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: deinstitutionalization Labels: deinstitutionalization Labels: gun rights, history, humor Labels: welcome to Idaho Labels: freedom of speech Labels: homosexuality Labels: machining, telescopes Labels: religion Labels: terrorism Labels: gun rights Labels: public education Labels: gun rights Labels: Idaho politics Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Labels: global warming Labels: immigration Labels: terrorism Labels: abortion, homosexuality Labels: concealed carry, gun rights Labels: global warming Labels: film reviews
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.
Gee, I Wonder If There's a Connection Here
One of the recurring claims is that mental hospitals were bad places for the severely mentally ill--that they would have been a lot better off in a community setting. Harding's "Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons with Severe Mental Illness" a 25 year study of the first patients deinstitutionalized back in the 1960s, claimed that patients did as well in a community setting as they would have done in a mental hospital.
Several critics of deinstitutionalization (such as Gerald Grob, the Mad Among Us, 294-5) have suggested that this was because the subjects were people who had lived for many years in institutions, and had internalized the discipline and rules sufficiently to live on the outside. Of course, as with the sane, aging tends to scrape off some of the rough edges.
I can't find a copy of Harding's paper online (it was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1987, just before journals started to routinely put their stuff in PDF format), but I notice that some of the papers that cite it seem to have some interesting characteristics. For example, Julian Leff and Noam Trieman, “Long-stay Patients Discharged From Psychiatric Hospitals,” British Journal of Psychiatry 176(3)[2000]:217-22, talks about the success of deinstitutionalization of long-stay patients in Britain--how those that were deinstitutionalized did as well, and often better, than those that remained institutionalized.
But when you read the paper, you discover that the average age of the group that was discharged was 54 years, and of 670 patients discharged, 126 died during the study period (and no explanation of the causes of death--did they freeze to death, commit suicide, get run over by cars?), and "nine could not be traced." Amazingly enough, the study assumes that these former patients that could not be interviewed were representative of those who could be. Furthermore, 47% of the former patients refused to answer one of the survey forms, the Social Network Schedule.
It's hard for me to take seriously the conclusions that they reached with problems like this.
Schizophrenia
It is just staggering how much damage schizophrenia does to our society. About one percent of the population will suffer from schizophrenia over a lifetime. Until deinstitutionalization, about half of all hospital beds (not just mental hospital beds) were occupied by schizophrenics, because onset was usually in the teens or early adulthood. Until deinstitutionalization (when schizophrenics started dying in large numbers by suicide, murder, or freezing to death), it was common for them to live for decades in institutional settings, largely incurable.
Since deinstitutionalization, the direct costs to the public have probably dropped a bit, but when you consider the number of schizophrenics who are dependent on disability checks rather than able to work, it is shocking what this costs to our society. A lot of them come to tragic ends now. If they are fortunate, they have a family member who is both willing to make the sacrifice to care for them, and is able to keep them properly directed. There have been times in my brother's life that he was completely out of control, and my mother's efforts to care for him have not been successful; there have been other times, such as the last few years, when she has been able to keep him properly directed. A lot of schizophrenics aren't so fortunate.
While I haven't seen any direct evidence of this, it does seem as though a lot of schizophrenics, before they become ill, are people of high intelligence, geniuses like John Nash, or my older brother. (His score on the Army's entrance exam was so remarkable that it caused the Army to offer him an unusual opportunity that kept him from going to Vietnam.)
There must be schizophrenics who are of subnormal intelligence, but what is striking to me is how many of the accounts that I have read of schizophrenics who have ended with tragic ends is that many of them were clearly of superior intelligence. It does make you wonder if whatever genes code for schizophrenia also code for superior intelligence. Some people may carry the schizophrenia gene, but there may be environmental triggers that cause some people to develop it, and others not.
So many lives wasted.
The Modern Equivalent of the Burma Shave Signs
If you are too young to have any idea what the "Burma Shave" signs were--read this first! (And oh, does it make me feel old to have to tell you young people about this!) Anyway, a reader saw what seems to be the modern political equivalent of the Burma Shave signs while on a trip through Illinois:Two weeks ago while traveling through Illinois with my family on I-57 between Champaign and Effingham, we noticed signs in three different locations which promoted a very pro gun message. The signs were in groups of three, rectangular and white (with black letters), and about 7 times wider than the height. They were so well worded we wrote them down. With adequate warning I would have photographed them.
UPDATE: A reader tells me that the domain gunssavelives.com is now in the hands of a speculator trying to sell the domain name. That's unfortunate. I suspect that the signs were put up before someone ran out of money to keep that domain name.
The first set of signs read:
Here is something you should ponder - An armed citizen as first responder - www.gunssavelife.com
The second:
Shooting sports are safe and fun - There's no need to fear a gun - www.gunssavelife.com
The third:
On unarmed citizens the thugs do pray - The Illinois law keeps it that way - www.gunssavelife.com
UPDATE 2: My reader who relayed these apparently got the domain name confused: it is www.gunsavelife.com not www.gunssavelives.com. I've updated above.
Idaho Weather
I remember sitting in a diner many years ago in Lewiston, Idaho during a thunderstorm, and being told by the waitress that in Idaho, "if you don't like the weather, wait twenty minutes, and it'll change."
We've been having a heat wave here the last few days--mid-90s even where we live, above 100 in Horseshoe Bend and Boise. Forest fires north and west of us have also been giving us a lot of smoke.
I had to run down to Kalac's Market in Horseshoe Bend for some rice for dinner, and I found myself saying, "Gee, those almost look like rainclouds." And part way back, huge raindrops started to hit the windshield, and the me (because the top was off the Corvette). Shortly after I drove into the garage, it started hailing! Wow! After hot days like these, hail and rain are so welcome.
What A Surprise! The Fairness Doctrine's Hidden History
I don't always trust WorldNetDaily, but this doesn't surprise me much:According to a Heritage Foundation report, President Richard Nixon, facing a hostile press, began a systematic campaign of harassment of radio and TV stations considered unfriendly to his administration.
The Democrats haven't changed much in four decades--still committed to indirect censorship to get their way.
But Nixon hardly invented the idea of using the Fairness Doctrine to stifle debate and criticism of government policies.
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce in President John F. Kennedy's administration, candidly recalled the way the doctrine was used in the early 1960s.
"We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue," he explained in Fred Friendly's 1976 book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment."
That strategy was developed in 1962 when Kennedy's plans for approval of a nuclear test ban treaty by the U.S. Senate were facing sustained attack from opposition broadcasters.
The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established and funded by the Democrats, began demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine any time a broadcaster denounced the treaty. The campaign was successful. The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the treaty.
In the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson and his Democratic machine prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine." The campaign produced 1,035 letters to stations and 1,678 hours of free air time for the Democrats, playing, in the eyes of the practitioners, no small part in Johnson's landside defeat of Sen. Barry Goldwater.
In a confidential report to the Democratic National Committee, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former Federal Communication Commission staffer, explained: "The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
A Public Library That Isn't Short on Space or Funds!
It is such good news to know that there is a public library out there that has such a surplus of space and funds that it can afford to include useful materials like these:Commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the Stonewall Library and Archives request to move the extensive book, magazine and video collection to ArtSpace library at Holiday Park. The county-run library is owned by the city.
There's probably a place for stuff like this in a research library--right next to the collection of back issues of Mexican Beaver Quarterly and Little Lolitas. I'm not sure that it is exactly the best use of space and funds for a general purpose public library to house such a collection. But Fort Lauderdale--such a progressive place!
Some of the titles on a list that city staff compiled: 100 Percent Beef, Arab Slave Boys, and Lesbian Bedtime Stories.
"I had no idea this was what the homosexual book collection was all about," Naugle said before the meeting, showing a pack of nude gay magazines that city staff said are part of the Stonewall collection.
Optimizing Machining Techniques
I spent way too much of yesterday evening making a caster set for the Meade LX200 tripod--and end up with something that wasn't good enough to ship. It would have worked, sure, but the bore was eccentric and off-center. That's fine for friends (I mean, it's fine to have friends that are eccentric and off-center--most of mine are), but not okay for products!
So this evening, I scrapped about $15 worth of Delrin and three hours of labor, and started over. This time, it took less than hour, and I ended up with a much better result.
The core problem here was that the version that I make that is an insert that slides into the legs of some tripods has to be pretty precisely machined on the outside diameter--2.35" +- .005", for example, for the Losmandy G-11. For the sleeve version, like I build for the Meade LX200, it is the inside diameter of the sleeve that matters--not the outside.
But because I started out making the insert version, I have gotten into the unnecessary habit of turning the outside diameter of the sleeve to a particular size. Partly, it was just a habit, and partly, I rather like the very machined look it produces.
Worse, because I was trying to turn the entire length of the cylinder in one operation, I had to drill and tap a hole in one end, put it on a special holder, rather than just use the 3-jaw chuck to hold the cylinder in place. I have never produced a perfectly centered hole, so if I start with a 2.265" outside diameter piece of plastic, I typically have to turn it down to 2.20" to get all the outside at the same radius around the center of rotation. This is slow (hence the long operation yesterday evening)--and even then, when it comes time to bore in the center of the sleeve, it is surprisingly easy to end up not being centered.
Anyway, I figured out that I should just put the cylinder in the 3-jaw chuck, and sand off the external surface (which often has brand markings on it) with #80, #180, #800, and #1500 sandpaper. It is fast, and produces an acceptable looking finish that is very smooth. This speeds up the process a lot!
I am also thinking that for the more precisely machined cylinder that are inserts, instead of going through the hassle of trying to get an exactly centered tapped hole in one end (something that often does not happen), it makes more sense to add 3/8" of an inch to cylinder so that I can turn it down for the entire length of the cylinder with the cylinder in the 3-jaw chuck. When it comes time to cut it at the 30 degree angle, I just move the up 3/8" an inch, and have a bit more scrap--but a lot less time spent turning the cylinder to size. Most of the Delrin rods that I start with cost a bit more than $2 an inch, so this turns out to be a materials cost of about $2.50 per set--but a saving of easily six minutes a set, and a more consistent result.
I still have to put a tapped hole in one end, because that's how I attach the cylinder to a fixture when running it through the chop saw to get the 30 degree cut. (This way, I get to keep my fingers attached.) But it no longer has to be a precisely centered, perfectly square hole. It can be even a bit sloppy, because it is just to have an easy way to lock down the cylinder when I put it on the chop saw.
Religious Adherents Map
I posted a map few days ago that showed the percentage of the population by county that showed up as members of 149 religious denominations that participated in a 2000 survey.
I received a number of thoughtful and interesting comments.
One reader points out that:I wouldn't say that religious adherence in LA is concentrated in South Central. Much of what I believe you see in that map, are special factors for LDS and Catholics. Ask any active LDS member, and he will tell you immediately that he is LDS. If he isn't an active member, he probably has already moved somewhere else.
I've seen the claim made that Catholic churches tend to record everyone that has ever been affiliated with a particular parish--even if that person hasn't shown up in years. I also understand that Mormon churches tend to keep people "on the books" long after that person may have stopped attending, or perhaps even actively left.
Catholic churches tend to have a strong ethnic affinity, and it is a serious matter for anyone raised Catholic to say that they are not, even if they are only weakly affiliated. If you ask a Mexican his religion, he will certainly answer Catholic even if he only goes to mass twice a year. If you ask a Chicago Pole or someone of Irish ancestry from the East coast, you are likely to get that same answer.
You can see the brown regions in SW areas which are definitely Mexican, and in Louisiana. You can also see it in the Slavic Catholic rust belt.
The situation in the upper midwest is interesting. Historically, Sunday go-to-church is the principal part of community for people who spend 6 days a week on scattered and relatively isolated farms. I suspect that it still is, and that even for the urbanized and more loosely affiliated, they still would claim to be affiliated.
Another reader observes:I look at the map of religious density and see white over here in eastern NC. I know that has to be wrong. What it makes me guess is that we are swamped with a zillion small denominations -- Original Free Will Baptist Church being different from the Free Will Baptists, and there are at least two flavors of Missionary Baptist, etc. I bet they were not included in the survey. Makes me wonder to what extent this might be true in other places as well.
Yup, there's probably some truth to that. Why do I suddenly think of the sequence in Monty Python's Life of Brian with the multiplicity of anti-Roman groups:"The Judean People's Front", "The People's Front of Judea", and (with only one member) "The Popular Front of Judea". According to the DVD commentary, this part of the story is a satire on the multiplication of ineffectual left-wing parties in Britain during the 1970s: these revolutionary groups would splinter every few weeks, and be angrier at each other than they were at the British government.
But heck, there are times it is only a slight exaggeration of the current situation involving Muslims in that part of the world!
Another reader came to the same conclusion about another surprisingly low density part of the map:What's with the hole in south Ohio/east Kentucky/west West Virginia? That's mostly rural, semi-southern area that ought to be redder - like east Tennessee/west North Carolina.
Indeed. I get the impression that church attendance in Horseshoe Bend, near where I live, is actually pretty high--but there are three churches in town: Catholic; Lutheran; and a community church that probably isn't affiliated with any of those 149 organizations.
What's with the very distinct brown streak across central Illinois and south Iowa?
I suspect this map of having a lot of artifacts, due to the vagaries of self-reporting. The study reports numbers provided by "149 religious bodies"; but what about all the independent churches? Some sects are notably unorganized and fissile - their members would be omitted.
That could explain that hole, perhaps - a lot of crossroads pentecostal churches?
There is indeed a distinct low density streak across central Illinois and south Iowa. I wonder if Amish were represented? There's a lot of them in that area--and some of them are offshoots, such as the oddly named "Amish Mennonites."
Oh, while searching through the web, I found what seems like the ultimate oxymoron: a blog called "Amish America." People that don't drive cars because they are too newfangled of an invention probably aren't using the Internet. Wait a moment, while I imagine an Amish Internet--probably uses heliograph signaling for packet transmission, achieving burst rates of five bits/minute. By, at this rate, you could download a 320x240 resolution picture before the Second Coming!
"The Most Hostile in History to the Bill of Rights"
An acquaintance now living in Europe went on one of his rants about how the Bush Administration is "the most hostile in history to the Bill of Rights." This is very typical rhetoric in a lot of circles today, especially by those who are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, to admit the real situation.
Let me respond to just one of your statements below which really captures how severely you have been lied to. To claim that the Bush Administration is the "most hostile in history to the Bill of Rights"--let's compare their actions (not all of which I have agreed with) to those of previous administrations at war--and sometimes in peace. I'm not saying that I approve of all the previous actions, or of all of Bush's actions below; my point is that your overheated rhetoric is profoundly ignorant.
Let's see: President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus because he had the military arrest about 13,000 people for criticizing his actions. When the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln, and ordered him to bring an Maryland secessionist to court--he ignored them. See here for the background; here for the decision which Lincoln ignored. Lincoln ordered the arrest of members of the Maryland legislature who were known to be sympathetic to the Confederacy.
I happen to agree that Padilla should have been given access to civilian courts immediately. He was a U.S. citizen; he was arrested in the United States. I suspect that the reason that the courts have bent over backward to accommodate the Bush Administration on this (although Padilla's civilian trial is now underway) is because of the stated reason: concern that a trial might expose intelligence methods. But you want to compare Padilla's situation with arresting people for simply speaking in opposition to the government? Please.
During World War I, the United States made it a criminal offense to distribute anti-draft literature. The Supreme Court upheld this law in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), the famous case in which noted liberal Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., declared that freedom of speech did not include the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.
By comparison, Rosie O'Donnell and a fair scattering of lefty academics insist that Bush (sometimes with the help of the JOOOS!) set up, or at least allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place. This is a FAR more serious situation than distributing anti-draft literature. How many equivalents of Schenck are there? Even one?
After World War I, in response to a series of bombings in American cities (including outside U.S. Attorney-General Palmer's house), the so-called Palmer raids took place. As this account observes, Working with Bureau of Immigration officials, Palmer decided to launch a massive round-up of aliens (non-U.S. citizens) suspected of having revolutionary views. The purpose of these "Red Raids" was to arrest and deport so-called dangerous foreigners before they could bring about a violent revolution in America. However, during and after the raids, government agents violated virtually every element of "due process of law" mentioned in the Constitution.
By comparison, after 9/11, several thousand non-resident aliens were arrested for questioning; the vast majority were either released or deported for being illegally in the U.S. The equivalent to the Palmer Raids? Not even close.
During World War II, tens of thousands of non-resident enemy aliens were arrested and held for some months while arrangements were made to exchange them for Americans caught in the Axis powers at the start of the war. About 110,000 U.S. citizens and resident aliens were interned. By comparison, what has the Bush Administration done that is even a pale shadow of this?
During World War II, we had an organized and active censorship organization that restricted all newspapers and media on what they could report. Admittedly, this was almost entirely a voluntary activity, since nearly all Americans agreed that beating the Axis was the most important priority. For a large fraction of Americans today, beating the Republicans is more important than beating al-Qaeda. I have been told repeatedly that the American Taliban (Christian Republicans) is a greater danger to Americans than al-Qaeda.
What censorship has the Bush Administration engaged in? Even one example?
During World War II (and right into the early 1970s), the Armed Forces Security Agency and its successor, the National Security Agency, regularly wiretapped all communications going in and out of the United States without any warrants. James Bamford's Inside the Puzzle Palace is a detailed history of the NSA and discusses all of this, along with why Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Security Act court to issue secret wiretap warrants.
While I agree that Bush Administration should have gone through the FISA process--or, if it was, as they claim, too unwieldy in the modern age, asked Congress to update the statute--to suggest that the Bush Administration in time of war was doing something worse than was common and even unremarkable in peacetime is just overheated political rhetoric.
Concerning the kidnapping of suspected (and in some cases, actual) terrorists in foreign countries. I hope that this isn't a surprise to you, but every major power has engaged in kidnappings and assassinations in foreign countries for many decades. When the Jack the Ripper killings started, Scotland Yard actually considered the possibility that this might be something done by the Czarist secret police as a way of destabilizing Britain. Israel (oh, those evil JOOOOS!) kidnapped Eichmann in 1960 to spirit him off to trial.
I agree with you that some of the actions that have been taken have probably not been very effective, and some have considerable danger of abuse--all the more reason to try and win the war, so that we can repeal these before they become something that we learn to live with. The 90 day detention without trial measure that was under discussion in Britain (I thought it had actually passed) is pretty frightening. I think I would rather have the government break a law on rare occasions if the need is real--and rely on an executive or legislative pardon--rather than regularize and codify something so that it becomes acceptable. If the need to hold people without charges or incommunicado becomes so common that we need to make it the norm, we've probably already lost.
HR 2640 (One More Time)
Gun Owners of America points to an incident in Pennsylvania that they say is the reason that we shouldn't pass HR 2640:Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said
There are several problems with this:
that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his
car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was
making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if
he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage
because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was
arrested, but not charged with anything.
The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say.
But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements
in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry
permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks
into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had
said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "I
contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked.
And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental
health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to
possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR
2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never
had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been
on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy
bill. Right?
1. Current law and regulation (as I have previously discussed) required a person to be adjudicated by a court or other due process situation. The D.A. calling the police and telling them, "lock this guy up" doesn't qualify. At a minimum, this guy may have some trouble getting his carry permit back, but if the D.A. thinks this makes him permanently ineligible to own a gun, he better go check the federal statutes and regulations on this.
2. HR 2640 hasn't been passed--and yet this guy has already been disarmed for life, according to Gun Owners of America. HR 2640 doesn't change the existing law at all about what categories of commitment disable you from gun ownership. It only expands the reporting. Let's say that somehow the D.A. managed to persuade a court (not the police) to involuntarily commit this guy. Anywhere in America, under the current federal law, he can't own a gun. Since many states are failing to report this, he might pass the federal background check, and be able to buy a gun. But if he comes to the attention of authorities, he's now in the same pile of trouble as a convicted felon in possession. HR 2640 doesn't change anything in terms of legality.
3. However: HR 2640 provides a procedure by which someone involuntarily committed might be able to get his rights back again (assuming that Congress funds the program, which they might or might not do). Right now, once you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed with appropriate due process, you are unable to ever own a gun. There is no procedure for getting this straightened out--ever. HR 2640 makes it at least possible.
And We Wonder Why Public Schools Have Financing Problems
Here's an interesting article about my alma mater, Sonoma State University. Some years back, someone I used to work for who is obscenely rich--and like nearly all obscenely rich people, is very, very liberal and contributes to the Democratic Party--gave SSU $10 million to build a choral hall there. That was a nice little action on his part--I mean, what's $10 million when you are Don Green? It's small potatoes.
But something has happened to the original relatively modest plan:The Green Music Center at Sonoma State was first proposed as a small choral hall to serve students. But after campus President Ruben Armiñana visited the famed Tanglewood concert hall in Massachusetts in 1996, he was inspired to think big for his small campus in Rohnert Park.
This isn't just the money; it's the time and energy that university officials are spending on it:
Now, a decade later, the initial $22 million price tag has ballooned to an estimated $100 million and the 105,436-square-foot building is barely a quarter built. With fundraising for the project falling behind the growing need, the university is short of money to even pay for things like the 1,400 concert hall seats and bathroom fixtures. But Armiñana has decided to go ahead with constructing the center while he searches for money to finish the buildings.
The long-range plans for the project include three components -- the concert hall, a hospitality center with meeting rooms and a restaurant, and a music education building that will house the arts programs and accommodate community groups.
So far about $43 million has been raised through private donations. Another $18.1 million has come from state construction bonds and $25 million from the state capital program for the music faculty offices and instructional equipment in the academic building. The campus will use taxpayer funds to cover the approximately $934,054 it will cost each year to operate the center.
The project has stirred up opposition and resentment among many of the campus's 450 professors and lecturers, who think Armiñana's priorities are not in line with the university's academic mission. They recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution of no confidence in Armiñana.
"Things have gotten worse in the classroom. The demand by students for access to professors and classes has increased, and we don't get much money to do things to build our careers," said associate political science Professor David McCuan, who was a student at Sonoma State and has been teaching at the campus for four years.
Art history Professor Susan Moulton said classroom equipment has deteriorated so badly that she had to use duct tape to repair desks. And sociology Professor Noel Byrne said he had to buy his own copy machine to make handouts for students.University managers have worked the equivalent of $2 million in hours on the Green Music Center, according to Susan Kashack, a campus spokeswoman.
The comments from readers about Arminana are also pretty disturbing:
...
The hall went from a $10 million idea presented to Green to a $22 million proposal for the larger concert hall in 1998 and just kept growing from there, reaching $100 million by 2006 when construction began.
The costs rose as the project was expanded and the construction industry faced higher prices, campus officials said.
...
Byrne and Moulton, who helped spearhead the no-confidence vote, point to Armiñana's frequent trips to Tanglewood with other university officials as examples of too much energy and too many resources being spent on the music center. Over the years, there have been nine trips.
In 2006, for example, Armiñana went with donors and 10 campus executives. The university paid $20,000 for catering, supplies and concert tickets and $27,000 for hotel and travel expenses for university employees. The donors paid their own travel expenses, and Kashack said that the trips have resulted in about $10 million in donations for the Green Music Center. All this while he wants a "Taj Mahal" style monument erected as some sort of legacy. I would definitely give a vote of no confidence as well in support of the professors and students. The $100 million could be better spent on student services, support for the faculty/staff, and funds for items like desks and chairs, which were lacking even when I attended in the early 90's. I would like to know where they plan to find the $1 million to operate the center every year - I hope he's planting a grove of money trees next to the center.
...
I recently attended a seminar relating to the changing demographics of the North Bay. I had to sit and listen to this windbag wag his finger at the business community for not "promoting and empowering Latinos" in the white collar world. WTF? This from a top academic official who cannot even speak English!
...
My partner and I were prepared to fund a scholarship for art students at SSU with a potential capitalization of $50K. We donated $11,000 in start up money and then waited over six months to hear from the University. When we emailed them, we received three phone calls and a letter assuring us that they would immediately set up the paper work with policies and procedures. When, a year later we'd heard nothing, we decided to fun the scholarship here in Portland OR where we now live. ALL the energy of the Development office was directed to the new music center and if we weren't interested in funding it, they weren't especially interested in our funds. Our scholarship currently gives out $500 a year to needing students.
San Francisco Next Plans to Solve the Ladder Falls Problem by Repealing Law of Gravity
I keep remembering what it was like living in the Bay Area--a place where much of the population believes that they have a constitutional right to pretend that there is no objective reality. That's the only explanation for San Francisco's continuing attempts to avoid facing what is really causing their violence problem:The bulk of a package of gun control legislation intended to help stem the gun violence plaguing San Francisco advanced Monday -- though even the legislation's co-sponsors aren't sure how much good it will do.
How many gun deaths does San Francisco have caused by children "playing" with guns they found around the house? If there's even one a year I would be very, very surprised.
The Public Safety Committee of the Board of Supervisors sent three of the four pieces of legislation -- introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom in May -- to the full board.
Under those three measures, residents would have to keep handguns in locked containers or disable the guns with trigger locks. The mayor's administration said this would help prevent children from playing with guns and guns from being stolen from homes and used in crimes.
The second reason makes a bit more sense. But how long does it take to remove a gun lock from a firearm once you have carried it out of the home? They use a key and cylinder to hold the lock in place. That takes a drill and perhaps five minutes of work.
Locked containers that are chained or bolted down to a stud or fixture probably do make a difference in preventing theft of guns (especially handguns). If they passed a law requiring that, I might be irritated by it, but it at least has the potential to reduce thefts, especially by criminals who are in a hurry to get in and out. But the gun lock requirement is just playing to the idiots who dominate San Francisco politics, and know nothing about the subject.Also under the legislation, licensed firearms dealers would have to provide an inventory of their firearms to the police chief every six months. They would need to provide a listing of each firearm in their inventory as well as the makes, models and serial numbers. They would also need to provide a list of every firearm sold, lost or stolen in those six months.
There's no question in my mind that there are some licensed dealers who are careless, and I have read of one case where two guys got a dealer's license specifically to go into business to sell guns to criminals--no paperwork, not even an attempt at pretending. They transferred over 800 guns in a few months on the streets of South Central, each incident being a federal felony--and received nine months and twelve months, respectively, in federal prison for it.
"It's an opportunity to strengthen our information about what guns are being sold, what guns aren't being accounted for, if any," said Lenore Anderson, director of the mayor's criminal justice office.
But the notion that the only licensed gun dealer in San Francisco is a source of stolen or lost guns is absurd. Someone's just trying to drive the one legal dealer out.The fourth piece of legislation -- the creation of a local registry of gun offenders convicted in San Francisco -- was held, pending further work by the Newsom administration to ensure it doesn't encroach on civil liberties.
This is so profoundly bizarre to me. What constitutes "a convicted gun offender"? Armed robbers? Murderers? Rather than making them register--why aren't they in prison?
The mayor has proposed creating a Police Department registry of convicted gun offenders. The offenders would need to register every six months for four years after conviction and alert the department of any changes of address within 10 days of moving.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, head of the committee and a sponsor of the legislation along with Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, said he thought the registry of gun offenders proposal would still make it to the full board. But he said he wasn't convinced the gun control package as a whole would have much effect on gun violence.
"I would like to believe so, but I don't think we're getting to the heart of why San Francisco is experiencing this unabated gun violence citywide," he said.
And Supervisor Mirkarimi at least recognizes that this isn't going to work. I can't believe that anyone on the Board of Supervisors really believes that this is going to make a difference--unless they are truly too stupid to buy bread at the market without assistance. But what is reality when you live in San Francisco? Just part of the right-wing conspiracy.He said many guns are coming illegally into San Francisco from dealers outside its limits, which the city can do little about. In addition, he said, criminals come into the city with guns to commit illegal activity without fear of being arrested or prosecuted.
How are the guns "coming illegally" into San Francisco? Does he mean that San Francisco residents may not lawfully buy guns elsewhere? Or does he mean that criminals are obtaining their guns from dealers outside San Francisco? In addition to the federal background check for all guns, California has a more exhaustive background check system, with a mandatory ten day waiting period, for all gun transfers. This isn't a problem of "dealers outside its limits" but of a gun control law that amazingly enough, doesn't seem to work very well.
He is right about this: "criminal come into the city with guns to commit illegal activity without fear of being arrested or prosecuted." And they will be even less afraid when San Francisco city emplyees are busily maintaining a "gun offenders registry" and pouring over the records from the only licensed gun store every six months.
More About Salisbury's Campaign For Bill Sali's Seat
Over at Idaho Chooses Life (a site I don't think I have ever visited before), they discuss Mr. Salisbury's position:But this does not exactly settle the matter. I am mystified that Mr. Salisbury has chosen to anchor his campaign message in the philosophy of Planned Parenthood – you know, the rhetoric which claims that “the government has no business in our bedrooms”. Apparently it has something to do with his belief that Christians in public life ought not be very explicit about imposing our faith upon others. As the campaign develops he will have opportunity to better express his ideas.
Me too.
We also know nothing about Mr. Salisbury's position on specific policy questions. That may be where we will find the conflict. But on the phone, he was adamant that he found abortion "abhorrent".
In any event, the biggest question that nags is why Mr. Salisbury is running at all. The media’s original description of his candidacy explained he was unhappy with Congressman Sali’s pro-Life politics. After our phone conversation yesterday, it seems that is not the issue. So now I’m left wondering why a pro-Life person would squander resources and enhance Democrat chances for taking the seat by challenging an incumbent with an unmatched pro-Life record.
It is very curious, and perhaps we will learn more about motivations as Mr. Salisbury refines his message in coming months.
I don't think that a general ban on abortion makes a great deal of sense, because there is a large minority of Americans that support utterly unrestricted abortion--and some of them are prepared to go to prison to make sure that abortion remains available. You could pass a general ban on abortion--but you would need a heck of a lot of prison space to lock up all the criminals. The most that such a law would do is reduce advertising of such services, perhaps reducing the abortion rate somewhat, but like Prohibition, making it illegal would aggravate other problems. (Example: A D&X abortion often causes substantial and sometimes deadly infections; I'm sure that someone who was suffering a severe infection after an illegal abortion would delay going to a doctor or an emergency room for fear that it would come to light.)
If you want to make a real difference in the abortion rate, you need to tackle the underlying social problems that are causing so many women and men to be irresponsible about sex and contraception. Change that part of the social equation, and it will be both easier to get abortion restricted, and it will reduce the destructive side effects of prohibiting abortion when the time comes to change the law.
If Mr. Salisbury is as pro-life as the account above indicates, then trying to defeat Bill Sali on the abortion issue makes absolutely no sense. If the objective is to replace Bill Sali because he has become a lightning rod of liberal hostility, that might make some sense--but Sali's social conservatism, as near as I can tell, is the primary reason that Idaho liberals find Sali detestable. I'm sure if Bill Sali were supporting gay marriage, abortion on demand, and higher taxes, his style would be called "challenging, idealistic, and no-nonsense."
Ron Paul for President Signs
I'm seeing them around Boise now. Not many--which means that there is probably one Ron Paul supporter here. If there were five Ron Paul supporters here, it would be hard to find your way down the streets because of the number of signs.
I voted for Ron Paul for President when he was the Libertarian Party candidate some years ago. I don't think I would do it now. Even at the time, if I thought he had a realistic chance, I might have not voted for him. I can remember reading one letter from him that came perilously close to "the Jews run everything" in its discussion of U.S. foreign policy--and back then, as now, I have a certain skepticism of Israel that I know is not widely shared among other evangelical Christians.
Religious Adherents Map
Bryan Fischer at Idaho Values Alliance brought this map to my attention. It shows what percentage of the population by county identifies with 149 religious bodies that participated in a 2000 survey.
Click to get it larger.
There are some unsurprising parts of the map. Utah and eastern Idaho (with its large Mormon population) has very high percentages. The Midwest and some parts of the South are also pretty thick. The West Coast (except for a few remarkable counties in California and eastern Washington) is not terribly strong.
A lot of states that have reputations for being politically quite conservative (Virginia, most of Idaho, Florida, Maine) are not, by this map, terribly religious--at least with respect to traditional organized religion. Remember that religion and conservative politics don't have a perfect correlation. Much of Los Angeles County's high adherents rate is probably centered in South Central Los Angeles, and Massachusetts and much of Connecticut have very high rates of religious adherents, but aren't even slightly conservative.
Another point to remember is that a lot of what calls itself "conservative" in politics is really more libertarian. In many cases, those who call themselves conservative don't really understand the difference, and in other cases, prefer to call themselves "conservative" because it doesn't have the negative baggage that the Libertarian Party has unintentionally attached to that term. A lot of libertarian Republicans are not ideological purists; they don't think the government should be going around actively pursuing pot smokers, but they also wouldn't buy into repealing laws against cocaine or heroin.
Here in Idaho, there is an uneasy alliance between social conservatives, libertarians, and non-ideological Big Business Republicans. I can disagree with libertarian Republicans on some policies, and yet see some merit to their concerns. In many cases, applying a libertarian approach with moderation can be useful. For example, I suspect that if prostitution were made legal--and tightly regulated, as is done in some Nevada counties--it would probably be a net gain for the society (although not for a fair number of individuals).
My impression is that the libertarian and conservative Republicans have managed to make a bit of common cause over the years, but the Big Business Republicans have been howling as they have lost influence (and I mean that in the perjorative sense of the word). A former neighbor of mine was a member of the Idaho State Senate for several terms, but eventually decided to stop running because corporate contributions diminished so dramatically that he couldn't justify spending that much of his own money to win re-election. He was voting his conscience and the interests of his constituents--and that was often not that of business interests here.
All The Things That Global Warming Causes
This site has a complete list of links to articles blaming all sorts of stuff on global warming. Oh my! Especially for the last line!
I'm reminded of a Shoe cartoon strip from the 1980s, in which the editor has a thought bubble above his head, "Earthquakes, famines, hurricanes... It's all Reagan's fault."
Running for Congress Isn't Cheap
I was looking over the campaign finance reports for the Idaho 1st Congressional seat from 2006. The winner, Bill Sali, spent more than a million dollars--and $10,000 was his own money. The Democrat who lost, Larry Grant, spent more than $700,000 (of which more than $80,000 came out of his own pocket).
Even the losers in the Republican primary for that race spent big money. Sheila Sorensen, for example, spent more than $400,000--and $218,152 were from her own pocket.
A member of the House earns $165,200 per year--so even if Sorensen had won the election, she would barely have earned that money back before the next election cycle starts up, and you have to start spending money again.
Irving, Texas, Does Something About Crime
And illegal aliens--all at once! From a July 9, 2007 column in the Dallas Morning News by the mayor of Irving:What if communities could find an effective, legal way to remove illegal immigrants and reduce crime at the same time?
And what if communities could do this without significant investments of money and manpower and without compromising the image of the city or the morale of its residents, visitors and businesses?
The city of Irving has done just that with its 24/7 Criminal Alien Program, created in September with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. To determine the residency status of prisoners, Irving detention officers worked with ICE agents, who made daily visits to the jail to interview suspected criminal aliens. Those identified as illegal were immediately removed for deportation.
Irving began removing criminal aliens at the rate of 50 or more a month – a huge increase over the four per month identified prior to the partnership.
This spring, Irving detention officers began completing the initial screening process and setting up telephone interviews between suspects and ICE officials. With this simple yet effective process change, Irving was able to determine the residency status of every prisoner 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
This transformed a successful program into a round-the-clock initiative with even greater returns: Irving now identifies and removes more than 130 illegal immigrants a month – a 250 percent increase over 2006.
BBC (Of All Organizations) Reports That The Surge May Be Working
Yes, I'm shocked as well:He said everyone wanted the US forces to be able to leave, both Americans and Iraqis alike, but he said it was vital to ensure that "the gains that have been hard fought in places like Baquba and Ramadi could be sustained, maintained and even built on by Iraqi forces and Iraqi political leaders".
The violence has subsided in Ramadi over the past six months - largely, correspondents say, because tribes have turned against al-Qaeda. The Americans have taken parts of Baquba, but it is still unclear how much they control.
Idaho Politics
There's a Republican challenging Bill Sali for Congress next year--and it has already generated a storm of upset.
Idaho Chooses Life, which is an Idaho pro-life group, wasn't too happy about this:
NAMPA -- An Iraq War veteran plans to run for Idaho's 1st District Congress seat as a Republican, meaning U.S. Representative Bill Sali likely will face a rival in the May 2008 primary.
Matt Salisbury, a 34-year-old Nampa resident, described himself as a "Lincoln Republican" who believes politicians should stay "out of your bedroom and out of your social mores." A press release reported by Boise’s KTVB late last week says that Nampa resident Matt Salisbury will challenge Congressman Bill Sali in next year’s GOP Primary.
Okay, it didn't take long before I saw an upset email from Mr. Salisbury's wife concerned about Bill Sali misrepresenting her husband. I won't reproduce the letter (since I don't know whether it was intended for publication), but my first reaction was that if Mr. Salisbury is pro-life, using an expression like that was a rather odd way of saying so. I asked for clarification from Mrs. Salisbury--and the response that I received left me unable to figure out what Mr. Salisbury's position is on abortion--but it does not appear to be supportive of any sort of a ban.
We don’t know this gentlemen, but the press release describes him as a decorated veteran of the Airborne Rangers. He has also seen active duty in Iraq with the National Guard. Before saying anything else about his campaign – let us give thanks for his bravery and service to nation.
Mr. Salisbury’s honorable battlefield experience does not, however, qualify him as a candidate for Congress.
It is obvious from his opening statement that he is committed to defending abortion rights in this country. This is perhaps his primary reason for running. He goes so far as to say that “government should stay out of our bedrooms”. That suggests he may also be a defender of gay rights and other social aberrations – but we’ll have to see what else he has to say.
We are most troubled, however, by his claim to be a “Lincoln Republican”. Someone must rise to defend the late President’s honor from modern social radicals who would cloak their agendas in his legitimizing mantle. (The gay rights crowd has long maligned Abraham Lincoln’s memory by organizing themselves as the “Log Cabin Republicans” – for reasons totally beyond a coherent retelling here).
There is absolutely nothing in the public record to support the notion that President Lincoln, were he alive today, would be a champion of abortion rights. If anything, his articulation of the proper and moral role of government qualify him for title as “First Pro-Life President of the Republic”.
Many of us in the Pro-Life Movement read his speeches and courageous indictment of slavery as succor in our struggle against the destruction of God’s Little Ones. In the face of great opposition, Lincoln eventually molded the Civil War into a great moral struggle against evil; he led a bloody defense of the dignity of each human being.
Mr. Salisbury is entitled to his views on abortion – which views disqualify him for public office. But we hope that he quickly ends his campaign to malign the memory of Mr. Lincoln.
I also haven't been able to get a clear answer if the "government out of the bedroom" remark means that Mr. Salisbury opposes sodomy laws as a matter of public policy (a legitimate position, I think) or as a matter of Constitutional right (clearly historically wrong). I can't tell if I am seeing muddled thinking, muddled writing, or an attempt at straddling the pro-life and pro-choice camps. (This is rather like trying to straddle a bull and a whale simultaneously--it takes remarkable legs).
UPDATE: Idaho Values Alliance directory Bryan Fischer reports that Salisbury says he is being misquoted:He insisted in an email to me yesterday that his quote was taken out of context, and accused the press of essentially twisting his words in its quest for a story. In a preliminary conservation Mr. Salisbury and I had this morning, he indicated that his remarks regarding "social mores" and "social engineering" were actually directed toward liberals who seek to use the law to impose their politically correct views of such things as the homosexual lifestyle, child-raising and education on the rest of society.
If so, this is a good sign for Mr. Salisbury. But it is a reminder of the importance of good press release writing.
Many years ago, I was active in Libertarian Party politics in Southern California. (I was younger, more idealistic, and less aware of history.) One of our candidates for state legislature had the mildly embarrassing situation of being arrested and convicted of drug dealing in the middle of the election campaign. He served his sentence--and went on to get the highest vote percentage of any LP candidate that year. (Admittedly, it was one of the few races where the LP candidate only had one major party opponent.)
I had a chance to see the press release that this candidate sent out about something that would ordinarily be considered a campaign faux pas--spending time in federal prison during the campaign. It went on for many pages--and the newspapers, being generally hostile to libertarian ideas, picked the worst parts of it for their news story (since the journalists couldn't be bothered with actually going out and interviewing anyone), and left out the parts that presented him in a positive light. (He was apparently selected for a "one step from entrapment" prosecution because he refused to provide Qualludes to a neighbor, who was planning to use them to get a 15 year old girl in the mood for sex. The neighbor was a federal informant.)
I still look forward to hearing from Mr. Salisbury about his positions.
Journalists Go Gun Shopping
It is always somewhat interesting to watch what happens when a journalist decides to explore the dark and evil subculture of gun ownership. Sometimes, they actually seem to be trying to be fair and honest! Anyway, you might find this series of articles from the Lawrence, Kansas Journal interesting. The first one is titled, "Buying into the Gun Culture," where the reporter tells us of going out to buy a handgun for concealed carry, since he is going to be going through the process of buying a handgun, getting a carry permit, carrying a gun for a few days, and seeing how it goes. From his description, it sounds like the various gun dealers he talked to (and who didn't know he was a reporter) were upfront and sensible people--which is what I would expect.
This other article from July 1, 2007 interviews a local person who was an opponent of the new Kansas concealed carry law--and unlike a lot of these reports, it really captures a lot of why this gal is so hostile to gun ownership:When Marilyn Roy talks about parts of her past, she clutches her purse tightly. She rocks with it in her chair as she talks about the times that turned violent. Her life in Barstow, although isolated — or acultural, as she describes it — wasn’t necessarily serene.
I feel bad for Ms. Roy, but it is a reminder that a lot of the more extreme anti-gun sorts are engaged in projection. They confuse themselves with the average person.
“I grew up in a troubled family,” Roy said. “My family wasn’t hunky-dory.”
Roy, 57, found hard times on her own, too. She was forced to put her son up for adoption when he was 5, for reasons she did not disclose. Afterward, she went to Kansas City to try to start over, but instead she found a dead end. She was homeless in Kansas City and Texas for about four years.
On the streets, she saw the drugs, she saw the guns, she saw the violence. Some of it found her, too. Roy said she’s been the victim of domestic violence and physical abuse on multiple occasions.
The violence left her with a choice to make. She said a person can either choose to fight violence with violence, or take the tack that violence begets nothing good.
“The consequence of violence being fought with violence just doesn’t appeal to me,” Roy said.
Since 1974, Roy has been spreading that message in Lawrence. That’s how long she has lived in the city, spending part of the time as a student. She has a degree in psychology and runs a small home-based business called Simplify, a home/office organization business that has a motto of “supporting peaceful lifestyles.” She’s also on a Social Security disability related to some of the emotional scars from her past. She’s likely best known to many Lawrence residents as a frequent advocate at City Hall and elsewhere for people who are disadvantaged.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that I was just born a pacifist,” Roy said.
There's also a very fair article about one of the gun rights activists in Lawrence.
Remember When People Made Fun of Vice President Quayle's Remarks About Mars?
He said something about the potential for living on Mars that I suspect was what he remembered from a science class in the 1950s--when we didn't really know very much yet about Mars and its potential for human habitation.
So why isn't anyone making fun of this other, former Vice President's ignorance? From the July 1, 2007 New York Times:We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Parts of this statement are simply false. Mercury's sunlit side is 872 degrees Fahrenheit.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
The statement about Venus's atmosphere is true, but misleading; Venus is remarkably hot because of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But guess what? All planets start out with a methane, ammonia, water vapor atmosphere, and evolve to a carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor atmosphere. Mars has a comparably carbon dioxide rich atmosphere--and yet it isn't terribly warm. Why?
There are two major differences between the Earth and Venus that makes this comparison absurd.
1. Venus is 72% of the distance from the Sun as the Earth. That means that it gets 1.93 times the solar input. That's a big difference. Even if we had comparable atmospheres, Venus would be a lot warmer.
2. The presence of large bodies of liquid water on the early Earth--because we were getting about half the sunlight--provided both a basis for life--which converts quite a bit of atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide into glucose--and a geochemical process for converting carbon dioxide into carbonates. There is about 40x as much carbon dioxide locked up in carbonate minerals as there is in the atmosphere. The mechanisms are not spectacularly well understood.
This is just scaremongering by Al Gore--a person who clearly doesn't know much about the chemistry behind planetary atmospheres.
Ratatouille
My wife and I went to see this early this afternoon with our daughter and son-in-law, and we can wholeheartedly endorse this as a fine family film. It was funny, it was cleverly written, very well done computer graphics mixed with (I think) occasional actual film. There was no double entendre, no off-color references, no profanities, a few mild surprises along the way. Unlike Shrek 2, which profoundly disappointed me with its transgenderism and unnecessarily raw language, Ratatouille was a gem of a family film--a reminder that a G-rated film can be something that adults can enjoy as much as the kids.
If you want to see more movies like this made: vote with your dollars. Run right and see it.
UPDATE: A reader tells me that in the credits is a statement that they used no motion capture techniques--which would suggest that they didn't use any real photography, either. If so--even more impressive technically!
