Our Collapsing Schools Dept. - Humor

(In relation to the previous post.)

Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.
The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."
The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M."
Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching Math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment:
Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20.
What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees?
(There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math in 2000:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120.
How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
How many documents were shredded to achieve this number?

Teaching Math in 2010:
El Loggero se habla with the truckero y se ponen de acuerdo con otro driver de la competencia y etc...

Our Collapsing Schools Dept.

Fox News comments on this New Orleans Times-Picayune story concerning the failure of the class validictorian at Alcee Fortier Senior High School to graduate because

(wait for it...)

she failed the math portion of the required exit exam.

Five times.

The exam tests at a 10th grade level.

She got an 'A' in algebra.

As Fox put it:

"They were giving her As for being a good kid. But they weren't teaching her."

I'm sure she felt good about herself. Until the real world reared up and smacked her in the face as it has a habit of doing.

Of course,

The principal blames the test.

It couldn't be the fault of the school system, could it?

Read both pieces. The Fox bit has a lot more on other education topics. The details in the Times-Picayune piece will make you want to burn the school down so we can start over from scratch.

Nod to Ravenwood for the pointer.

UPDATE:

Commenter Teri brings up something that I should have noted:

You didn't point out the absolute worst thing about this situation:

"With the kinds of grades she's earned, Green said she doesn't have any doubts about her abilities to do well in college. If she passes a summer retest, Green said she plans to enroll at Delgado Community College and pursue an elementary education degree."

Makes me want to scream!

Yup. Infinite feedback loop. With the kind of grades she's received, most people would expect to be able to do well. But earned? I think not. And if she goes to a college that actually requires her to learn, she might discover that those grades she "earned" have less value than the paper they're printed on.

And she wants to inflict her educational experience on our kids.

You're right, Teri, I missed that opportunity. Good catch.

And educators wonder about the people who home-school.

Well, THIS Should Stir Some Interest

Do you read Silflay Hraka? It's a multi-contributor blog that originated the Carnival of the Vanities (the August 20 installment to be hosted by Outside the Beltway). Well, now they've started what is sure to be a controversy. Contributor Captain Holley is going to recommend the four basic guns he recommends "to anyone beginning a gun collection." The first recommendation: A bolt-action centerfire rifle in .308 Winchester.

Allow me to weigh in here. I think there are actually six firearms anybody who shoots should have. These are:

A .22LR caliber rifle

A .22LR caliber handgun

A centerfire bolt-action rifle

A "sport-utility" rifle or, as I call it, your Militia rifle - semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, in a military caliber.

A shotgun

A centerfire handgun

Of course, you are more than welcome to own more than one of any of these six, but one of each is a minimum. In my case, I have a 10/22 for the rifle, a Ruger MkII and a Contender for the .22 pistol (and I have a serious jones for a Ruger Single-Six), I own several centerfire bolt-action rifles (mostly military surplus sporters), an AR-15, a Mossburg 590, and my Kimber Classic Stainless round out the collection. (I have more than that, but I'm not going to give a complete inventory.) I'm far from completing the collection, however. Next up, when I can afford it, will be a Contender rifle barrel, stock, and forend to give me my first single-shot rifle, chambered in the wildcat Tactical .20 caliber (33 grain Hornady V-Max bullet with a muzzle velocity of 4,000fps.) And eventually, I'd like an FN-FAL, and I'm still looking for a S&W 25-5 .45 Long Colt with a 5" barrel, and.... Well, you get the idea.

I fully agree with Captain Holly's recommendation of a Savage Model 10 with a 3-9x40 scope in .308, though. Inexpensive and accurate. But I'd recommend starting with a .22 rimfire. You'll shoot more and learn more starting with something that doesn't kick. Recoil is an individual thing, but I'm convinced it's something you can learn to ignore (up to a certain point, and given reasonable ergonomics of the weapon.) If you start off with a rifle that whacks you pretty briskly, it's decidedly off-putting. I'm now to the point where I can run 100 rounds through my 1917 Enfield (.30-06) off the bench with very little discomfort, but lot of people complain that the .30-06 kicks too hard. If I hadn't spent a lot of time firing a No. 4 Enfield (.303 British) and a 96 Swedish Mauser (6.5x55) first, and just jumped in with the 1917, I might feel the same way. (I'm looking forward to getting my 48 Yugoslavian Mauser finished. The original military stock with the steel buttplate was a stout kicker. Perhaps with the new Richard's Microfit stock with a recoil pad it will be just as comfortable as the 1917. So, if you're going to start your collection with a centerfire rifle, the Savage Model 10 is an excellent choice - but get it in .223 caliber. Ammo is dirt cheap, and recoil is very light.

Reading the rest of Captain Holly's recommendations should be interesting.

Next Time, Stick it in His EAR

Via MadOgre comes this story of a man in North Carolina who came to the defense of a woman being robbed at an ATM. His weapon? A North American Arms .22 magnum mini-revolver.

The report:

Bystander shoots suspect during robbery at ATM

William "Don" Strickland takes his small-caliber handgun wherever he goes, just in case any criminals cross his path.
On Thursday, the former iron worker on permanent disability used it -- when he saw a young woman being robbed at an ATM and the robber trying to get away.

First Strickland shot the tires of the getaway car; then he shot the man inside once in the right leg.

The robber escaped, but soon Clayton police arrested Morris Levi Stith of Clayton after Stith checked into Johnston Memorial Hospital with a gunshot wound to the right leg. Stith was charged with robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, Clayton police said. Strickland probably will not be charged.

Stith complained about being shot as he hobbled into the magistrate's office in downtown Clayton with a police escort Thursday afternoon. "It's wrong, man," he said.

Oh, the irony.

The incident occurred a few minutes before 9 a.m. in front of the Bank of America branch at Clayton Corners Shopping Center in the western part of town.

Rebecca Lynn Newton, 20, of Barber Mill Road in Clayton said she was about to insert an envelope containing $400 from her paycheck into the ATM slot when a man shoved her from behind and said, "I'll take that."

Newton spun and grabbed the unarmed man by the shirt, causing him to fall, and she started screaming.

Strickland, 35, of Four Oaks was in his car waiting for the bank to open. He said in an interview that he heard a woman scream -- "Help, help, help, he's robbing me!" -- and sprang into action.

He said he "don't get around too good" because of an injury several years ago that required four titanium rods to be inserted in his back. Still, Strickland ran to a white Chevrolet Cavalier that was backed into a parking spot.

The robber had jumped into the car, and Newton was struggling with him by the car door.

The car started moving, and Strickland hollered at the robber to stop, his North American Arms .22-caliber Magnum revolver in his hand. Then he fired twice at a rear tire.

You can tell this is not a "big-city" paper. The word "hollered" would never be seen in the New York Times unless it was a quotation.

"He still wouldn't stop," Strickland said. "I was standing beside the car, and he tried to run me over.

"I had my hand in the car" with the gun in it, Strickland said, "and I asked him to stop again, and he wouldn't do it, so I shot him in the leg."

Just a bit of advice, but if you stuck the barrel in his ear he might hear you better.

When police arrived, Strickland told them he was sure he had shot the man in the right leg, and police notified area hospitals to be on the lookout for a patient with such a wound, said Lt. Bill Newsome of the Clayton Police Department.

Officers found $360 in cash on Stith, Newsome said.

Newsome said Strickland is unlikely to be charged because he is listed as the victim of the assault. Tom Lock, the Johnston County district attorney, said a person has a right to use deadly force to resist deadly force.

And this is the South, where people aren't punished for doing right.

"If the suspect in this case was attempting to run over a person, then that person could use deadly force to resist the assault," Lock said.

He added that intervening in a robbery involves some risk. "No one wants to encourage vigilante justice, but I certainly can understand that a person might feel compelled to intervene when he saw a crime being committed. I might do the same thing under similar circumstances."

Just have to get that "vigilante" word in there, don'tcha?

Strickland, who does not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, said the gun had been lying on the dash of his car.

"I don't go to the grocery store without something today, because of things like that," he said.

Newton, a gas station clerk who took the day off after the robbery, said Strickland is her hero.

Her fianc e,(sic) David Little, 40, said he, too, was grateful.

"I'm going to call him over the weekend and ask him what kind of steak he likes," said Little, who moved to Clayton with his fiance e this summer from Atlanta. "I'm going to have him and his wife and kids over for dinner."

Yup, that's the South. I do miss it sometimes.

Just Fvcking Marvelous

Looks like we've got another random serial killer.

Excerpt 1:

Serial sniper suspected in convenience store killings in W.Va.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Bullets that killed three victims this week outside Kanawha County convenience stores were fired from the same caliber and class of weapon, police said Friday night, but they stopped short of saying they were fired from the same gun.

"All three balls had the same characteristics," Kanawha County Sheriff Dave Tucker said after getting ballistics results from a State Police crime lab. "But we can't say for sure it's the same gun."

Excerpt 2:

Sniper suspect is large white man

Shooter might be serial killer, sheriff says.

Police speculated Friday that a large, white male driving a black pickup with an extended cab may be responsible for Thursday night’s killings outside two Kanawha County convenience stores, and possibly others.

Kanawha Sheriff Dave Tucker said at a Friday afternoon media conference that the killer “could be a possible serial-type murderer.”

Both victims of Thursday night’s convenience store shootings, Jeanie Patton, 31, and Okey Meadows, 26, were shot in the head area in a manner similar to the shooting of Gary Carrier Jr., 44, who was shot outside a Charleston convenience store Sunday night.

Please, let some armed citizen whack this nutcase.

Frank J. Continues his Firearms Tutorial

Money quote:

500 S&W Magnum: After caving in the anti-gun nuts, Smith & Wesson had to win back the heart of their consumers. They did this by making a freaking huge handgun caliber. If someone is robbing the house four houses down from you, you can shoot through all the houses and hit him with this.

If all of these calibers are too weak for you, those crazy Israelis at Magnum Research can make revolvers for you chambered in rifle rounds like the venerable .30-.30. The only purpose of these is to freak out people at a gun range, and it takes a lot to freak out people at a gun range.

Go read the rest here.

Hurry. Frank has declared WAR!! on Glenn Reynolds.

His site could become a smoking radioactive crater at any time.

THIS is TOO Weird!

Try it!

(Nod to Feces Flinging Monkey for the link)

Another Friday Five

1. How much time do you spend online each day?

Way, way too much.

2. What is your browser homepage set to?

I have a version of John C. Dvorak's Personal Portal installed on my harddrives both at home and at work. I like it.

3. Do you use any instant messaging programs? If so, which one(s)?

No. I use the IM feature over at AR15.com occasionally (when the site is up - the servers are in NY and are still down.)

4. Where was your first webpage located?

You're lookin' at it!

5. How long have you had your current website?

Let's see...Since Wednesday, May 14, 2003 at about 1:00 PM. (First post was 1:39, but I managed to wipe my first contribution without posting it. Newbies, sheesh.)

More on the Gun Industry Bankrupting Lawsuits

From that font of information, Jointogether.org, comes this update on the D.C. sniper lawsuit against Bushmaster:

Denied Again: Judge Refuses Bushmaster's Plea In Sniper Lawsuit

Tacoma, WA - Bushmaster, a gun distributor and manufacturer that is charged with supplying the DC-area sniper suspects with their assault weapon, was denied its second plea for a dismissal in the sniper lawsuit. The decision was announced in a ruling by Judge Frank E. Cuthbertson of the Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma, Washington, on August 11, 2003. The court refused to overturn its prior ruling where it held that based on plaintiffs' allegations, Bushmaster knew or should have known that Bull's Eye was a reckless and incompetent dealer. The case is presently set to go to trial next July.

Really? "Charged with supplying...?" Bushmaster isn't charged with anything. That implies that there is a criminal "charge" layed. Bushmaster is defendant in a lawsuit where it is accused of negligence.

Bushmaster supplied the gun? It was my understanding that Malvo admitted to stealing it. And if Bushmaster "knew or should have known that Bull's Eye was a reckless and incompetent dealer" then why isn't the BATF being sued for not pulling their Federal Firearms License? Bull's Eye, if you weren't aware, was connected to Buford Furrow in 1997 when one of the guns he possessed was traced back to that shop. Bull's Eye had been investigated by the BATF for some time prior to Malvo's five-finger discount, according to this story. In fact, Bull's Eye could not account for 160 firearms two years prior to the theft of the Bushmaster rifle. So, who really is responsible? Sure as hell not Bushmaster, but they'll pay through the nose to defend themselves from this ridiculous lawsuit.

Question: Does the BATF tell gun manufacturers that licensed dealers are "reckless and incompetent?" If not, how else would they know?

Question 2: If the BATF can prove a licensed dealer is "reckless and incompetent," why don't they pull the license?

The DC-area sniper suspects, who were prohibited purchasers, obtained their assault rifle through the negligence of Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington, one of Bushmaster's handpicked gun dealers. The gun lobby is attempting to override the judge's decision in this case and other gun related lawsuits with federal legislation immunizing the gun industry from liability in virtually all civil suits brought by gun violence victims.

So, according to the Brady Center (source for this "release") theft = negligence. If someone steals from you, you were obviously negligent and it's all your fault. All actions involving the stolen property are also your responsibility. Therefore, by this logic, if someone steals my truck and uses it in a drive-by shooting, I am liable and can be sued by the victims and their families because I was negligent and allowed the vehicle to be stolen, and both the dealership and Ford are liable because they knew they were selling a vehicle into a high-theft area.

Makes sense to me. (Not!)

Daniel Vice, an attorney for nine families of victims of the DC-area snipers said, "Any Senator who honestly reviews this case of negligent and reckless behavior by these gun sellers would immediately work to defeat the special interest legislation that seeks to strip away the rights of gun violence victims. The gun lobby's mission to protect bad apple gun sellers and take away victims' rights is absolutely detrimental to America's public safety." Mr. Vice is a Staff Attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

That fisks itself. I can't do it justice.

The suit was filed on January 16, 2003 against Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., the distributor and manufacturer of the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S .223 caliber semi-automatic assault rifle used by the snipers and against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun dealer from which the Bushmaster mysteriously "disappeared," ending up in the hands of the snipers. A total of 238 guns have "disappeared" from Bull's Eye's store in three years - an average of more than one gun per week. Bull's Eye's guns have been traced to more than fifty crimes. The suit also names as defendants the two individual owners of Bull's Eye, Brian Borgelt and Charles N. Carr, as well as sniper suspects John Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

If they could prove that Bull's Eye sold the gun "under the table" to Muhammed or Malvo, then they have a case - against the shop. If an employee of Bull's Eye ripped it off and sold it, they'd have a case against that employee. But in no way could it be the responsibility of Bushmaster. Again, if Bull's Eye was known to be "reckless or incompetent" to the BATF, then they should have yanked the license (which they finally did.) Why isn't the BATF being sued? Oh, right - in order to sue the government, you have to get its permission. Not bleeding likely.

The suit charges Bull's Eye with operating its gun shop in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of guns, including the high-powered Bushmaster, inexplicably "disappeared" from the store. The suit asserts that Bull's Eye took the gun into its inventory in July 2002, that both sniper suspects visited the store after that date and that Muhammad practiced his sharpshooting in the store's shooting range. Because both sniper suspects were legally prohibited from buying guns, they could not have obtained the gun without the gun shop's negligence. Bushmaster Firearms is charged with negligence in continuing to sell high-firepower assault rifles through Bull's Eye even though government audits of the store had revealed hundreds of "missing" guns.

Government audits from before the theft of the gun. Again, since when is "theft" equal to "negligence?" And why is it BUSHMASTER's fault? (Because they are eeeeeeevil and have the deepest pockets - conditions which to liberals are often one and the same. But we are talking a gun manufacturer here. They're especially eeeeeevil.)

Legislation to grant the gun industry unprecedented immunity from legal claims passed the House of Representatives on April 9 of this year. It is currently pending in the Senate with 54 cosponsors. Several Senators have vowed a filibuster against the bill should it move to the Senate floor. The National Rifle Association has declared that the immunity legislation is its top legislative priority in Congress.

And this case is a perfect example of why.

The NRA Gets Off its Ass and On the Silveira Bandwagon

After opposing the Silveira case in the California court system, the NRA files an amicus brief in favor of the case being heard by the Supreme Court. It's a good one, too. Go read.

My favorite part? They hammer on the "incorporation" question right off the bat. That one's been my particular hobby-horse since I started studying gun "control."

Here's hoping.

And This is a Bad Thing...Why?

Artist is John Sherffius, St. Louis Post Dispatch.

I don't think that's supposed to be my reaction to the cartoon, but it is. It's also my reaction to this one, also by Mr. Sheriffus:

Apparently I just don't get it.

Good for me.

Things That Make You Go "Hmm...."

On the way in to work this morning, I was behind a car that had a standard 8.5x11" piece of paper taped up in the hatchback window. Printed on it was a quotation, apparently printed on an ink-jet or laser printer in a bold, legible font:

"Nothing Enduring is Built on Violence" - Gandhi

Well, isn't that profound. But what was the point?

Of course, my first thought was "This person is a Bushwar protester" - as in "The use of violence to oust Saddam will result in nothing good." But then I thought about it a bit more. Saddam came to power violently, and maintained his rule violently. And he did not endure.

But it took violence to oust him.

What we're trying to do in Iraq now is non-violent - the reconstruction of a nation and the establishment of representative government.

Gandhi said some other things, too, one of which was:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Gandhi had a lot to say about the use of violence, but what it seems to boil down to is that initiating violence is evil, responding to it is not. The difference between those who oppose and those who support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is the understanding that those invasions were a response to, not an initiation of violence.

This is why I find the liberal desire for the U.S. to intervene militarily in Liberia so hypocritical. They expect us to go in there and bang heads in order to stabilize the country, but they object to our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's use of violence in all three cases. The only difference is that Liberia has essentially zero U.S. national security implications. The same cannot be said about Iraq nor Afghanistan.

The funny thing is, the use of non-violent protest in the mode of Gandhi would probably be effective in Liberia - assuming you could get the international press to pay much attention. The use of non-violent protest in Iraq and Afghanistan would only have resulted in a lot more mass graves.

Often non-violence doesn't work.

Ask the victims of Tiananmen Square.

"We are Kevin of Blog. You Will be Assimiliated. Resistance is Futile."

(Thanks to Kevin Schaum of Lazypundit for the title of this post.)

Kevin of Whizbangblog has this week's Blogging Kevins post up, and I'm a contributor. Damn, there are a lot of us! (I almost used Kevin McGehee's post title: "My God! It's Full of Kevins!" but that would be unethical.)

OK, THIS is Interesting...

Steven "Spock" Den Beste has a three part essay up on the difference between Europe and America, and some predictions as to what the future holds for Europe. In particular, I found this passage fascinating:

(T)he general trend in Europe is to continue to reduce the work week while continuing to implement policies which give businesses a disincentive to invest and hire. If there's any way out of this trap, I haven't seen any discussion of it.

There are really only a few ways this can end. First, the voters in Europe could come to their senses and face the reality that their current policies are unsustainable. They'd have to accept a radical reduction in entitlements, a radical reduction in business regulations, and a lot of other changes all of which would be viewed in the short term as being hostile to labor and friendly to business. There would have to be broad acknowledgement that Socialism isn't economically sustainable. But before there can be any chance of that kind of political change, things are going to have to get a lot worse. And if things do get worse, that's probably not how the voters would react.

For one thing, the kind of people who would feel that way and help push the system socialism won't be there. Europe has a safety valve to release capitalist sympathizers: they emigrate to the US. People who hate the US system will stay behind and it will be those who will end up trying to solve this. (It's one of several ways in Europe is badly damaged by brain drain.)

So what's far more likely is that the voters will blame business leaders. They're generally thought of as villains now, and eventually someone will point out that if business leaders are unwilling to take the risk of expansion, then the government will need to force them to do so. The business leaders should be making their decisions on the basis of social conscience, not in crass pursuit of profit. Profit is evil anyway, and if the leaders refuse to serve their nations the way they should, well then we'll damned well force them to do what's right. And that way we can get job growth without having to eliminate the extremely important and obviously just job protection regulations or reward the filthy money-grubbing capitalists with tax cuts.

As I've noted, I'm slogging through Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and that is her entire premise in a nutshell.

I've said in here before that she never made a point she wasn't willing to beat to a bloody pulp, but that doesn't mean she was wrong.

I disagree with a lot of the Objectivist philosophy, but when it comes down to describing the behavior of socialist governments and the people willing to live under them, she was, apparently, spot-on.

Steven concludes, though, with this cheery prediction:

So in the end what you'll get is economic collapse. There are various ways in which this can play out, but none of them are good. And as long as Europe is locked in this economic death-spiral, they are unlikely to be a military threat to us, and at least that's a blessing.

But what comes after the collapse or emerges politically during the collapse? The historical record suggests a new rise of Fascism is the most likely outcome. In the midst of economic chaos, with a huge population of unemployed and people who are dissatisfied, charismatic leaders will appear who will blame the problems on foreigners and claim they can solve the problems if only they're given unrestrained power. Once elected, they abolish elections, dismantle most of the programs which are causing trouble, and actually do improve the business climate. But they do other things, too, and few of them are likely to be good.

The classic example of this is the rise of the Nazis after the fall of the Weimar Republic, but that's by no means the only example of that kind of thing from European history. Historically speaking, when things go to hell in a handbasket, Europeans tend to look for charismatic and nationalistic demagogues who promise them pride and glory in exchange for strict obedience. That's a price Europeans have seemed almost eager to pay.

We can't discount the possibility that in fifty years the EU and most existing national governments in Europe will be gone, replaced by a new Fascist dictatorship, which among other things chooses to make the investment in a modern military and which hopes to use it in yet another round of world conquest.

And we might not be able to interfere before this point, because France has nuclear weapons. Even though Europe won't have the ability to threaten us using conventional forces for the next few decades, they do have the ability to threaten us with nuclear conflagration. Of course, if they nuked us we'd also nuke them, but the threat of it means that we might not be able to significantly interfere to prevent the rise of a new Europe-wide Fascist state, which could follow historical patterns and become militaristic and expansionist.

If that happened, the world would become a very interesting but much less safe place.

Which doesn't give me the warm fuzzies for the future my grandchildren will be living in. But I think Steven makes a very strong case, the same as that made by Alexander Tytler. I just hope that we are able to avoid the same fate here. A lot can happen in 50 years.

This is Too Cool

Aaron the Liberal Slayer has put up the 2008 Blogger Ticket on the right-hand side of his blog so it's always on the front page. Thanks, Aaron!

Bring 'Em On

Instapundit has been covering the "flypaper" theory of the American occupation of Iraq acting to draw Islamist militants into conflict with our military there, rather than our civilian population over here. His coverage started back in July, and here's some more evidence. A New York Times article describing exactly what's going on:

Iraq luring militants eager to fight U.S.

In much the same way as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan stirred an earlier generation of young Muslims determined to fight the infidel, the U.S. presence in Iraq is prompting a rising tide of Muslim militants to slip into the country to fight, Iraqi officials and others say.

"Iraq is the nexus where many issues are coming together - Islam versus democracy, the West vs. the axis of evil, Arab nationalism vs. some different types of political culture," said Barham Saleh, the prime minister of a Kurdish-controlled part of northern Iraq. "If the Americans succeed here, this will be a monumental blow to everything the terrorists stand for."

That's the idea.

Violence against U.S. troops continued Tuesday. One soldier from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment was killed and another wounded when their convoy struck three improvised explosive devices while driving near Ramadi, about 60 miles west of Baghdad.

The death brought to at least 57 the number of American servicemen killed in attacks since the end of major combat operations on May 1.

I believe, however, that these men have died doing what they volunteered for - defending their nation. At least they often get the chance to capture or kill the people trying to kill them.

Well-organized fighters

Recent intelligence suggests the militants are well-organized. One returning group of fighters from the radical Ansar al-Islam organization captured in the Kurdish region two weeks ago consisted of five Iraqis, a Palestinian and a Tunisian.

Among their possessions were five forged Italian passports for a different group of militants they were apparently supposed to join, said Dana Ahmed Majid, the director of general security for the region.

The fighters sneak over Iraq's largely unpoliced borders in small groups, bearing instructions to go to a safe house where they can whisper one password to gain admittance and then lie low awaiting further instructions, according to Iraqi security officials.

As opposed to slipping over America's largely unpoliced borders in small groups and doing the same thing over here, but to civilians.

Flourishing amid chaos

Iraqi officials say they expect a broad spectrum of Muslim militants to flood Iraq. They believe that Ansar al-Islam, a small fundamentalist group believed to have links with al-Qaida, forms the backbone of the underground network. The group was forced out of northern Iraq by a huge attack during the war.

"All previous experiences with the activities of the underground organizations proved that they flourish in countries with a chaotic security situation, unchecked borders and the lack of a central government - Iraq is all that," said Muhammad Salah, an expert on militant groups and the Cairo bureau chief of the newspaper Al Hayat. "It is the perfect environment for fundamentalist groups to operate and grow."

But for how much longer?

The extent of their activities remains cloudy. But Web sites believed linked to al-Qaida are clear enough about the envisaged fight: "The struggle with America has to be carefully managed, the 'electric shock method' must be applied, relentless shocks that haunt the Americans all the time everywhere, without giving them a break to regain balance or power."

Last shocks of a dying electric eel? We'll see. The difference between the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Iraq is that we're trying to make their lives better, and the majority of Iraqi's seem to know this. But you wouldn't know that from the reporting the major news media is giving us.

If You Really Think Public Health-Care is a Good Idea, Consider Public Housing, Public Restrooms, and Public Pools.

Chuck Asay, Colorado Springs Gazette.

Talk About Standing Up for Your Beliefs!

Via SayUncle, comes the continuing saga of Francis Warin, a Frenchman who moved to the U.S. in 1961 at the age of 30 so he could be a weapon designer. Peripherally involved in a BATF entrapment case (imagine that!) in 1970, he studied the Second Amendment and concluded (as have a large number of gun rights proponents) that it meant what it said, and not what the politicians and the judges said it meant, he first filed a class-action lawsuit that was denied.

Then he got serious.

He manufactured a machine gun (weapon designer, remember) and refused to pay the $200 'tax.' When that didn't get him arrested, he took it physically down to the local BATF office where they not only didn't shoot him or stomp on his pets, they didn't even bother to arrest him. He finally had to embarrass the government by telling his story to a newspaper before they arrested and charged him.

Let's just say it didn't turn out like he wanted. The case was U.S. v Warin, and it was one of the worst cases for gun-rights supporters we've seen. It was, in fact, a textbook example of the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment based on U.S. v Miller and other cases subsequent to Miller. (Remember, this was 1975 - as the gun-control movement and the "collective rights" argument was approaching its zenith in the post-60's, post-Nixon era.)

Mr. Warin was convicted of a felony and received probation with an interesting stipulation: He had the permission of the court to retain his right to arms even though he was a convicted felon because otherwise he'd be out of a job.

So Mr. Warin went back to his job.

In 1999, now retired, Mr. Warin tried to buy a gun from a dealer. He filled out a Form 4473 and, in accordance with the requirements, indicated that he was a convicted felon, but thought that the court decision allowed him to purchase a gun. Wrong again. And he couldn't get a hearing on it, either. So he apparently intimated to the FBI that he could "bring a bomb" to them. They were not amused. They raided his home (I don't know if any kittens were stomped - this was the FBI) and took 22 weapons. But didn't press charges. He fought for return of his property, and lost.

So this time, he manufactured a suppressed .22 pistol and sent it via registered mail to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Toledo. He got arrested again and thrown in jail where he is now on a hunger strike.

I will grant that Mr. Warin has courage and is resolute in his quest for justice. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to fare any better than John Lee Haney did when he essentially repeated Mr. Warin's original argument.

What Mr. Warin did, and is doing again is tilting at windmills. Now, at 72 and starving, he looks the part of Don Quixote. We need people willing to tilt at windmills. We need people to be unwilling to move to the back of the bus. We need people willing to stand up for their rights.

And we need to spread the word when they do, not let it languor on page 6 of section Q of the local newspaper.

Make no mistake, this is civil disobedience by someone convinced he is right, and who is willing to pay the consequences of, well let Voltaire say it:

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.

As for me, I'm an reminded of Claire Wolfe:

It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

It might not be too late. The next test is Silveira v. Lockyer. Will the Supreme Court hear it? And if so, how will they decide?

Mr. Warin is a brave man, and I honor his grit. I just don't hold much hope of him winning against this particular windmill.

The Power to Tax = The Power to Destroy

From Keepandbeararms.com comes the link to this story:

Feeling salty over pepper spray

Getting pepper spray in Massachusetts has never been easy. New fees make it even harder. Will local legislators help make the Bay State the 'spray state?'


In theory, buying a can of pepper spray isn't really all that hard. In most parts of the country, getting hold of such self-defense sprays poses little challenge for citizens of legal age with $20 in their pocket and a desire to temporarily incapacitate any shady character that comes too close.

Having a relatively speedy Internet connection helps, too.

By just typing the words "pepper spray" into any Internet search engine, dozens of self-defense-related Web sites immediately appear, all of which offer customers the chance to buy personal protection sprays in any number of shapes and sizes.

"It stops your attacker ... it hurts them," promises one such Web site that not only sells pepper spray in the standard aerosol cans, but also caters to customers who prefer to remain incognito. Pepper spray containers in the form of pens, lipstick cases, cell phones and pagers are also readily available to those looking to fend off foes.

"It will slam their eyes shut for 10 minutes while you safely get away," the Web site continues. "Hours later, you're safe, and they are left miserable and humiliated."

Sound unpleasant? You bet. But as the Web site explains, people have a right to protect and defend themselves. Seeing as how pepper spray remains one of the few non-lethal and relatively inexpensive means of self-defense on the market, it's availability to customers is a no brainer.

Unless, of course, you live in Massachusetts.

Here, carrying even a miniscule vial of aerosol self-defense spray without acquiring it through the proper channels may be considered criminally consistent with smuggling fireworks across the New Hampshire border or illegally downloading music onto computers. Get it, but whatever you do, don't let anyone catch you with it.

It's been that way since 1998, when state legislators passed the Gun Control Act, otherwise known as Chapter 180, and made it impossible for anyone in Massachusetts to own a weapon without first being approved for a Firearms Identification Card. Living in a post-Columbine world where serious questions are continually raised about gun ownership, legislators wasted no time in passing Chapter 180.

Still, there are those who feel the law is imperfect - for starters, the fact it required anyone who wanted to buy pepper spray for protection to acquire an FID card. And cough up the $25 fee that went with it.

Earlier this year, with the state in financial turmoil and Gov. Mitt Romney using all kinds of stopgap solutions to try to solve the budget crunch, the FID card registration fee quadrupled to $100. The move not only made it that much harder for anyone in Massachusetts to buy pepper spray, it also fueled a growing sentiment among Bay Staters and North Shore residents that people looking only to protect themselves are instead being penalized.

They are people like Richard Griffith, who recently encouraged his fiancée to consider carrying pepper spray, only to discover that it could take up to 140 days for her to receive her FID Card, not to mention the hassle of being fingerprinted and undergoing a thorough background examination.

To Griffith, the recent fee increase coupled with the state's already stringent laws regarding pepper spray simply makes little sense. He says it borders on ludicrous when a sea of red tape and prohibitive fees stymie people whose only interest is self-protection. In his eyes, it's time Massachusetts eased up and made pepper spray more accessible

"I think there's definitely an anti-self-defense component to all of this," Griffith says. "I know the people that sponsored Chapter 180 were very well intentioned, but the legislation really seems slapped together.

"I can't really criticize legislators for wanting to be proactive and wanting to prevent tragedies from occurring, but sometimes I think they do things that are foolish," he adds. "This is one of them."

There are signs, however, that some legislators are looking to atone for their officious deeds. State Rep. Bradley Jones, who represents part of Lynnfield, has sponsored a bill that could free pepper spray seekers from having any responsibility to pay exorbitant amounts for an FID card. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but Jones believes it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

"I just don't think it's necessary (to have these fees), says Jones. "We're just making it that much more difficult for people. These are non-lethal weapons we're talking about. They're just ways for people to protect themselves in a difficult situation.

"I think he need to recognize that instances of physical aggression and sexual violence is far too prevalent," Jones adds. "Pepper spray is one way for victims to be able to protect themselves."

(All emphasis mine.)

There's much more. Here are some appropriate quotes:

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. - Louis D. Brandeis

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - Louis D. Brandeis

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings." - Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598), Japanese Shogun

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty --so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Beccaria

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. — Frank Herbert

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait forever. — Lord Thomas MacaulaySorry, but that's my way of ranting. Or one of them, at least.

If I Had Emotions, I'd be Pleased

According to this quiz I'm Data:

A controlled personality with a vast range of skills and behavior, you are often intrigued by the people and places surrounding you.

Can't say I'm surprised.