A Relatively Bloodless Civil War

All the press reporting about Libya seems to indicate that there's a civil war going on. There's an armed opposition, military defectors melting away from the organized forces, paramilitary loyalist militias using force, armored vehicles deployed, and so on. The shooting has definitely started too. Western governments are clearly taking it seriously, given that the Brits and Germans have apparently spirited away their ex-pats.

The interesting thing is how few casualties are being reported. We have reports of hundreds of people -- not thousands -- being killed in "massacres." There aren't any definitive reports, obviously, but the latest Wikipedia page lists "600+" casualties on the opposition side. The UN Sec-Gen and the Italian PM are estimating the casualties at around a thousand. At first this sounds like a lot, but not really. Imagine armed, disciplined soldiers opening up on crowds of tens of thousands with fully automatic weapons and explosives--casualties should pile up rapidly in such a "target rich environment." While the current level is not trivial by any means, it is lower than one would expect i days of high-intensity conflict. There are a few explanations I've been able to think of.

• Underreporting. There may be many more casualties which are not being reported. This is certainly plausible given the media lock down in Libya. However, given Italy's large investments and historical relationship with Libya, I put pretty high stock in their estimate. The wide variety of international groups all pegging the number on the order of a thousand or so also implies that while the exact number may be off by a bit -- even a substantial margin -- we're probably in the ballpark with a thousand or so.
• Wounded, not Dead. There could be large numbers of wounded. I'm guessing that most of the security forces are using the AK-47. The 7.62x39 round, like most intermediate assault rifle cartridges, produces a lot of wounding effects and fewer dead bodies. Part of this is by design -- in an armed conflict, killing a soldier takes one guy out of the fight. Wounding one takes two stretcher bearers and a medic out of the firefight, and then expends rear echelon medical resources.
• Battlefield Defeat. The opposition could be so well armed and led that they have simply tactically defeated the pro-regime forces and forced a tactical stalemate. While they have done well for themselves, at least at the outset, they were badly outgunned and lacked armored vehicles for mobility in the desert. So this has probably increased in importance as events have unfolded but wasn't a major factor at least initially.
  
• Not Shooting to Kill. I suspect this is the major reason. People are hesitant to kill. Even hardened soldiers in WW2 shooting at an enemy often deliberately aimed over the heads of their foes. While civil wars can be incredibly bloody, I'm guessing that at least at the outset, a lot of Libyan soldiers didn't want to kill their countrymen. Seeing the anti-regime protesters lynch soldiers that turned on the people probably played a role in this decision--fearing that you'll get shot back tends to suppress forces with marginal morale. I would suspect that while a lot of rounds were being expended, most of the pro-regime forces were not engaging their adversaries effectively.

Look at what Qaddafi has done: called in airstrikes (people find it easier to kill from 20,000 feet), armed paramiltary gangs (people with a highly personal stake in the outcome), brought in foreign mercenaries (who don't care about hedging against a loss--they'll just leave, so they might as well cause mayhem), and leaned on elite loyalist forces commanded by his own children. I would not be surprised if other long-range methods of killing, such as artillery, are also brought to bear. It is a lot easier to lob a shell at someone a mile away that you can't see than it is to kill them in close quarters battle.

Those are all steps that would help mitigate morale issues that prevent regular forces from being effective in racking up the body count. Whether or not regular forces will shoot to kill is an important question in any uprising. It certainly was the key question in Egypt a few weeks ago. In a sense, regular military forces provide a show of force. The regime hopes that the threat of force is sufficient to cause protesters to stand down. Sometimes, forces will shoot, and this is when civil wars get bloody. But sometimes they don't, and then the army either brokers an agreement (as has occurred in Egypt) or they melt away (as seems to be happening in Libya).

Hopefully, the body count stays relatively low. Yes, a thousand deaths is serious. However, it could be tens or hundreds of thousands. Regular military forces could continue to melt away, and Qaddafi may shoot himself in a bunker somewhere or hop on a jet to Venezuela or something. The most dangerous outcome, though is that Qaddafi manages to leverage some of those tools to rack up the body count (artillery, air strikes, foreign mercenaries, undisciplined extremist loyalists with a lot to lose if the regime crashes), which then causes the uprising to ratchet up the violence level. Then the world will see a full-scale shooting civil war.

Why don't they peacefully protest in the streets?

Autocratic dictator starts arming supporters, who are going out as militias to intimidate and suppress insurrection. Yes, militias can cut both ways; they can be baneful or helpful.

Anti-gun people would have you believe that the anti-regime protesters should just go out in the streets and peacefully protest. Yet, for some reason:

In Tripoli, most residents remained in their homes Saturday, terrified of bands of armed men running checkpoints and patrolling the city.

Libya is a gun control paradise. Libyan leaders have come out and said that "of course, the people have no arms." Of course, according to a small-arms control site, Libya's regime didn't restrict firearms at all. This site reports that almost a million firearms were in private hands and half a million in government hands, with no regulations other than requiring markings (serial numbers). Of course, I'm sure many of those million privately owned weapons were in the hands of regime sympathizers, and I'd be willing to bet that some other arms control measures were implemented, even if "unofficially."

Still, the asking price for an AK-type rifle is only $250 or so there apparently, so it isn't surprising that anti-regime insurgents managed to arm themselves fairly quickly. They know that peacefully protesting in the streets against a regime like Qaddafi's isn't a winning strategy.

Quote of the Day: Hypocrisy Edition

Joan Peterson: I have guns in my home. I come from a hunting family. My husband is a hunter as is my brother and my mother and father before him.

I don't know exactly what she owns, but I'm willing to bet that it is an armor piercing sniper rifle.

Also, if she actually believes the nonsense that she spouts -- that is, the discredited studies that say that you're a bajillion times more likely to die if you have a firearm in the home, that you can't have guns and minors in the same home without extreme risk to the minor, etc. -- then either she doesn't really believe it, or she is a terrible parent, or she believes that she is somehow magically different from "those people" (you know... the "wrong" people... they live on the "other" side of the tracks... don't make much money... "those" people...). I don't really like to judge other people's parenting, but really, someone that would knowingly subject their child to extreme risk is a pretty terrible parent.

Because Joan is probably, in her words, a "pretty nice lady," I find it less disturbing to think that she's just a liar and hypocrite, or feels that she is a special elite than to think that she'd deliberately and knowingly endanger her children.

Draw Results Today

In case you've been living with your head under a rock, this years draw hunt results are scheduled to be released at 5pm today.  Normally they end up delaying a while, and with a new computer system this year I felt certain that they'd be delayed.  We're only eight hours out though, and no delay has been posted.  We'll see if they make it out on time!

Also taking bets on how long after release it will take for the site to crash!

Update: Site crashes 30 minutes BEFORE the list is scheduled to be released.

Update 2: We got three tags between the two of us!  Two Kodiak bear tags and one 'bou tag!  Very excited.

Guns and Mexico

Guns Captured in Mexican Drug Violence, 2008


I think the "90% of Mexican guns come from US FFLs!" canard can now finally be put to bed.

First, STRATFOR's excellent analysis of trace data and an Annenberg Fact check agree: 90% is a myth. Annenberg has recoiled from their initial analysis, possibly because it isn't on the party line, but their analysis fundamentally agrees with STRATFOR. The best data we have is from 2008.

In '08, about 30K guns were captured. Of the 30K, 23K were not submitted for tracing to the ATF. The other 7K were, and of those, 3.5K were traced back to the US.

Now, we have CBS news reporting that the ATF allowed 2500 firearms to "walk" across the border. In the words of an agent:

"The numbers are over 2,500 on that case by the way. That's how many guns were sold - including some 50-calibers they let walk."

One of those guns was recovered at the scene of a slain border patrol agent, by the way.

Now, the time frames are not the same. Project "Gunrunner" didn't occur in '08. However, it shows the scale of the problem created by ATF. Assuming that the gun numbers and trace figures are consistent from year to year, over half of the guns traced back to the US came from the ATF or were smuggled with the permission of the ATF. Wow.

Also note that a whole lot of guns traced back to the US are likely from foreign military sales. For example, every full-auto M16 is almost certainly one of these. It may have been made in the USA, but I'd bet $1000 that it didn't come from a FFL. It was likely sold by the State Dep't or another agency to the military of Mexico or another country and then made its way into cartel hands. ATF hasn't released any of their trace data so this figure is unknown, but is doubtless high.

And they wonder why we want to defund and cripple ATF. Once they're part of the solution, not part of the problem, then maybe it won't be necessary for Congress to punish them. Or, they could convert the entire agency over to a convenience store chain. That sounds like a good idea too.

Mental Health, NICS, and Alaska

Apparently Alaska is one of the states that doesn't report any mental health data to NICS. The ADN had an article cribbed from the AP about this that they slapped a "localish" headline onto and buried in the A section yesterday. I believe this is the law that NRA helped pass post-VA Tech to address glaring gaps in the NICS system.

I would not say that we're breaking the law. We're merely accepting the consequences of not complying, which are pecuniary, not criminal, in nature (just like a contractor who pays a fee for late work in accordance with a contract). Moreover, this isn't surprising -- our mental health system up here does not seem particularly well organized; indeed, given the decentralized nature of services due to the scattered population and intermittent connectivity, it may not be a very simple matter to have such a unified registry. It is probably just cheaper to pay the fine than to comply with the bookkeeping.

"But," some say, "this is necessary to reduce crime!" I'm not so sure about that. Apparently there is some significant research out there that suggests that people with mental illnesses aren't significantly more violent than average people. The much better predictor of violence is substance abuse, which apparently in combination with mental illness is a particularly strong indicator of violence.

There is also nothing to suggest that mentally ill people couldn't obtain a firearm outside of the NICS-system, for example, from an illegal dealer or a private seller. I'm not saying that this is a terrible law, but we shouldn't think its a panacea.

Now, restricting access to firearms may reduce some suicides of mentally ill people. However, there is no research that indicates that restricting access to firearms reduces suicide rates, either. It reduces deaths by firearm, but unfortunately doesn't prevent people from choosing some other method to end their lives.

I'm guessing that if this provision of the law had a clear, positive impact on public safety, we'd implement it as a cost-effective means of enhancing law and order. As it is, however, the evidence is very mixed that it does anything to affect crime, and in the current budget environment, the costs are very real. This is an unfunded mandate from Washington that would be nice to comply with -- but there are a lot of unfunded programs out there that may be more pressing and effective. Then again, I am skeptical that NICS really works very effectively anyways.

An Argument for Standard Capacity Magazines-Flash Mobs

Flash mob suddenly swarms convenience store for robbery in Minnesota (as a coincidence, also home of anti-gun bigot and Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson of the Common Gunsense blog).

Luckily, this attack was non-violent (although police are investigating whether it was linked to a shooting that happened down the block just prior). Previous such mobs have assaulted employees, however. When I first heard about these sort of "flash mobs" I thought it was interesting but was cautious to say that they'd become widespread. However, it now seems to be an accepted criminal tactic. While most violence has been incidental (i.e. not preplanned), the mob mentality that pervades these events is unstable and has lead to violence. Moreoever, while it may be a sad commentary on human beings, how long will it be until a flash mob is gathered specifically for the purposes of violence? One can easily imagine a flash mob assembled to carry out a hate crime, rape, or other predatory violent crime.

Wolves travel in packs. If a flash mob bent on mayhem and violence confronted a peaceable defender, they might well need more than 6 or 10 rounds. They might want a standard capacity 15-17 round magazine with 1-2 more to boot to stop the attack. Heck, a storekeeper in a particularly bad area might even want a "happy stick" for handgun that doesn't need to be concealed on his person (for example, locked in a drawer-safe on the premises).

End of the World

Sebastian and others in the blogosphere are musing on the End of the World as We Know it. Why not jump on the bandwagon?

Frankly, I think that if "TEOTWAWKI" -- i.e., a disruption in transport, energy, and other infastructure lasting longer than, say, 6 months -- occurs, a lot of Alaskans are going to be hosed. Why?

• Population: The 1880 census (oldest I could find figures on) showed a population of 33,426 people. I couldn't find good numbers on pre-European contact populations, but they're probably on the order of tens or maybe low hundreds of thousands (and that I find doubtful). There are now 710K people up here. Without importing food from Outside, there is no way that the natural resources of the state or the arable cropland under cultivation could sustain almost a million people.
• Hunting Pressure: Right now hunters take 6000-8000 moose a year. That is a sustainable number. If Outside food got cut off and people went crazy on the local herbivores, how long do you think the population of ungulates would survive before crashing due to massive overhunting?
• Fishing Pressure: The fisheries might fare better, in large part because theoretically the end of the world as we know it would cripple commercial fishing fleets that take a bulk of our harvest. However, that begs the question -- how would local deep sea boats get out to sea without parts, fuel, or sustainment from Outside? How long would kings run in Ship Creek in downtown Anchorage with no restrictions?
• Arable Land: A lot of Alaska is swamp. Right now there are only 355 sq km of cropland in our state. That gives a density of 1811 people per sq km, which is on par with places like Virginia and Georgia. It isn't as bad as the urban East Coast but it is far too many people for the land that could be readily pressed into service growing crops.
  
• Emergency Supplies: Speaking of food, our emergency food supply is apparently in Oregon.
• Fuel: How long would aviation fuel supplies hold out? Could the North Slope infrastructure and some of our local refineries in Fairbanks continue working without assistance from Outside? If the Rail Belt was cut (say, a bridge collapse in an earthquake) how do you move stuff from North to South?

My bottom line is that except for a few sourdoughs, a lot of people in Alaska would freeze and starve in an Alien Invasion or other apocalypse. Luckily, the end of the world as we know it is not terribly likely, and all the upheavel that Sebastian opines about which pumps up gas prices is great for us. Alaska's resource-based economy apparently moves somewhat counter-cyclically to the Outside cycles.

Much more likely is something that causes 72 hours to a few weeks of disruption. Topping my personal disaster list is a major earthquake. It has happened before and will happen again. Bridges would be knocked down, power disrupted, buildings collapsed, and supermarket shelves bare -- for awhile. If you can survive the temporary disruption in services lasting a few weeks then you'll make it. The state suggests having two weeks of supplies on hand, which isn't unreasonable. A case or two of MREs and staple foods, good first aid supplies and training, some water, fuel, and camping gear should get most people through that sort of emergency, which is really the most viable worst case scenario we'd face.

Quote of the Day: Don't Care

Baldr from New Trajectory over at Joan's Blog: Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the second ammendment or gun control. What I care about are the deaths and violence now and the solutions that make sense to solve them.

Thanks for being honest about your bigotry, at least. Let's play the word substitution game, shall we?

Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the fourth amendment or privacy rights. What I care about are the deaths and violence caused by terrorists now and the solutions that make sense to solve them.

Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the fifth amendment or due process. What I care about are the deaths and violence caused by terrorists now and the solutions that make sense to solve them, even if that means torturing some terrorists in Gitmo.

Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the thirteenth amendment or racism. What I care about are the deaths and violence caused by minorities in ghettos now and the solutions that make sense to solve them.

Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the nineteenth amendment or women's suffrage. What I care about are the deaths and violence caused by women who voted for GW Bush and the war in Iraq, and the solutions that make sense to solve the female vote problem.

Truthfully, I don't really care about the origins of the first amendment or freedom of religion. What I care about are the deaths and violence caused by Muslim terrorists now and the solutions that make sense to solve them. The founding fathers never meant to include radical Islam in the First Amendment.

I'd like to think that none of those word substitutions would be particularly acceptable policies (although I see that the 4th isn't terribly popular these days). Yet these clowns think that it is fine to defecate on the 2A.

The Latest from T&A-AK Legislator can't get to the capitol

One of our local Anchorage reps refuses to be molested again by TSA, travels by boat.

Remember, no matter how much they may say that they are "public servants keeping us safe," TSA agents are not serving honorably. They are unionized, unprofessional, incompetent, and abusive of civil liberties.

I personally fly with several pocket constitutions which I leave at checkpoints and am prepared to give to individual agents. I'll grudgingly comply with requests if I'm required to fly with work, but I do not feel shy about telling individual agents that I think they are acting in a completely unacceptable manner. Don't let them go to bed at night feeling smug and satisfied. Don't make a scene, don't break the law, don't end up on the front page of the paper the next day -- but do quietly assert yourself and know your personal boundaries, just like Rep Cissna.

Don't think its fair to take out frustration on individual TSA agents? Remember, nobody is forcing them to work at TSA. TSA originally started out as a decent organization under ADM Loy but they've completely perverted their original mission since.

On Victims: Definitions

While we're on the subject, I thought this was a powerful quote illustrating the difference between my worldview and some others:

Over 5,000 have died thus far in this war; 8,000 if you include the innocents murdered on 9/11. They are overwhelmingly working class kids, the children of cops and firefighters, city and factory workers, school teachers and small business owners. With some exceptions they are from families short on stock portfolios and futures, but long on love of country and service to the nation. Just yesterday, too many were lost and a knock on the door late last night brought their families to their knees in a grief that will never-ever go away. Thousands more have suffered wounds since it all started, but like anyone who loses life or limb while serving others-including our firefighters and law enforcement personnel who on 9/11 were the first casualties of this war-they are not victims as they knew what they were about, and were doing what they wanted to do. The chattering class and all those who doubt America's intentions, and resolve, endeavor to make them and their families out to be victims, but they are wrong. We who have served and are serving refuse their sympathy. Those of us who have lived in the dirt, sweat and struggle of the arena are not victims and will have none of that. Those with less of a sense of service to the nation never understand it when men and women of character step forward to look danger and adversity straight in the eye, refusing to blink, or give ground, even to their own deaths. The protected can't begin to understand the price paid so they and their families can sleep safe and free at night. No, they are not victims, but are warriors, your warriors, and warriors are never victims regardless of how and where they fall. Death, or fear of death, has no power over them. Their paths are paved by sacrifice, sacrifices they gladly make...for you. They prove themselves everyday on the field of battle...for you. They fight in every corner of the globe...for you. They live to fight...for you, and they never rest because there is always another battle to be won in the defense of America.

The speaker is Gen John Kelly, USMC, 2010. The entire speech is well worth reading. I don't fully agree with everything he asserts but it is amazing. Marines are great people ("No better friend, no worse enemy") and I have nothing but respect for the corps, based on my personal experiences with Marines, but they do have a unique viewpoint (necessary given their job I think). Even more remarkably, Gen Kelly lost a son in combat about a week or so before giving this speech.

I had a disagreement with some friends awhile ago about whether the guard at the holocaust musuem who was killed by an insane racist loon was a victim. My immediate reaction was, "of course not!" Stephen Tyrone Johns, the slain guard, was a uniformed, armed guard. He strapped on a sidearm every day to protect others. In my view, one who knowingly steps into the breach is not victimized if killed. Likewise, first responders who ran into the towers on 9/11 -- knowing that death is a very real possibility when you run into a burning skyscraper -- are not victims.

If you look at the etymology of the word it has gone through a few phases:

• Original Latin definition: A sacrifice to a Pagan god. Used very casually by the ancients; in general it would most likely refer to a relatively major sacrifice, usually of an animal, often by a victor or someone who wants to be a victor.
  
• Early Christian definition (c. 15-16th century): The sense of involving people becomes more common. A person who chooses to accept ill fate (it would not be inaccurate to describe Jesus Christ's sacrifice as the act of a "victima").
  
• Industrial era definition (c. 18th century): Any person who suffers any ill fate.
• Modern definition: Trending towards someone who is duped or unknowingly suffers an ill fate.
  

I think General Kelly is rejecting the modern definition. I'd prefer to retake the word and return it to an earlier meaning, but it may be better to reject it altogether, as he does.

Victims and Opposing Views

Joan over at Common Gunsense has a great screed up about victims. Her belief is basically:

• Victims have a unique insight and passion into issues.
• Questioning a victim's political beliefs is equivalent to personally attacking them.
• Victims should be allowed to establish policy for the rest of society.

The interesting this is, what happens when two victims disagree? Joan linked to a quote from Mr. Dallas Green, who is the grandfather of the child tragically slain by Laughner in Arizona. Mr. Dallas Green has stated that he supports bans on high capacity magazines for glock handguns. However, Mr. John Green, the father of the child, has said:

“This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.”

He apparently opposes restricting freedoms. So now we have two victims, each who have suffered a tragedy, but who have opposing viewpoints. How do we decide? If we evaluate any of their views critically then in her mind it is basically the same as a vicious personal attack. Maybe we should just flip a coin?

I then brought up 9/11 families against the mosque in NYC. Personally, I don't feel that government should block the mosque. I may find the specific location to be distasteful, but I also value freedom of religion and private property rights. If you watch the videos they've put out, their anguish and suffering over this mosque issue seems real. Joan agrees with me on this issue. However, it is interesting to see Joan's reasoning.

She can't accept that the 9/11 families really are distraught about it. She states:

I sort of understand the views of some of the victims' families but don't think that the Islamic Center ( not just a Mosque as it was made out to be) would be something that would violate those victims.

This makes sense. If they are victims (which she seems to think they qualify as), then their views cannot be questioned using logos or ethos based arguments. Thus, the victims must not really stating their views accurately, or maybe they actually aren't being violated by the proposed mosque. In summary:

1) Person A is a victim.
2) Victims always support good things. Victims are also always informed.
3) Person A supports policy choice X. Therefore X must be good.
4) I oppose X, and I am a victim and a good person, so X cannot be good.
5) ???

Not all of those things can be true. For Joan to reject premise 2 or 4 would be to upset her world view apple cart; either Person A is not really a victim or they don't actually support policy choice X. That is why she has to reject premise 3; those 9/11 victims must not really oppose the mosque, or maybe the mosque isn't actually that offensive to them (i.e. they are mistaken). She does the same thing with the Green family (and her own relatives) to reconcile the logical inconsistency; clearly John Green and her other relatives just don't actually support what they say they do (or maybe they aren't actually victims).

I personally choose to reject premise 2. That is, I don't believe that victims always support good things, and I don't think that it is evil or wrong to question the political beliefs of a victim. As an extreme example, Hitler claimed to be a victim and he was not a good person that supported good things. Much more mundanely, victims might be good people who are not well informed on an issue and thus support ill-conceived policies; just because someone lost a relative in a bridge collapse doesn't make them a structural engineer. Someone who lost a child to a disease doesn't hold an MD.

It really is interesting to see her tortured logic on display. It makes many things much clearer. I do think it is interesting to present pathos-based arguments both for and against something and see what happens. She is incapable or unwilling to evaluate such arguments critically so there are some real mental gymnastics occurring to reconcile what are fundamentally opposed ideas.

Pass it on! Public Service Edition

We acquired these messages. Given that the authors want them spread far and wide, I don't think they'll object to us sharing them with a broader audience.

Subject: FW: Urgent- Wisconsin needs you (Ind too)
From: *******************
To: *******************

Two urgent requests for Wisconsin and breaking news on Indiana....

First request - If you know anyone living in Wisconsin - or who can get to Madison Thursday or Friday, urge them to get to the Capitol! Even if they are "6 Kevin Bacons" away from you-- email, call, exhort them to join the rally. The Governor wants to take away collective bargaining (and much more) from 175,000 public employees. The vote is expected this week.

From our folks in Wisconsin: "Governor Walker will not negotiate. WEAC believes there is no option except significant, but peaceful action by all members and citizens Thursday and Friday. Get as close to the Capitol and sit down. Supporters who cannot make it to Madison should go to their local place of workshop to pray for the demonstrators and for the state of Wisconsin. The demonstration is not about money- it is about basic human and workers' rights and human dignity."

Support is coming from all over: 17,000-20,000 citizens rallied at the Capitol today. The Madison schools were closed today due to so many teachers taking sick leave. Others are joining in....from the Packers and labor groups, to ministers and President Obama (* his remarks below).

Second request: email WEAC with your words of support. (Mary Bell, WEAC president, and Dan Burkhalter, Executive Director, or others you know) They are in a TOUGH fight. To learn more, go to http://www.weac.org Take a look at the video of a member/parent speaking at the rally (lower right). Reminds you why we do this work.

*From President Obama - "On the other hand, some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain, generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers. They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow these budget problems are due to public employees."

Also, Indiana may be facing a vote tomorrow on the loss of bargaining...more as we know more.

Be Strong! Be Powerful! Support our NEA Family.

Barby Halstead-Worrell

Director, NCSEA

From: *******************
To: *******************
Cc: ObserversEC [NEA]
Subject: Update and Talking Points on Wisconsin
Importance: High

Colleagues: You are well aware of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's full-scale attack on the collective bargaining rights of our WEAC members and 175,000 state and local employees. Walker's blatant attempt at union-busting has caused outrage and scores of demonstrations across the state. The story continues to gain national attention. Attached below are talking points from WEAC to assist you in responding to questions that might arise.

I arrived in Wisconsin this morning to find a united front of tens of thousands of workers and concerned Wisconsin residents coming together in a peaceful demonstration at the Capitol for the rights of workers to have a voice in their workplace. Less than 24 hours ago I was in Denver at a national conference showcasing the value and importance of labor-management collaboration. The irony is overwhelming .... I sat listening to school leaders and members talk about how they came together to find solutions that are working for kids. Meanwhile I'm getting updates on Wisconsin and Ohio and Indiana, which are erupting with anti-union, anti-educator proposals that will do irreparable harm to students and public schools.

Respect, dignity, and fairness are universal values that's why President Obama and Secretary Duncan and the labor community and the media and people all over the country are showing solidarity for Wisconsin workers. Our members and labor allies have been simply amazing and I'm so proud to stand alongside Mary Bell and all of them.

Please take a minute and show your support for our Wisconsin family wear red and send emails to: (REMOVED). Mary Bell says keep the notes coming they mean so much! We will continue to keep you informed.

In solidarity,
Dennis

Governor WalksAttack on Worker Rights Bill Message Points:

Ø The people of Wisconsin did not elect Governor Walker to undermine public education but that is exactly what his Attack on Worker Rights bill will do.

Ø He is about to hurt really good people, their kids and families.

Ø This extreme, politically motivated attack on worker rights will harm the quality of our schools and the education children receive, because educators will have no say in school quality issues.

Ø Public employees are willing to do their part in tough economic times, but this goes far beyond a budget fix. It sets employee-employer relations back decades.

Ø This will also have a negative impact on local businesses, as educators will have less money to spend in their own communities.

New State Battle Message Points:

· Workers, acting together through their unions, are the last best defense to stop the attacks on the middle class. Without unions we cannot restore balance to our economy and these attacks will go unanswered.

· We need to restore balance and grow the middle class.

· Working Americans need to use the strength of our numbers to fight for better wages and benefits, jobs security and safer work places for everyone.

· Workers like educators, nurses, and firefighters are essential to the well-being and safety of our families and communities.

· Politicians know unions are a check on corporate power, so they are working to weaken or eliminate them.

· It’s time for politicians to stop the power struggle. We need balance that brings our leaders together to create quality jobs and solve the problems hurting middle class families.

My views may differ from Heather's slightly, but these would be my talking points:

• You have a right to free speech, a right to assembly, and so on. You do not have a right to a job. In the private sector (and even parts of the public sector), your employer can fire you for public, political comments that you make. Hint: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
  
• The overwhelming problem facing states now are promises made to unionized public employees, primarily pensions and medical care. It is wrong for states to renege on promises already made, however, the way forward is clearly unsustainable. The only viable options are changing these compensation plans to be more in line with private sector benefits, or mass layoffs or even defaulting on past obligations.
• Dereliction of duty is not public service. It would be one thing if the state were passing a law that directly harmed children, for example, the "Child Molesters-to-Teachers Rehab Program." However, this law will only affect the financial compensation of employees. These employees are abandoning their posts due to selfish financial interest. They should be issued an ultimatum and fired if they refuse to show up to work.

This moment is just as important as when Reagan broke the back of the ATC strike. If the Gov of Wisconsin fails to push through these measures, then every other state facing severe fiscal crisis will have no option but to continue hurtling off a cliff towards default. Luckily, Alaska is in better shape than most because we changed the pension plans for our public employees a few years ago. Still, the impact of exceedingly generous retirement plans will be a major obligation for decades to come.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why every single state employee who fails to show up for work shouldn't be fired. Get rid of them. There are plenty of other teachers and so on to go around. If I were a supervisor, I wouldn't employees who are willing to sacrifice the public interest -- educating children -- out of their own petty greed. That tells me plenty about their priorities, ethics, and integrity. Moreover, any teacher who brought minor students with them without parental permission should be charged with kidnapping or child endangerment. Union members who organized such activity should be charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping.

I don't have any problem with unions. That's freedom of association. But collective bargaining requires two parties engaging in voluntary negotiations. There should be no requirement that employers be forced to bargain with the union. If the union actually brought higher quality employees to the table with it, then most businesses (and our governments!) would be quite likely to negotiate anyways with what would effectively be a skilled guild. This has been the result in many "open shop" states--healthier, stronger unions with more motivated leaders and members. These "public servants" are nothing more than leeches who seek to leverage the force of government to extort benefits from their neighbors. That's not public service.

Proposal: Anti-Gun Blog Boycott

As has been demonstrated in a few recent polls (or any quick perusal of the comments of our favorite anti-gun blogs), the primary audience for gun control bloggers appears to be gun rights supporters. Yet, the authors still persist in the idea that they are writing for a vast silent majority.

I propose that we organize a multi-day boycott of their sites. For, say, a 72 hour period, nobody visits or comments; dump them out of your RSS feeds; don't link to them. In fact, it'd be even better to do it for a week, but it would probably be harder to keep cohesion together for that long. A few days will get the point across. Once the 72 hours are up, feel free to catch up, comment away, and link to the latest garbage.

I doubt that the results will ever become public. However, we know that they look at their pageview counts. They will know the truth, and it has got to be demotivating to see your number of hits drop by 98%. Then they'll really know just how many of the "silent majority" are reading. I'm guessing its single digit readership in most cases.

Right now, I propose 1 April ("April Fool's!") for the start of the embargo, unless someone can come up with a better or more symbolic date. In any event, it will probably do us good to take a break from reading the nonsense. I know I took a mental health break myself and it was good for me.

NRA-ILA Alert about Duty to Retreat law

No-Duty-to-Retreat Legislation Passes Alaska’s House Judiciary Committee

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

On Monday, February 14, the House Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 80 by a 4 to 1 vote. This legislation would remove the duty-to-retreat in Alaska. HB 80 now moves to the House Finance Committee. Under existing law, there is no-duty-to-retreat if a person is in their home, business, or on their own property. Introduced by state Representative Mark Neuman (R-15), HB 80 would extend the right to use force, including deadly force, for self-defense anywhere a person has a legal right to be. Your NRA will continue to update you on the status of HB 80 as it progresses through the Alaska Legislature.

At least, so says my NRA secret decoder ring. Frankly, this isn't a huge legislative priority for me. We already don't have a duty to retreat in the home (and some other places) or if you are accompanying a child or handicapped person. I would much prefer to see clarification on our "carry while intoxicated" law (say, a definition for intoxicated of 0.08 or 0.04 BAC) or modification of the carry-in-restaurants law or a legislative smack down of UAA. Then again, I don't think it will lead to blood in the streets, so I'll take a win if it can be had.

Non-Violent Revolution

A lot of virtual ink is being spilled over at the gun control blogs about how Egypt's peaceful revolution didn't require the anti-government protesters to use force.

Partially true. First, how did the police and internal security forces get routed early in the process? Do you think they just melted away of their own accord? If you watch some of the videos, you can see mobs of protesters tossing tear gas back into the police formations, separating the phalanxes of riot shields, and then using mass to overwhelm and rout the police formations. Armored vehicles and riot control trucks were torched on the streets. That's a spontaneous intimidation campaign using physical coercion to persuade the despotic internal security forces that further attempts at riot control might be adverse to their health. As a side note, we also saw the citizenry forming militias to protect innocent life and property, armed with whatever weapons could be found at hand.

Next, the protesters did not force definitive change. They got hedging from a dictator who probably would have loved to "exert influence" in the upcoming elections even though he himself was resigning. Unless you see promoting the former interior minister -- who, by the way, oversaw the internal security forces as part of his job portfolio -- to the vice presidency (which is often seen as a stepping stone to rule in Egypt) as change, that is.

Who forced change? The military: i.e., the guys with the guns. Even NPR this morning ran a story talking about how the Egyptian military played a key role in forcing Mubarak out. Right now it is the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces led by a career military man that has put the country under martial law and is calling the shots. Had the Egyptian military decided to turn those guns on the protesters (and it is doubtful if conscript soldiers would have fired on their relatives in the crowd) instead of throwing Mubarak off the sinking ship then the outcome could have been quite different.

The Egypt thing is not as clear cut as the antis want to make it out to be. The hated dictator stayed in power until the guys with the guns (i.e. the Army) forced him out. Now, the guys with guns were certainly influenced by the peaceful protests, but they were ultimately the decisive factor. Do you think Mubarak would have left if the Army had laid down their arms, relinquished security duties back to the secret police, and joined the peaceful crowds instead of forcing him out at bayonet point? That seems rather optimistic to me.

Quote of the Day

Again, from Joan: "I give you the argument of the guys with the "man pants" on ladies and gentlemen-" We're saying that we'd rather have more gun deaths and lower overall violent crime, than zero gun deaths and higher rates of violent crime if given the choice" And there you have it. Nothing more to say here except "Wow" and "unbelievable""

It seems like she's said it plainly here. Her "common sense" is that it's better to have more violent crime, as long as there are no guns involved. And she wonders why we are not willing to compromise!

More Prohibited Persons: DV Edition

More from our local anti-gun bigot:

1/31/2011: One cousin shoots the other at birthday party

February 2, 2011 - Leave a Response

But let’s not focus on people shooting each other, and instead focus on all of the self-defense uses of guns in our society. There’s so much of it, I can’t name any!

If you look up the perp's record, you find that she's a respondent in a petition for a restraining order for DV. Her partner also filed for custody. It is relatively rarer for women to abuse men but it certainly happens. The perp also had some substance abuse issues -- albeit old -- in the form of a DWI arrest and parole violation.

If the restraining order was granted, then she would be plausibly be someone "who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or..." Which means she's a prohibited person. I don't really like the Lautenberg Amendment because I think it denies due process rights. However, the antigunners lose credibility when the very laws they say are so vital to public safety are absolutely ineffective.

Moreoever, possessing a weapon while intoxicated in Alaska is misconduct involving weapons, and it is also illegal.

Maybe the real solution is effective programs to address substance abuse. I have a suspicion that alcoholism may have played a role in this event.

Why Wasn't He in Jail

Gwen freaks out about a gang banger that got into a fight downtown and shot another gang banger buddy and an innocent bystander. The tags are usual nonsense.

1/30/2011: 2 shot in Anchorage, gun owners fail again

But I’m sure that this gun were bought with complete background check and the with the utmost respect for the weapon. Or, it was bought at a pawn shop or off the street, from someone who stole it, from an ignorant gun owners, who thought it would protect them from something, someday.

Interestingly, Tautua (the perp) was a prohibited person due to his criminal record. Back in 2007 he apparently committed some felonies. He could not have legally bought the weapon from anyone or even possessed it.

If he purchased from a Federal Firearms Licensee (including pawn shops), he'd have to lie on the 4473 and somehow pass the NICS check, which shouldn't happen because of his criminal background. If he bought from a private seller, he also committed a crime. If a private seller sold it to him and had reason to believe that he was prohibited then they committed a crime too.

So, we have a transaction that was illegal, a perp that was already ignoring the law, and a perp with a criminal record -- he was charged with three Class C felonies including theft of a firearm -- who was out on the streets less than two years later although he could have been in prison if he'd been sentenced properly. Maybe the problem is that Alaska law allows Class C felons to be set free without spending a day in prison (AS 12.55.125):

(1) if the offense is a first felony conviction and does not involve circumstances described in (4) of this subsection, zero to two years; a defendant sentenced under this paragraph may, if the court finds it appropriate, be granted a suspended imposition of sentence under AS 12.55.085, and the court may, as a condition of probation under AS 12.55.086, require the defendant to serve an active term of imprisonment within the range specified in this paragraph;

Note that (4) references big game hunting violations.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of crazy punitive sentences for non-violent offenders. But a gangbanger who commits three felonies by stealing guns maybe deserves something a little harder than a rap on the wrist.

The Typical Audience at Anti-Gun Blogs

Joan Peterson and other bigots often appeal to the "great silent majority." She has said multiple times effectively that while pro-gun rights people post frequently to her comments, she has many readers who choose not to comment who are on her side of the issue. That may be true, but I kind of doubt it. Baldr over at New Trajectory just posted a poll asking people where they fall on the issue. He has 520 votes and 98% of them are "Very much against stricter [gun control] legislation." There's 1 vote that's only "somewhat against." And then a total of 9 votes supporting stronger legislation.

Hrm.

Given that the NRA (4.5 million dues paying members) outnumbers the Brady Campaign (~50K dues paying members) 90:1, I suppose Baldr is doing well; he's only outnumbered 56:1 on his poll right now.

I don't doubt that the great silent majority is out there -- most people, even gun owners, are not engaged one way or another on the issue. But they're not reading Baldr's blog.

Our Local Bigot is Back

Looks like Gwendolyn Blanston is posting again over at her blog. Should give us something to write about.

My Precious

When I read anti-gunner nonsense I am reminded of the one ring from the Lord of the Rings tale. It is as if guns are vile dark evil artifacts whispering malice into their bearer's ears. Only the most innocent of heart can bear one without being corrupted, apparently.

You can read any post at Joan's blog or the Brady Campaign or wherever. It won't take long to find personifications of guns ("the gun shot the victim -- all by itself, really?), or assertions that someone just snapped and shot someone else (the claim being that if the gun hadn't been there, the victim would not have been hurt).

I'll concede that a small number of people do snap and kill others with guns. Sure, it happens, just like people snap while driving cars and commit acts of road rage while wielding a lethal vehicle that has several orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a bullet. Having access to modern technology like cars or firearms means that the few members of society with criminally poor impulse control can cause more damage. However, it is exceedingly rare. Most murderers have extensive rap sheets and/or substance abuse issues. It makes sense -- most people with really bad impulse control commit an aggravated assault or something first. You're more at risk of falling or drowning in a pool than being shot by someone who "just snaps."

If you read an anti-gun person's assertions though, you'd think that gun is always whispering in its owner's ear, pushing us closer to the edge and making us want to shoot people. It is like carrying a gun means you lose free will.

Don't you find that a bit creepy? I anthropomorphize my cat's meows, and even my car (I'm sure that rattle was trying to tell me something), but not my firearms.

Anchorage Pravda Lead Story

The Anchorage Press, our local lefty paper, ran a lead article with a graphic covering the entire front page entitled "Overkill." It is a reporter's thoughts on seeing the SHOT show in Vegas.

I hate ad hominem attacks but in this case it is worthwhile considering the reporter's history. First off, David Holthouse planned a murder. He has published other articles talking about how he had purchases a firearm and had a plan to torture and then execute someone who he claimed raped him when he was 7 (the alleged perp was 14). Child rape is a terrible, abhorrent crime. But vengeance does not belong to the citizen. David Holthouse describes plotting a murder; it is pure vigilantism. The reason he gave up his plan was because his parents discovered the plot and went public with it. He actually bragged about the plot in an NPR interview and other media stories:

"...I bought the gun last April. I had a few firearms in my closet already, but they'd all been purchased legally, in my name, from a licensed firearms dealer. So I flew to Phoenix and went to a gang barrio, where I bought a Beretta 9mm with a homemade silencer and the serial number removed. I took this gun to the local garage gunsmith and had him put dozens of deep nicks and grooves in the Beretta's barrel to corrupt ballistics tests. The gunsmith warned me that this would ruin the gun's accuracy beyond a few feet, but I didn't care. I intended to get up-close and personal.

After testing the gun and silencer in the desert, I stored them in Phoenix and flew home to keep scheming. It seems a little insane to me now that I was actually going to kill a man instead of just bringing what he had done to me out in the open...."

Note that at the time of this purchase, Holthouse lived in Colorado. By traveling across state lines and purchasing from a private seller out of state, Holthouse violated the law. He committed a felony. Holthouse is a felon that never got caught and convicted, even though he's confessed to his crime.

It is also worth pointing out that some of Mr. Holthouse's previous work for the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Intelligence Report" was actually libelous and had to be publicly atoned for.

The organization that bought and paid for this article, Media Matters for America, is a progressive organization, which recieved $400,000 from our favorite -- the Joyce Foundation. This is the same foundation that provides almost all of the funding for the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. They're the mothership for most of the nonsense out there.

Now that we've considered the author, look at the ideas expressed by Holthouse.

On Bear Guns

Century Arms showed him an AK-style 7.62x39 handgun. He was shocked because it didn't look much like a big bore revolver. Now, anyone dealing with bear guns for hunting will tell you that you want a big magnum, minimum. Duh. However, for those that find a rifle inconvenient for bear defense, big bore revolvers are popular. A .44 magnum dishes out around 1250 joules of energy. Even that is no guarantee that a big bear will be neutralized; Wild West Guns has some deformed .44 bullets that apparently bounced off of a brownie's cranium. Even so, while a 7.62x39 AK round is not appropriate for hunting ethically, it is far more powerful than a .44 magnum, with average rounds delivering over 2000 joules of energy.

While there is more to killing or stopping power than plain energy, it is hard to argue that any handgun round will outdo a centerfire rifle.

On Armor Piercing Ammunition

Holthouse then expresses concern when offered steel-core armor piercing rounds for the AK. He thinks they are illegal. They aren't illegal to own, possess, buy, or sell. The only restriction is that to import them or manufacture them you need a special version of FFL. I don't know about you, but I don't bulk order much ammo from China, so I think 99% of us are ok without thinking about these rules.

By the way, the ammo isn't especially popular for killing cops. Any rifle round -- regardless of what the core is made out of -- will tear through soft body armor worn by most police officers. It is popular because it is cheap (military surplus) which makes it desirable for lots of practice, and because some people actually desire more penetration for certain applications.

On Lethality

"In other words, they’re better able to kill human beings in greater numbers and with more efficiency. That’s all they’re good for—not target shooting, not hunting, just killing people."

Yes, that's the idea. I want police officers to be able to kill people more efficiently. I also want military members to be more effective. And finally, I want home defenders and armed citizens to have a better chance of survival too.

Surprisingly, he freaks out about the S&W M&P-15-22P. This gun looks really freaking scary. What Holthouse doesn't realize is that it is a .22. It is no more lethal than a Ruger 10/22, one of the most common target rifles in history. It is hardly more lethal than a Marlin 39 (Annie Oakley's favorite gun). The 15-22 is certainly not intended to kill anyone, at least not effectively. It is too big to conceal (making it a poor choice for criminals), and the .22 round is a poor stopper. Its a plinker (or maybe useful if your local rabbits have organized into a militia or something). It could also be useful in a zombie invasion, as he mentions, if you subscribe to the school of thought that zombies require a headshot with any caliber to drop.

He also freaks out on magazine sizes and tries to imply that they were actually banned during the AWB. This has been addressed numerous times, so I'll just summarize: The AWB didn't ban sale or possession of these common standard capacity magazines. Several states have tried strict bans and nobody has ever found such restrictions to decrease crime. Holthouse is just another anti-gun bigot who is either ignorant of the laws he purports to support or deliberately lying about them.

On Good Defensive Ammo

Holthouse also freaks out about ammo:

Ammunition-makers likewise promoted new bullets designed to heighten the damage they cause to the human body. For example, this year the Nebraska-based handgun ammunition manufacturer Hornady, one of the leaders in the industry, introduced .44 Special and .45 Colt caliber rounds to its popular Critical Defense line of “personal defense” hollow-point handgun rounds. (Hollow point bullets expand or “mushroom” when they enter a human body, amplifying tissue damage, blood loss and shock.)



Holthouse must be ignorant about defensive ammunition or wants cops to die. Back when we just had soft lead bullets, like the notorious "widowmaker .38 special lead round nose," cops would empty revolvers into assailants and find that they lacked stopping power. The attacker would be filled with holes but not stop right away. Of course, they'd probably die later because they had a bunch of holes in them, but not before they completed their crime or killed the cop. Moreover, these bullets dangerously overpenetrated. That is, police were likely to shoot right through the attacker and hit their partner or a bystander. So, it isn't an exaggeration to say that by denying personal defense hollow point rounds, Holthouse wants perps to get filled with more holes (and die), cops to fail to stop their attackers (and die), and for bystanders to get hit by overpenetrating rounds (and die). Holthouse is either a lunatic massmurderer wannabe or totally unknowledgeable about firearms.

The good times keep on rolling: slamming .50 cals that can shoot down airplanes, claiming firearms ownership is dropping, the myth of the magical auto-aiming shotgun, and so on. You really have to read this trash to believe it. Then again, what do you expect out of the Anchorage Press, which literally is given away for free downtown because they have no subscribers.

Remember: Holthouse has literally committed gun-related felonies; in fact, he has bragged about them and profited from them. He flaunts the law and publicly plots violent crimes. And he presumes to lecture sane, well adjusted members of society about gun laws? What a hypocrite.

Enjoy

I didn't get any good pictures, since we were a little late getting to a good vantage point, but it was spectacular.

Darwin and Guns

A New York college professor wrote an article about how it may be sound to own a gun, but he's going to willfully ignore potential benefits because he'd prefer for nobody to have guns (because the Middle Ages were known for being so genteel) than for bad guys to get shot. The prof concludes:

Legislators: the bullets and our national intelligence are in your hands. Charles Darwin's ghost is watching -- and he doesn't have a gun.

Except this is patently false. Darwin's famous voyage on the Beagle was documented in his own book, "The Voyage of the Beagle." The Beagle was a British Naval vessel, a Brig-Sloop to be more exact, of 10 guns. The Cherokee class was first and foremost a ship of war, designed to be economical of manpower, have a high ratio of firepower-to-size (albeit with limited range), and they made excellent raiders.

Luckily, GoogleBooks has his entire work available. We don't have to guess what Darwin thought about firearms. We can just read his journal. A search for "firearms" yields at least five hits.

On South America:

"Police and justice are quite inefficient. If a man who is poor commits murder and is taken, he will be imprisoned, and perhaps even shot; but if he is rich and has friends, he may rely on it no very severe consequence will ensure... A traveller has no protection besides his firearms; and the constant habit of carrying them is hte main check to more frequent robberies."

On Warfare (p 381):

"The general introduction of firearms has changed the whole system of warfare..." He goes on to describe in some accurate detail the revolution in military affairs and some of the consequences thereof regarding fortifications, military tactics, etc. Darwin was aware of the tactical and military applications of the assault weapons of his day, apparently.

On Natives (198):

"An European labours under great disadvantages when treating with savages like these who have not the least idea of the power of firearms. In the very act of levelling his musket he appears to the savage far inferior to a man armed with a bow and arrow, a spear, or even a sling. Nor is it easy to teach them our superiority except by striking a fatal blow. .. Captain Fitz Roy, on one occasion being very anxious, from good reasons, to frighten away a small party, first flourished a cutlass near them, at which they only laughed; he then twice fired his pistol close to a native. The man both times looked astounded, and carefully but quickly rubbed his head; he then stared awhile, and gabbed to his companions, but he never seemed to think of runing away..."

He then goes on to explain how the ignorant savages had to be shot before they realized guns were dangerous. But apparently once that lesson has been learned, it is quite effective...

On Natives of Tierra del Fuego:

"Little accustomed to Europeans as they appeared to be, yet they knew and dreaded our firearms; nothing would tempt them to take a gun in their hands..."

This intimidation value was probably good for Darwin, given that he talks about the "savages," favorably describes kidnapping natives and forcibly taking them to England to be experiments in "education," and benefits by trading with them and allowing his ship to resupply. In another incident on page 212, he talks about firing indiscriminately from a boat on savages in the woods to intimidate the natives.

On Chile:

"Having hired horses and a guide, we set out the morning of the 22nd. We had not proceeded far, before we were joined by a woman and two boys who were bent on the same journey. Every one on this road acts on a "hail fellow well met" fashion; and one may here enjoy the privilege, so rare in South America, of traveling without firearms."

That is, the normal state of affairs for Darwin appears to have been travelling with firearms. It was apparently a rare exception when he traveled disarmed or without bodyguards.

On Daily Carry:

"Two days afterwards I again rode to the harbour: when not far from our destination, my companion, the same man as before, spied three people hunting on horseback..." They conclude that they aren't Christians (or white) and feel threatened. The companion says, "We must now get on our horses; load your pistol!"

While they were mistaken -- and the "hostile" party was just women out hunting for eggs -- apparently Darwin made a regular practice of going armed.

On Hunting (45):

"During our stay at Maldonado I collected several quadrupeds... The deer is exceedingly abundent... one day I fired ten times from within eighty yards at one animal; and it was much more startled at the abll cutting up the ground than at the report of the rifle. My powder being exhausted, I was obliged to get up (to my shame as a sportsman be it spoken, though well able to kill birds on the wing) and halloo till the deer ran away."

We go back to the opening quote:

Charles Darwin's ghost is watching -- and he doesn't have a gun.

While I can't profess to know what Darwin's ghost is equipped with, I do know what Darwin carried on his expeditions while he was alive. Darwin's famous voyage occured on an armed sloop of war, which used its superior firepower to impress and intimidate native populations to facilitate the expedition. Darwin personally made a regular practice of carrying at least a pistol for the purpose of self defense. It was only a rare exception when he was not armed, apparently. He also regularly carried a rifle with at least ten rounds of ammo for purposes of both defense and hunting. He also talks about how some of the villages maintain a militia for defense.

The author of this quote is Bernard Starr, Ph.D., professor emeritus at the City University of New York (Brooklyn College). Maybe the good professor should stick to shrinking heads, and leave the study of history to people who can do a bit of reading and primary source research. Starr's thesis would never survive in any history journal without being ripped into shreds, but I suppose its good enough for an op-ed.

Cross-dominance and Tape

I found an excellent article on the subject.  Both Chris and I are cross-dominant.  I'm left hand/right eye, and he is right eye/left hand.  This isn't a problem at all for handgun.  For rifles, it works well enough to just close the dominant eye since it's a still target.  But with shotguns and moving targets, closing the eye reduces peripheral vision and depth perception, resulting in endless frustration.  I've been dealing passably well with skeet, but Chris is having significant trouble in that area. 

Most people suggest just switching hands.  This never seemed right to me, and the author in the article agreed.  It just feels wrong, and it's not worth rebuilding new muscle memory.  Tape seems like a perfect solution and I've thrown a roll into the range bag so that we can try it next time we make it out to the skeet range.  Hopefully the tape will work its magic for us!

KSKA, NPR, and OnPoint

Sebastian and other bloggers have pointed out that NPR's producers of "OnPoint" used some despicable tactics that lacked journalistic integrity to stack their deck on a gun control piece. Sebastian calls for a letter writing campaign to Congress to defund NPR.

I don't think that's a great answer. On the drive up here, NPR was the only station we could get for much of the way. It is like the post office -- without some federal subsidies, rural areas would not have any coverage at all. I personally think that like a postal system and roads, some sort of nation-wide radio network is not a bad idea and is probably even a legitimate exercise of Congress' power.

I also actually like a lot of NPR's programming. Yes, it is a few clicks to the left in some cases (depending on the program). However, if NPR is, say, 3 clicks to the left, most talk radio is rabidly 10 clicks to the right. NPR often has quality programs as long as you filter the news appropriately, and other than the two-week fundraiser drive every year, it is mercifully lacking in annoying commercials. They also play a lot of music that I happen to enjoy which wouldn't survive in the free market.

It is important to realize that officials at each station have significant input into the programming choices of that station. While the process is not entirely democratic, our local station has a board of directors which also appoints some community members to provide inputs. Board members are open to the public.

I contacted KSKA and politely explained that I had donated to NPR in the past, that I was upset about the OnPoint episode, and asked if they had aired or planned to air OnPoint. I received a quick response and they did not. I replied by donating a hundred bucks--and I told them why. I told them that I support their apolitical news programs, and their local Alaska news coverage, and their hunting programs (I've actually heard a few episodes with positive spin up here!).

I encourage you to do the same. Look into the programming choices of your local NPR affiliate and reward or punish them appropriately. If you donated last year, and your station aired the offensive OnPoint episode, then halve your donation this year (and tell them why), or skip it altogether. If you just write off NPR and rave for its defunding then you have zero influence over the programming. If your local station counts on your regular donation and all of a sudden they notice it stopped, then they may care. If they notice that 50 people who all used to give $100 stopped, then they may care. Hit the local affiliates in the wallet enough and they will make the choice to air or not air certain programs. Once enough local affiliates drop a program, the mothership will probably cancel it.

I think that realistically is going to have much more impact than asking your local GOP Representative to score some political points and balance the budget on the back of NPR's relatively insignificant subsidy. Arguing that cutting NPR's budget is vitally important to balance the budget is like arguing that an obese man that eats pizza three times a day just needs to lay off the anchovies to get healthy. It will be seen as a shallow political ploy and probably not have much influence.