(America) was a nation created out of nothing - nothing but a set of ideals that they never measured up to. Now and then they had great leaders, but usually nothing but political hacks, and I mean right from the start. Washington was great, but Adams was paranoid and lazy, and Jefferson was as vile a scheming politician as a nation has ever been cursed with.Just thought I'd share.
...
America shaped itself with institutions so strong that it could survive corruption, stupidity, vanity, ambition, recklessness, and even insanity in its chief executive.
--
Islam has never learned how to be a religion. It's a tyranny by its very nature. Until it learns to let the door swing both ways, and permit Muslims to decide not to be Muslims without penalty, then the world has no choice but to fight against it in order to be free.
Religion is a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be sought.Note the two essential characteristics that separate religion from science: supernatural agents, and the need to seek approval from same.
A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.Dr. Dennett wonders if the purpose of religion is simply to spread the meme of religion. It's an interesting idea. Dennett believes that religion is a result of evolution. Dennett thinks that perhaps the proto-meme of religion has evolved into the various modern faiths through its symbiotic relationship with the human species - the only species on the planet that can carry it.
Religious belief itself is an adaptation that has evolved, that we're hard-wired to form tribalistic religions. And that's what religion is - it's intensely tribalistic... It binds people together into cooperative groups. It gives them faith in the particular group to which they belong, and that set of beliefs and moral values.Heinlein was much harsher, a while back:
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.Heinlein may be technically correct, but I think Wilson and Dennett have the right of it: Humans are religious because we're wired for it. Religious memes survive because they have been beneficial to the survival of our species, albeit not for large swaths of particular individuals or groups carrying less successful memes.
a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be soughtis a very successful meme - one that's mutated into literally millions of memes of varying elaborateness (and, truth be told, virulence.) The Christian meme has had something on the order of two thousand years to evolve. The primary vector of that meme is the Bible - a document that has undergone considerable mutation itself. Dr. Hugh S. Pyper, Associate Director & Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies for the University of Leeds in Scotland, lends a bit of ecclesiastical support:
If "survival of the fittest" has any validity as a slogan, then the Bible seems a fair candidate for the accolade of the fittest of texts.Professor Dennett asks a very interesting question: Why is religion so successful? He points out that, from a purely gene-based standpoint, religious faith is often not all that good for spreading ones genes. For example, it certainly isn't advantageous for spreading the genes of (no offense intended) members of the Catholic clergy, yet human beings seem to be capable of latching on to memes that are counter to what Dr. Dawkins claims is the ultimate purpose of life - the spreading of our molecules of DNA. The Catholic religion meme is more successful than the biological imperative to reproduce, at least in the Catholic clergy. They can spread the meme, but the meme means they can't spread their genes.
From a gene's point of view, celibacy, birth control and adoption are horrible mistakes. From a meme's point of view, they are a gold mine. Few or no children free up the meme-carrier to devote more energy to horizontal transmission to non-relatives (monks and nuns the world over figured that out long ago), something the gene is incapable of. With adoption, memes can even co-opt vertical transmission between generations. Blackmore posits that, in modern culture, meme replication has almost completely overwhelmed the glacially slow gene replication.An interesting observation, especially given declining birth-rates in the "modern" Western world. It gives me pause to wonder if the "secular humanist" meme that is apparently replacing religion, at least in Western Europe, is a malignant one for the species.
I think it's fair to say that modern biology is instructed by two powerful principles, so powerful and generally well-tested that they amount to virtual laws of nature. The first one is that all living process is ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry, and that is the foundation of molecular and cell biology. And that is so thoroughly established that no one questions it seriously any more. The second law is that all living processes evolved by natural selection. And those two are so well substantiated and now interlocking that it is very hard to see that out of this will come traditionalist religious views to explain the meaning of life on this planet.He also said:
--
There is no reconciliation between the theory of evolution by natural selection and traditional religious view of the origin of the human mind. You have to choose between the scientific materialist view of the origin of the mind and therefore the mortality, I should think, of the human mind on the one side, and the traditional religious view that the spirit and the mind are independent of the process of evolution and thereby, eventually, non-corporeal - that is capable of leaving the body and going elsewhere.
That's possibly the greatest philosophical question of the 21st century, the resolution of religious faith with the growing realization of the very different nature of the material world. You could say that we evolved to accept one truth - you know the religious instinct - but then discovered another. And having discovered another, what are we to do? You could say that well, it's just best to go ahead and accept two world views and let them live side by side. I see no other solution. In fact, I believe they can put their different world views into position to solve some of the great problems, for example, of the environment. But generally speaking the difficulty in saying they can live side by side is the sectarianism of the world today, and the use of traditional religions to be exclusionary and to justify violence and war, and you just can't deny that this is a major problem.While human beings are the only creatures on the face of the planet capable of believing three or more mutually-exclusive ideas simultaneously before breakfast, I'm not as sanguine about the coexistence option, and a recent minor conflict illustrates this well.
Religion is a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be sought.That's a simple, and I think accurate definition. It pretty much covers the bases, and differentiates religion from science, where science rejects the concept of "supernatural" for "we don't understand yet. Possibly ever." No approval is to be sought because there's no agent to get approval from. Robert Heinlein (again) put it a bit more insultingly:
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.Them's fightin' words to people who believe in supernatural agents. But a lot (a significant majority in fact) of people on this planet do believe in supernatural agents. We're all (minus some psychopaths) prewired for it. There is significant circumstantial evidence that our prehistoric ancestors believed in such, and all documentary evidence shows the existence of religion as far back as recorded history goes.
As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science -- that it has made it possible for people not to be religious.That is, not to be religious without significant social cost. This is a relatively new phenomenon. Still, things haven't gotten very far. According to a recent report, atheists are identified as America's most distrusted minority.
I think it was Camille Paglia who talked about Foucault and the almost religious awe that the French post-structuralist philosophers once had in France. She compared it to the power of the Judeo-Christian tradition and said 3,000 years of Yahweh beats one generation of Foucault.Yes, indeed. In my many
One of the stumbling blocks to faith is exactly that inability to accept a Divine Plan that's inherently beyond our ability to comprehend.I will admit that my response to this easily could be interpreted as accusatory. It was not intended as such, but I'll accept the blame for it. However, in his lecture Professor Dennett made a couple of comments that explain my position much better:
We lay-people do the believing and leave the understanding to the experts.There is a large amount of truth there, especially when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths as I understand them, and the higher sciences. He also said:
With religious formulas, even the experts claim not to understand.If a divine plan is inherently beyond human ability to comprehend, then the second quotation is perfectly accurate. From my way of thinking, an incomprehensible divine plan presents questions even faith cannot answer. That's what faith is for - believing even though there is no (or contrary) evidence of fact. Science acknowledges ignorance, but at least offers the possibility of eventual understanding. What it doesn't offer, is comfort. Faith offers that.
...generally speaking the difficulty in saying (religious and scientific truth) can live side by side is the sectarianism of the world today, and the use of traditional religions to be exclusionary and to justify violence and war, and you just can't deny that this is a major problem.I raised just that point with Fran. His response:
He who claims that that religion excuses violence against non-Christians is contradicting the explicit words of Christ, and therefore is no Christian himself.Og the Neanderpundit commented:
--
No true Christian did those things. Period. The nature of Christianity is at odds with that behavior.
Because evil people act in evil ways and "claim" to be Christian, or do so "in the name of Christ", does not imply that Christ approves of that behavior.
We're not talking about the things so called christians have done in the past, and I will brook no discussion on that subject.I find that a fascinating position to take. Let me recount two jokes here (damn you, DJ!) to illustrate my perspective:
How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?(The first joke is unattributed. The second is by comedian Emo Phillips.) The first joke illustrates the way religious memes can mutate. The second, the historically demonstrated result of many such mutations. Replace "Council of 1879" and "Council of 1912" with "Catholic" and "Protestant," or "Jew" and "Gentile," or "Sufi" and "Shia," or simply "Muslim" and "everybody else," and history can point to violence attributable to the alleged apostasy.
Charismatic: Only 1 - Hands are already in the air.
Pentecostal: 10 - One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.
Presbyterians: None - Lights will go on and off at predestined times.
Roman Catholic: None - Candles only. (Of guaranteed origin of course.)
Baptists: At least 15 - One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.
Episcopalians: 3 - One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks, and one to talk about how much better the old one was.
Mormons: 5 - One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.
Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, you are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.
Methodists: Undetermined - Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Bring a bulb of your choice to the Sunday lighting service and a covered dish to pass.
Nazarene: 6 - One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.
Lutherans: None - Lutherans don't believe in change.
Amish: What's a light bulb?
--
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
I said, "Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! What franchise?" He says, "Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He says, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?" He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Eastern Region?" He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?" He says, Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and I pushed him over.
Your interpretation of my statement merely reveals that you think the Church to be something it isn’t. The Church is the teachings of Christ; its adherents, number they one or billions, cannot affect that. If every living soul who called himself a Christian were an agent of evil, it would not affect the nature of the Church.Since to Fran "The Church" is limited to Christ's teachings, then such behavior is, by definition, unChristian. But the "lightbulb" joke illustrates that "The Church" is, for most people, defined as the specific system of beliefs and behaviors of a group who use the Bible as the basis of that system. More expansively, it encompasses the "experts" who explain to the lay people Christ's teachings, and those 'experts' vary widely in how they interpret those teachings.
My wife is a secularist, born Jewish but non-practicing. When we married, I was a non-practicing Catholic. She hasn't changed; I have. But it's made no difference to our relations or our attitudes toward one another...because we were both decent, tolerant persons before the change, and we've remained decent, tolerant persons since.Yet Fran's religion says that his wife and his daughters, and everyone Fran knows who is not a "true Christian" will burn for eternity in Hell, at worst, or simply cease to exist at best.
My stepdaughters are much like my wife. Both have said that they don't quite comprehend what's come over me since I returned to the Church. But both treat me exactly as they did before...because my behavior toward them has not changed. They understand that my "re-Christening" has nothing to do with them.
The trouble with ‘tolerance’ is that it only works as a cultural compact when all parties are civilized and have in practice largely agreed to abandon the more inconvenient claims of the religions they theoretically profess.Fran is not alone. I use his words only as an example.
He gradually dropped his Christian beliefs because becoming a man of the world, much more aware of other cultures and other religious beliefs and so on, he said that he realized that the stories of the Bible were basically no different than the stories of these other religions, and it seemed to him that they were not in of themselves convincing. But what really turned him against religion was the doctrine of damnation. He said "If the Bible is true, and you must be redeemed in Christ and be a believer in order to go to Heaven and not go to hell, you must be this and others will be condemned," and he said "That includes my brothers and all my best friends," and he said "That is a damnable doctrine." Those are his words.I'm often told that it's a better choice to behave as though I believe, as though my actions will garner me the approval of the supernatural agents. However, at least as far as the Abrahamic faiths go, this is a non-starter:
"I don't think I'm brave, but I count on God to help me."I don't think religion is evil - at least not the overwhelming majority of them. I just don't think that there is a reconciliation between the "truth" we're hardwired for and the "truth" we've discovered. The one we're hardwired for has flaws, some of them so severe that we must be decent, tolerant, civilized people to ignore those flaws and still believe we believe. The one we've discovered doesn't offer us comforting answers. Both require that we depend on experts for understanding. In both cases, even the experts admit that they don't understand everything. But one claims that by faith some will reap an eternal reward, while others will suffer for eternity. The other claims that by hard work, we'll eventually understand. Perhaps not everything, but more and more, continuously.
Call for crackdown on gun crimeHow high was it in 1996, right before the "ban?"
A campaign is being launched aimed at reducing gun crime in Wales.
The number of firearm offences in north Wales was almost six times higher in 2004-2005 than the previous year, according to Home Office figures.
In south Wales, gun offences have more than doubled. There were smaller rises in Gwent and Dyfed-Powys force areas.Yes, you too can be an agent of Big Brother, spy and narc on your neighbors. The ones who are otherwise good guys will get arrested and go to jail. The really bad actors will find out who turned them in and torch their houses, or throw hand-grenades through their windows.
Crimestoppers Wales is asking anyone with information on people who own guns or imitation guns being used in crime, to let them know anonymously.
The total number of firearm offences in Wales - excluding those involving air weapons - rose from 169 in 2003-2004 to 288 in 2004-2005, according to the Home Office.Note, they haven't learned yet. "Anti-gun campaign," not "anti-criminal campaign." As long as they keep focusing on the wrong target, things will continue to get worse. So, in short, the title to the piece is wrong - it's not a crackdown on gun crime, it's another crackdown on guns, which means they haven't learned a damned thing in the last ten years.
Neale Evans, chairman of the independent charity Crimestoppers Wales, said: "We are focusing on people who are on the fringes of gun crime - relatives, friends of people who are being pressurised to get involved in crime and use a gun, or an imitation gun."
As part of the anti-gun campaign, the charity will be distributing posters and leaflets across Wales.
Mr Evans said anyone who may have information about people who may have guns that are being used in criminal activity should call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111. The information will then be passed on to the police.Criminals, for the most part, that the police are already aware of and are unable to get the Crown Prosecution Service to lock up. Go read The Policeman's Blog for an hour or two.
'Innocent bystanders'
He added: "By doing this your anonymity will be preserved and you will be playing your part in protecting the community in which you live.
"Crimestoppers does not trace or record any information about any caller and you will not have to give evidence in court."
The charity said it was not just the criminals who were affected, but "innocent bystanders who can be caught up in this ruthless violence perpetuated by criminals who do not care who gets in the way".
It said the growth of imitation firearms over "real firearms" is no less worrying, as criminals use them as blunt instruments or to intimidate and threaten people.Welcome. You're the next victim of firearm phobia, of a culture that does not recognize the difference between "violent and predatory," and "violent but protective." It sees only "violent," and violence is bad.
However, the publicity Crimestoppers has generated about imitation firearms has not found favour with everyone.
Tim Wyborn, spokesman for a pressure group linked to a simulation game called Airsoft which uses imitation guns, said the publicity presented replica firearms in a poor light.
But he stressed their games players were against any sort of gun crime.It's legal now, until the Nanny-state concludes that letting adults play with toy guns is psychologically harmful and it takes those away, too.
"Owning an imitation firearm is perfectly legal and there are many legitimate uses of imitation firearms in the UK," he said.
The games players fear they will be adversely affected by impending legislation to ban the sale of replica guns.And you are right to fear that.
"As the bulk of crime with replicas is by 13 year old children with cheap replica BB guns, a better way of tackling the problem (of those crimes) would be education," Mr Wyborn added.Now, I've got a question: Is that true? That the bulk of crime with replicas is by children with BB guns? Is the majority of those 288 firearms crimes recorded in Wales kids shooting out windows with BB guns, or is it kids mugging people with BB guns? I'd really like to know. But either way, it's obvious that "gun control" has been a dismal failure.
"Marriage is for White People"A point I made in Culture.
By Joy Jones
Sunday, March 26, 2006; Page B01
I grew up in a time when two-parent families were still the norm, in both black and white America. Then, as an adult, I saw divorce become more commonplace, then almost a rite of passage. Today it would appear that many -- particularly in the black community -- have dispensed with marriage altogether.
But as a black woman, I have witnessed the outrage of girlfriends when the ex failed to show up for his weekend with the kids, and I've seen the disappointment of children who missed having a dad around. Having enjoyed a close relationship with my own father, I made a conscious decision that I wanted a husband, not a live-in boyfriend and not a "baby's daddy," when it came my time to mate and marry.And that ladies and gentlemen, is one shining illustration of the different weltanschauung - world view - between America's black culture and every other culture living along side it. That world view is responsible for the lack of good male role models for black youth - instead, at best they get "baby's daddy," who often doesn't turn up on his weekends with the kids.
My time never came.
For years, I wondered why not. And then some 12-year-olds enlightened me.
"Marriage is for white people."
That's what one of my students told me some years back when I taught a career exploration class for sixth-graders at an elementary school in Southeast Washington. I was pleasantly surprised when the boys in the class stated that being a good father was a very important goal to them, more meaningful than making money or having a fancy title.THAT, at least, is better than not giving a damn at all.
"That's wonderful!" I told my class. "I think I'll invite some couples in to talk about being married and rearing children."
"Oh, no," objected one student. "We're not interested in the part about marriage. Only about how to be good fathers."
And that's when the other boy chimed in, speaking as if the words left a nasty taste in his mouth: "Marriage is for white people."But they're still having children.
He's right. At least statistically. The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.
An alternative explanation focuses on the boys and the harm allegedly done to them by the weakening of the African-American family. Former Senator Daniel Pat Moynihan (D-NY) famously made this argument in his 1965 report on the Negro family. Many black leaders criticized the report for "blaming the victim," even though Moynihan clearly placed the blame on this nation's unemployment record and discriminatory history. In any event, his analysis proved prophetic. While a quarter of African-American families were headed by single women in the year Moynihan issued his report, today that fraction has more than doubled to reach 56 percent.While young black men are attending prison, and dying, also in record number.
But the argument that single-parent families disproportionately hurt boys is suspect. Girls may not be going to jail in large numbers, but they face their own considerable problems, such as out-of-wedlock childbirth. Today, fully half of black women between the ages of 20 and 24 have children, which most raise on their own. Sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, authors of the authoritative Growing Up with a Single Parent, make a convincing case that girls, not boys, are most damaged by the absence of a parent. Yet, despite these significant obstacles, young black women are attending college in record number.
The Times follows up on last Tuesday's gloomy statistical portrait of black men in America with an op-ed piece by Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson. His theme - people are unwilling to invoke cultural explanations:Which was another point I made. Usually the "rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attribute" is done with one word: "Racist!"
SEVERAL recent studies have garnered wide attention for reconfirming the tragic disconnection of millions of black youths from the American mainstream. But they also highlighted another crisis: the failure of social scientists to adequately explain the problem, and their inability to come up with any effective strategy to deal with it.
The main cause for this shortcoming is a deep-seated dogma that has prevailed in social science and policy circles since the mid-1960's: the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes — its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members — and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing.
If you think the personification of evil is the organ recipient who dies because they were not high enough on the organ waiting list, and you think that socialized medicine would fix such ills, you have a surprise coming your way. In socialized-medicine countries like Germany or Great Britain, you'll be shocked to find waiting lists for seeing the doctor.Usually the response to this is something on the order of the defense of Communism: "It wouldn't be like that if everybody participated!"
Last year, my 84-year old grandmother collapsed in her kitchen on a Saturday, fully conscious but unable to move. Luckily, a neighbor found her, and they took her to the hospital. Because she was fully conscious and not in an immediately life-threatening situation, she had to wait until Monday morning to even see a doctor to assess her, because the public hospital only keeps doctors on call for life-threatening emergencies on weekends for cost reasons, and the pencil pushers in charge of health care decided that her situation did not warrant seeing a doctor right away.
who passed gas and on into universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating President Al Gore and Vice-President Noam Chomsky envisioning world peace among the masters of war and stayed on and stayed on and stayed on sucking off the great teat of academe in upaid student loans and over-paid professorial positions the better to molest the minds of children for decades with every third year off for bad behavior,I told a Brazilian fan of Ginsberg (and Chomsky) who went by the handle "Tupiniquim" quite a while back that I didn't read the man's stuff. One reason (aside from his political bent) is his style. "Howl" is irritating to read just for that, but I've got to admit, Van Der Leun's paean(?) is entertaining!
Reader, commenter, arfcommer, and friend Shoot-N-Scoot just called to tell me that:Say Uncle has a collection of updates at this post, and he's getting Scoot some attention. Michael Silence has a round-up of links here. One of the bloggers taking note is Glenn Reynolds, which means millions of eyes are now pointed Tennesseeward.
*The ATF is at his house
*They’re asking if he has any machine guns
*They have seized his house pending approval of a search warrant
*Told him he was free to go but they were going to search his house
He did the smart thing and left. He also called his lawyer. He (like me) is one of those gun owners who meticulously follows the law to avoid trouble. In that situation, I, myself, would be wondering if I had all my I’s dotted and T’s crossed as there are a lot of technicalities out there. His only crime is apparently marrying his ex-wife, who has supposedly called the ATF and said he has machine guns. He does not have machine guns and is one of my friends who I build AR-15s with.
He asked that I spread the word. More details as I get them.
When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.
That's true outside of New Jersey, too. Let's see if we can help deflect, if not reduce the peril.In comments, KNS reporter Jamie Satterfield writes:He has more to say, but the fact remains that Scoot is apparently a convicted felon who did not get his rights restored. One thing about the blogosphere that I really like: instant updates, and the willingness to admit error. (However, Publicola's comment echos my thoughts somewhat.)I cover the courts for the News Sentinel. I have checked out this case after being notified by Mike Silence of blog interest. Although I will be reporting on it next week, court records show the person at issue was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms that included two rifles, a shotgun and a loaded .45-caliber pistol. He was not charged with the “assorted gun parts” the ATF agent wrote in his affidavit that he found in the gentleman’s basement. Stay tuned to the Sentinel next week when I will write about his court appearance.I’ve had some private correspondence with her regarding the situation and she basically read to me right from the database the felony info. Convicted felons can’t own guns and thems the rules. That said, I think the ATF went for the MG. Then manufacturing. Then, finally, the felon thing would stick. It was a fishing expedition and, unfortunately, they dug deep enough.
A person who murders a child is a felon. But so is a person who imports orchids into the United States. You can lose your right to arms, right to vote and others whether you’re an axe murderer or you import lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. Obviously, some crimes warrant stripping access to guns.That's a point I've made several times here, myself. So many crimes are felonies these days that, for example, using a false ID can possibly get you a felony conviction that will revoke your right to arms essentially forever. The exclusion is far too broad, and it looks like it caught Scoot. As far as I'm concerned, that's the next law that needs to be aggressively attacked, but it never will be. Our opponents will label it "arming felons," and that will kill the idea deader than the proverbial doornail.
In other words, when it comes to determining the severity of a person’s crime, the term felon is about as useless as a cock-flavored lollipop.
I thought you might be interested in commenting on some recent gun law changes in Indiana.Well, Ben, I would comment, but you already have, and since you're on the ground there I bow to your local expertise. Rock on, Indiana!
HB 1028 and HB 1176 were signed by Governor Mitch Daniels Tuesday giving Indiana lifetime handgun carry licenses as well as clarification of the protection from prosecution or civil suit provided for someone involved in a good defensive shooting. HB1176 is a little like an expanded Castle Doctrine - a very good law.
Daniels was quoted as saying:For those of us who believe the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says ... this is exactly the kind of step we need to take.There was some consternation regarding HB 1028 as it has provisions to send 4473's to the Indiana State Police, but that simply replaces another form that did essentially the same thing, so it's not really a loss.
A microcosm of the debate played out between Clark Zeit, of Olathe, and his mother, Carolyn Zeit, of Prairie Village, when they were asked about what the Legislature did.Although that hasn't been the case in ANY state that has passed "shall-issue." And, as I pointed out - in detail - before "more guns" DOES NOT equal "more crime." What concealed-carry does is allow people to protect themselves and others:
"They say it will make it more difficult for police to do their job. But I think there are enough safeguards," the son said.
The mother said: "I'm totally against it. I think too many people will have guns and you won't be safe anywhere."
--
The Kansas Sheriffs' Association remained neutral because its members were divided. But its president, Stafford County Sheriff Jeff Parr, said such a law bothers him.
"I feel that with more people able to conceal weapons we're going to have problems with guns," he said. "Instead of getting into a fist fight, if they have a gun, they are going to pull a gun instead of fighting."
Democrat, Rep. L. Candy Ruff, of Leavenworth, was the bill's chief champion.That's called "serving your constituents."
"People now have the right to defend themselves if they want to," said Ruff, adding she doesn't plan to get a concealed gun permit.
"I've never had a desire to carry a concealed gun," she said. "I pushed it because two rape victims in my district asked me to."
"My concern is people thinking they are safe because they are packing a gun," said Yonally, R-Overland Park. "It's only going to become a weapon that can be used against them."(*SIGH*) Anyway, here's the map, updated just yesterday!
Why is it that when some bright spark in the marketing department at Apple, Cannondale, or Pontiac notices that slightly more than 50% of the planet's population is setters rather than pointers, it gets two column inches on page 24 of the WSJ, but when their counterpart at Remington or Smith & Wesson does likewise, it calls for a panting TeeWee news spot from ABC? Build a Saturn that has room to stow a purse in the front passenger compartment, and nobody notices. Make a SIG small enough to fit in that purse, and shoulders get dislocated in newsrooms across America as folks reach for dusty tomes by Freud. Weird.Ayup.
Man shot during store robberyMore:
By SHAUN EPPERSON World Staff Writer
3/19/2006
Police say a customer with a concealed-pistol permit shot one of two armed men holding up a Tulsa grocery.
A man was shot Saturday evening as he and another man attempted to rob a Homeland store near 91st Street and Memorial Drive, police reported.
Two men in dark clothing approached a register around 7:15 p.m and demanded money from employees as one of the men brandished a semi-automatic pistol, Capt. Brett Bailey said.
Shortly afterward, a customer in line nearby pulled out a revolver and shot the man holding the pistol, Bailey said.
Police think the customer fired one shot at the robber, he said.
Although police don't know where the gunman was wounded, they know that he was hit, Bailey said.
"There was blood on the floor," he said. "He definitely was hit."
The two bandits then ran into the parking lot and fled in a white four-door sedan, Bailey said.
The vehicle possibly was an older model Oldsmobile, police said.
Police do not know whether the men got any money from the store, they said.
Officers locked down the store and asked everyone inside to give a statement about what they saw, Bailey said.
Police said the customer who shot the robber had a license to carry a concealed pistol.
Several bystanders were in the store, but no one else was injured, police said.
A Homeland employee, Linda Lewis, said she was sacking groceries when she saw two men wearing hoods trying to push their way into a gated area of the store to an office where a safe was located.
"I turned around and saw these guys come in with hoods over their faces," she said.
She lay down on the floor, she said, because she "knew something was going to happen."
Next, she said, she heard gunfire and feared that an employee had been shot.
"I heard two shots, and I didn't know if a customer or a robber was shot," she said. "I thought we'd be next."
Lewis said she was "scared half to death," adding that she was thankful that no cus tomers or employees had been shot.
"If it hadn't been for him (the armed customer), there's no telling what would have happened," she said.
Police were searching for two men in connection with the robbery Saturday.
2 Percent Of Oklahomans Have A Permit To Carry A Concealed WeaponSweet bleeding Jeebus, GOOD PRESS! (You did note, I hope, that the TV station checked to see if the grocery store was posted against concealed-carry. Like the cops hadn't done that already.) Here are a couple of shots of the wounded bad-guy:
49,221 people in Oklahoma have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which is less than 2 percent of the population. One of those is a 75 year old retired man who shot a robbery suspect this weekend inside a Tulsa grocery store.
News on 6 crime reporter Lori Fullbright takes a look at the law.
Tulsa Police say two men confronted a store employee at a Homeland grocery store near 91st and South Memorial on Saturday and demanded money at gunpoint.
A 75-year-old man, who was standing in the checkout line, legally had a revolver hidden inside his pocket. He pulled it out and shot at the robbers. Tulsa Police Sgt Mike Huff: "Fired a couple of shots. One hit one of the suspects in the mid-torso area. We feel he is seriously injured."
The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation says 7,622 people in Tulsa County have a permit to carry a concealed weapon anywhere except into government buildings, schools, universities, jails, places that sell beer, places where there's betting, professional sporting events or any other business that forbids it. Violating that part of the law will cost you a $250 fine and you'll have your permit suspended for three months.
The News on 6 could not find a posting at the 91st and Memorial Homeland store, prohibiting firearms.
Tulsa Police say deciding to shoot isn't simple, even when it's legal. Sgt Mike Huff: "We always have to think about our backdrop, what we're shooting at, if we miss it, what will we hit and if there's a gun battle, if they miss us, what are they going to hit. It sounds simple but in a split second, it's a big decision to engage someone in deadly force."
What police officers can't publicly say is most of them secretly applaud citizens who defend their own lives or the lives or others. Sgt Mike Huff: "The bad guys with guns are shooting at people and they have no rules to follow. They obviously disregard the laws. The good, hard-working people are the ones who are following the rules. Over the years, they've acted very responsibly." (Halleluja!)
58 concealed permits are currently under suspension, the state revoked 18 of them last year. (That's less than 0.12% under suspension, less than 0.04% revoked.)
Tulsa Police say this weekend's shooting appears to right in line with the law and folkswith Homeland told us they have no comment.
Tulsa Police say if the robbery suspect doesn't get medical treatment soon, he could die, in fact, they wonder if he might already be dead.
Peace just a breath away, says Sharon StoneDoesn't that just give you the warm-and-fuzzies? "Just a breath..."
A peaceful co-existence between the peoples of the Middle East is but a breath away, Hollywood star Sharon Stone said after a highly publicized visit to Israel.
"It feels to me that we have an opportunity ... to choose understanding in a new way," she told a press conference in Paris when asked about her trip.
"And it really is just a breath. It's just an agreement that's just a breath. We are not far apart. We can choose to have this alternative kind of growth that is a collective nuance of understanding.
"We are just that breath away from a peaceful co-existence," she added after her visit to Israel as a guest of the Peres Center for Peace, a foundation run by Nobel laureate and former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres.
Stone, 48, who visited several projects aimed at promoting peace, including a kindergarten for Israeli and Palestinian children in Jaffa, was also photographed praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest Jewish shrine.
Stone, who is also an ardent champion of women's rights, was in Paris ahead of the release of her latest film "Basic Instinct II".I guess Ms. Stone is in denial about the volume of angry breathers out there who would happily rape her for going around without covering her head, much less stone her to death for the acts she simulates in "Basic Instinct II." (Video absolutely, positively NOT safe for work. Broadband recommended.) There is, I suppose, a kind of peace in death, where the breath she waxes poetic about is one's last.
She told journalists that she was delighted that women were stepping up to take their place in the world, taking on new jobs to which they brought something unique, "their feminine instinct."
"This is a new and very exciting time for women, because women by their very nature are creative and not destructive. And this is an extraordinary and important thing that we can bring into a world that awaits the opportunity for peace."
N.C. wants Smith & Wesson to replace faulty revolversHere's a picture of a couple of failures:
Faced with problems ranging from misfires to barrels breaking off, the state has asked gun maker Smith & Wesson to replace hundreds of sidearms carried by probation and corrections officers.
None of the revolvers have failed in the line of duty, and for now, the department is keeping the guns in service. But in testing, about one in four revolvers didn't fire when the trigger was pulled. In some cases, the barrel of some models broke off when the gun was fired.
"In one sense it's funny," said Chief Deputy Correction Secretary Dan Stieneke. "In another, it's alarming."
So far, the state Correction Department has asked the Massachusetts-based gun maker to replace only 500 Model 64 revolvers bought in 2004, though there have also been problems with two other models. But officials could wind up asking Smith & Wesson to provide replacements for all 5,000 of the department's revolvers.
At a meeting last month at a shooting range in Smithfield, Smith & Wesson representative got a live demonstration of the problems. During test firing of about three dozen revolvers, four misfired, meaning nothing happened when the trigger was pulled. The barrel also broke off a different model when it was fired, something that has happened 14 times in practice firings since 2003.
"On the one hand, statistically (the revolvers' performance) is not bad, but it's just the safety issue," Stieneke said. "That kind of failure gets people's attention."
Officials at Springfield, Mass.-based Smith & Wesson, one of the world's largest gun makers, did not return repeated calls seeking comment.
For at least two decades, state prison officials have used Smith & Wesson revolvers. They are assigned to probation officers and correction officers who work outside of prison walls, patrolling perimeters and escorting inmates. The guns are not carried by officers who work inside prisons, where there is too great a risk of inmates getting a gun.
The guns cost about $320 each, meaning it would cost the state more than $1.5 million to replace them all. That doesn't include the cost of buying new ammunition, holsters and other accessories, plus retraining officers to use a new model of gun.
"We're at a point where if we have to make a quick switch, it's going to cost millions of dollars, and it's going to take a lot of training and effort to get back up to speed," Stieneke said.
Many law enforcement agencies have moved away from revolvers in recent years, switching to semiautomatic pistols, something Stieneke is considering.
The Bend of HistoryEditor? What's an editor?
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003
"One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says."--New York Times, March 17, 2006
The trouble with 'tolerance' is that it only works as a cultural compact when all parties are civilized and have in practice largely agreed to abandon the more inconvenient claims of the religions they theoretically profess.(The title is from a comment I left at a post over at Eternity Road.) (Link broken. - Ed.) Discuss.
We're not talking about the things so called christians have done in the past, and I will brook no discussion on that subject.But we have to discuss that subject, because no one's proven to me that such things can't happen again:
When news of this holocaust of French Protestants reached the world, Catherine de'Medici received the congratulations of all the Catholic powers, and Pope Gregory XIII ordered bonfires lighted and the singing of the Te Deum. Indeed, the Pope's joy was so great that he commanded a gold medal to be minted, with the inscription, "Slaughter [strages] of the Huguenots." He then had Giorgio Vasari paint pictures in the Vatican of "the glorious triumph over a perfidious race."I suppose Catherine de'Medici and Pope Gregory XIII were "so-called" Christians? Sarah claims that Protestant Christianity is the answer. Perhaps it is, but some of the Protestant sects seem quite content in quoting the Old Testament and holding it up for reverence. The Ten Commandments, for example, which is a rallying point for a lot of American Christians, is from the Book of Exodus. Fran states:
The Book of Deuteronomy is Old Testament, and has no relevance to the Christian New Covenant; the same applies to the bloody commands of the Book of Leviticus.Are the Ten Commandments still valid, then? A lot of people seem to believe they are. Or is this just another example of where civilized parties have "largely agreed to abandon the more inconvenient claims of the religions they theoretically profess?"
I just tried the Rice-a-Roni Express "Hearty Beef" product.Here's their response:
Ladies and gentlemen, that was just SAD. It smelled like old socks and tasted (yes, I tasted) no better than it smelled.
Whose brilliant idea was this product? It makes military MREs look good by comparison. The product was on sale at my local Albertson's for $1 a package. 10¢ worth was all I could stand.
I love the standard Rice-a-Roni product, but this? It's a "must-avoid."
We're so sorry that you didn't enjoy Rice-A-Roni Express Hearty Beef.They're going to send me 90¢?
Our objective, pure and simple, is to make high-quality products that our consumers will choose again and again. We appreciate your input and will use your comments as we continuously work to improve our products. Please accept our sincere apologies. Your comments and the information that you provided are valuable to us. We are sending out an adjustment for your purchase via the U.S. Postal Service.
Michele
Quaker Consumer Response
