worst of an unknown man, and she has much to lose if she incorrectly assumes that a guy is harmless.
I think the larger issue that no one wants to confront, however, is that child molesters are nearly always former victims. The exact mechanism, from what I have read, isn't completely understood, but some of the characteristics fit into several examples that I have blogged about recently: The perpetrators in our sample had all had sexual encounters as children, and there was evidence of a relationship between this childhood experience and sexual abuse as an adult. The sexual abuse had a narcissistic quality to it that the perpetrator identified with the victim. The victim was usually the same sex as the perpetrator, and frequently the victim was approximately the same age as the offender when he was victimized, and in a number of cases the sexual acts were the same. In addition, the family backgrounds of perpetrators reflect deprivation and harsh treatment.[Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 85-86]
Homosexuals fight any discussion of a possible link between child sexual abuse and adult sexual orientation. The idea, I am told, is preposterous. Why? It's not like I am proposing two completely unrelated activities, say, child sexual abuse and hating broccoli as an adult. Anyone that can't see a pretty obvious mechanism that could lead from one to the other must be extraordinarily clueless.
One book that I read made an interesting point about how sexual abuse victims deal with their pain, especially once they start to confront it in therapy:Apart from this obvious repression, a client may also have diminished the intensity of the event by some form of the disassociative process. As one woman so clearly summarized after describing years of brutal physical and sexual abuse by her father, "You know, being beaten up isn't that bad; after the first hit you don't feel it anymore." It is worth reflecting that these kinds of defenses may have been the person's protectors and friends -- in many instances a victim's only solace. When casting off these defenses and telling someone about the trauma, the person may feel that the only shield has been stripped away and that he or she is without anesthesia against the pain of the original assault. One client described a previous therapist, the leader of a woman's group who aggressively confronted the client's defenses before the group, in these words: "That therapist attacked me! She tried to take away my way of coping. I know I'm hard. I have a shell and there's some stuff I won't look at. But I protect myself the best way I know how. Who is she to attack me... trying to take away all I have that protects me from me?... Is she going to protect me? No!" [Diana Sullivan Everstine and Louis Everstine, Sexual Trauma in Children and Adolescents: Dynamics and Treatment (New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 1989), 155-156]
I'm not expecting homosexuals to confront what is probably a very painful memory--one that many homosexuals have acknowledged that they have repressed. A survey done some years ago about drug and alcohol abuse in the gay community asked this question about child sexual abuse: "As a child, were you ever sexually assaulted or abused?" [EMT Associates, Inc., San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alcohol and Other Drug Use Anonymous Survey Appendix A, (San Francisco, San Francisco Dept. of Public Health: 1991), 6.] A startling 28% of the men and 48% of the women answered, "Yes." [EMT Associates, Inc., San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alcohol and Other Drug Use Anonymous Survey Vol. I, p. 24.] When compared to the survey results for more general populations, these are astonishing numbers for men, and somewhat surprising for women. One of the volunteered marginal comments on the survey included the painful acknowledgement:I am beginning to deal with the possibility I may have been sexually abused as a child. I know I use alcohol to medicate that pain and my drinking has increased with 'seeping' memories and work stress. [EMT Associates, Inc., San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alcohol and Other Drug Use Anonymous Survey Vol. I, 55-56.]
This unwillingness to seriously consider a possible connection between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality is insane. I was astonished at how many books written even 15 years ago on the subject of child sexual abuse admit that adult homosexuality is a common response. Yet this has become almost like arguing for a flat-Earth today.
UPDATE: One reader points out that the suvey was not a random sample, because not everyone that was given a survey actually returned it, and may thus not be particularly representative. That's true (and it was true of Kinsey's sex surveys as well, but homosexuals were quite willing to use a misstated version of Kinsey's results to create the 10% myth). One of the difficulties when you try to gather any sort of data about a minority population is that you have to either:
1. Pick from a list of members of that minority population; or,
2. Survey the entire population, then identify members of the minority population as part of the survey.
For homosexuals, both of these are difficult problems. It's not like you can stand on a street corner and pick out homosexuals with any certainty. Yes, there are certain subgroups of homosexuals who stand out--but there are a lot that do not, and do not fit the stereotypes. A survey based on who is willing to identify him or herself as homosexual is going to bias the survey to those who are most "out" about their sexuality.
Option #2 is problematic both because to get a statistically significant sample, you will need a huge sample of the general population--and then you have the same problem about homosexuals who are closeted perhaps being less willing to identify themselves as such on a survey.
However, the reader who wasn't too happy about my use of the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey claims that the 30% and 48% numbers really aren't that far out of the norm: And as you no doubt know, the values for men are within the range found in general population studies, (3-29%) and the women are just a bit above that (7-36%).
I am a little startled by those numbers. If those are numbers from current studies (that is to say, done more than ten years after the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey), then we are not comparing equivalent populations. I would expect there to have been an increase in child molestation rates because so many children are not being raised by their biological fathers now. For a variety of reasons, children growing up in the homes of their biological fathers are at much lower risk of molestation.
In any case, when the survey in question showed child molestations rates of 30% and 48%, respectively, the data that I was able to find on molestation rates for the general population was lower--although the very high end of the numbers for females were getting close to the S.F. Dept. of Public Health survey. The range of the 11 studies summarized in Bagley & King are 12%-40% of females, and 3%-8.6% of males.[Christopher Bagley and Kathleen King, Child Sexual Abuse: The Search for Healing (New York: Tavistock/Routledge, 1990), 76.] Faller quotes the same studies, though in less detail.[Faller, 19.] The Everstines use the figures 15%-45% of females and 3%-9% of males, but "believe that the currently accepted percentages for males who have been molested will be revised to 10% or 15% of the population when more accurate data are forthcoming."[Everstine & Diana Sullivan Everstine and Louis Everstine, Sexual Trauma in Children and Adolescents: Dynamics and Treatment (New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 1989), 2.] These studies were conducted in Britain, Canada, and the United States, with Bagley and King asserting that child sexual abuse survey reports in California are unusually high, though it is unclear whether this is a methodological problem, or reflects higher incidence in California.[Bagley and King, 69.]
Noise Pollution Complaint? Or Envy?
From Reuters: BERLIN (Reuters) - A German woman took her male neighbor to court for noise pollution after he repeatedly kept her awake through half the night and had at least one four-hour sex session, a court spokeswoman said Friday.
"Four hours of sex noises. What was I supposed to think? It was nothing but groaning and banging," the woman told the judge, a Bild newspaper report said.
Detailed and Thoughtful Review of The Passion
Right here. It is generally positive about it, without being gushy.
Coincidence? Or Cause?
There is a gay marriage lawsuit under way in Florida--but even those apparently supportive of gay marriage are a little concerned about the caliber of the lawyer and the plaintiffs involved in the case. What I found interesting is this description of one of the plaintiffs: Rubin said he would file suit later this week on behalf of two men. Rubin identified only one of the two, who, Rubin acknowledged, has a checkered past.
But not his homosexuality, I guess.
William Patrick Ash, 39, has been arrested 11 times, including several charges of theft, check-kiting and serving beverages to minors, according to state records. Ash, who says he splits his time between Fort Lauderdale and San Diego, has at least two convictions, including a 1996 charge of living off the earnings of a prostitute.
In 1984, he lost his job as an aerobics instructor with the city of Fort Lauderdale. Officials said he falsified his r?sum?, in which he claimed he was a choreographer for Cats on Broadway, and that he started a fundraising project on behalf of the city without permission.
Ash, in a phone interview from San Diego, said he did not want his past to interfere with what he believed was a fairness issue. He claimed many of his problems stemmed from abuse by Catholic priests.
Gun Control As Distraction
The report from the Colorado Attorney-General about Columbine is pretty depressing. It would appear that there was a coverup of police failure before the massacre. Perhaps expectations are too high; a lot of this may be the advantage of 20-20 hindsight. It is interesting, however, that "more gun control" was the immediate response of most of the news media, instead of asking to what extent the police had failed to do their job of enforcing the existing laws, and what could be done about the level of bullying that clearly played some part in driving these two kids into an orgy of death.
Much like the Martin Bryant mass murder case in Tasmania, it is easier to look for gun control as a solution, rather than ask questions about the failure of Tasmanian police to properly investigate the at least suspicious suicide of Martin Bryant's father (which made Martin rich) or the implausible accidental death of Martin Bryant's heiress girlfriend (which left Martin even richer).
Double Standards in Education
Joanne Jacobs has a column about the insanity that passes for good educational policy. One of the items is about the double standards of schools. A 6th grade boy brought the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue to school, and was suspended for this. As much as I loathe this sort of "not quite pornography, there's it's okay" material, I think a suspension was a bit much. But Jacobs points to a much serious incident in which a teacher got away with something much worse: At a Washington high school, a teacher-coach who "pantsed" a basketball player in practice, and then complimented her "butt," received a verbal reprimand despite previous complaints she'd made sexual remarks to students.
A female coach removes a female student's clothing and makes sexually suggestive remarks, and gets just a verbal reprimand? The article doesn't identify the female coach as a lesbian--but what do you think the odds are that a coach doing things like this is straight?
What do you think would happened to the coach if the coach had been male, and the student female? Verbal reprimand? No, criminal charges.
Great Article About How Big Government Makes Rich People Richer
It's by John Stossel, in the March issue of Reason. If you have been at all paying attention, the examples he gives: National Flood Insurance Program; farm price supports; eminent domain abuse for private developers--will all be familiar to you. What always amazes me is how multimillionaire gigolos like John Kerry keep screeching about the need for Big Government to look out for the little guy--and how few Americans realize the extent to which Big Government exists to redistribute wealth from working people to the rich.
This is why the Democratic Party exists--to continue the looting of ordinary people's pockets for the benefit of multimillionaires and billionaires. They throw a few scraps to the poor and the middle class, but most of the function of the Democratic Party is to make sure that people like Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards--and as he admits, John Stossel--get subsidies so that they can get even richer.
Interesting Statement About Democratic Party Politics
If it's true, then either the Democratic Party is a lot smaller than I thought, or there are a lot of fabulously rich homosexuals: "The gay community is increasingly pivotal to Democrats in sheer financial numbers as well as to turnout numbers — this is a base of his support he doesn't want to alienate," said Morris Reid, a communications strategist who served in the Commerce Department under President Clinton. "However, there is that swing voter that might be the prize for this election. [Mr. Kerry] doesn't want to go too far that he might turn that voter off."
So is it turnout or financial support in which they are "increasingly pivotal"? Homosexuals are perhaps 3-4% of the population in the U.S.--and they don't even monolithicly vote Democrat. If 2-3% of the electorate (homosexuals voting Democratic) is essential to voter turnout, what about the probably 12-20% of Americans who aren't Republicans, but oppose gay marriage? Voter turnout should cause Democrats to turn to the larger voting bloc. Perhaps it's the financial support that homosexuals provide to the Democratic Party. That would make a lot more sense as a reason.
Thanks to Wonkette for the link.
Amusing Line From Wonkette
She was watching the Democratic debate in California, I guess: If John Kerry and John Edwards respected and liked each other any more, we'd have to pass a constitutional amendment against it.
Howard Stern's Advice: Perhaps the ACLU Will Take It
Howard Stern is upset that Clear Channel has pulled his vile little program in a few markets: On Thursday, Stern told listeners he had been unaware of the move by Clear Channel. Stern routinely criticizes the government's indecency policies, saying that they are arbitrary and fail to reflect that anyone who finds his material objectionable can simply change the channel.
I suppose we could say the same thing to the ACLU, which is trying to get Ten Commandments monuments removed from public buildings and parks everywhere. In some cases, their argument is that it causes physical pain for some to see these stones. Hey! Listen to Howard Stern! If you don't like what you see, don't look there!
Will The Next Scrappleface Announce the Merger of the Holy Roman Catholic Church & NAMBLA?
This would be shameful if it were a secular organization. But from an institution that claims to be the representative of Jesus Christ? More than 11,000 allegations of sex abuse have been made about Roman Catholic priests in the US since 1950, a new report is expected to show.
FoxNews.com has more on the results:
One diocese has already confirmed that nearly 4,440 priests - 4% of the total - have been accused of such assaults.
Groups representing victims of abuse say the final figure will be higher.
...
Some Roman Catholics will hope the report will help to close a painful and humiliating chapter in the Church's history.
But groups representing victims claim that people molested in their youth wait on average until they are 44 years old before breaking their silence.
They say there could therefore be thousands of cases still to emerge. Eighty percent of the alleged victims were male, and just over half said they were between the ages of 11 and 14 when they were assaulted, a source who read the reports told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Eighty percent of the victims were male? Somehow, it doesn't sound like a particularly random distribution. Dioceses nationwide received 10,667 abuse claims since 1950, according to a news release from the Diocese of Yakima, Wash. Of those, claims by approximately 6,700 were substantiated. About 3,300 were not investigated because the accused clergymen were dead.
Let's see, if the claims not investigated because the accused were dead had the same ratio of substantiated to unsubstantiated, that would mean another 2871 uninvestigated claims that would have been substantiated.
Another 1,000 or so claims were unsubstantiated, the diocese said.
Here is where it gets really horrifying: The panel noted that any evaluation of the crisis had to take into account that much of the abuse involved men preying on boys, the source said. And the report said that church leaders' failure to discipline sexually active priests created an environment which made clerics reluctant to report abuse of children.
If this reluctance to report abuse had taken place in Hollywood, or the Democratic National Committee headquarters, I would be disappointed but not surprised. But in the Catholic Church?
How Do You Know A Political Party Isn't Competent to Run the Government?
When it mails its secret election strategy to its opponents: Britain's Liberal Democrat party accidentally e-mailed its draft election plans to Welsh members of the ruling Labor Party Tuesday, unwittingly unveiling what would normally be a closely guarded secret.
A general election is not expected until the first half of 2005, leaving plenty of time for LibDem political rivals to scrutinize the party's strategy.
Members of parliament joked that Britain's third party were champions of freedom of information, but that this was ridiculous.
Lost in Scotland
This is one of those great stories that give me reason to read Reuters Odd: LONDON (Reuters) - A tiny Scottish village called Lost is to change its name because souvenir hunters keep stealing its road signs.
"For many years now, the sign has continually been taken because all it says on it is 'Lost,'" local councilor Bruce Luffman said on Friday.
Seven signs, each costing around 200 pounds ($400) to replace, had been stolen in the last five years, Luffman said. He said signs had been spotted as far away as Montreal and Brazil.
"Many people want to have their photograph taken by it looking bewildered, and every so often it gets taken," Luffman added.
Rep. Otter Wakes Up
I was very disappointed last year, when I contacted my Congressman, Representative Otter, concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment. In spite of representing Idaho, a very conservative state, and pretending to be a conservative, Otter indicated that he would not support the FMA because there was no realistic chance of it passing. Yesterday, out of the blue, I received an email from Otter indicating that the situation in San Francisco and Massachusetts has caused him to rethink his position on this, and he now will support such a change. Something tells me that Otter is beginning to hear from his constituents on this.
"Virtually Normal"
At least, that was the title of Andrew Sullivan's book about how normal gay people are. Of course, we have since learned that Sullivan, who is HIV+, trolls the Internet looking for unprotected anonymous sex. Here's another of those 'virtual normally" sorts that pop up with surprising frequency: Young men attending sex parties in Orlando, Fla., were reportedly drugged and injected with tainted blood inside a man's garage, according to a Local 6 News report.
Authorities arrested Mark Randall, 45, (pictured, left) earlier this month for allegedly trafficking 48 grams of methamphetamine.
After an investigation, authorities determined that Randall was reportedly having sex parties in the garage of his home at 211 E. Kaley St. and possibly injecting the men with blood.
According to court records, four witnesses said "Randall lured subjects to his residence via the Internet for the purpose of sex and once they were at his residence he would get them high" with drugs.
The report also said Randall had a sex harness in the garage and "once the subjects were in the harness, Randall and other participants would have sex with them and videotape them."
Then, "Randall would inject the subjects with the syringes of tainted blood."
Investigators said Randall's garage was wired with video cameras and more than 100 videotapes were confiscated from the structure.
ACLU Is At It Again
From the Richmond, Virginia Times-Dispatch: A lawyer tagged with the state's first adultery conviction in recent times is challenging the criminal charge brought against him as a constitutional violation.
Well, I guess I'm not surprised. Why should marital vows mean anything? Is there any form of sexual behavior that isn't constitutionally protected under Lawrence?
John R. Bushey Jr. pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor count last year in Page County General District Court, records show.
...
He and the ACLU claim that criminalizing marital infidelity violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment clause guaranteeing equal protection before the law.
...
Rebecca K. Glenberg, the ACLU's legal director, said the organization isn't challenging all references to adultery in state law. Virginia has the prerogative to maintain adultery laws as a factor in divorce or child custody, Glenberg said.
"We're not arguing against that," she said. "Our argument is that it's unconstitutional for Virginia to criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults."
The ACLU cites in support of its claim last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas anti-sodomy statute. The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas is a clear statement on the right of privacy with regard to intimate acts between consenting adults, said ACLU Director Kent Willis.
The person convicted of adultery is a lawyer. I am reminded of the joke that starts out, 'What do a lawyer and rooster have him in common? The rooster clucks defiance, while the lawyer...." Well, you can figure out the rhyming verse.
Now, you may be expressing surprise that adultery remains a criminal matter in Virginia. It's not the only place. As of 2000, there were a couple dozen states where this was also the case. Idaho Code 18-6601 still criminalizes adultery: ADULTERY. A married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, an unmarried man who has sexual intercourse with a married woman, a married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and an unmarried woman who has sexual intercourse with a married man, shall be guilty of adultery, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months, or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not exceeding three [(3)] years, or in the county jail for a period not exceeding one [(1)] year, or by fine not exceeding $1000.
There was a woman in California a few years ago who attempted to get an initiative on the ballot to again make adultery a criminal matter, but it didn't go anywhere--adultery being one of the primary indoor sports.
Now, some of you are probably saying, "Why is this the government's job?" The answer is that adultery leads to a lot of broken marriages, with predictable effects on state involvement in resolving divorces, child custody, enforcement of child support orders, and certainly some increase in STD rates. I don't pretend that making adultery criminal is going to make any huge difference in how people behave. Adultery is often a symptom of a marriage already in deep trouble. All that is necessary to justify a law is that it causes a useful change of behavior at the margins. If 2% of the population is influenced to not engage in adultery by fear of paying a hefty fine, or being put at a disadvantage at divorce time, this is worth it.
Best Buy Billing: Did They Neglect To Bill You, and Then Charge You a Late Fee?
About a year ago, I bought a TV at Best Buy. They had a "no interest for 18 months" deal whereby I would pay no interest on the balance if I made a minimum $11 payment, and didn't miss any payments. Great deal. I could have paid cash, but why, if someone offers you a deal like that?
Everything has gone well until last month, when I did not receive a bill--and of course, I didn't notice it. Now I have a statement from them charging me $29 for a late fee. I have not had any other bills fail to arrive, so I find myself wondering if they might be pulling a fast one--failing to send out a bill so that they can charge a late fee. Has anyone else had this experience?
UPDATE: I called Best Buy this morning, and without even a little protest (perhaps because of my payment history), they immediately agreed to credit my account for the late fee if I got them the payment within 10 days.
Missouri Supreme Court Upholds The Important Part of the Concealed Weapon Permit Law
The decision is here. There were two significant issues raised by the plaintiffs trying to preven the law from taking effect:
1. Does the Missouri Legislature have the authority to pass a law allowing concealed carry of firearms?
The Missouri Supreme Court said yes. The injunction prohibiting implementation of the new law was dissolved.
2. Does the new law, by requiring county sheriffs to expend money on processing applications (even though they also receive applicatoin fees that should exceed these costs), constitute an "unfunded mandate"?
The Missouri Supreme Court decided that it did, and so the counties are not obligated to process applications. However: the new law also recognizes permits issued by a number of other states, and even a resident of Missouri could carry on an out-of-state permit. Even if some counties decide not to issue permits, it won't much matter.
One more state in which I am allowed to carry concealed! That makes it 32 states now.
For all the gruesome details of the law, read this article here.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004
This AP news story reports that the House has passed a bill that would make the killing of an unborn child in certain federal jurisdictions into the same crime as if done to the mother--with an exemption for lawful abortions: The measure would be applicable only when federal crimes - such as terrorism, drug trafficking or offenses on federal land or on military bases - are committed.
The pro-choice crowd sees this bill as undermining the right to an abortion: But Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill "is not about shielding pregnant women," she said. "It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice."
How? The bill--HR 1997, which you can read here (sorry, no direct link to the text)--is pretty clear about this:
The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was "taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose."(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
I confess to being utterly mystified by the pro-choice response. If passed into law, this would make federal law rather like that of well-known right-wing reactionary pro-life places such as California--which also criminalizes the killing of a fetus, except if done by a licensed physician. See Cal. Penal Code sec. 187: (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
The bill's language is as explicit as can be, and similar enough to California's statute that exempts lawful abortions, that I can't quite see what their objection is--unless the objection is that it legally defines that an unborn child is a human being. I suspect that it has more to do with guilty consciences than anything else.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
Look carefully at the logical concept involved in both California law, and the proposed bill (which, while it includes embryos, is actually less demanding than California law as to the circumstances that allows a doctor to perform an abortion). What is it saying? It's not murder if it's done with the mother's consent, but it is murder if it is done against her will. What gives the mother the right to kill an unborn child, but others are similarly limited? Ownership, it appears.
I used to think the analogy, promoted by pro-lifers, that abortion is like slavery was a bit strained, and it is still an imperfect match. One example of where the analogy fails is that even under slavery, the law did not consider that masters had a right to kill their slaves, except in self-defense, or while fleeing servitude. In practice, it was nearly impossible to get convictions, but that was because of a combination of jury nullification and that blacks could not testify against whites. The slave law at least never engaged in quite this absurd combination of "it's a human life, and it's murder to kill it, except if you are the mother."
Where Does This Abortion Number Come From?
In the course of an email discussion with one of my sisters, she made the statement that 45% of American women will have at least one abortion during their lifetime. This seemed awfully high to me, so I started doing some digging. I found this website making essentially that same claim: Almost half of American women (43%) will have an abortion sometime in their lifetime.
A little more digging found that a number of studies have attempted to measure the lifetime use of abortion, not just the annual rate, producing what they call a Total First Abortion Rate or Total Abortion Rate. This study from the British Medical Journal shows a 44% abortion rate--but when you look at the methodology used, there are some obvious problems with it. The methodology involves distributing all abortions over all women. Similarly, this abstract from the American Journal of Epidemiology seems to have used a somewhat similar method to determine that 29%-31% of South Australian women would have an abortion at some point in their lifetime. While the article refers to Total First Abortion Rate, it's not clear to me from the abstract that they actually are measuring only first abortions.
If abortions were evenly distributed, this method of distributing all abortions across all women of childbearing age would make sense. However, abortions are almost certainly not evenly distributed. There are a lot of women who are fiercely hostile to abortion, and are simply not going to have one, no matter how extreme the situation. California very strongly recommends (not quite requires) women to have an amniocentesis procedure early on to look for birth defects. One woman I know was resisting having it done, because as she explained to me, "It's a life. I'm not having an abortion. Why bother having this done?" Especially because there is something under a 1% change of miscarriage as a result.
There are women who have no moral problem with abortion, and are unlikely to have any qualms about repeating the procedure. I knew one woman who, by age 21, had already had three abortions. Others that I have talked have also known women (and I don't mean "know" in the Biblical sense) that have had multiple abortions. I would expect that prostitutes are probably much more likely to be multiple users of abortion, simply because even 0.1% failure rates, when run up against thousands of sexual acts per year, are going to result in pregnancies.
A relatively small number of repeat users of abortion can run up the rates quite impressively. It might be that as few as 20% of American women will ever have an abortion. It might be 15%, or as much as 30%. I really don't see that the data that I have found gives a very meaningful measure. If you know of a study that provides a meaningful measure of this statistic, please let me know.
Ah, The Liberal Enthusiasm For Freedom of Speech
From FoxNews.com: PORTLAND, Ore. — The Hispanic Club, the Chess Club and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance are just some of the clubs that have displays in the hallways of Portland schools.
Just like the school was "endorsing" chess, ethnic identity politics, and homosexuality?
But after the Bible Club at Marshall High School put a Bible and some other Christian books in a display case, some teachers complained to the principal. After a call to the district's lawyer, the display was taken down.
District officials said they felt the display gave the impression that the school was endorsing Christianity.Bible Club leader Jeff Chatterton fought back by contacting the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization that has taken on a number of similar cases. This week Chatterton filed a federal lawsuit against the school district, saying that his right to free speech was violated.
What calls itself liberalism today is just totalitarianism in Birkenstocks.
...
Portland schools admit they treat religious and political student groups differently than they do sanctioned academic clubs, but point out that they do give religious groups places to exercise their free speech — just not display cases.
War Heroes
Thomas Sowell has an interesting point about John "Did I mention that I served in Vietnam?" Kerry: Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle -- before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime "get out of jail free" card, exempting you from responsibility for what you do thereafter.
Humor
Dave Barry's latest column includes a number of examples of great moments in writing: An alert Missouri reader sent in a newsletter from Rocky Mountain National Park containing this tip for visitors: ''Avoid the traffic by using one of the park's shuttle buses and view the elk rut with a park ranger.''
Nan Bell and Elisabeth Lindsay sent in an Associated Press article concerning efforts to identify the person whose leg washed ashore in Bodega Bay, Calif., containing this quote from an official of the coroner's office: ''We were stumped, basically.''
Claudette Knieriem sent in a Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader classified ad for a child-care center that says: ''FUN AT PLAY where it's creative, safe, wholesome and neutering.''
Larry and Suzanne Tingley sent in an article from the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times stating that the Lewis County Board of Legislators had authorized the creation of a petty cash fund ''for the weekly purchase of dry ice, used for incest control.''
Dolores Evans sent in an article from Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot News headlined: ''Smoking organ causes stir at nursing home.''
Roy Winter sent in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article concerning a breakout at an animal-research facility, headlined: ''Tulane center monkeys escape; half are captured in time for dinner.''
The Oklahoma City Bombing: When Will The Full Truth Come Out?
From an AP news story: FBI agents destroyed evidence and failed to share other information that raised the possibility that a gang of white supremacist bank robbers may have assisted Timothy McVeigh during the Oklahoma City bombing, according to documents never introduced at McVeigh's trial.
There are more examples of the FBI destroying evidence mentioned in the story.
Both the FBI supervisor who ran the Oklahoma City investigation and the veteran agent who was in command at the bombing scene say the new evidence, detailed in documents obtained by The Associated Press, is serious enough to warrant reopening the inquiry nine years later.
The evidence, never shared with Oklahoma City investigators or defense lawyers, includes documents showing the Aryan Republican Army bank robbers possessed explosive blasting caps similar to those McVeigh stole and a driver's license possibly stolen during the bombing plot.
"If the evidence is still there, then it should be checked out," said Dan Defenbaugh, the now-retired FBI chief of the McVeigh investigation who reviewed the documents at the request of AP. "If I were still in the bureau, the investigation would be reopened."
Danny Coulson, the FBI scene commander for the Oklahoma bomb site, agreed.
"There is some unanswered questions here. A lot of things happened that were inappropriate," Coulson said. "I think it needs to be reopened, but I don't think it should be reopened by the FBI. It needs to be a special investigator, a lawyer, totally independent. He needs to have subpoena power and the ability to use a grand jury.
I have been troubled for a very long time about the McVeigh case. They failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McVeigh did it--if you read the transcripts, you will be astonished at how weak the government's case was against him. It is fortunate that McVeigh finally confessed before his execution, or I would still be wondering.
There have been at least plausible pieces of evidence of Iraqi involvement with McVeigh, and at least one government informant who warned the government before the bombing that it was going to happen, was indicted (and found innocent) on criminal charges to prevent her from testifying at McVeigh's trial.
The truth needs to come out.
More About The Bill in Congress
The bill to prevent frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and dealers has both an editorial in its favor in Roll Call magazine (to my shock), and there is also a splendid ad from NRA here that points out a seldom considered flaw in the "sue the gun makers until they fold" approach that this bill seeks to fix.
It's time to call your Senators, and tell them that acceptable amendments to S. 1805 do not include renewal of the assault weapon ban.
The Horse Is Dead: Stop Beating It
Someone forwarded me a very good essay about the delusions of the lyrics to John Lennon's song, "Imagine." It is, indeed, a very good and thoughtful essay.
It is, unfortunately, either evidence that the Web is a lot older than I thought, and this was published in the 1970s, or it is the political equivalent of writing an essay proving that Galileo was right: the Earth does go around the Sun, not vice versa: The unpopular War in Viet Nam made the song an immediate hit, and it remains the best-loved number in the pacifist hymnal more than thirty years later. It's a good bet that more candles and Bic lighters have been waved in the air to "Imagine" than to all else combined, "Kumbaya" included. In the plaintive voice of the since tragically murdered Lennon, "Imagine" can carry an emotional punch, especially when experienced as the reverent keening of a solemn nighttime gathering of believers in the dream. In the midst of so much hopeful sincerity, even an inveterate cynic could find himself fumbling for his Bic somewhere in the second verse. But what, exactly, was Lennon asking us to imagine? The answer leaves no doubt that Lennon should have stuck to singing about yellow submarines.
A sort of musical What Is To Be Done?, "Imagine" is Lennon's prescription for dragging ourselves out of the bloody trenches of war, at long last to "live as one" in the Brotherhood of Man. The secret is to get rid of the three things that have been putting us at each other's throats: religion, countries, and possessions. (How Lennon missed using "A Modest Proposal" as a prankish subtitle remains a mystery to this day.)
Bad Analogies: Interracial Marriage and Gay Marriage
History provides lessons for the present. One hazard, however, is when people draw parallels between very different situations. One example is the frequent analogy drawn between interracial marriage laws, and laws against homosexual marriage. The aptly named Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, is often cited as an example of the federal courts overruling majority will in the interests of human rights.
This analogy falls down in a number of areas. The most dramatic difference is that when Loving was decided, there were 16 states (including Virginia) that prohibited interracial marriage--16 out of 50. I don't know what the high water mark was, but there was never a point where every state prohibited interracial marriage, and there was often a sizeable minority of the states that had no such laws. For example, in 1910, 28 states (out of 46) had some sort of interracial marriage prohibition. In 1950, 30 out out 48 states had such bans. Even on this, there's some surprising variation, with many states prohibiting only white and black marriages, but leaving other interracial marriages alone. California's 1872 statute prohibiting white and black marriage, for example, wasn't extended to Asians, or "Mongolians" until 1901.
By contrast, not a single state legislature has recognized gay marriage. Loving is an example of the Supreme Court deciding to force the recalcitrant Southern states to join a parade in which most of the rest of the country was already marching. (Why did they do that, instead of allowing them to just not recognize interracial marriages? You'll find out shortly.)
Another dramatic difference between Loving and the current gay marriage squabble is that Virginia did not simply refuse to recognize interracial marriage: it punished anyone who married elsewhere and returned home: If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.
The Lovings, for marrying in the District of Columbia, and then returning to live in Virginia, were sentenced to either one year in prison, or required to leave the state of Virginia for 25 years.
Compare that to the situation today. If gay people want to get married in Europe, fine. They can come back here, tell everyone that they are "married"--and there will be no punishment for doing so.
As much as I am offended by bans on interracial marriage, that might have been something that the federal courts could have ignored, if Virginia had been content to simply leave well enough alone. Virginia wasn't content with just refusing to recognize interracial marriage--it was actively punishing it, as a felony. This turned a "we won't recognize it" question into a "we'll punish you if you marry somewhere else" problem. As I said, not at all the analogy to gay marriage today.
Another difference: laws prohibiting interracial marriage are actually a pretty modern innovation in the history of Western civilization. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Maryland and Virginia both passed laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Why? There are lots of arguments about this still, but it appears that it was because white women were in short supply. They immigrated in small numbers, and died quickly in the malarial swamps of the Chesapeake. These laws were probably a method of reducing competition for white women. (If this is surprising to you, remember that quite a few blacks in these colonies were free during this period.) I can't think of any examples of laws prohibiting interracial marriage in Europe or Britain before then.
By contrast, until these last few years, you don't find homosexual marriage in Europe, at least in the last couple of millennia. Even in classical civilization, which was a bit more tolerant of homosexuality than the last 1500 years have been, you don't find homosexual marriage. The analogy utterly fails here as well.
UPDATE: Here's the Maryland statute of 1884 that made interracial marriage a felony. Like Virginia, they did not simply refuse to recognize it.
Assault Weapons: Not the Magic Weapon of Sure Death That Some People Think
My co-blogger over at the civilian gun self-defense blog just put this up from the Houston Chronicle of February 24, 2004, but it's worth reading just for the reminder that an AK-47 is not a substitute for goodness and intelligence: Police say a southeast Houston homeowner shot an armed intruder who'd broken into his house overnight, but no one realized the suspect died until a neighbor found the body a block away this morning.
They aren't magic, okay? Bad guys (and gun control advocates) may think an assault weapon makes a criminal invincible (like Rambo), but no, it really doesn't.
The incident happened in the Sagemont Park subdivision, off Fuqua and Sabo, a subdivision with neatly trimmed lawns and many homes with alarm system signs.
Around 10:15 p.m., three intruders barged into the home in the 10400 Kirklane and tried to rob the homeowner of his car.
The homeowner started shooting and the intruders scattered, police said.
Police searched the neighborhood, but the intruders were believed to have gotten away. Around 8:15 a.m., however, a resident one block away in the 10400 Kirkshire found what is believed to be one of the gunmen's body on a walkway next to his home, shot three times in the chest. A ski mask was next to his body, Houston Police Homicide Sgt. Jim Binford said.
Outside the home that the intruders tried to rob, police recovered an AK-47 covered with blood that one of the gunmen is believed to have dropped.
The slain gunman has not been identified. His friends fled in a turquoise Dodge Durango, police said.
Consequences of Low Birth Rates
Greenspan is talking about the need to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees, because of the danger of rising deficits as the Boomer generation starts to retire.
It's scary--the crowd that wore tie-dyes, created an epidemic of STDs, dropped acid, and smoked pot--are going to be using walkers and getting the senior discount! "What a long strange trip it's been."
What no one talks about, however, is that part of the problem isn't just all those Boomers retiring at once--it was also that so many Boomers listened to the worried talk about overpopulation, and decided to limit themselves to one child, or had none at all. Because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (but one backed by the full faith and credulousness of the federal government), the generation paying Social Security needs to be pretty much as large as the generation receiving it. Uh oh.
I shudder to think of what Social Security or income tax rates are going to have to be in another ten years to make up for the shortfall of young people who are working.
The Passion of the Christ: Perhaps Too Intense?
I've heard that it is intense, but this incident brings back memories. In the early 1960s, I can remember scary movies being advertised with, "Nurses will be on duty in the lobby," with the implication that the film was so terrifying that some people might need medical attention. This was just hype, but Gibson's new movie apparently is quite intense:A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". The woman, in her 50's, was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center.
People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say the woman collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown. Nurses who were in the audience gave the woman CPR.
Supreme Court Again Shows Its Hostility Towards Religion
I am shocked and disappointed by this 7-2 decision in Locke v. Davey (2004). Here's the essential facts: Washington State creates a scholarship program for smart but not rich kids. They can use this scholarship at any accredited college in the state, public or private, for any degree program that they want, except one: theology. One major is specifically excluded.
It is clear to me that the Framers's intent for the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishment was to prevent any particular denomination or church from being given special privileges or status by the federal government. (They had no such intention with respect to the states, although all eventually disestablished state churches by the 1840s; the 14th Amendment eventually extended the First Amendment to apply to states and local governments.) The evidence of how the Continental Congress, the First Congress, and the Jefferson and Madison Administrations operated, demonstrates that everyone understood that the First Amendment did not prohibit policies and actions that were supportive of religion in general (which at the time was understood to be Christianity, even in Jefferson's rather unorthodox definition of it).
Fast forward. Liberals on the Court have, over the last 40 years, decided that it is not enough for the government to be neutral towards a particular branch of Christianity, or even neutral towards all religions. It must be neutral on the question of religion vs. non-religion. I would argue that this is an ahistoric understanding of the First Amendment, but as wrong as it is, it is an improvement over this decision, which decided that a state government may constitutionally treat religious studies specially and worse than other fields of education. When the student challenging this special exclusion argued that the Court had previously taken the position of complete neutrality with respect to religion, their response is exactly the sort of sophistry I expect from the secularists who have taken over the Court: [Davey] contends that under the rule we enunciated in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, supra, the program is presumptively unconstitutional because it is not facially neutral with respect to religion. We reject his claim of presumptive unconstitutionality, however; to do otherwise would extend the Lukumi line of cases well beyond not only their facts but their reasoning. In Lukumi, the city of Hialeah made it a crime to engage in certain kinds of animal slaughter. We found that the law sought to suppress ritualistic animal sacrifices of the Santeria religion. 508 U. S., at 535. In the present case, the State's disfavor of religion (if it can be called that) is of a far milder kind.
Because the law in question isn't sending anyone to prison, the Court expreses doubt that this is "disfavor of religion." They specifically exclude one, and only one field of study from this scholarship fund. Next thing you know, they will decide that because homosexuals are only being excluded from marriage, this "disfavor of homosexuality (if it can be called that)" is too mild to worry about. Yet we know which way the Supreme Court will vote on the gay marriage issue.
To my pleasure, Professor Volokh sees the serious flaw in the reasoning of the majority, and that Scalia's dissent gets it right.
For Those Convinced NRA Is Trying To Get the Assault Weapon Ban Renewed
Perhaps they can explain this NRA-ILA alert to members: Anti-gun Senators will likely attempt to amend this bill with legislation to ban gun shows and to extend and expand the ban on semi-automatic firearms (www.clintongunban.com). To protect the future of America's millions of gun owners, it is vital that the Senate pass S. 659/S. 1805/S. 1806 without any anti-gun amendments.
Is this clear enough to everyone? They want their members to ask for a straight up and down vote on the frivolous lawsuit ban, and passage without any anti-gun amendments.
Your Senators need to know that this bill is about saving jobs, and protecting our rights. Use the "Write Your Representatives" tool to contact your Senators and let them know it's time to stop playing politics with the Second Amendment. We have included talking points and sample letters that may be helpful when contacting members of the media and your Senators.
Urge your Senators to fully support S. 659/S. 1805/S. 1806 without any anti-gun amendments!
Kansas House Considering Non-Discretionary Concealed Handgun Bill
From the Lawrence, Kansas Journal-World: The House Federal and State Affairs Committee voted 13-7 to send the legislation to the full House, along with an amendment defining school property. The bill prohibits concealed guns in government buildings and schools, but the committee had a hard time determining what constitutes school property.
This is going to be a tough one, because the governor has made it clear that she intends to veto any such bill.
Kansas is one of only four states that do not allow residents to carry concealed firearms.
...
KBI [Kansas Bureau of Investigation] officials have said the agency is neutral on the question of concealed weapons but opposes being given the administrative responsibilities required by the bill.
I know the first reaction of many people when they hear that Kansas has no concealed weapon permit system at all right is surprise. You shouldn't be surprised. Kansas, in some respects, is more Southern (old South) than Northern. "Bleeding Kansas" was a full-scale civil war in the 1850s between abolitionists and pro-slavery folks. The famous case that ended de jure segregration of public schools, Brown v. Board of Education, was against the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education, which assigned students by race to different schools. Of course, tight regulation of concealed carrying of firearms has a long history of identification with the Old South and racism in the postbellum South.
Time To Fire Up The Email and Phones
Contact your U.S. Senator and let them know that the ban on frivilous lawsuits against gun makers needs to be voted on--and without any assault weapon ban renewal amendments. NOW! Here's the director page that takes you to the web page for your senator.
Even if you are represented by useless slime like Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, let them know that this is important to you. Be polite, but let them know that the real issue isn't the type of gun, but the person holding it. A convicted felon with a .22 rifle is more dangerous than a law-abiding adult with an AK-47.
The Left Continues Its Descent Into Irrationality
Both David Bernstein* and Eugene Volokh* made mention of this article. Once you read it, you'll understand the significance of the stars after their names--and why the left has gone completely off the deep end: A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals -- labeled "Likudniks" for their links to Israel's right wing Likud party -- do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?
Gee, putting a little symbol next to the names of the neocons who are Juden--who might get the wrong impression from that? At least Adbusters didn't use yellow stars--although it wouldn't have surprised me. Alas, I don't even quality as a Mischling to Adbusters--the converts in my family tree were too many generations back.
Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite.
It doesn't even occur to the left that a legitimate concern of Americans (regardless of ethnicity or religion) is to do something about a region that seems to be breeding suicidal terrorists. If the IRA had killed 3000 Americans on 9/11, the U.S. would probably be combing through Ireland at the moment.
Declining Oil Production in Saudi Arabia
This article reports that oil production is now in decline in Saudi Arabia. This is probably a good thing.
A friend of mine who speaks Arabic was in a taxicab in California a few days ago, and noticed an Arab newspaper on the floor. He asked the driver (in Arabic) where he was from. He was from Iraq. In the course of their conversation, the driver explained what his view of that part of the world was: His words "the whole [expletive deleted] place is insane; there will be no peace until the oil runs out."
Certainly, the world will be a little less crazy when Osama Bin Laden can't spend millions of dollars a year on his dreams of mass murder and world domination. I keep thinking of the cartoon series Pinky and the Brain, about two mutant lab mice, one with an oversized brain case and ideas to match.
"What will we do tonight, Brain?"
"What we try to do every night, Pinky--take over the world!"
A New Way to Reduce the Deficit
About ten years ago, I had a friend in California who said something that was so outrageous that at first I thought he was kidding. He said that the government should televise executions, and sell the broadcast rights to the highest bidder as a way of reducing the deficit. Now I discover that my friend was just ahead of his time: NEW YORK -- Two-thirds of Americans polled last month said they support the idea of televising executions -- and 21 percent said they'd pay to watch Osama bin Laden put to death.
Why do I feel like I'm living in one of Schwarzenegger's dystopian science fiction films?
Eleven percent said they would pay to see Saddam Hussein executed.
The opinions on executions came in a poll taken by Harris Interactive for the Trio cable channel.
Even though the poll found support for the idea, 54 percent said they wouldn't watch an execution on television.
Harris Interactive interviewed 1,017 Americans aged 18 or older at random Jan. 24-26. The margin of error for the sample is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Celibate Catholic Priests--An Interesting Twist
I am rendered almost speechless by this AP news article: The interim head of the Springfield diocese apologized Monday for saying the Catholic sex abuse scandal stemmed from a belief once held by some priests that having sex with young men was acceptable.
I am still trying to make sense of this.
Monsignor Richard S. Sniezyk said that as a seminarian and a young priest in the 1950s and early 1960s, he heard of priests who had sex with young men, but "no one thought much about it."
"They did good ministry, they were good to their people, they were kind, compassionate, but they had no idea what they were doing to these young men that they were abusing," Sniezyk told The Boston Globe on Sunday. "It was that era of the '60s - most of it took place from the mid-'60s to the early-'80s - and the whole atmosphere out there was, it was OK, it was OK to do.
"Certainly that atmosphere is not present in the church today," he said.
Did they think that the Church's celibacy rule had been repealed? No. There were priests that married in secret, but they knew that they were breaking the celibacy rule.
Did they think that the Church's position on homosexuality had a special exemption for priests? I can't believe that any of them thought that.
Did they think that taking advantage of teenaged and younger boys was okay? Apparently so.
I am still flabbergasted that such a point of view was accepted among priests in the 1950s--at a time when homosexuality was not just illegal, but still widely regarded with disgust and horror in America, and when the pursuit of children for sex was not just illegal, but regarded as one of the great evils. The Catholic Church needs to come up with some pretty convincing explanation for why priests held such a point of view--and make sure that it never comes back.
Just Put Up A New Article
This is from the March 1, 2004 Shotgun News about the new concealed weapon permit law in Ohio. If you live there, or travel there, you might want to read the details. Let me emphasize: the new law doesn't take effect until April. It is still a felony to carry concealed, except for a few limited circumstances.
Remember that you can always find out what published articles I've recently put on my web site by clicking here.
Be Prepared To Contact Your House Member...
Also, be prepared to activate all your friends to do likewise on short notice. If the assault weapons ban renewal gets attached to the ban on gun maker lawsuits in the Senate, we may have to put a lot of pressure on the House to kill it. I don't want to lose the gun maker lawsuits ban, but not at the price of renewal of the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban has a few months to live; we can pursue the gun maker lawsuits ban next term.
Anti-Gunners Take Their Own Child Hostage
Publicola blogs about current dimbulb behavior by the assault weapon ban crowd.
1. Bush promised to sign an assault weapons ban renewal if it reaches his desk.
2. Anti-gunners are going to try and attach a renewal of the ban to the legislation that prohibits lawsuits against gun makers except if the gun is defective, under the illusion that Bush wants the lawsuit ban and the assault weapon ban.
3. The assault weapon ban renewal is simply not going to go anywhere in the House. The Republican leadership has vowed to stop it. As much as gun owners would like the lawsuit ban to go away, we want the assault weapon ban to go away also--and we can always return to the lawsuit ban next year. Once the assault weapon ban has expired, and the sky doesn't fall, the anti-gunners will have to explain what function this useless law performed.
So what happens if the anti-gunners attach the assault weapon ban to the lawsuit prohibition? House Republicans won't let it go forward--and Bush won't have to make a choice that would upset gun owners. If somehow this combination bill did go forward, it would be the end of all hopes for the lawyers to make a killing with these lawsuits. Talk about creating bad blood between the ambulance chasers and the anti-gunners. We might even see the ambulance chasers put their financial interest ahead of their ideology, and try to kill the bill.
It appears to me that gun control crazies are in the situation of a criminal who is holding a gun to the head of his five year old (the lawsuits against gun makers for making guns that work as advertised), threatening to kill him, trying to save his ten year old (the 1994 federal assault weapons ban). But here's the difference from a police siege of a criminal: the police want to save both of the criminal's children; they are innocent parties. Gun owners, on the other hand, would be overjoyed if both of the gun control movement's "kids" got it. The ten year old (the Assault Weapons Control Act) is a nuisance; the five year old (the gun maker lawsuits) is pretty darn sick, and may not survive a few more court decisions anyway. "Go ahead, gun controllers, make my day!"
UPDATE: The more I thought about it, the more dumb this gets. The ten year old is going to die in September if nothing happens at all. It is probably time to let your Congresscritters know that you can afford to wait for the lawsuit ban to pass next year; killing the assault weapon ban renewal is critical.
Some activists are claiming that NRA is willing to trade renewal of the assault weapons ban for the lawsuit ban. I'm not quite sure that I believe this, both because some activists have their own agenda about demonizing NRA, and because NRA often engages in fiendishly Byzantine political plays.
Run, Ralph, Run!
You have probably seen that Ralph Nader is again running for President because the Democratic Party isn't far enough left to suit him. This is fine with me. Every leftwing splinter group that is upset with mainstream accommodationism should run a candidate for president. It forces the Democratic nominee to either run to the left after the convention (and lose the masses) or run to the middle (and lose the multi-millionaire wing of the Democratic Party to the hardcore leftists).
I am not thrilled with the idea of rightwing splinter groups doing likewise. Yes, there does come a point where you have to say, "President Bush, why are you moving so far to the left in the pursuit of votes?" The answer is: because he wants to win the election. The more Nader pulls votes from the left, and the fewer the sure votes for the Democratic nominee, the less need Bush has to pander to the middle and left of the spectrum.
The core problem that Ralph Nader's run is exposing is that the real hardcore left (outside millionaire circles) isn't all that big anymore in America. It is influential, but that's not quite the same as having a lot of votes.
Woefully Misdirected Spam
I just received spam that saw the terms "gay marriage" on my blog, and seems to have been sent by a robot that couldn't read the context:Note: This offer is exclusively limited to the 1st 10 qualified
gay marriage customers from this special on-line offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Visibility & Marketing reccommendations for
improvements to your gay marriage website
Attn: REQUEST RETURN CALL TODAY TO JOSEPH AT 1-888-210-8980
Dear gay marriage webmaster,
Did you know that 29,358 people daily search
for gay marriage right now in Google and Yahoo? (SEE BELOW)
Did you know that when you type 'gay marriage' into a
Google search you get 3,790,000. Try it! http://www.google.com
!!!ATTENTION PLEASE, IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!
YOUR 'gay marriage' SITE "MUST" BE FOUND IN SEARCH ENGINES!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1) 85% of gay marriage sites are found from search engines
2) 99% of gay marriage users only 20 engines (Yahoo & Google)
3) 91% of gay marriage users visit only 1st page search listings
4) 15% of gay marriage sites are found from OTHER ADVERTISING
YOU MUST GET YOUR SITE LISTED ON THE 1st PAGE OR YOUR
"gay marriage" CLIENTS WILL NOT LIKELY FIND YOUR SITE!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THERE'RE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE THAT KNOW HOW TO DO (SEO)
SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION... AND WE'RE ONE OF THEM
It Reads Like Satire or Parody, But It Isn't
From the New Jersey Express-Times: 'I'm tired of being forced into the shadows by society'
It is so nice to see ACLU not prepared to be judgmental.
After nearly three decades of failed relationships and emotional discontent, Lindsay Ashford has finally found himself.
Since he was a child, Ashford has always had a deep attraction to young girls but never acted on his urges or knew they had a name.
It wasn't until five years ago, at the age of 30, that Ashford realized why his brief marriage and his countless flings across the United States and Europe always ended the same.
Ashford is a pedophile.
For most of his life, he has buried his emotions and masked his long-secreted attraction. It wasn't until recently that Ashford decided to throw off the shackles of pedophilia and shed light on what he says is a misunderstood "sexual orientation." Last year, he became perhaps one of the first pedophiles in the world to put his name and face on a Web site to publicly profess his love for children.
"I am tired of being forced into the shadows by society," Ashford said recently in an e-mail interview. "I have committed no crime, therefore there is no good reason that I should have to hide myself. As long as pedophiles continue to hide, there is no chance of them ever being accepted."
Ashford, an American expatriate living in the south of France, believes it is time the public learned pedophiles are different from child molesters in that they enjoy a romantic and emotional, but not always sexual, connection with children. He also believes it is time for a child rights movement that will give kids more say in how to live their lives.
...
The Danish Pedophile Association is another group with global reach and may offer the most-extensive set of links to similar pro-pedophilia groups on the World Wide Web. Like Ashford, it takes the position that pedophilia is not a sexual disorder, but an orientation that cannot be changed.
Pedophilia "has all the same characteristics as homosexuality, transvestism, fetishism, etc.," said Dan Markussen, spokesman for the 100-member association, which was founded in 1985. "Sexual orientation is defined as a lifelong attraction, which pedophilia obviously is."
Homosexual groups keep their distance
The assertion by pedophiles that their attraction to children is a natural sexual orientation with which they were born has done little to gain them allies. It is especially touchy for homosexuals -- who were similarly maligned in the past -- because gay advocacy groups used the same argument to win segments of social acceptance over the past two decades.
...
While many may disagree with the pedophiles' claim that they are born with a taste for the young, a leading American doctor on the subject of pedophilia is willing to concede they are half-right.
"I think it can be both a disorder and an orientation," said Dr. Frederick Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.
While he believes people who are sexually attracted to children should not feel ashamed of their condition, he also says they should not act on them.
"Many of these people need help in not acting on these very intense desires in the same way that a drug addict or alcoholic may need help," he said. "We don't for the most part blame someone these days for their alcoholism. We do believe that these people have a disease or a disorder, but we also recognize that in having it that it impairs their function, that it causes them suffering that they need to turn for help."
Markussen, the Danish Pedophile Association spokesman, said that Berlin's line of thinking only leads to further public persecution of pedophiles.
"If it were a disease then it should be possible to cure it," Markussen said. "A few therapists have claimed that they could cure pedophilia as well as homosexuality, etc., but follow-up studies have never confirmed this."
...
Ashford and the other pedophile groups are quick to condemn child rape and those who prey upon children for sex. He said that while pedophiles and child molesters are often linked, they are in reality nothing alike. He blamed the media for distorting the difference.
"The media has an inaccurate conception of what a pedophile is, using the term 'pedophile' synonymously with 'child molester,'" he said. "In actual fact, most pedophiles are not child molesters at all and do not act out upon their desires, while many child molesters are not actually pedophiles. Numerous studies support this claim, and indeed, many anti-pedophile organizations state this as well."
...
Still, pedophiles, and NAMBLA in particular, fail to get the same support from organizations that traditionally stand up for groups fighting for acceptance, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
"We're not taking any position on NAMBLA," said Larry Frankel, legislative director for the ACLU in Pennsylvania.
You could take this article, replace the word "pedophile" with "homosexual," and run it thirty years ago--and every bit of it would make just as much sense--even to this part of the article: Despite public outrage, pedophiles will continue to press on through their intricate links of Web sites. Both Ashford, who has a daughter from his failed marriage, and Markussen claim to be celibate pedophiles, which they say has led to a feeling of emptiness in their lives.
The article does contain the obligatory, "homosexual organizations repudiate pedophilia" theme, but neglect to mention that ten years ago, homosexual groups had internal organization fights over this issue.
"For a long time, I found a physical level of satisfaction by having relationships with adult women or with teenage girls over the age of consent," said Ashford, who claims to have twice tried to take his own life. But "emotional or spiritual satisfaction is not a possibility. The feeling of futility leaves me frequently sad and depressed."
Markussen's tale is similar.
"Most pedophiles lead a terrible life," Markussen said. "They can't tell anybody about their feelings. They have to fake interest in adults. Many live in social isolation which leads to weirdness."
Declaring Victory on the Photon Instruments 5" Refractor
I took it to a star party last night. I had a chance to look at Saturn through several different telescopes, both reflectors and refractors, under the same sky, and the same conditions of darkness. There was only one telescope that showed more detail on Saturn than my Photon--and that was an Astrophysics Starfire 7" apochromatic refractor. (These aren't made anymore, but I am sure that I could buy one used for $7500-$8000.)
I looked through a 6" Chinese achromat sold under the Galileo brandname. Cassini's Division was invisible, and there was no detail on the planet itself. I looked through a Meade 8" Dobsonian. Ditto.
The Starfire was indeed an impressive view--but it did not show dramatically more detail on Saturn and its rings than the Photon Instruments 5" refractor. In both cases, Cassini's Division was black at the ansae (the left and right sides of the planet), and visible in front and back of the planet. It was perhaps a little blacker in the Starfire, and there was more detail visible in the clouds on the planet.
Now, the Starfire's image was definitely brighter and whiter, as you would expect with almost twice the surface area to gather light. The Photon's image would have broken down at the magnification that the Starfire was using, and this is definitely one of the virtues of the apochromatic design--it tolerates high magnification much better. The Starfire was also color-free, while the Photon definitely a slight violet haze around Saturn. Still, the difference was not startling between the two, and I feel like my Photon Instruments was a real bargain.
I had a chance to look at Jupiter as well through both the Starfire and the Photon Instruments. Jupiter was still low in the sky, and seeing conditions necessarily limited what either refractor could do. Still, the Starfire's advantage in image detail (once you ignore a bit of color fringing) was not dramatic.
The next step is to install a Chromacor, and see how much better I can make this.
