Open carry in Virginia

Back in the day, gentlemen openly wore their swords at their sides when they went out. Today, in Virginia, some people are openly wearing their pistols at their sides. This according to this article in the Washington Post. The link comes via the GeekWithA.45 who sums it up thusly:

Summary:
-------------
State level pre-emption laws kicked in July 1, over riding local ordinances concerning purchase, registration, and open carry of firearms in public.

Some folks excercise said right, some sheeple bleat, some ill informed cops confiscate, and later on realize they were wrong and apologize, other folks get in on the act, Gun Bigots suggest we siddown and STFU.

Virginia, like most other states, provides for the carrying of concealed weapons if you have a permit. Some states do not allow concealed carry under any circumstances and a couple, namely Vermont and Alaska, allow concealed carry with no permit required. Open carry in Virginia (as in Arizona if I recall correctly) does not require a permit. Some people are now taking advantage of that law. The results are predictable, however the police seem to be treating the situation rather reasonably:

"Crime is at 20-year lows in the county," Lt. Col. Charles K. Peters pointed out, even though the population is soaring. The county's homicide rate was the lowest in the nation last year among the 30 largest jurisdictions. "Hopefully no one feels the need to carry a gun, lawfully or unlawfully," Peters said. "But there's no question it is lawful to carry a gun on the street. So we've had to ensure that all of our officers are updated on the nuances of Virginia law that allow citizens to carry firearms in public places."

Others, on the other hand, do not:

"This just shows you the extreme nature of what they're trying to do," said Bob Ricker, head of Virginians for Public Safety. "You don't want to go to Starbucks or Reston Town Center and see somebody with a firearm strapped on," he added, referring to two locations where armed patrons were found. "It's just something that I think is completely unreasonable. We all understand the concept of self-defense. . . . But when you're talking about Fairfax County, you have to look at what is reasonable."

Actually, if I walked into a Starbucks and saw a citizen packing heat, I'd feel reassured. Think about it for a minute. If he were going to commit a crime with the gun, he wouldn't be standing around with it in plain view. He'd have it concealed until he was ready to use it. However, to someone who intended to rob the place, an openly armed citizen would prove a powerful and immediate deterrent.

Yet more FUD from the anti-gun rights crowd:

Openly carrying weapons is "not a good idea," said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. "This is the gun lobby's vision of how America should be. Everybody's packing heat and ready to engage in a shootout at the slightest provocation."

Okay, here you see a classic case of playing on people's fears. Look at the charged words, "packing heat." Look at the generalization, "ready to engage in a shootout at the slightest provocation." The fact that no such shootouts have happened is irrefutable proof that she is wrong. She sees as armed citizens as psychopaths when she herself is the one frothing at the mouth and looking like a total fool. The last paragraph of the article sums it up nicely:

Van Cleave said most gun owners, particularly defense league members or concealed weapon permit owners, are law-abiding. Anti-gun forces "have come to think guns themselves are evil. You've got to worry about the person, not the gun."

Safety in the workplace

As I was patronizing a franchise of one of the purest examples of capitalism this morning, I noticed today's USA Today newspaper in a vending machine out front. On the front page was a segment about how employers are not doing enough to protect their employees from workplace violence. I looked it up on their website and found it.

In nearly eight of 10 cases, killers left behind clear warning signs — sometimes showing guns to co-workers, threatening their bosses or talking about attacking. But in the majority of cases, employers ignored, downplayed or misjudged the threat, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 224 instances of fatal workplace violence.

Less than 20% of the companies targeted in such attacks beefed up security or took other internal prevention steps. It is not known how many called police before the attacks took place.

The analysis found that many companies fail to identify risks or teach managers how to defuse the tensions that can precipitate an attack. They frequently fail to react when workers say that they're scared. And they often fail to take extra precautions to enhance security, even after an event such as a firing or disciplinary hearing that could trigger an attack. One company, Honeywell, hired back an employee who served four years in prison for fatally strangling a co-worker; then he killed again.

A bit later, it says:

Some employers, however, say they've done everything to prevent violence and that there is no way to know when a disgruntled employee will kill. Mental health experts have been known to determine an employee is no threat, only to have the worker turn deadly. Workplace experts and federal agencies do provide threat assessments to help determine when employees may become dangerous.

Some experts also say companies are doing a lot to prevent attacks but that more can be done to make workplaces respectful places where employees are treated fairly.

Now I'm all for "making workplaces respectful places where employees are treated fairly." It's simply the right thing to do, not to mention beneficial for business. However, there will always be times when these efforts fail and there will always be people who are troubled for some reason and have the potential to turn violent. You are not going to be able to identify them all nor will you be able to help all those you do identify.

Beefing up security can help, but it won't prevent all cases. Right now, if I wanted to, I could get a gun, bring it to work, and shoot a bunch of people. There has been no indication in my behavior that I might do this, and there's no mechanism and/or procedure in place to prevent me from doing so. Of course I will do no such thing because I'm (relatively) sane and not prone to violence. I'm happy in my job and like the people I work with. I'm a law-abiding citizen who does own guns, who does have a concealed pistol license, and who has no intention whatsoever of committing a crime.

There is one thing that companies can do to make their workplaces safer. This is to allow their employees to be armed if they want. My company has a policy that no firearms are allowed on or in any property that they control. This includes the parking lots so I'm not allowed even to store a pistol safely in my vehicle while I'm at work. It's their right to have this policy and I do not violate it but the truth is that I'm less safe than I would be if I were armed.

Let's take a look at the practical result of such a policy. As I see it, there are two reasons why I would bring a firearm to work:

1. I want to be able to defend myself should I be assaulted by someone with a gun or other deadly weapon. In this case, nobody is harmed other than a potential attacker. My pistol would be concealed so nobody would even know I had it. In the event a disgruntled coworker comes in and starts to shoot up the place, I am in a good position to put a stop to it and save lives.


2. I intend to assault my coworkers with it. In this case, people will definitely get hurt and/or killed

Now let's introduce the no firearms policy to each case:

1. This case actually breaks down into two subcases:
   
   
   
   1. Being a loyal employee and a law-abiding citizen I obey the policy and do not come to work armed. In the event of a disgruntled coworker coming in and shooting up the place, I am forced to rely on whatever weapons I can improvise (i.e. throwing a chair, stabbing him with a pen if I can get close enough, etc.) or on my ability to run and hide. I am in a poor position to put a stop to it and save lives, including my own.
   
   
   2. I ignore the policy and come to work armed. My pistol is concealed but a small chance exists that it will be discovered. In the event a disgruntled employee attacks, I am well-positioned to defend myself and others. Should it be discovered, I will likely be fired and possibly even arrested (not sure on this since it's corporate policy, not law; I may be charged with trespassing or nothing at all).
   
   
   
   



2. Since I am determined to commit this crime, the policy does not act as a deterrent at all and people are still hurt and/or killed.

So, from this we see that the only possible effect on safety that this policy provides is a negative one. There is no positive. Some would say that the policy provides for a safer environment since my gun could go off accidentally. I would say the odds of that are less than the odds that an employee will attack me or others. It's not like I'm going to pull it out and start fiddling with it during meetings. Nevertheless, one possible way to mitigate even that possibility is for the employer to allow only employees that provide some sort of certification of proficiency (such as from a training course) to be armed at work.

For now, the policy is in effect, and I obey it. However, certain people have instructions to contact legal professionals should I be injured or killed by an attacker in the workplace. More on this I will not say but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Morality vs. civil rights

Today you get to see the result of my social libertarianism kicking in. 
 
On the way home from work this evening, I saw a bumper sticker which looked like it said, "How can a moral wrong be a civil right?"  I'm assuming that it was addressing the issue of gay marriage but I'm going to address the general case.  The answer is that, in general, you have the right to do something provided there is no law against it.  It makes no difference whether or not you believe the activity is moral or not.  Saying something is a moral wrong is a personal opinion.

Morals are what you use to differentiate between what you believe is right and what is wrong.  Many people obtain their moral code partially or entirely from religion, but not all.  The law, on the other hand, is what you use to differentiate between what society has determined is right or wrong.  In some cases, the law will agree with your morality.  In some cases, it won't.  Here's an example:  On a recent episode of Animal Cops on the cable channel Animal Planet, investigators from the Houston, TX SPCA were notified of a possible incident of animal abuse.  It appeared that a group of people had killed one or more goats as part of a sacrificial ceremony.  Many people would consider that behavior immoral.  However, it's actually legal, provided the animals are not abused and are slaughtered humanely.  In other words, people who own goats can slaughter them if they wish, and for many possible reasons including religious ritual.

Now, if you keep your goats in dismal living conditions, and they're starving and dehydrated, the SPCA will come along and, with police support, confiscate your animals.  You may also be charged with a crime and end up paying a fine, being sentenced to a period of community service, do some time in jail, or a combination thereof.  This is because the society, as represented by the local government, has determined that this is unacceptable and has therefore prohibited it under threat of sanction.

Another classic example is going to a club where women dance while removing their clothing until they are partially or completely naked.  Again, many people consider this to be immoral behavior, but it is legal in many places.  It is not legal in many others.  And in many places where it is legal, there are still certain restrictions placed on the dancers and patrons such as a requirement to maintain a minimum distance between the dancer and members of her audience or the prohibition of alcholic beverages in such establishments.

According to Dictionary.com, one definition of "civil rights" is:

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Note that this definition doesn't include the word moral, or even any word remotely similar in meaning. In fact, if you read the entirety of the Constitution, you will see only one instance of it actually limiting the rights of individuals: the eighteenth amendment which prohibited the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. And, not long after, it became the only amendment ever to be repealed.  The morality of a large portion of the population was a major, if not the largest, driving force behind it.  In the end, it was a disaster.
 
To sum up, the comparison made on the bumper sticker is essentially meaningless since moral right and wrong is not the same thing as civil rights.  The best thing for everybody is if you keep your morality your own and not try to force it on others.  Live according to your moral code and act as an example.  Let everybody else do the same.

Rich vs. Poor

Victor Davis Hanson, in his inimitable style, addresses the cognitive dissonance engendered by the fact that the pair vying for the White House who claim to better represent the poor and disenfranchised in this country are themselves multi-millionaires.

It is going to be hard to convince the American people that two East Coast, liberal lawyers, one Senator married to a billionaire, the other worth $75 million, are men of the people. No wonder they and their supporters have introduced some very strange arguments.

It's a question that I've been wanting to address for some time, but Hanson does it so much better than I could ever dream of doing that I'm going to settle for riding on his coattails. Later in the article, he writes:

It is not that there is not inequality and unfairness in compensation in America; I could never quite figure out why small farmers made less than car salesmen or plastic surgeons. But Americans are sort of wedded to the idea that we all make choices, and there are other things in our lives, both good and bad, that determine what we do and how we are rewarded, rather than just an inflexibly in compensation beyond our control.

I'm guessing he meant to write "inflexibility in compensation" above but the meaning is still clear. We generally believe in the ability to choose the path we follow and, if we don't like where it's going, we can change direction and go somewhere else. I've done that more than once myself during my life and there are several things I wish I had done differently, or not done at all. Nevertheless, the choices were mine and I have to take responsibility for the outcome of those decisions.

I thought this was a particularly good paragraph:

Now we are left with the much harder questions of an affluent society wrestling with guaranteeing an equality of result rather than ensuring an equality of opportunity. Perhaps that is why where I live bankrupt farmers and failed chemical salesmen are more likely to vote Bush/Cheney than are my tenured colleagues in Volvos and the local legal community who vacation in Europe. Go figure.

The desire to have equality of result is a prominent characteristic of leftist thought. We're all the same, after all, so we must all succeed to the same level. Everyone must have the same income, and everyone must pay the same price for everything. Take this to the extreme and you have Communism. Take this to the ridiculous extreme and you have the society ofHarrison Bergeron.

Whoopi and Garry

I heard on the news this morning that Whoopi Goldberg had been dropped as a spokesperson by Slim-Fast but I didn't stick around to find out why. I wondered if it had something to do with something she said regarding politics and, sure enough, it did:

Comic Whoopi Goldberg's sexual puns on President Bush's name at a John Kerry fundraiser got her canned Wednesday as spokeswoman for Slim-Fast weight-loss products.

In all likelihood, the left will once again raise the cry of "censorship!" However, just like what happened to the Dixie Chicks, it's nothing of the kind. Slim-Fast has a brand image to protect. It doesn't want itself associated with the kind of speech that Whoopi was putting forth. I would expect the same result if she had made similar remarks about Kerry. Once again we are treated to a demonstration of the fact that free speech does not mean free of consequences. You won't be prevented from saying what you want to say, but you're still going to have to deal with the fallout.

Whoopi's response contains both good and bad. First, the good:

Unrepentant, Goldberg said in a written statement Wednesday that "just because I'm no longer in those (commercial) spots, it doesn't mean I will stop talking. While I can appreciate what the Slim-Fast people need to do in order to protect their business, I must also do what I need to do as an artist, as a writer and as an American — not to mention as a comic."

She's not blaming Slim-Fast; she understands that they have their brand image to look after and that they had the legal right to terminate her contract when and how they did. Now the bad:

"I only wish that the Republican re-election committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook," Goldberg said.

Naturally, it's all the Republicans' fault. In actuality, it's nobody's "fault." Rather, it's the result of individual Americans exercising their right to tell a company that they disapprove of its spokesperson and will discontinue buying that company's product until it does something about it. Slim-Fast did, indeed, do something about it and was entirely within its rights to do so.

Remember folks, not only do you have freedom of speech, you have the right to express yourself with your wallet.

On to the other part of this post. I just came across this article linked on Neal Boortz's website. I actually do read Doonesbury daily. I disagree with a lot of what he writes but I do think he has a fine wit. One of the current storylines deals with how one long-running character, B.D., is dealing with the loss of his left leg while serving as a soldier in Iraq. To be honest, I think that he's handling it pretty well. B.D. isn't whining about how "I lost my leg because of George W. Bush's lies." Instead he's been more-or-less upbeat. Sure, there's been trauma and a form of grieving for the lost limb, but I think that Mr. Trudeau is trying to present this character's story in a realistic way, albeit with a humorous tone. He's showing that, in war, stuff like this does happen, our soldiers do pay a price, and that they're real people who react like real people do to events like this. He's letting it speak for itself and not trying to beat us over the head with it. Of course, he saves the head-beating for other characters and storylines but that's a topic for another post should I decide to write it.

On the Federal Marriage Amendment

As you all probably know, the Senate is currently debating an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

The emotionally charged proposal, backed by the president and many conservatives, provides that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."

A second sentence says that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment has complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

I'm generally conservative, but I lean toward the libertarian side of things. I have always opposed an amendment to the Constitution regarding marriage. My opposition has nothing to do with whether or not I believe same-sex marriage is a good thing or not. Rather, it has to do with my belief that this is something that is frankly no business of the federal government. It is something that should be left up to the individual states.

In a recent missive to the President, Senator Barbara Boxer questions why the Senate is wasting its time on legislation that is almost certainly doomed to failure when other pressing legislation waits in the wings. Senator Boxer is a Democrat from California so I'm going to assume that I will disagree with her on most issues. However, she makes a very good point when she writes:

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, University of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein noted that all of the amendments to the Constitution are either expansions of individual rights or attempts to remedy problems in the structure of government. The sole exception was the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition and that attempt to write social policy into the Constitution was such a disaster that it was repealed less than 15 years later.

Actually, she's not entirely correct. There is one other amendment that is an exception to the purposes she lists and that is the 16th Amendment that instituted the federal income tax. Other than that omission, she is right about the rest of the amendments.

I believe that amemdments to the Constitution should not ever limit what the people can do. Instead, the only limits they impose should be on the federal government itself. Otherwise they should serve, as Senator Boxer writes, to expand individual rights or fix problems with the structure of the government (like clarifying the order of succession to the presidency).

I could go on and list a bunch of items that I disagree with in Senator Boxer's letter but you can probably figure them all out for yourself.

Shame

Although I do not live in Seattle itself, I live a short distance north of the city and I used to work downtown. I've been living in the Puget Sound area now for over ten years. There's a lot to like here. You're not far from the ocean, nor the mountains. It's not even that far to the dry country east of the Cascades. The weather here is mild, rarely getting below freezing in winter or above 90 degrees in summer.

True, the traffic sucks, but we're not the only place this is true. And the other thing is that the politics here is definitely slanted to the left. This is evident by the fact that the following Democrats hold public office:

• Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell


• Representative Jim McDermott (7th Congressional district, including Seattle)


• Representative Jay Inslee (1st Congressional district, where I live)


• Governor Gary Locke


• Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels


• King County Executive Ron Sims (former Seattle Mayor)

Given the politics of the region, it's unfortunately not all that surprising to hear of these recent events on nearby Bainbridge Island:

The bucolic island's deep reputation for civility got a gut check this week during the annual Grand Old Fourth of July celebration.

That's when Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who served in Iraq, marched in the local event. He wore his medals with pride and carried a sign that said "Veterans for Bush."

Walking the parade route with his mom, younger siblings and politically conservative friends, Jason heard words from the crowd that felt like a thousand daggers to the heart.

"Baby killer!"

"Murderer!"

"Boooo!"

Others with better writing ability than mine (and consequently more popular blogs) have already commented on this.

• Michelle Malkin


• McQ and Dale Franks at QandO


• Spoons


• Citizen Smash


• Emperor Misha I

As I commented over at Spoons' place, however, there are plenty of people living here who support our troops and their mission. There's the example of Jason Gilson himself, as well as me and the others who commented on Spoons' post. A friend and coworker of mine is also on that list.

True, there are plenty of cars sporting bumper stickers that say "No War in Iraq," "No War for Oil," and "John Kerry for President." But there are also plenty of bumper stickers that say "We Support our Troops," "United We Stand," "Never Forget 9-11-2001," and "Bush/Cheney 2004." The other day I saw an SUV in the rear window of which was written words to the effect of, "Where are all the 'nice' Muslims who are denouncing the terrorists? Semper Fi!" (Answer: They're out there, but their voices seem to be far too few.)

We also have a strong military presence. We have Fort Lewis, Everett Naval Port, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Bremerton Naval Shipyard, Bangor Naval Submarine Base, and McChord Air Force Base. Every year, during the Seafair celebration, ships of the United States Navy sail into Elliot Bay (the part of Puget Sound next to Seattle) and dock in various locations. One of the highlights of the celebration is the unlimited hydroplane races and one of the highlights of the races is the Blue Angels performance.

My views are no secret to those who know me yet I've never felt threatened or disparaged. Many of my friends hold opposing views but we understand that people of good conscience can disagree and we often have engaging discussions on the topics of the day. They help keep me on my toes, ensuring that I test my beliefs and opinions so I don't fall into the trap of following blindly. I like to think I do the same for them.

What happened out on Bainbridge Island is a disgrace. These people forget who protects their freedom to say those words but even that is something they have the right to do. I daresay they have the obligation not to, both to the people who protect our freedom today and those who protected it in the past. And especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice out our behalf.

I for one will never forget. And I make it a point to thank those who have served the cause of freedom whenever I get the opportunity. And if I ever see or hear someone disparaging our troops like that, I will make my feelings on the subject known in no uncertain terms.

To anyone reading this who is serving or has served in the armed forces of the United States, thank you. We all owe you a debt that can never truly be repaid.

UPDATE:

• Tammi at Road Warrior Survival provides her views.


• Blackfive has more information.


• Jennifer Martinez has an update on the situation.

UPDATE II:
Harvey has posted the email address of Jason's mother, Tamar, to which you can send a message of support for her and her son if you so desire.

Stupidity

There are a couple of good points to come out of this incident.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- State Education Secretary Richard Riordan jokingly told a child her name, Isis, meant "stupid dirty girl," prompting the head of the California NAACP on Thursday to call for his resignation.

The first, as has been commented on at QandO and I Love Jet Noise (definitely need to start visiting that blog regularly), is that the NAACP backed away from their protest when it was disclosed that the girl in question, Isis D'Luciano, is a blond, white girl. No sense making a fuss when there's no political gain to be had for your cause.

Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, who had scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations, canceled the demonstration after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.

...

Dymally did not return telephone calls. His office issued a statement Wednesday calling Riordan's remarks to the girl "outrageous and irresponsible," then issued another statement Thursday saying, "To err is human; to forgive is divine."

If she really had been black, they would have cried havoc and let slip the lawyers of war. In Dymally's case, it appears that forgiveness is only divine when he's the one being forgiven.

The thing is, even if the girl had been black, there would have been no way to prove that racism was the cause of the comment. Rather, the cause was either stupidity, or the inability to think through his comment before he made it. In either case, one should wonder what he's doing in the top spot in California's vast educational bureaucracy.

The other point I wanted to point out comes from the comments made by the girl's mother:

The girl's mother, Trinity Lila of Goleta, said her daughter was fine, and she considered the issue over.

"Obviously it hurt her feelings, but she didn't take it personally. She knew he was wrong and she let it go," Lila said. "I'm not going to sue them for therapy bills."

"He's already apologized repeatedly," Lila added. Although Riordan's office has tried to contact her, "I don't see what else is to be done."

Note that she didn't immediately run to her lawyer. Instead, she just dealt with it and is putting it behind her, as is her daughter. They understand the guy's only human, he made a mistake, he's apologized for it, and that's that. If only more people were like that. Well, maybe they are and you just don't hear about them.

Diane is worried

And anything that worries her is a good thing, IMNSHO.

WASHINGTON -- Unless President Bush changes the minds of House Republican leaders, the 10-year-old federal assault weapons ban will die on Sept. 13, clearing the way for the weapons to enter the country and be sold again.
"After September 13th, we will begin to see assault weapons pop up all over the place," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who a decade ago successfully sponsored a ban on domestic manufacture and import of the weapons.

Diane also made an astute observation:

Feinstein said opposition to the ban reveals the power of the National Rifle Association.

Of course, the NRA being powerful is a Bad Thing® unlike, say, the power of the NEA or the various ecological advocacy groups.

Larry Craig is one of my heroes in the Senate for his principled stand on this issue:

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the leading Senate opponent to renewal of the ban, said he doesn't expect the president to intervene.

"This assault weapons ban has a track record that shows it doesn't reduce crime one bit," Craig said. "What we need are tougher penalties for criminals who use guns.

This paragraph stood out:

Gun control advocates say the president and Congress should be motivated to renew the law by the oft-shown pictures of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden pointing an AK-47 at a target.

Gun control advocates would do well to learn the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic machine gun. The gun that Osama is holding in these pictures is almost certainly a fully-automatic AK-47, the ownership of which is completely unaffected by this ban and would still be illegal (except by people with specific federal licenses that they have to jump through considerable hoops to get). Of course, gun control leaders are probably fully aware of the difference, but they won't let such knowledge get in the way of their propaganda.

One of the criticisms I have of George W. Bush is that he has stated his support for the so-called assault weapons ban. However:

In their effort to get Bush to push for renewal, gun control advocates have mounted a campaign using the president's previous statements, such as: "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Bush declared in 1999. The president "supports extension of the current ban," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said earlier this year.

This tends to reinforce the theory that his "support" was simply political expediency and that he gave it in the hope that he would never see the bill on his desk. Of course, there's the theory that he signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act hoping that the Supreme Court would strike it down and we all know what happened in that case.

Finally I'll jump back up the article a ways for this excerpt:

"The American people favor the ban, but we need a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic House and Senate to make it happen," said Feinstein, who with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., is sponsoring legislation to renew the ban for another 10 years.

If Democrats get control of the White House and both branches of Congress, they're not going to stop at renewing this ban. If that ever happens, you can bet I'll start stocking up before personal ownership of all firearms is outlawed.

Frivolity

According to this AP article:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - McDonald's Corp. was hit with a lawsuit Thursday accusing the fast-food giant of failing to reduce fat in the cooking oil used in its french fries and other foods.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald's pledged in September 2002 to switch to a lower-fat oil by February, 2003.

The suit, filed in federal court on behalf of a California woman, says McDonald's has not disclosed "to the public in an effective manner that it had not switched to a new, healthier cooking oil."

The restaurant chain had announced it planned to cut the trans fat levels in its fried foods. But McDonald's has delayed the plan, citing concerns of product quality and customer satisfaction.

I have one question: Did McDonald's sign any legally binding contract to the effect that it would cut trans fat levels, or did McDonald's agree to do so as part of the settlement of a lawsuit against them? As this article mentions neither condition as existing, I'm going to assume the answer is no. Therefore, McDonald's was under no legal obligation to do anything regarding the levels of fat in its cooking oil and this lawsuit has no legal basis. What amazes me is that it hasn't been laughed out of court by the judge already. On second thought, given the state of the judiciary, especially in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, I guess I'm not so amazed.

Not only did McDonald's have no legal obligation to do this, they have made public the delay in doing so and they have good reasons for it. Sounds responsible to me.

If you think McDonald's has too much fat in their fries, then DON'T EAT THERE! If you feel strongly enough about it, tell all your friends not to eat there. Take out an ad in the paper outlining your argument (just be sure you don't commit libel). Shout it from the rooftops (just be sure you don't commit slander). But, of course, the woman who brought this suit thinks we're all stupid and can't think for ourselves, so she has to protect us from the evil corporation that is doing nothing illegal but has somehow brainwashed all us sheep into eating their fatty food (and writing run-on sentences).

I wonder who she'll be voting for in November. No I don't.

Thanks to Misha for the link.

Institutionalized racism

Hot on the heels of my last post comes this article at FOXNews. Seems a statewide California policy dating back to 1979 prohibits giving a standardized IQ test to black children, while allowing any other children to take it.

At that time, many black kids performed poorly on the IQ test and wound up in special education classes. A lawsuit claimed the test was biased and a judge agreed — banning public schools from giving the test to black children while allowing it for everyone else.

It seems to me that the judge should have told the state to throw out the test altogether and come up with one that wasn't biased. I'm assuming the case in question is Larry P. v Riles in which the judge ruled that the test was racially and culturally biased.

If I were to characterize this, I'd say that they took the most politically expedient route and metaphorically swept it under the rug. To avoid the appearance of racism, they instituted a policy that is clearly racist in that it differentiates between children who take the test and those who don't based solely on ethnicity. Instead of trying to get to the bottom of the problem, they just slapped a bandage on it. Black children are now excluded from testing that could indicate which ones really should be in special education classes. And this helps them how?

Whilst poking around via Google regarding this case, I found this post by Cassandra at I Love Jet Noise where she asks:

Why not just change the policy so poor performance on the IQ test doesn't force children into special ed classes?

Why not indeed.

And I love jet noise, too. Why? To paraphrase Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribean, "Pilot!"

We reserve the right...

Via Fark comes the link to this short article:

Court Rules Against Brewski In The Buff

NEW ORLEANS -- A brewski in the buff doesn't justify an all male bar.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled a Shreveport country club must let women into its sit-down restaurant and bar.

The Southern Trace Country Club has three restaurants, but only the Men's Grille is open on Sundays. Women were barred from the grill.

The court rejected claims that members sometimes dine there in the nude.

On the surface, it sounds reasonable, right? Equal rights for women and all. But the problem here is that giving women the right to enter this restaurant is a rejection of the right of the business owner to determine who he allows onto his property. It may be considered a "public dining area" but it's actually private property. Now, if it were owned by the federal government (or state or local government) then I could see this ruling as valid as it really would be "public property."

It's my belief that business owners should be given very broad lattitude when it comes to who they hire and who they allow in their establishments. If I want to hire only beautiful women, then I should have that right. Here are a few factors that would then come into play which would act to dissuade me from this policy:

• If some potential customers disagree with that policy, then they will vote with their wallets and go somewhere else.


• The same is true of potential employees. If someone is desparate for a job, she might overlook this chauvinistic policy but I'm willing to bet that many women would refuse to work for me.


• Other than the above, having such narrow criteria makes it harder to find qualified people and more likely that I'll either have unfilled positions, or positions filled with people that are not qualified. And this is regardless of whatever criteria I use. I'm in no way saying that I couldn't find a qualified and beautiful woman to fill every position (who may or may not be willing to), just that it would be more difficult. The same would be true, for example, if I wanted to hire only white men born in this country.

Folks, it's called the market. Time and time again we see that heavy-handed government meddling tends to backfire or have other unintended consequences. Left alone, the market tends to be self-regulating. This is not an absolute rule, of course, but it's true in general and we should err on the side of caution rather than automatically turn to government to fix everything with legislation.

Back during the middle of the last century, we of course had a problem with widespread and institutionalized discrimination against black people. The key word here is "institutionalized." The civil rights movement was born and, in conjunction with certain legislation, was able to significantly reduce or eliminate the institution of discrimination. It will never be able to stamp out prejudice; the only way to do that is to hook up bigots to the Attitude Adjustment Machines and turn on the power. You can't legislate beliefs, nor should you. To do so is to create the reality of thought crimes and that way lay the true Orwellian future.

One final comment about the story that started this whole thing. Ever notice how it's almost always a case of women wanting into exclusive men's establishments and not the other way around? Why is that? I think it's due to a fundamental difference in attitude about such things between men and women. If so, I don't know how much is genetic, if any, or how much is cultural. Note that this is not intended as a criticism of women, just an observation.

Euro-land

Dale Franks posts at QandO about his recent experience at Legoland in San Diego.

We had visitors from out of town this weekend, and we wanted to show them a good time. Because they had two children, ages 6 and 10, we decided to go to San Diego's newest big-name attraction, Legoland. Built entirely for children, Legoland is a theme park owned by the European Lego toy company.

The kids, of course, were delighted. Even in Arizona, where they live, Legoland is apparently promoted rather heavily, and the kids were sure that it would be a delightful day of fun and excitement.

They hated it. Six year-old Brandon, who's right smack in the middle of the target age range for the park, called it "Loserland". Evidently feeling that term wasn't denigrating enough, he later amended it to "Lamo-loserland".

And he thinks he knows why:

As we wandered through the park, something kept tickling the back of mind. So much about the park seemed eerily familiar. Then it struck me. I reminded me of nothing so much as the years I spent living in Europe.

Legoland is an almost perfect microcosm of Europe, nested in Southern California. Very clean, very safe, and utterly, utterly boring.

Well, I guess I haven't been missing anything. I think I'll stick with the other amusement parks like Disneyland and Magic Mountain.

Near the end, he writes:

As we left the park, The Lovely Christine decided that she just wouldn't be happy until she complained to park management about the deeply lame nature of the attractions provided. So, we went to guest relations, where Chris had a brief conversation with an impressively mustachioed customer relations lady. The woman calmly listened to our complaint, judiciously stroked her mustache, and told us, "Well, you get out of it what you put into it."

...

But, being an American, when I go to an amusement park, I don't want to "put anything into it". If I want to put effort into having fun, I can do that far more cheaply, and every bit as effectively, in my own back yard. The reason I am going to an amusement park, and paying a pretty stiff price in hard-earned money to do so, is so that they can provide me with amusement. That's why I'm giving them my money. That's supposed to be the deal. I give them my money, and they pander to me.

Reading this over again, I was struck by a thought. Wasn't part of the appeal of Socialism/Communism that the worker would be happy in his work for its own sake? You're working for the good of the collective, not just yourself. You were expected to put your all into the system and you would get out of it the satisfaction of having helped the society as a whole, even if you weren't materially rewarded commensurate with your effort. In other words, "you got out of it what you put into it."

In a capitalistic society like ours, we use money as a sort of storage medium for effort or energy. It's kind of like winding a spring. If I have a self-contained spring unit, I can wind it up and then put it in some sort of machine which will run off the spring. If I have several such machines that are compatible with the spring, I can put it in any one of them. With money, I "store" the energy I exert while working, and then "expend" that energy to obtain goods and services. Like the various machines that can run off our hypothetical spring, I can get whatever goods or services I want provided they're available. What Dale is saying is that he wants to put his spring unit into the park and let it do the work. He doesn't want to wind the spring even more.

(I whipped this one out pretty quick so the analogies may not be the best.)

Game review: XIII

Well I finally finished playing through the single-player game in XIII. Here are my thoughts.

The game's principle claim to fame is that it is "cel-shaded" which is a technique of rendering a 3D game so that it looks like it's animated, or looks like a moving comic book. There are a few games out there that are doing this and this one does a very good job. In addition to the cel-shading, there are other visual touches that evoke a comic book style like words showing up on the screen that reflect certain sounds. For example, if a person is walking nearby, but is out of sight around a corner or on the other side of a door, you will see the word "tap" appear briefly as the person takes each step and it will indicate his or her position. Explosions are often accompanied by the word "Boom!" or "Bang!" in large comic-style letters. Also, the cut scenes are split into panels like a page in a comic book. They're obviously video which was originally rendered by the game engine, as opposed to being rendered in real-time.

The game play doesn't really offer anything that we haven't already seen. Some parts are full of action, others require you to be stealthy and either avoid other people or knock them out without killing them. You also have a grappling hook and a lockpick that come into play at several points. The weapons are pretty standard and contemporary, from a knife up to a heavy machine gun. The obligatory sniper weapon is there as well, this time in the form of a crossbow with a scope, as is the rocket launcher.

The levels are well-designed and are quite nice to look at. They're pretty much what we've come to expect from a well-produced 3D game. The environments vary widely from desert to snowy mountains, and it's about evenly divided between interior and exterior areas.

The AI is decent. The characters are pretty quick to respond to your presence if they "see" or "hear" you and it doesn't take much for that to happen. In many cases, you need to prevent them from sounding an alarm so you need to avoid them or take them out. Those that attack you tend to do so pretty directly so it's not hard to shoot them. They will use cover to a degree but aren't all that clever about it.

The sound effects are well done, again pretty much what you'd expect. The voice acting on the other hand is hit or miss. The three main characters and their voice actors are:

XIII (you): David Duchovny
Major Jones (female partner): Eve
General Carrington: Adam West

David Duchovny just doesn't seem to work in the role. His voice is like his characterization of Mulder, pretty laid back, and it doesn't fit the dynamic character of XIII. I don't know if he just wasn't trying very hard, or if he just wasn't able to make the voice fit. They should've went with someone else. Eve does a decent job but Adam West is the best of the three. His voice fits the character well and he is clearly putting some effort into it, and enjoying it.

One thing that bugged me was that in-game conversations between characters (there are several points where you're listening in on others) don't flow smoothly because text balloons accompany the spoken dialog. When one character is done speaking, there's a pause before the next one speaks so you can finish reading. It's especially noticeable when the script calls for one character to interrupt another. It's a minor quibble, though.

All in all the game was enjoyable, but not the best game I've ever played. Max Payne and its sequel were better and I'd even say that the original Half Life, the standard by which first-person games are still judged, was superior. Still, if you see it in the bargain bin, don't hesitate to pick it up. Gamespot gave it a 6.4 rating and I pretty much concur with their conclusions.

Corporal punishment

Kim du Toit comments on recent developments in Britain's Parliament regarding corporal punishment.

My siblings and I were subject to spankings when we were growing up. It was a powerful deterrent to unacceptable behavior. I think all three of us turned out alright. We certainly aren't abusive or violent. My brother and sister are happily married and I have a wonderful girlfriend. I've never hit a woman in my life.

Sometimes you just need to get it through a kid's head that what he or she is doing is unacceptable and you need to do it *right now*. You don't always have the ability to put the child in "time out" and threatening punishments such as grounding or denial of privileges doesn't have the immediacy of a swift swat on the bottom. I believe that corporal punishment, if done correctly, is an acceptable form of discipline and may even be indespensible.

Definitions

Um, apparently someone needs to educate Mr. Trudeau on the real definition of torture. What happened at Abu Ghraig was humiliation, yes; abuse, yes. But not torture.

Counting the cost

You know, I could just read Fark and it would provide plenty enough fodder for this blog. Check out this article regarding a wall built along US 441 near Gainesville, Florida, in order to keep animals off the road:

While the wall has reduced the number of road kill, there is a price to pay. What’s that costing you 3 point 6 million dollars? We asked Busscher if there were some taxpayers that said geez, 3 point 6 million dollars to stop road kill.

Dunno why they used the word "point" instead of just writing "3.6 million" but, whatever. My first reaction was, "you gotta be kidding." I then started watching the associated video (of which this article is actually a transcript) and I started thinking about the possible benefits of this wall besides keeping little critters safe. The report actually ended up mentioning one of them which is that fewer animals on the road means it's less likely someone will swerve to avoid one and potentially cause an accident. Another benefit that the report didn't mention is the reduction in cleanup costs due to fewer road kills (assuming they actually clean them up and not leave them to decompose on their own).

At the end of the report is this note:

While there is no doubt animals crossing the highway present problems, some people we talked to asked why the D.O.T. didn’t erect a less expensive fence instead of building 3.6 million dollar wall. The D.O.T. in charge of the area says a fence would not work because it would be in need of repair and animals might get through.

However the D.O.T. spokesman in charge of Alligator Alley says a fence is all the keeps the gators from the traffic in that area of the state and nothing else is needed because the fence works perfectly fine.

If all you're concerned about is alligators, then a fence is fine. But in this case they're dealing with small animals, such as frogs and snakes, as well as large and a fence wouldn't be enough. And they're right about the maintenance issue. This concrete wall is much more durable than a fence of any kind and will probably cost less to maintain over the long run.

After watching the report and upon further reflection, I'm inclined to give the Florida D.O.T. the benefit of the doubt. This wall may actually be worth the money, both in reducing actual costs due to reduced cleanup and accidents, and in improving the appearance of the road. It's obvious someone put some thought into its design and they certainly didn't rush into building it. I would like to see a study done in, say, five years detailing the total cost of the wall (original construction and maintenance) vs. the cost savings. That would then serve as a factor when deciding whether or not to build such walls along other stretches of highway.

Censorship...not.

Via Fark comes the link to this article (to which they applied their "Dumbass" label):

DECORAH, Iowa - The president of a company that owns movie theaters in Iowa and Nebraska is refusing to show director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

R.L. Fridley, owner of Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism.

Fridley said in an e-mail message to company managers that the company does not "play political propaganda films from either the right or the left."

"Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people," Fridley wrote. "These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more."

I don't know how big a deal will be made of this; so far I haven't seen any mention of this on the major news sites. But I bet that fans of Moore's film, and the left in general, will probably call this yet another example of censorship.

That is, of course, total bunk. On the one hand, there is preventing someone from publishing their works or preventing people from having access to those works. On the other hand is choosing not to facilitate the publishing of or access to those works. The first is censorship. The second is not and is entirely legal. This man owns these theaters; it is his right to determine which movies will and will not be shown in them. He is under no obligation whatsoever to show a particular film. It doesn't matter at all what his reasons are. In this case, he has decided that the film emboldens terrorists (and I would tend to agree with him though, keep in mind, I haven't seen it), and he does not want it shown in his theaters. And, to be fair, he has also stated that his theaters will not show propaganda films from the left or the right. In other cases, the decision is based purely on business concerns (see: Air America). It doesn't matter what the reason is, this man is a private businessman and he cannot be forced to show a movie that he does not want to, whether it's Fahrenheit 9/11 or Spider-Man 2.

It's the same thing as happened after Natalie Maines said what she said about the President and many radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks' music. They had the right to play or not play whatever songs they wanted (unless, as I've noted before, they had a contract to do so; I've never heard that there was any such contract). People had a right to buy or not to buy their CD's. Exercising that right is not censorship. It's freedom of choice.

Desecration

Via Emperor Misha I comes the link to this article at the Washington Times. Misha has already done his usual job of commentary but I thought this was the money quote:

U.S. commanders, as The Post reported, designated all Shi'ite holy sites in these Sadr battlegrounds to be "exclusion zones," sites where fire — American fire, anyway — was effectively verboten. That is, it didn't matter that the Sadr forces had transformed religious buildings into munitions dumps. Americans were under orders not to return fire unless they could see their attackers, which was nearly impossible under the circumstances. (emphasis mine)

It's not our soldiers who are desecrating these holy sites. It's the terrorists and other insurgents who are doing so by hauling their weapons into those buildings and then firing those weapons from the shelter they provide.

Our policy toward mosques and other holy sites should continue to be the same as it is now, provided that our enemies are not using them for weapon storage and as shelter when firing on our forces. If they do, on the other hand, then all bets are off. They are now legitimate military targets and we should have no compunction against busting through walls with tanks or shelling them with artillery. We've done so once that I know of. I haven't heard that we've continued with that policy or not. If not, then we should do so immediately.

The media will play this up, of course. Therefore, the point that our enemies are the ones defiling those sites must be made strongly by our military commanders and the administration. And don't forget to make the point that it helps save the lives of our soldiers. Those who oppose that will be revealing something about themselves that they may not want made visible.

Socialism/Collectivism on parade

According to this article:

Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation.

Known as the 65-10 Rule (search), it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question.

Well, tell you what, if I can only build on 10% of my land, then I should only have to pay 10% of the property tax.

This is a clear violation of property rights. It smacks of Communism, pure and simple:

But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system.

I agree with a couple of responses to this I've already read. If they want to preserve the land, they should buy it and then they can do whatever you want with it, or not as the case may be.