Your Government at Work.

A piece by my favorite Pulitzer prize-winning political cartoonist, Mike Ramirez:

Ayup.

Now, read this. Excerpt:

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for Exxon Mobil last year) but frustrate those companies' desire to use those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Perversely, higher prices discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenue, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

Quote of the Day.

For generations our primary vision of a dystopian future has been that of Orwell's 1984. This was a fundamentally "masculine" nightmare of fascist brutality. But with the demise of the Soviet Union and the vanishing memory of the great twentieth-century fascist and communist dictatorships, the nightmare vision of 1984 is slowly fading away. In its place, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is emerging as the more prophetic book. As we unravel the human genome and master the ability to make people happy with televised entertainment and psychoactive drugs, politics is increasingly a vehicle for delivering prepackaged joy. America's political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 20

Couldn't let that one pass unquoted.

On the Next Überpost.

Yes, I know I've been promising it for a while, but so far it's gone through three iterations and I still don't have it hammered out to a conclusion I can live with. This one's very complex, and complicated by the fact that I'm currently reading Liberal Fascism which plays directly on the topic I'm writing about.

So I'm going to shelve it (again) until I can complete Liberal Fascism and get all my metaphorical ducks in a row. It seems like every day I find some new news article or old archived post by someone that I bookmark and stick in the file for this piece.

I think this one's going to be long, even for me.

The current working title, if you're interested, is "The George Orwell Daycare Center," and it's a much reworked and very extended takeoff from an earlier post, Philosophy melded with a more recent one, Human Reconstruction, the Healing of Souls, and the Remaking of Society, with a lot of other stuff mixed in, and a little RCOB thrown in for spice.

In the mean time, short filler posts. Sorry.

Yes, Exactly

From the Toronto Star - "A look beyond the handgun ban":

David Kennedy, an anthropologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, is the godfather of this approach. In 1996, when he was a professor at Harvard, Kennedy launched the Boston Gun Project, the first intervention of its kind. It reduced gun crime in the city by 60 per cent. Since then, it has blossomed to a number of cities across the U.nited States.

Kennedy views bans, like the one Miller is pushing for, as a symptom of the problem, not a cure. "For people desperately searching for a solution, it seems like it makes sense," says Kennedy. "What they don't understand is that there are better tools that don't require law to implement, and are practically cookbook and off-the-shelf."

Chicago's Project Safe Neighbourhoods is close to Kennedy's prescription (he helped advise on the project); Cincinnati's Initiative to Reduce Violence is its full manifestation. In Cincinnati, gun-related homicides spiked in 2006 to 89, more than double the annual average, since 1991, of 43.

Kennedy's research team unpacked what he calls typical trends: They identified 69 distinct street groups, comprising about 1,000 people. Of the 89 homicides, these 1,000 people – less than half a per cent of the city's population – were connected to more than 75 per cent of them.

Identifying the problem makes the solution relatively simple, Kennedy says. "If we change the behaviour of these people, we solve the problem."

(Emphasis mine.) Precisely what I've been saying since I started this blog. In America, and I assume pretty much worldwide, the vast majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny percentage of the population, almost all of whom have prior criminal records. As I have noted here in the past, American homicide rates are heavily skewed by the fact that young, black, urban males - who make up less than 13% of America's population - commit and are the victims of well over half the homicides America suffers each year. And on top of that, the young, black, urban males that actually commit the murders are a tiny fraction of that 13%.

But the political response to this is "gun control"?

As SayUncle says, "Gun control is what you do instead of something."

But the philosophy says the number of guns is the problem, not the behavior of a tiny, identifiable group of people, and since the philosophy cannot be wrong, the consistent failure of the "solution" - gun control - cannot be because the wrong path is being pursued. No, no! The failure must be due to improper implementation! The only response must be to do it again, only HARDER!.

(h/t: Say Uncle)

UPDATE and correction: Chris Byrne in comments notes:

Actually, blacks as a whole are about 14% of the population.

Young, male, urban blacks, are about 3% of the population.

Of those, 24% have a felony criminal record.

It's not about race, it's just demographics.

He's right, and I knew that. According to the CDC's data:

2005 - Total population 296,507,061
Black males 10-34 years old 7,763,680, or 2.62% of the population.

Homicides (all) - 10,438
Black males 10-34 - 5,181,

2.62% of the population, 49.6% of the victims.

One-gun-a-month laws, closing the "gun show loophole," licensing, registration, "assault weapon" bans, and handgun bans will somehow make this all go away because "the number of guns" in America is the problem.

No it's not.

Identifying the problem makes the solution relatively simple, Kennedy says. "If we change the behaviour of these people, we solve the problem."

Yes indeed.

Quote of the Day.

Both campaigns are showing how green they are by filling mailboxes with metric tons of ads printed on the pulped carcasses of dead trees. The airwaves are jammed with promises that Barack will heal the sick and the blind, Hillary will get you a gold house and a rocket car, and both of them are promising they'll not only slash gas prices and punish rich fat cats, but they'll also get you a great-paying job and your own personal physician to live at your house and fix what ails you for free, Free, FREE!
Tam, from Misunderstanding the concept

Read the whole thing, because she's bang-on about what the job of President is supposed to be limited to.

And McCain? His only saving grace is he's not promising you your own personal physician. Like I said, he's the least objectionable repulsive Democrat in the race.

Quote of the Day.

Obama wants me to believe that a candidate who: (1) was utterly supine and silent for 20 years in his own church as racial hate was propagated by the pastor; (2) who refuses to condemn a prominent supporter and fundraiser for whom bombing American sites is still seen as a good thing, and (3) who has said not a single word on the campaign trail as his party heavyweights removed post-Abramoff earmark reforms... is a candidate who will stand up to Washington interests and change the way business is done. While helping get America past its racial issues, and healing its political divides. That a candidate talking up charter schools as part of the solution, who has received positive ratings from teachers unions for blocking them, is to be taken at face value.

50 bucks for that whole bridge, you say?

Joe Katzman, Straining Belief: The Obama Campaign & Michelle's UCLA Speech

RTWT.

Is it Me...

...or have the comment threads gotten much quieter over the last week or so? ;-D

New Bumper Sticker on the Sidebar.

Click it for the full-size image. I got the idea here.

Shooting Steel.

I shot my second Pima Pistol Club Steelworker's match today, and did fairly well. They haven't got the scores posted to the web yet (don't know if they will, either) but I finished third in the Stock pistol class - and I was shooting my single-stack Kimber Classic with 8-round magazines. My total time for the five stages was a tick over 175 seconds, which was a good distance behind second place, but that guy was shooting a Browning Hi-Power, using Europellets and magazines with capacities as high as 17 rounds. He didn't change mags much!

Overall, I'm pretty happy with my performance today, though I really, really need to work on my speed at controlled pairs.

UPDATE - 4/28: Will has some constructive criticism.

Range Report:

Back from the Elsy Pearson rifle range outside of Casa Grande. First, I want to say something about the range itself. The city of Casa Grande has done a very nice job improving the range; raising the berms, providing covered shooting positions on the shorter bays, adding benches on the 50 yard range, and putting up fencing around the facility. My only complaint is that the fencing prevents vehicles from driving down the long (250 yard) bay. This makes toting out my 32-lb. 9"x12"x1" steel AR-500 plates a no-go anymore. Needless to say, they didn't make the trip this time.

The range is (currently) unattended - there are no rangemasters, so shooters are on their own recognizance. This is a mixed blessing because as we all know sometimes shooters are our own worst enemies. Rangemasters can sometimes resemble Eric "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" Cartman, or other shooters on the range can sometimes be unsafe. (Yes, we admit it.) But today (as has been my past experience there) everyone was polite and safe.

The other downside of the range, since it's unattended, is that it has no target stands and no restroom facilities other than "I'm going to step around this berm here..." The latter wasn't much of an issue today, but I don't have an actual target stand. I bought one of those cheap-ass "stick it in the ground" cardboard supports, but apparently the designer of this wonder of engineering has never heard of caliche. I had a little trouble setting up suitable target for a bit.

After getting unpacked and setting up the chronograph, I fired five rounds, cleaned, fired five more and cleaned again. Then I fired ten rounds through the chrono. While I was doing this I was getting the scope on target by aiming at rocks. This rifle is heavy enough that even shooting 175 grain rounds I could generally see the bullet impact downrange. Not always, but more often than not. Because the scope base has 20 MOA built into it, I had the elevation of the scope cranked all the way down. Good thing, too. I only brought it up about 1-½ turns to get it close at 200 yards. Windage was very close out of the box, so the scope mount is true to the bore.

The chronograph, a Chrony Beta Master, did not retain the information for my load which was 43.5 grains of Varget under the Sierra 175 grain MatchKing in a Lapua case touched off by a CCI BR-2 Large Rifle Benchrest primer. (Use at your own risk - I'm not responsible if this load blows up your gun!) To the best of my memory, the average velocity was about 2660 fps with an extreme spread of 75fps and a standard deviation of about 25fps, which is at best fair for a long-range load. I need to get the standard deviation down into the low teens or better.

Still, how'd it shoot?

Well, here are two sample groups from when I was getting the scope onto paper:

That was my second 5-shot group. This was my third one:

That's at 200 yards. Winds were light, but occasionally gusty. I won't blame any of those shots on wind. (Dammit.)

The interesting thing about the Leupold Tactical Milling Reticle in this scope is that at 14X there is an exactly ½ mill space in the center of the crosshairs. The orange target dots are 1" in diameter, so they subtend ½ mill at 200 yards (or close enough not to be able to tell the difference.) I tried my damnedest to keep that tiny orange dot in the dead center of the reticle. Seems to work!

I spent the rest of my 50 rounds busting rocks and then plinking the steel targets located up on the side of the mountain that is the ultimate backstop at the Casa Grande range. I need to get a laser rangefinder next, because I estimate the plates I was shooting at were at about 600 yards. I hit 'em a few times, too! (I will blame wind - and range estimation - for the misses there.)

I had to remount the scope when I got home. Unfortunately at 14X the eye relief was too short for me to shoot comfortably, so I loosened the mount screws and shifted it back two notches on the base. That ought to work much better now, but I'm going to have to re-zero the scope. (*Damn!* Work, work, work, that's all this hobby is!)

Next up on the agenda is to load another 50 of the 175SMKs over a bit lighter powder charge, and 50 of the Lapua 155 grain Scenar hollowpoints that are just as long as the SMKs. The primers on the first fifty flattened a tiny bit, but there was significant primer cup flow into the firing pin hole of bolt face. I think that load is just a bit hot for this rifle.

I also ran 100 rounds of my new .45ACP load through my Kimber Classic and Eclipse. I'm using the Ranier Ballistics 200 grain hollowpoint over 7.0 grains of Unique touched off with WLP primers. (Same warning - use this load data at your own risk!) The cases are mostly WCC once-fired match brass. Feed, function, and accuracy were on par with the (much more expensive) Speer 200 grain Gold Dot, so this is going to be my match ammo from now on. Now I need to load a couple hundred of them so I can shoot in the Pima Pistol Steelworker's match tomorrow morning.

Finally, I still have to scrub the Remington barrel squeaky clean and treat it with Ultra Bore Coat before my next outing. I'm not much of a believer in "breaking in" a barrel, but I did want to get some rounds out of the rifle before treating it. Right now it's definitely a sub-MOA gun. I want it to stay that way.

UPDATE: Here's a shot of fired vs. unfired primers.

Pressure, no?

Off to the Range!.

Report to follow.

Bathroom Cleansers Cause Suicide.

We must ban them, for the chillllldren!

Japan teenager commits gas suicide, 120 evacuated

TOKYO — About 120 people were evacuated from their apartments in western Japan after a 14-year-old girl killed herself by producing and inhaling poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas, the local fire department said on Thursday.

The increasing use of such poisonous gas to commit suicide has received much media attention in Japan in recent months, after websites showed methods of creating the gas with bathroom cleansers.

At least 40 such cases of suicides have taken place this year, Japan's public broadcaster NHK reported last week, citing the Japan Suicide Prevention Association.

Almost 90 people, including the girl's mother who had been out at the time, went to hospital in Konan City on Wednesday night after the apartment "smelled like rotten eggs" from the hydrogen sulphide that the girl made, the local fire department said.

A note saying "poisonous gas being produced" was posted on the door of the girl's apartment, and police found a bathroom cleanser container in the apartment that may have been used for making the gas, the fire department said.

Japan has the second highest suicide rate in the Group of Eight nations after Russia, a World Health Organization report showed.

The annual number of suicides has been above 30,000 for nine years in a row, police figures showed last year.

Boy, it's a good thing they don't have any guns! The entire population of Japan would be dead inside a year!

The G8 nations are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The WHO report the piece refers to is probably this one (PDF file) from 2004 which gives rates per 100,000 population for males and females separately according to the latest (available at the time) data.

For males the G8 rankings are as follows:

Russia: 69.3 (2002)
Japan: 35.2 (2000)
France: 26.1 (2001)
Germany: 20.4 (2001)
Canada: 18.4 (2000)
United States: 17.1 (2000)
United Kingdom: 11.8 (1999)
Italy: 10.9 (2000)

For females:

Japan: 13.4
Russia: 11.9
France: 9.4
Germany: 7.4
Canada: 5.2
United States: 4.0
Italy: 3.5
United Kingdom: 3.3

Wait... We have all those guns. Almost one for every man, woman, and child in the country! Guns cause suicide! I read that all the time!

Why aren't we all dead?

(Or are we being lied to?)

Memeage.

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd do this meme even though no one (to my knowledge) tagged me with it:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123.
3. Find the first five sentences.
4. Post the next three sentences.

Now, I'm not going to post a picture of my reloading/blogging/websurfing area (it looks like the aftermath of a tornado), but bear in mind I've got books on just about every horizontal surface to my left and right - and one is a 7' tall bookshelf with six shelves. But it just so happens that I have a book on my computer desk (under a pile of stuff) so that's the one I'm pulling.

Here we go:

I am really, sir, the English public schoolboy. That's an eighteenth-century product. What with the love of truth that - God help me! - they rammed into me at Clifton and the belief Arnold forced upon Rugby that the vilest of sins - the vilest of all sins - is to peach to the head master!

That's a portion of an excerpt from Tom Brown's School Days taken by James Bowman for his book Honor: A History in the chapter "Honor Between the Wars."

Now I'm supposed to tag five others, but... meh.

Now (Finally) I Get to See if it Shoots

As promised, pictures of the Remington 700 5R with the Leupold on it, and an extra, added bonus:

As always, click for full size.

The rings are Burris Xtreme Tactical low mounts. Everybody I tried was out of stock on the medium height rings, but when the scope came in, I set it on the 20MOA mount and the objective bell cleared the barrel, so low rings would work perfectly - and those were in stock! Kudos to OpticsPlanet.com who not only had them, but had them for less than Midway and shipped UPS ground at no extra charge. The rings and that spirit level both showed up today.

The spirit level is courtesy of Ninth Stage, who offered me one of my choice of sizes back when I bought the rifle. After I ordered the Leupold I emailed him and asked if the offer was still open, and he sent me not one, but two - I now have a 1" version I think I'll put on the scope on my XP-100 pistol! They're very nice. He still has a few left, so if you'd like to buy one I'm sure he'll make you a good deal.

So the plan now is to make a trip to the range on Saturday to try out the Remington with my 175 grain Matchking load and zero the scope, and also to make sure my new 200 grain hollowpoint Rainier Ballistic .45ACP loads feed, function, and hit what I aim at in preparation for Sunday's Pima Pistol Steelworker's match.

Ohboyohboyohboy!

(This is a gunblog, after all! It can't be all politics, all the time.)

Quote of the Day.

Much like Eric Cartman, my hatred for hippies cannot become more intense without physically manifesting itself as a glowing orb which would follow me around occasionally bellowing things like “BRING ME THE HEAD OF ED BEGLEY JUNIOR!” or “MARTIN SHEEN MUST BE PUNISHED IN THE FLAMES OF A THOUSAND POUNDS OF STYROFOAM!” - Stingray from Atomic Nerds post Earth Day: Of COURSE it Pisses Me Off

I Cannot Argue With this Logic...

...and I don't even drink beer!

From a friend in Europe:
"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an
election.

"On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a
lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

"On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge
chest who owns a beer distributorship.

"Is there a contest here?"

Shamelessly stolen from Firehand at Irons in the Fire.

Suddenly my painful duty come November is somehow less painful!

Quote of the Day.

If everyone understood science, and the scientific method, even reasonably well, there would be no such thing as liberalism. - Og in a comment at Tam's

OK, Who's Telling the Truth Here?

Regarding Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the Ben Stein documentary that I referred to below, we have two conflicting stories. One, as apparently told by the documentary, is that Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health and (former) editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was responsible for the publishing of a "a pro-intelligent design article" by one Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer is referred to as "a proponent of intelligent design" by NPR, but as "director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute" by the Institute itself.

It appears that the film, according to this site "claims that Sternberg was 'terrorized' and that 'his life was nearly ruined'...." Further: “The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.”

NPR reports:

Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.

Eventually, Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal employees from reprisals. The office launched an investigation. Ultimately, it could not take action, because Sternberg is not an employee of the Smithsonian.

But Sternberg says before closing the case, the special counsel, James McVay, called him with an update. "As he related to me, 'the Smithsonian Institution's reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined,'" Sternberg says.

McVay declined an interview. But in a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education -- a group that opposes intelligent design -- and outlined "a strategy to have you investigated and discredited." Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. He has two Ph.D.'s in biology -- from Binghamton University and Florida International University. In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination.

After repeated calls and e-mails to the Smithsonian, a spokesman told NPR, "We have no public comment, and we won't have one in the future."

The anti-Expelled site has a different take:

Expelled doesn't even get the paper's subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed "ignited a firestorm", but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda's Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

The first question asked by BSW members was "how did this paper ever get published?" According to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history." The BSW withdrew the paper in embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented that the society endorsed "a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings."

Though Sternberg claimed that he was the best qualified to handle the review process, science blogger Ed Brayton notes that this is not the case: (Quote omitted)

The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn’t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists.

It continues:

The Claim: “In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, [Sternberg’s supervisor] Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs.” (Wall Street Journal editorial, linked from Expelled website)

That is correct per the WSJ piece.

But it's apparently not true:

The Facts

According to Coddington in a January 2005 communication, “Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.”

The Smithsonian wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, observing, “Dr. Sternberg’s characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections.”

In a January 30, 2006, letter responding to Sternberg’s concerns, Smithsonian Deputy Secretary & Chief Operating Officer Sheila Burke explained:

“As you know, as part of an effort to enhance security at the Museum, all researchers were asked to return their keys in 2004, and were issued coded identification badges to provide access to non-public areas. The badge you were issued, which provides general access to doors and elevators, is still operative. If you have any problems gaining access to conduct your research, however please contact the Security office at NMNH. In accordance with NMNH policy, please return your old keys as soon as possible to your sponsor, Dr. Vari.”

In short, Sternberg has turned two bits of bureaucratic minutiae affecting an entire division of the museum – a switch from keys to ID badges and a routine shuffling of office space – into a conspiracy to undermine him personally.

There's more, and I suggest you follow the leads, but the way it appears to me is that Richard Sternberg pulled a fast one - for whatever reason - and it resulted in a firestorm of criticism that he has since blown out of proportion - with the willing assistance of the Discovery Institute.

And this isn't one-sided, either. Watch this YouTube video of what happens when you oppose support of Intelligent Design:



You can bet that didn't turn up in Expelled.

Quote of the Day.

From Van der Leun:

(T)he Internet makes it drop-dead easy to find at least 30 things that really piss you off before your first cup of coffee cools. I don't care where you're coming from, this axiom (15 Minutes Internet = 30 Things That Frost Your Cookies) is universal.

Here's One I Hadn't Heard Before.

Via email from a family friend:

A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.'

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'

'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles.

'OK,' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass - yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'

The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'

To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?'