An Excellent Gift Idea

Dale Amon over at Samizdata posts about the recent interest in the close approach of Mars, and links to artist Kim Poor’s “University of Mars” t-shirt.

Kim’s art gallery is in Tucson, and I’ve got several prints from that gallery in my house.

The sad news is that Kim has a degenerative nerve disease that has progressed to the point that he can no longer paint.

If you care for art with a space theme at all, go visit his site. His gallery carries works by all the major artists in the genre. My collection includes Joe Tucciarone’s Chiron’s Passage and The Pegasus Nebula, Bob Eggleton’s, Blues for Neptune, Kim’s Jupiter from Io, a signed copy of Alan Bean’s Conrad, Gordon and Bean and a few others.

I also like to send his Christmas cards out, and that season is fast approaching.

Give it a look.

Last One for Tonight – The “F-Word”

Via The Everlasting Phelps, the Smoking Gun has an absolutely hilarious motion to dismiss that is a must read. The introduction to the piece begins:

Yes, five months remain in the year, but we’re ready to announce the winner of the prestigious 2003 Legal Document of the Year award. The below motion was filed earlier this month in connection with a criminal charge filed against a Colorado teenager. The boy’s troubles started when he was confronted at school by a vice principal who suspected that he had been smoking in the boys bathroom. When presented to the principal, the kid exploded, cursing the administrator with some variants of the “F” word. For his outburst, the boy was hit with a disorderly conduct rap, which was eventually amended to interfering with the staff, faculty, or students of an educational institutional. Faced with what he thought was a speech crime, Eric Vanatta, the teen’s public defender, drafted the below motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charge. The District Court document is an amusing and profane look at the world’s favorite four-letter word, from its origins in 1500 to today’s frequent use of the term by Eminem, Chris Rock, and Lenny Kravitz.

Go read it. Damn, that’s funny!

Goodnight.

New Addition to the Blogroll

The Everlasting Phelps

Anybody who writes lines like these:

I hate it when someone uses footnotes on a “study” that doesn’t actually follow logic. I would rather read straight bullshit than well-documented bullshit.

—

Face it. Men are pigs. We like farting, and we are secretly proud of our stripes. I would still be making stripes if I didn’t like having my kibbles and bits swinging around when I walk. At least our underwear doesn’t look like we decided to steal them from a crime scene, and we don’t leave them soaking in the bathroom sink all the time.

—

As a white man, I am not allowed to have an opinion that is at odds with acquiescence to a minority, or I am a bully. By having white skin and a couple of testicles, I am presumed to not be capable of understanding the position of people who lack one of those two qualifications.

—

With news that it is up to the Controversial 9th Circuit to judge recall, my first reaction was, “well, if there is a way for them to sway it towards Bustamonte, they will.”

That is real discouraging for me, and not because of I am anti-Democrat. The discouragment comes from realising that I have no expectation of the application of law from the 9th circuit. None. The 9th is so activist, so interventionist, and so partisain that it is a mockery of what the Judicial branch is supposed to represent. They are supposed to be the brake on the engine of government. Instead, the 9th has ventured so far into judicial activism that they are not slowing the engine, but instead speeding it along.

If someone doesn’t clean out or clean up the Ninth Circuit pretty soon, we are going to have a real honest-to-goodness constitutional crisis out of that court.

deserves to be read.

And get this: He’s a lawyer! Spoons has some competition.

Welcome to my blogroll, Phelps.

UPDATE: Ok, he’s not a lawyer. For some strange reason, I feel better.

Interesting Development in the Silveira Case

Regardless of how “dangerous” some feel it is, the Supreme Court has just issued a “Request for Response” to the State of California on why the Supreme Court should or should not hear the case. California previously waived the right of response, but now SCOTUS has (ahem) requested it to respond.

Which, in my mind anyway, means the possibility of SCOTUS granting cert. just went up.

I’m still not betting on which way they might decide. I don’t know how intellectually honest five of them might be.

How do they WRITE this Stuff With a Straight Face?

(From the Cincinnati Enquirer)

How many more Javontays must die?

Two school buses let children out in front of an apartment building on Linn Street. Across the street, in front of a dwelling bearing burglar bars and an electronic door gate, the bereft mother of a slain 7-year-old keened.

Javonna Williams’ eyes were dry. But her tears flowed through the words she shouted to the street, to no one in particular.

“They don’t know what they’ve done,” she said. “I was there. I saw his pain. He was in pain.”

Little Javontay died Monday night, police said, after a child playing with a gun in a Mount Airy townhouse shot him in the chest.

It was an accident, police believe, but it’s hard to piece together the facts.

People aren’t telling police everything, including who owned several guns police found at the apartment.

What is clear is a neighborhood is missing one friendly little boy who used to ride his bike and build imaginary forts in a store parking lot next to his home.

Kevin Milline, who owns the grocery store, said Javontay’s mother wouldn’t let him or his 3-year-old sister play in a neighborhood tot lot a block away, because drug dealers had taken it over.

“It’s too dangerous,” Milline said.

Javontay’s West End neighborhood has drug problems, as does the neighborhood he visited in Mount Airy. There have been shootings and assaults in both in recent months.

But carelessness, not drugs, killed Javontay. Some adult let kids find the guns.

How do we as a community reduce the chances of that happening again?

Gee, I don’t know. How about cracking down on the drug dealers? Or, sparing that, how about ending the “War on (some) Drugs” and taking the profitability out of the trade?

Our children are over-exposed to guns – even in low-crime neighborhoods. It is estimated that 40 percent of American households have firearms in them; 30 percent of those guns are unlocked and loaded, according to Common Sense About Kids And Guns, a national group.

A statistic that:

A) Ignores the fact that the percentage of American households with firearms in them hasn’t changed significantly for over fifty years (except, possibly to go down,) and

B) The total number of accidental deaths by firearm (not just rate per 100,000 population) has been declining ever since we started keeping records.

This is part of the “more guns equals more death” meme.

Nationally, 1,200 kids and teens die from gun accidents and suicides annually. Another 18,000 or more are injured.

As I’ve illustrated before, removing a method does not affect overall suicide rates. Australia has suffered a dramatic increase in teen suicide in the last few years. Method? Asphyxiation.

Here’s the facts on accidental firearm death for “kids and teens” up through 17 year-olds:

Year Deaths

2000 150
1999 158
1998 207
1997 247
1996 272
1995 330
1994 403

Shall I go on? And remember, during that time the number of guns in private hands has increased by over three million per year – about a third of which were handguns.

WE ARE “DOING SOMETHING.”

The problem is, the gun banners control forces define “DOING SOMETHING” as “passing new gun control laws.” Nothing else qualifies.

You won’t hear them talk about the dramatic decrease in accidental deaths. Instead, they will attach suicides to the total in order to keep the numbers as high (and emotion-grabbing) as possible.

Javontay’s case is unusual because he died in an inner-city neighborhood, said Dr. Rebeccah Brown, a pediatric surgeon and assistant director for the trauma unit at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“I don’t think of (accidental shootings) as being an inner-city problem. Usually it’s kids whose dads are hunters and who find the gun.”

Sweet freaking Jebus. No, Doctor, you don’t think of accidental shootings as being an inner-city problem because you’re overwhelmed by deliberate shootings. Accidental shootings – especially of small children – are quite rare everywhere.

In 10 years, Children’s has treated 127 gunshot wounds in children; most between the ages of 10 and 14.

And how many of them were deliberately inflicted as in, say, drive-bys? (Or are they going to redefine getting hit in a drive-by as an “accident?”)

“Chances are your children have been somewhere or played somewhere where there’s a firearm,” said Tracy Cook, executive director of ProKids, which helps abused kids.

The usual precautionary warnings – don’t mix kids with guns; lock up your weapon; keep ammunition separate – still apply, even with stolen guns, she said.

“Just because you purchase a gun illegally doesn’t mean you can’t put a lock on it. Who wants a kid to die?”

No one wanted Javontay to die.

Through family members, Javonna Williams declined to be interviewed for this column. As neighbors and relatives encircled her, she rocked back and forth.

If those who know something about this accident could only see her pain, I bet they’d give police the information they seek about the guns police found in the apartment Javontay visited.

And if the rest of us are realistic about the chances for more accidental shootings – we’d do whatever it takes to keep kids away from guns.

This is the mentality. Just pass another law. The people willing to steal or acquire a gun illegally will follow that one!

I am not often dumbstruck by the mental processes of the gun grabbers controllers, but this one floored me. I cannot fathom the “logic” here.

(Update: Kevin McGehee advises: “Don’t try to comprehend the logic of gun grabbers controllers. It’s like mud wrestling with a pig — you only wind up getting dirty, and the pig likes it.” I can’t help myself, Kevin. I’m an engineer – I’m unable to believe that some people are incapable of logic.)

Ages 5 and Up, Eh?

I GOTTA get one of THESE for my grandson! (He’s three now.)

And a close-up view of the kit, which appears to be based on the Swiss SIG 550:

Underbarrel grenade launcher & everything!

Of course, this would get the gun-control people’s panties in a bunch, so I was unable to find a single on-line retailer who actually carries it.

Why am I not surprised?

This is Old News, But…

I just found it. I knew the Denver P.D. had “lost” an AR-15, but here’s a Denver TV station’s story about it. I’m not going to quote the whole thing. The story is that a loaded, cased rifle with four loaded magazines “fell out” of a police cruiser trunk back in August.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Anyway, it was one of the last lines that got my attention:

Police say that if you see the rifle, you should not handle it for safety reasons.

I think that translates as: “Because mere civilians shouldn’t know how a weapon of military usefulness functions, and because there’s been such a successful effort to ensure that the majority of Americans are completely ignorant or at best woefully misinformed about weapons in general and especially “assault rifles” in particular, (All bow towards Hollywood) if you find it, do not touch the dangerous magical talisman, or it might “just go off,” and slay a toddler. Contact one of the annointed who will come and render it safe, and remove its evil visage from your presence.”

I Thought DEAN Was the Frontrunner?

Kevin Siers of the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer isn’t very considerate of the feelings of the deep space nine other Democratic Presidential hopefuls in this cartoon:

But isn’t it accurate? (The little car, I mean. Clark’s tank strikes me as being about as formidable as one of the decoys used to confuse the Iraqis before the ground campaign in ’91. Looks good, but no armor, gun or engine. Just a heat source.)

Another Example

As I’ve illustrated before, those interested in gun banning control have a very common tendency to lie twist the truth to suit their agenda, fully confident that the media will not only not fact-check their claims, but will very often further distort them and pass them on as fact.

Here’s another example:

Right Thing To Do, Or Just Good Politics?

By RAY GIOVANNELLI

Gun advocates were perplexed a few months ago when President Bush, a staunch long-time supporter of the National Rifle Association and its goals, decided to support an extension of the 1994 ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill to extend the ban for another decade will be presented by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Charles Schumer (D-NY). The two crucial questions regarding this issue are: whether the ban that has been in place over the past nine years has made a difference, and if it is broad enough.

While gun-rights groups claim the assault-weapon ban has done nothing more than deprive hunters and sportsmen of high-powered rifles they use for recreational purposes, a study soon to be released by the Violence Policy Center – a Liberal Washington group that supports the ban’s extension – found that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 were shot with assault rifles. These were usually copy-cat weapons designed so that they do not fall under the law. Kristen Rand, the study’s author said “the gun industry’s open evasion of the assault weapon’s ban continues to place America’s law enforcement officers at the highest possible risk.”

President Bush’s position has caused anger and confusion among gun owners and lobbying groups on both side of this issue. So, in answer to the question posed in the title of today’s column: supporting this ban was indeed good politics and thus the right thing to do. A good politician realized that this is an extremely popular measure.

(Emphasis mine.) Not so fast, Mr. Giovanelli.

I studied the VPC’s report when the Atlanta Journal Constitution commented on it back in May, and here’s what I found (and I will quote myself shamelessly):

“Assault rifles were created solely to kill people; today, those people are often law enforcement officers. Forty-one of the 211 U.S. police officers killed in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001 were murdered with assault rifles, according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center.”

Well! The Violence Policy Center! That bastion of unimpeachable agendaless fairness! They would be referring to this table. Let me see….

Four (4) with M1 Carbines, eight (8) with SKS rifles, two (2) with Mini-14’s, three (3) M-11’s, and two (2) TEC-9’s. First, the M1, SKS, and Mini-14’s are not and have not been classified as “assault weapons” – no lethal pistol grip on those guns. They look like “nice” semi-automatic rifles because they have the pretty non-lethal wood stocks, rather than the ugly, lethal plastic and metal ones. The M-11 and the TEC-9 are not rifles, they’re handguns. That’s NINETEEN (19) of the 41. And, if these guns were created “solely to kill people,” what of the other 170 officer deaths? They were killed with weapons designed to tickle people?

Now, according to this site between the years of 1998 and 2001 (inclusive) there were 229 officer deaths by firearm, not 211. And according to this table the number of police deaths, at least for the last couple of decades (and excluding the 72 killed in the Twin Towers in 2001) has been apparently unaffected by the relative explosion in the mid 1980’s of “assault weapons” (as defined by the law) into the general populace. They’re trying to make it sound like the presence of “assault weapons” has somehow added 41 deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. The evidence does not support this. But that’s the conclusion you’re supposed to draw. “Ban ’em, and these cops would have lived!”

Now, it took me about an hour to collect that information and fact-check the VPC, yet here it is four months after the Atlanta Journal Constitution piece, and this guy is stating that “Forty-one of the 211 U.S. police officers killed in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001 were murdered with assault rifles,” which makes it obvious that he didn’t check anything, just took it as gospel. His only nod toward “fairness?” He noted that the VPC was “a Liberal Washington group that supports the ban’s extension.”

Accept their information at your own risk? I *cough* thought we were supposed to *cough* trust the media to check it for us. *cough*

Nope, the meme is now “Ban assault weapons and save 41 cops!” And nothing I say is going to change that.

But I don’t intend to shut up.

EDITED TO ADD:

Now that I’ve found two references to “41 law enforcement officers killed with ‘assault rifles'” during the period of 1998 to 2001, I predict that – before the assault weapons ban expires – that “fact” will morph without attribution into “41 officers a year” in the media.

Anyone want in on that action?

A Difficult Question to Answer

Instapundit (who else?) points to this, er, unforgettable quote by Vlae Kershner, SFGate news director since 1999, without comment. I have to comment.

We’ve undoubtedly lost some of our audience to Web sites that specialize in politically tinted news. Not that it hurts us that much, but it makes political polarization even worse if people only read the opinions they already know they’re going to agree with.

A lot of readers don’t believe there’s such a thing as journalistic objectivity and seek out news sources according to politics. During the Iraq war, some readers from outside our market area wrote to thank us for being an antidote to the TV networks’ pro-war coverage, and I’d have to write back and say thanks, but as a news Web site we don’t take sides. We reflect San Francisco’s attitudes with colorful liberal columnists like Mark Morford, but we have conservative columnists too.

I suspect that print newspapers are also losing readers to overtly political Web sites and places like Fox News.

So, is Mr. Kershner:

A: Your average liberal journalist blind to the “political tint” of SFGate’s daily reporting, as Bernie Goldberg et al. have suggested?

B: Quite aware of the “political tint,” but dismissive of it because that position is so obviously correct that it represents the mainstream? (Arguably a subset of option ‘A’, but I think it’s a sufficiently different question to merit its own choice. One is conscious, the other, unconscious.)

C: Fully aware of the liberal position of SFGate, but dedicated to making everyone else think “correctly,” thus dismissive of the idea that SFGate might have a “political tint” of its own?

D: Simply an idiot?

You may choose more than one.