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. |
Friday, September 15, 2006
Patent Question: Have You Ever Applied For a Patent Without a Patent Attorney? Or at least done much of the process without one? I filed a provisional patent application last December, and while I would like to think the product might eventually bring in enough royalties to justify the $8,000 to $12,000 that a patent attorney typically charges, it seems like a bit of a long shot. If there were some way to do some of the work myself, and save a few thousand dollars, that would seem worthwhile. At even $8,000, it seems so unlikely to ever pay for itself that I really have a hard time justifying that kind of an expenditure. I've ordered up Nolo Press's book about how to patent without an attorney. I was pretty impressed with their book on how to get a provisional patent application, and according to the Nolo Press web site, it is possible to get a patent on your own. We'll see. My Upcoming Book: Armed America You can at least see the cover of it at Amazon.com. The suggested retail price is $26.99; Amazon, of course, has it heavily discounted. I would prefer that people not do business with Amazon.com, for the reasons that I have explained here. On the other hand, no other web book store seems to have it listed yet, and I would dearly love to see it sell a few hundred thousand copies, so that I can retire. There were a number of people who were involved in review and editing of the book, and to whom I promised a copy. As soon as my big stack arrives, your autographed copy will be on its way. At Least the Guns Were Registered The Toronto Globe and Mail is reporting, concerning Kimveer Gill's murder weapons:
Yeah, a fat lot of good that did. When you read Gill's website, it makes you wonder if the two billion Canadian dollars spent on mandatory registration might have been better spent on mental illness identification and treatment programs. Everytime I Say To Myself, "I'm Being Too Hard On Liberals" I go read the Liberal Idaho blog, and I realize, no, I'm being far too easy on them. Some recent examples, such as this discussion of enthusiastic Republicans:
Someone has never seen the antiwar crowd ranting and raving, I guess.
Now what's funny about this is that the Democrats are insisting that the Republicans are trying to starve necessary government functions by cutting taxes--and this guy is complaining that Republicans are going to raise taxes? And this piece, discussing a recent study that found that people that drink at bars have higher average paychecks than those that don't, and doesn't even consider the possibility that rather than drinking at bars increases paychecks, that perhaps those with larger paychecks can afford to drink at bars. Let's see, a beer at a bar is going to cost you $3? Or you could buy a sixpack at the store for about $7. Hmmm. I suppose that if you like to drink, and you have lots of money, you can afford to go to the bar. What's sad about Chris at Liberal Idaho is it seems from the frequency of his postings about this subject, that alcohol is a very important part of his life. And this item by Chris, in which he mentions a study that finds that by the third generation, immigrants have generally lost proficiency in the language of their ancestral country, and suggests that Bill Sali (who is a Republican running for Congress here) needs to hear about it:
One of the defining characteristics of liberalism is an arrogant assumption that anyone that disagrees with them is an ignorant knuckle-dragger. Yet Republicans are actually slightly more likely to be college graduates than Democrats, and you know, a few of us actually know how to string words together, and have books published (that aren't just full of pretty pictures), and do serious statistical work. And more of the same here, where Chris points to an article in Spanish on the Grassroots for Grant blog (Grant is the Democrat trying to get himself elected to Congress from our district): This is classic!
Chris's stereotypes of conservatives: evil; tax-raisers; and so ignorant that they don't even recognize a foreign language as such. If I were with the Grant for Congress campaign, I would tell Liberal Idaho to stop being an active supporter. Chris is an embarrassment. If the Grant for Congress campaign doesn't consider Liberal Idaho an embarrassment, that tells me quite enough about Grant. Maybe Liberal Idaho thinks these ignorant and nasty stereotypes are funny. If so, he needs his funny bone recalibrated. Great Balloons! A friend sent this picture--it would certainly cause a double take to have this guy blast past you on the freeway!  Weather & Insulation The weather has changed here quite dramatically in the last few weeks. At the beginning of September, we were still having to run the air conditioning throughout the day--and even at night, it was often necessary. Yet our electric bill for a 2300 square foot house was only $61 for August. All that insulation means that the air conditioner, when it was running, would cool the house off quite effectively--and then the air conditioner would turn off, and stay off for 30 or 40 minutes at a stretch. Since the weather started to cool, we have been able to turn off the air conditioning. We still needed it for a couple of hours in the late afternoon at the start of September, but we have not had it running at all for about a week--nor have we had the furnace running. We've had some crisp mornings over the last few days. This morning, the outside thermometer showed 44 degrees when I woke up about 7:00 AM. The temperature inside the house was 68 degrees. The combination of R-50 insulation in the ceiling, insulation under the floor, and R-38 insulation in the 2x6 walls, means that the waste heat from computers, appliances, night lights, and two humans, a dog and a cat, is sufficient to hold at least 24 degrees higher temperature inside. Thursday, September 14, 2006
It Is Possible To Do An Astonishing Amount of Research Without Leaving Home Albert Deutsch's The Mentally Ill in America is one of the first modern histories of American mental illness and its treatment. Like a lot of "firsts," more recent histories have identified a number of flaws in his work--which is really no surprise. Deutsch was doing much of his work for the American Foundation for Mental Hygiene (the name of which makes me think of a bunch of bluenoses out to clean up America's dirty minds), and it certainly influenced his analysis. He is certainly biased strongly towards the mental health professionals, and like a lot of liberals of his time, he was a big fan of eugenics and mandatory sterilization of the feebleminded. If you think I'm being unfair to liberals of his time, remember that it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who gave us the infamous, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" in Buck v. Bell (1927). One of the chapters of the book that I am working on next covers the development of civil commitment law in the U.S. Since this is an overview, I'm fighting my natural tendency to go read every primary source, and examine every such statute in all 50 states. (Stop! Less caffeine!) Still, there are times that you do have to find the primary sources, to verify that the secondary sources accurately describe the primary sources, and because you often find some startling information that way. Also, there are times when the secondary sources do not agree with each other, and I need to figure out which is correct. This leads me the case of Morgan Hinchman, who was committed in 1845 to one of the Pennsylvania state mental hospitals, at the request of his mother, sisters, and a number of friends. They indicated that his behavior was strange, dangerous to himself and others, somewhat violent, and gave indications of not being entirely in touch with reality. Deutsch tells how Hinchman filed suit against a huge list of conspirators, including people that were just passing by. Okay, your first reaction is, "Hmmm. Paranoid schizophrenia?" But Hinchman won his suit, and was awarded $10,000 in damages against family members, the sheriff, and doctors who had certified him. This is contrary to what you would expect, if he was actually exhibiting these signs of mental illness. Because Deutsch indicates that this case started Pennsylvania (and by example, other states) down the road towards a more formalized commitment process, that I thought it would be useful to see what else I could find about Hinchman. To my surprise, I found [An American Citizen], The Hinchman Conspiracy Case, in Letters to the New York Home Journal... (Philadelphia: Stokes & Brother, Arcade, 1849), online at Cornell University, oddly enough, in a collection of anti-slavery documents. This is a book published by the defendants in Hinchman's lawsuit. I also found a 1982 article by Paul S. Appelbaum and Kathleen N. Kemp, "The Evolution of Commitment Law in the Nineteenth Century: A Reinterpretation," in Law and Human Behavior, that argues that Deutsch got it wrong with how the Hinchman case influenced the law, and that Deutsch's oversimplification has played a part in subsequent understandings of the development of civil commitment law. What I would really like to find is the 1849 decision of the Pennsylvania court in Morgan Hinchman's lawsuit. If you spend much time in Pennsylvania law libraries, it sure would be nice if you find it. I don't know at what level of the courts this suit happened, but it was in Philadelphia. UPDATE: A reader writes: You should take a look at my wife's new book: "Archie and Amelie: Love and Madness in the Gilded Age," by Donna M. Lucey. It documents the famous Archie Chanler lunacy case from 1896, which stretched on for decades. He changed his name to Chaloner, wrote a book about his experience, and campaigned against the "lunacy trust" as he called it. It Appears That I Was Right The young man who went on the shooting rampage at Dawson College yesterday left a web page (apparently taken down already, but the cached version is here) that was about as clear as could be about the extent of his mental problems. He was into Goth, and the page contains references to paranoia, depression, and feeling nothing. Like a lot of his generation, he has filled in various "scoring" surveys, and included the results that supposedly match those surveys on his website. They would be a little disturbing even if he hadn't gone on a rampage yesterday: WAIT THERE. We're coming to get you now
You scored as Satanism. Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism. You scored as Suicide. Your death will be suicide. What more can I say? You scored as The Undertaker. You are the Lord of Darkness. NOTHING CAN STOP YOU! Why? Because not only are you menacing physically but mentally as well! That's hard to do! Also, the overwhelming respect you get by everyone else adds to your invulnerability! You're engulfed by Darkness no question about it. And if you want, you'll bring unlucky souls WITH YOU! When the inevitable comes, you WILL NOT REST IN PEACE! The Land of Darkness is your dreary home. Your life is bleak and sinister. You are prone to depression. You feel anger at the world and you feel like the victim. Everyone is out to get you. You have no problem showing your emotions, and you probably show them in a destructive way. You might have no objections to causing other people pain as you put yourself through pain. You probably cut or Disorder Rating Likes: You can't read a site like this without just wanting to cry. Here was someone calling out for help--and either no one was listening, or he wasn't willing to accept help when it was offered. What a waste. What a tragedy. Wednesday, September 13, 2006
I Just Love When The ACLU Boasts About The Things They Do Otherwise, this would be so offensive that I would have to assume that it was libelous: COLUMBUS, OH -- Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.Aren't you glad that the ACLU is concerned about eliminating unnecessary paperwork? (For the first time in history, I think.) Yup, it's "offensive" to say that you aren't a terrorist or working for a terrorist organization. Why, someone might think that you are against cutting a conscious person's head off with a knife, or murdering school children. We certainly can't have that! Thanks to Stop The ACLU for the pointer. For you liberals who like to call me a wingnut--just one question: what is so offensive about not working for terrorists? Is it really "useless"? I don't think so. One of these days, we might actually get proof that at least some ACLU directors or attorneys are knowingly working for terrorist groups--and then it would be quite useful to prosecute them for perjury, and send them to prison. After all, people that hijack airliners, behead hostages, stone to death women for "impurity," and object to women learning to read--they need the ACLU to protect their interests. A Spectacular Headline On A Powerful Article This article from the Australian newspaper Herald Sun has a great headline on it: Bulled by a Gore And it keeps going! The question that always bothers me is this: Is Al Gore really so ignorant that he believes all this nonsense he spouts? Or does he believe that a bit of exaggeration is necessary in the hopes of meeting in some happy middle? Or is he just a politician willing to ride any horse that gets him into power? This set of pictures of Al Gore with Rev. Fred Phelps (you know, Mr. "God Hates Fags") suggests that Al Gore will do anything to get into power. Labels: global warming Politically Motivated, Inaccurate History? I started a little fracas in the comments section over at Volokh Conspiracy by pointing out that while it is now an arrestable offense to distribute leaflets that disapprove of homosexuality in Britain, homosexuals should consider themselves fortunate that our society was prepared to let them at least advocate for homosexuality 50 years ago--or they would not be in the position that they are in now. The response of homosexuals who cruise Professor Volokh's postings was to assert that homosexual advocacy (as distinguished from homosexual sex) was a criminal offense: In 1954, a small magazine was began entitled ONE: The Homosexual Magazine. The magazine was not a porno mag, but rather was issue oriented. The first cover featured an article entitled "Homosexual Marriage?" Initially, they received advance ruling form the Post Office that the mag was obsene in no way and cleared the way to mailing. Once issued, however, The US Post Office siezed 600 hundreds copies of the first issue, declared it obsene. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, became obsessed over the issue, and was determined to crush ONE, and began investigations on any criminal sanctions that could be imposed on the mag or the people behind it. ONE filed a lawsuit, lost at every level, but finally the SCOTUS ruled in its favor. One v. Olesen (1958). Part of the reason SCOTUS ruled it favor of One is specifically because the mag merely talked about homosexuality, and did not ADVOCATE in favor of it. Had the mag taken the step of advocacy, the ruling may well have turned out differently.Troublemaker that I am, I went and looked up One v. Olesen (1958), and concluded that this was quite a bit to derive from: PER CURIAM. That's the entire decision in One v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958). You will notice that the free speech rights of homosexuals were upheld. Professor Eric Rasmusen thought it would be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit ruling was--and discovered that the description of this case did not match the facts at all: I found the 9th Circuit opinion, and we learn that what the case was all about was the sending of obscene material by U.S. mail. It turns out that there was no prosecution of the magazine at all. Rather, the lawsuit was started by the magazine, which asked the court to issue an injunction forcing Postmaster-General Olesen to send the magazine by U.S. mail, contrary to his claim that the magazine contained some obscene pages. One v. Olesen, 241 F.2d 772 (1957, 9th Circuit). Moreover, the obscenity was not related to the advocacy of homosexuality, but rather involved such things as a short story, a poem, and an advertisement.One of the very troubling aspects of what has happened to the history profession over the last twenty years is the rise of what I call political advocacy history--where someone writes a history book where the primary purpose is to justify a particular current political position. This doesn't mean that history books that reach a particular conclusion are bad, nor does it mean that an author can't have an opinion that informs a particular perspective. But it does mean that you can't just make stuff up to make your position stronger when you get to court. That was clearly the case with Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, where his desire to promote gun control led him to create an alternate universe. Unfortunately for Bellesiles, he cited sources in this universe, and unlike his ideological stablemates in 1984, there was no Ministry of Truth going around a revising all his sources to fit. I've pointed out that the claims made by historians in their brief in the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) decision are, at best, incomplete. To the extent that they make claims about the history of sodomy laws, their incompleteness make them wrong. I don't know if the Randy R. who posted the summary of One v. Olesen (1958) misread Courting Justice or not, but I would not be all surprised to find that it is part of this political advocacy history movement. Good Little Leftists Everywhere Can Rejoice In Their Allies This guy wants you to download Loose Change, the documentary that "tells the truth" about what happened on 9/11. Make sure you visit the top of his blog, and see all the wonderful stuff with which you have made common cause. I'm sure that good little leftists will fall all over themselves with joy at who their friends are. Readers in Massachusetts If you are one of those people who occasionally spends time in a law library there--could I impose upon you to photocopy a January 1845 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Matter of Oakes? It should be at most a couple of pages. I'm happy to pay for photocopying and mailing, or even better, if you could scan and email it to me. I've found an online copy of it here, but I would feel more comfortable citing a printed copy. Canada's Very Strict Gun Control Laws They were created in response to a very similar incident in 1989. They didn't work: MONTREAL (AP) - A gunman in a black trench coat opened fire Wednesday in the cafeteria of a Montreal college and wounded at least 12 people - six critically - before shooting himself, witnesses and authorities said.Is it perhaps time to ask what might work? I would be surprised if the gunman was lawfully in possession of a firearm. I would be very, very surprised if the gunman does not turn out to have a long history of mental illness, arrests, and petty crime convictions. It will likely turn out that somewhere, the gunman was known to be a danger to himself and others--and the Canadian mental health system, which is just about as damaged as ours, was unable to hold him against his will. Big Cities Make You Crazy Perhaps literally so. Until the last decade before the American Revolution, there were no institutions for the mentally ill in America. For the most part, mentally ill people were cared for by their family or the town in which they lived. On those rare occasions when a mentally ill person had been convicted of a violent crime, or was otherwise considered dangerous, they were often confined at home. I've mentioned the example of Roger Humphry, who murdered his mother, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was confined at home by his father, in 1759 Connecticut. Histories such as Gerald N. Grob, Mental Institutions in America: Social Policy to 1875 (New York: The Free Press, 1973), 37-38, argue that urbanization played a role in increasing perceived need for institutionalization of the mentally ill, partly because the anonymity of urban life meant that you didn't know what the person acting strangely might do. In a small town, everyone knew everyone else, and if Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith was prone to odd behavior, you knew what that behavior would include, and that this person probably wasn't a danger. Not so with a complete stranger in say, 1790 Boston. There also seems to be agreement that mental illness rates actually increased in the early Republic, and at least partly because Irish immigrants had much higher rates of mental illness than Americans. My curiosity caused me to go looking for evidence of disparities in national rates of mental illness, and I found that there are a number of studies that conclude that being born in, or at least growing up in urban areas increases the risk of schizophrenia and other psychoses--and these studies controlled for a variety of possible confounding factors. See G. Lewis, A. David, S. Andreasson, P. Allebeck, “Schizophrenia and city life,” Lancet [July 18, 1992] 340(8812):137-40Urbanization and psychosis: a study of 1942-1978 birth cohorts in The Netherlands,” Psychological Medicine, [July 1998] 28(4):871-9, abstract available here. No one has exactly identified what aspects of urbanization might cause the increase in psychoses, and perhaps whatever the risk factor present today wasn't present in the substantially smaller cities of early America. It is rather interesting, however, that it would appear that mental illness rates appear to have increased at about the point where America developed cities with populations in the tens of thousands. Cities: who needs them? Tuesday, September 12, 2006
You Always Find Neat Stuff After The Book Is Done I was digging for information about Colonial civil commitment laws for the mentally ill, and I found something that would have been nice to put in my forthcoming book Armed America--but you always find these last little dollops of whipped cream on the pudding too late! I could find no evidence that Catholics were ever disarmed in America under the English Disarming Papists Act, and made that point in my book--but here I find evidence that while some Catholics in Maryland were disarmed (apparently unofficially) during the Glorious Revolution (the one that brought William & Mary to the throne), this was made right a few years later. From Archives of Maryland 20:224: Upon Representation Ordered that all persons who tooke any private Armes from Roman Catholicks or others in the time of the late Revolution that they bring and deliver all such Armes up into the hands of the Collonell of the County where taken, who is hereby Obliged & Required to Cause the same to be restored to the Right Owners. This Sentence Should Be Taken Out and Shot It is the first sentence (and only one sentence) of a law passed by the Maryland legislature in 1773 that I think was supposed to protect the rights of minors, the retarded, and the mentally ill, but I don't have the patience to try and read this multipage sentence. From Archives of Maryland, 64:201-3: Be it enacted by the Right Honourable the Lord Proprietary by and with the Advice and Consent of his Governor and the Upper and Lower Houses of Assembly and the Authority of the same That from and after this Session of Assembly Persons under the Age of one and twenty Years and Persons being Idiot Lunatick or non compos Mentis seized or possessed of any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments in Trust or by Way of Mortgage or seized or possessed thereof charged or chargeable with the Payment of Money or Tobacco and therefore subject or liable to a Decree for Sale or bound by an Agreement to convey made by some Person or Persons having Right or Title to make such Agreement and therefore subject or liable to a Decree for Conveyance on a Suit for a Specific Performance or Execution of such Agreement shall by Direction of the Court of Chancery signified by an Order made upon the hearing of all Persons concerned on the Petition of the Person or Persons for whom such Infant or Infants or Persons being Idiot Lunatick or non compos Mentis or his her or their Committee or Committees in his her or their Name or Names shall be seized or possessed in Trust or of the Mortgagor or Mortgagors or other Person or Persons entitled to Redemption or Person or Persons entitled to Money or Tobacco secured by or upon the said Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or of the Person or Persons entitled to any Money or Tobacco with the Payment whereof the said Lands Tenements or Hereditaments are or shall be charged or chargeable or of the Person or Persons entitled to a Specific Performance or Execution of such Agreement as aforesaid convey and assure any such Lands Tenements or Hereditaments in such Manner as the Court of Chancery shall by such Order so to be obtained direct to any other Person or Persons and such Conveyance or Assurance so to be had and made as aforesaid shall be as good and effectual in Law as if such Infant or Infants were at the Time of making such Conveyance or Assurance of the full Age of twenty one Years and the Conveyance or Assurance so to be had and made as aforesaid in the Case 0f Persons being Idiot Lunatick or non compos Mentis shall in like Manner be as good and effectual as if the said Person or Persons was or were at the Time of making such Conveyance or Assurance of sound Mind Memory and Understanding and had by him her or themselves executed the same and all and every such Infant or Infants or Persons being Idiot Lunatick or non Compos Mentis being Trustee or Trustees Mortgagee or Mortgagees or being seized of possessed of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments liable or subject in any manner aforesaid or the Committee or Committees of all and every such Persons being Idiot Lunatick or non compos Mentis shall and may be compelled by such Order as aforesaid to make such Conveyance or Conveyances Assurance or Assurances in like Manner as Persons of full Age and Sane Memory are compellable to make Provided always that no Order or Direction as aforesaid shall be made or given in Virtue of this Infants seized or possessed of any Land Tenements or Hereditaments charged with or subject to the Payment of Money or Tobacco unless it shall appear that the Guardian or Guardians of such Infant or Infants hath or have consented thereunto and also that such Infant or Infants will not sustain any Detriment Disadvantage or Inconvenience from such Order or Direction and also that upon every Order or Direction for Conveyance to be made by an Infant or Infants for the Specifick Performance and Execution of any such Agreement as aforesaid Liberty shall be reserved for the said Infant or Infants to Shew Cause within six Months after he she or they shall have attained the full Age of twenty one Years if such Infants or Infants shall attain such full Age and also for the Heirs of such Infant or Infants if such Infant or Infants shall not so long live in six Months after the Decease of such Infant or Infants if the said Heirs shall then be of full Age and if such Heirs shall not then be of full Age in six Months after such Heirs shall have attained his her or their full Age why such Conveyance ought not to have been ordered or directed and on sufficient Cause being shewn as aforesaid the Infant or Infants aforesaid or his or their Heirs shall be entitled to and have a Re-Conveyance by Order or Decree of the said Courts of the said Lands Tenements or Hereditaments by whomsoever claimed or possessed by from or under the Conveyance made by such Infant or Infants aforesaid and also a full Account of the Rents and Profits thereof and from the Person who shall have received the same --Just a little reminder that not everyone wrote elegant and clear English back then--and the worst of modern legalese doesn't look quite so bad by comparison. Monday, September 11, 2006
There Are Two Reasons Why This Makes Sense The first reason is one that every Christian can appreciate and respect: spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The second reason is that an Iran with a rising Christian population is a bit less likely to be interested in a confrontation with the West. Sure, there will still be strongly felt Iranian nationalistic sentiments--but the apocalyptic "twelfth imam" stuff that the current president of Iran believes isn't going to sway Iranian Christians in his favor--quite the opposite. The Urgent Need Of New Testaments In Iran How About Starting Small? Michael Williams points me to this thoughtful piece by Randy Kirk pointing out that weather forecasts even a few days in advance are notoriously inaccurate--and we are supposed to be making major national policy decisions based on predictions of global temperatures fifty years in the future? I grew up in St. Louis where the mantra was, "If you don't like the weather now, wait an hour. My friend Mike Williams and his lovely wife have just moved from the "boring" perfect weather in West Los Angeles to the exciting, not-so-perfect weather in St. Louis. Mike posts that the weatherman is never right in St. Louis, and gives a few examples. He ends by suggesting that the huge number of variables in the weather system there makes it a tough job to predict weather with any accuracy.If this stuff is science (you know, experimental method, prediction), then I would expect that a scientist should be able to give me some predictions of the future, with a statistical statement about its accuracy. "The yield from this reaction will be 20 kilograms, +- .002 grams." "The height of the waves after we drop a 50 ton weight into the lake will be 35 centimeters, with a standard deviation of 1.24 centimeters." As Randy Kirk points out, local weather prediction over a period of days should be substantially simpler than global prediction over a period of decades--and even this seems to be barely better than a guess. Labels: global warming Inexpressible Rage I caught a little bit of the retrospectives on what happened on 9/11, and the more I look at this, the more rage that I feel about the left's efforts to blame the United States for what happened. A lot of local leftists insist that we got 9/11 because the U.S. is a bully, telling other countries what to do. So why is that the hijackers of 9/11 were all from countries in which the U.S. has never intervened? If the hijackers had been Salvadorans, or Cubans, or Guatemalans, or Nicaraguans, or Panamanians, or Iranians, this argument might at least have a starting point for discussion. But look at a list of the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers: Egyptian: 1; Saudi Arabia: 12; Lebanese: 1; United Arab Emirates: 1; unknown: 4. The U.S. has never intervened in Saudi Arabia--the only U.S. forces there were at the request of the Saudi government, for their protection. The U.S. has never intervened in Egypt, or the United Arab Emirates. Lebanon's president asked for U.S. assistance in 1958, and U.S. forces were there for only a few months. U.S. forces were part of a multinational peacekeeping force in 1982-83 sent to prevent civil war and to encourage the Israelis to withdraw. The real source of the problem is that the Arab world really doesn't want to face some unpleasant facts. It is poor--in spite of sitting on top of a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves--not because of the West, and not because of Israel, but because its culture seems to be incapable of taking an enormous amount of capital, and turning it into a wealth creation machine. Instead, at best, they produce thugocracies. Kuwait and now Iraq are the only really functional Arab democracies, and one of those needed to be invaded to make it happen. Throughout the world, there are cultures that started out with less potential capital than the Arab nations--and managed to move up economically. It is just easier to blame the United States, rather than look in the mirror for the causes of their poverty and misery. UPDATE: Outside the Beltway has gathered together a number of leftist comments about 9/11--the "Blame America" crowd is at it again--the national version of, "If you weren't wearing a short skirt, you wouldn't have been raped." Andy Rooney, of course, wants us to engage in introspection: The disaster on September 11th wasn't like any of those. It was manmade. Death by design. Some people who hated Americans set out to kill a lot of us and they succeededI can't even quote some of the other examples that Outside the Beltway found because of language, but they basically boil down to claiming that George Bush was an abject coward, and had a good giggle because of 9/11. But of course, al-Qaeda's fight is not against the U.S., but against all non-Muslim nations. At least, Osama Bin Laden says so: This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.According to al-Jazeera, the recently released tape of Bin Laden and two of the 9/11 hijackers states why they were attacking the U.S.: The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.As one of the commenters over at Outside the Beltway points out (and from whom I cribbed these links): The US saved Muslims in Bosnia and had nothing to do with Chechnya. So the notion that AQ is simply reacting to US foreign policy is without merit. And the notion that you are going to change the minds of religious fanatics also lacks a degree of common sense. Five Years Later, It Is Almost Like 9/11 Didn't Happen The United States must win wars rapidly--or not win them at all. For a year or two, partisan politics wasn't an issue--the threat was so clear, and the danger so obvious, that even the most vicious and dishonest of Democrats wouldn't play games with it. Even today, there are Democrats in Congress who know that the War on Terror isn't a game. But it didn't take long for the dishonest wing of the Democratic Party, led by Michael Moore, to start its campaign of blaming America. Liberals Are At It Again Professor Volokh mentions a news account of a man being arrested for distributing anti-homosexual literature in Britain: Professor Volokh points out: It does look like publicly teaching traditional Christianity might indeed be a crime in England.And of course, liberals respond in the comments. Dilan Esper writes: Obviously, this is a bad law because it censors anti-gay speech, and homophobes should have every right to express their opposition to gays and lesbians forming relationships.Angus writes: I am very near an absolutist on free speech issues, but I want to take a step back here and wonder if this is really such a travesty of justice, and one that would certainly never happen here.And more directly, Bruce Wilder writes: "It does look like publicly teaching traditional Christianity might indeed be a crime in England."If you think that I am incorrectly describing these apologists for totalitarianism as liberals, visit their blogs. Dilan Esper's blog is here; Bruce Wilder's blog is here. Some of the remarks in this thread reveal the homofascist mentality at work. Bruce Wilder, in particular, shows his desire to suppress any idea that interferes with what increasingly is liberalism's Prime Directive--homosexuality. One of the reasons that I have moved from libertarian to conservative is the increasing realization that a society that does anything more than simply tolerate* homosexuality becomes a society that doesn't tolerate values that conflict with it. The choice seems not to be tolerance of a variety of perspectives. Homosexuality (at least, in its dominant political form) insists on occupying the entire moral space of a society--and any values or beliefs that disapprove of it must be actively suppressed. *Note: "tolerate" in the original sense of the word. In practice, by the 1980s, homosexuality, even where it was still unlawful, was generally tolerated in the U.S. Don't have sex in public parks or restrooms; don't make a point of having sex where the neighbors will see it; don't make a big noise about being gay--and no one will do anything about it. Homosexuals, because of their profound need for approval for something that many of them know is shameful and weird, raised the ante from tolerance to not just social acceptance, but legal mandates of acceptance. Your choice: homosexuality, or a largely free society. Sunday, September 10, 2006
Are The Democrats Going to Regain Control of the House? That was conventional wisdom a few weeks ago. Steve Frank points to a recent article in Human Events arguing that the wind is changing again--and what seemed like Democrats retaking control of the House is far less certain now: The September consensus: nearly unanimous. Voter anxiety over the economy, health care and financial security, the Washington Post's Dan Balz observed, threatens to put Republican candidates across the country on the defensive this fall. Veteran Congress watcher Stuart Rothenberg predicted a heavy-damage scenario for the Republicans. The House minority leader even guaranteed that "we're going to win the House back."I can't immediately find the Gallup polls being mentioned here, but I don't find this implausible. Remember that much of the upset at Republicans is because of Bush's immigration stand--and this is an area where many House Republicans are with the majority, not with the President. As those House Republicans return home, campaign, and talk about what they've done, a fair number of their constituents are probably rethinking their position--remembering that the Democratic Party, by and large, is the party of open borders, and the Republican Party, by and large, is the party of enforcing existing immigration laws. Oh, No! Ulterior Political & Religious Motives in the Creative Community! Yes, this a real problem--especially because Hollywood has never been motivated by hidden political agendas before this! The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series "under a shroud of secrecy" about the 9/11 attacks. "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project,'" the Post noted.As I've said before, if this miniseries has "dramatized" real events in a way that is inaccurate, ABC should correct those scenes. But for the left to be whining about this is rich. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?" "I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." Until Everyone Is Free To Marry! I saw this announcement last night about how Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie announced that they aren't going to marry "until everyone is free to marry" and my wife and I both had the same thought: Warren Jeffs, polygamist and "husband" of little girls. Michael Williams beat me to the blog about this--and included some examples that make me want to laugh, such as this interspecies wedding from January: JERUSALEM - Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.You will recall my confusion a while back when I saw that supermodel Heidi Klum was marrying Seal--and I thought the headline referred to the marine mammal. UPDATE: A reader asks: Mr. Pitt left his wife for another woman and we're supposed to care about what he thinks about marriage? I Love This Story--There's Just One Thing That Is Very Curious About It It's from CNN: New York City is extraordinarily tight on issuing carry permits, except to the rich, powerful, and Mafia-connected. And some woman who lives in Harlem has a carry permit? My guess is that she has a "premises permit" to possess a pistol at her home or business (which are difficult, but not spectacularly hard to get), and she was probably in violation of the law carrying a loaded handgun to the range. Perhaps the police chose not to prosecute since she was clearly in need a loaded handgun, as the unfolding of events demonstrate. Utah Supreme Court Rules The Utah Legislature Is In Charge of Making Utah Laws The University of Utah has been arguing since at least 2001 that the state legislature isn't its boss, arguing that it may prohibit concealed carry of handguns on campus, even for those issued a Utah concealed carry permit. The University of Utah argues that it is the supreme authority of what happens on campus--not the Utah legislature, who think that because they created the University of Utah, and fund it, and write all other laws in effect in Utah, that their laws are supreme. The Utah Supreme Court has finally ruled in the matter: The state's highest court ruled Friday that the University of Utah has no right to ban guns on campus, rejecting the argument that prohibiting firearms is part of the school's power to control academic affairs.Now, argue if you want that this is a poor idea to allow concealed weapon permit holders to carry on campus, but to argue that the University of Utah has authority to decide what laws of the state of Utah it will allow? That's presumptuous. |
