Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Gun Debate Redux

Not sure what the CDC is basing their estimates on, but it sure does not appear to be the same data collected and distributed by the U.S. Census Bureau.  So, the CDC is trying to claim that gun deaths will overtake car deaths in the next three years.  Remember that this is the same CDC headed by a man who claimed that gun ownership was a disease.  Also remember that both the CDC and the Census Bureau include suicides as gun deaths (and suicide by gun accounts for over 50% of gun deaths in the U.S.).

I believe that the real issue here is the efficiency of death by the tool called a firearm.  If you want to reduce efficiency of death by firearm you have to reduce the number of firearms--not just those that can be acquired in the future, but the number that now exist (estimates of guns owned in the U.S. range from 250-300 million if the print media journalists are close to being correct).  So, how to do this legally--remember that firearms possessed legally are real property and that citizens and legal residents have due process of law in regard to their property, so seizure is really not an option.  Someone in an op-ed suggested a buy back/stimulus program that sounds interesting to me.  I was told of this by a friend, read the op-ed here.

So the plan would be to offer reasonable prices for people to sell their guns to an organization that will take the guns and destroy them.  Not sure I agree with this in principle, but this is the plan.  Now the plan gets better.  A reasonable price for a gun is not $50-100 (U.S.), I have mount and scope rings on rifles that cost more than $50.  So we need to take a graduated approach that looks at real value for types of firearms and offer 75-80% of market value for the gun.  I would not consider giving up a rifle valued at $1000 for $100, but would consider it if I felt strongly enough that removing guns is the answer and were offered $750-800.  Now, here is the stimulus part of the program, you give the person who is selling the gun a pre-paid credit card that has a use it or lose it date set 6 months from the date of the gun buy back.  So, the gun is out of circulation, the gun owner received reasonable compensation, the money has to be spent, and purchases include sales taxes so the government even makes a few dollars.

Wait, I know you are going to say that the U.S. govt. does not have the money to fund the program.  Ok, so here is where the rubber hits the road.  Mayor Bloombery, Brady Bunch, Jim Boeheim, all of the "Gun Control" crowd--if you want to take guns off the street, pony up.  The program can be funded by donations from the anti-gun population.  In return for their donations to the program we even give a tax credit (75-100% credit) for the donation. 

For my two cents, this is a program I would support.  Not saying I agree with the principle personally, but I think we must accept that others on principle have different opinions and we must all work together to create workable solutions that support the greater good.  The program outlined above does not require anyone to give up their firearms, it does create an incentive a stimulus and a tax credit for getting guns out of circulation.


Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun Control Debate

I'll begin this entry by stating for the record that I support gun ownership for private citizens.  I support open carry, concealed carry, I even believe that restrictions on fully automatic firearms and short barrel shotguns should be lifted.  I fully believe in understanding the U.S. Constitution as written by the 55 people who wrote it a few hundred years ago.  They believed that people should be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the possibility of tyrannical government.  For those who want to keep arguing about the well regulated militia, I will remind you that a militia to those people was a non-uniformed, non-distinctly organized defensive force that protected a population voluntarily against all threats.  I will also remind you that the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision accepted a statement in a "friend of the court" brief that this clause grammatically had nothing to do with the rest of the 2nd amendment--it stands alone, not as part of the right to keep and bear arms clause.

Now, I realize that what happened in Newtown was tragic, as was what happened in several other places this year.  I do not believe, however, that these events are reason for restricting access to firearms further.  I say further, because it is harder to purchase, and should be, a firearm than a car, a machette, or a mosquito net.  It is far harder to purchase a firearm than to purchase food.  Where the heck is he going with this line of reasoning. Well, ok, here goes...

I have read and heard much said about needing to restrict guns, or types of guns, because of their efficiency in killing.  So, we should be worried about making killing less efficient, that is to say we should restrict or fight against those things which kill in large numbers with little input.  Between 1980 and 2010 20.66 people were killed in auto accidents for every 100,000 owned vehicles in the U.S.  During that same time period 9.2 people died per 100,000 owned firearms in the U.S. (these figures taken from the U.S. Census Bureau).  90% of those who died of malaria last year were under the age of 5, that number is over 589,000.  2.3 million children under the age of 5 died of malnutrition last year (both of these figures are gleaned from the WHO).  Where is the outrage at death, period.  We can sit here and make all of the outrageous statements we want to make about what kills and what kills efficiently.  The fact is that death is a major part of human behavior and a state in which all human eventually find themselves--dead.  I am more concerned with doing things that are useful than unuseful in the fight against unnecessary death.

How many firearms are owned in the U.S.?  How many are present in the U.S.?  What I am asking is this, do we know how many firearms already happen to be here?  The firearms that have been used in most of the idiotic killings in the last several years were already here, they were not recently purchased, and for the most part they were not illegally purchased.  Do people really think that stopping new transactions will stop firearm violence?  Does anyone think it would really be possible to confiscate all of the existing firearms in this country--not to mention the fact that the people who would be given this task are often private firearm collectors themselves.

But you know what, we can buy and ship food.  We can buy and ship mosquito nets.  We can buy and ship mosquito repellent.  When we as a people start being really upset by death, and start doing what can really be done, then I'll start really considering the efficiency of more gun ownership restrictions.  And that is my two cents on this issue.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Best Christmas Presents

Hey, I love Christmas.  I love Christmas for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, I am a Christian and love celebrating the birth of Jesus, even if it doesn't fit perfectly with the 10 month Jewish calendar or any other particular calendar to say that Christ was born exactly on the 25th of December.  Do I have to celebrate the fact that I am alive exactly on my own birthday and not on any other day?  Heck my best friend, Brian Beaird, and I held celebration days just because we had elbows, knees, and eyebrows.

But I also love Christmas because I get presents.  I know, I am being just as bad as my 6 and 10 year old sons.  At least I am trying to be honest, something sorely lacking in much of humanity.  So, I was thinking what are the 10 best presents I received across my lifetime.  These presents are in no particular value order, and are just what presents given by friends and relatives that I happened to think about as I sit here avoiding grading more papers and exams.

10.  The Alabama football uniform complete with shoulder pads and helmet when I was 5 years old.

9.  The Hickory Farms cheese and sausage box I got when I was a college undergrad (need I say more).

8.  The three foot tall plastic robot that fired missiles from its hand and turned into a spaceship.

7.  My first BB gun.

6.  My first shotgun.

5.  Three pairs of blue jeans when I was in grad school.

4.  The nerf gun with a 30 rd magazine from my sons two years ago.

3.  A key chain fob that says All-Star Dad

2.  A case of beer when I was a broke college student.

1.  something my wife gave me that I am not going put in print here.  By the way, she is the best Christmas present I ever got (we were married on Christmas eve).


Tibetan Immolation Count

The Count is:

        95

Monday, November 26, 2012

Thankful for...ok, I'm a Little Late

Yeah, yeah, I know I am a little late on giving up some thanks for the year.  But, hey, I was grading, sleeping, cooking, eating...all things I am thankful for.

Ok, I am going to combine this thanks stuff with one of my passions--college football.  Seems ok to me at the moment, now that the regular season is done (I do not count conference championship games as part of the regular season).  For my two cents, this was a fine example of a collegiate football season.

I am thankful to Stanford for beating the Ducks, and to USC for proof that Lame Kiffin is well, lame. 

I am thankful that Washington State stunk the season up, as I am no big fan of Mike Leach even though I have a PhD from Texas Tech.

I am thankful to BYU for deciding they could go college football alone--how's that working for you BYU?

I am thankful that Colorado State did not go winless, but McElwain has a lot of work to do with this program.

I am thankful for Baylor, who proved they were a fluke with RGIII and still beat Kansas State.

I am thankful for Texas A&M, they are proof that expansion is about money, but does not mean bad football.

I am thankful for Urban Meyer, who has now made expectations higher than reality for Ohio State (anyone remember what happened the last time OSU was 12-0, they lost to an SEC team--coached by Meyer).

I am thankful that Penn State did not fold up and go the way of the dodo bird this season.

I am thankful that the John L. Smith era at Arkansas was brief.  Woo Pig Sooie.

I am thankful that the people over at the barn finally realized what everyone else realized a few years back--Chizik is a barely average coach not worthy of an SEC program.

I am thankful that Bama is in a position to play for the SEC championship and the National Championship (particularly since I have academic ties and regional ties to this team).



Wednesday, November 7, 2012

My Guy Lost, Now What?

Well, my guy lost last night, wasn't even close--Sorry Virgil H. Goode, Jr. it was just not meant for the Constitution Party to win the White House, for the 1.6% of us who could not hold our noses and vote for either the current bum or the wantabe the bum it really didn't matter.  However, A lot of other people's guy lost last night too.  Romney only got 48.1% of the votes cast and currently tallied.  So, now what?

First, Barrack Obama won, he got 50.3% of the votes.  Great, he got 50.3% of the votes, which means there is no mandate from the people.  Sorry, but barely getting 50% of the population to support something is not impressive.  If you offer enough people a free ride on the backs of the rest of the population they will vote for you--and what does it mean--not much really and everything really.

Second, what it means is socialism.  50.3% of the population of the country think that redistribution of the gains of the wealthy is good for the country.  Redistribution be it through taxes or outright taking of property is still the hallmark of socialism.  So, 50.3% of the population has trapped the other 49.7% of the population in a socialist spiral.  Thanks 50.3%.

Third, don't read into my statement a great deal of sympathy toward Romney either.  Only 48.1% of the population liked Romney.  Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.   Do you really think that the 48.1% if they were the majority of votes cast would not have trapped the rest of us in a downward spiral as well?  If you do, come see me, I have real estate for sale.

Ok, so this is my two cents.  Duck, run for cover, start doomsday prepping now.  No, really, my two cents, it will take drastic behavioral adjustment and economic collapse to right the ship and get the majority of the country to move back away from socialist principals of nanny state control of minutae of life and redistribution of wealth policies.  In the meantime, I take solace in the fact that life will find a way and I will find a way to navigate the socialist control of government at the national level in the U.S.

p.s.  what will the first legal challenge to the CO and WA recreational marijuana laws be and when will we see this challenge? 

The North Koreans are Coming, The North Koreans are Coming...

Ok, not really, but hey I remember watching Red Dawn in the theater with my dad when it first came out way back in the stone ages (1984).  So I will probably go see this one...


Friday, November 2, 2012

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Buddhist vs. Muslim in Myanmar

As I mentioned in a previous blog, the problem I am most concerned about in Myanmar is the sectarian violence of Theravada Buddhism versus other population groups in Myanmar.  Well, my fears are being borne out in Myanmar in the last few days.  In Rakhine State, on the Bay of Bengal side of Myanmar, the Rakhine population (primarily Buddhist) and the Rohingya population (Primarily Islamic) have begun fighting in earnest.  According to an article in the AP 56 people have been killed and 200 homes destroyed in the last few days.  This violence is greater than that sparked in June of this year when a group of Muslim men were accused of raping a Buddhist woman and is part of a larger wave of violence since last October that has left at least 84 people dead and over 100 wounded.  Disappointing to me is the lack of a statement by the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi in regard to the violence.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Top 5 Worst Nobel Peace Prize Awards

The awarding of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union requires me to think for a few minutes about the prize and particularly upon silly, or down right stupid, award recipient decisions. I mean really, you could not come up with a deserving individual--heck you could give it to Aung San Suu Kyi for a second time (she was awarded the prize in 1991) easier than giving it to an organization.  What about the Syrian or Lybian activits that all of teh peace study people have run around touting in the last year?  Heck, I'd even feel better about doing a 1939-43, 1948,, 1955-56, 1966-67, 1972 (years in which no peace prize was awarded (there are more of these if you want to go further back, but I was being lazy and just making a point here so I did not go back further). Since I like giving my two cents in the form of lists, here are my top 5 worst Nobel Peace Prizes.

5) 1965 UNICEF

The United Nation's International Children's Educational Fund.  Children are great, I love my kids, as a Christian I love your kids too, in a charitable way.  I love organizations that support kids (I serve on boards that support kids locally).  Does any of this love earn a peace prize?  No.  Supporting kids has not remedied the exploitation of children around the world.  UNICEF did not deserve the prize in 1965 nor any year of its existence.

4) 1988 UN Peacekeeping Forces

Seriously, what was up with this award.  Peacekeeping forces prior to 1988 were even less successful than those after 1988.  And those since 1988 include the peacemakers who use force to try to end conflict situations.  Wow, come wear a blue beanie and we'll recognize you as a world class peace operator.

3) 2001 UN, Kofi Annan

Well, well, well.  Kofi himself and the UN.  Kofi, let us remember, was the UN under-secretary who in 1994 decided not to allow the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda to confiscate weapons caches that were used to arm the Interhamwe and kill 800,000 to 1,000,000 people.  He and the UN really deserved to be recognized for championing peace in the world.

tie 3) 2007 IPCC, Al Gore  

Since when is harping on global warming and carbon emissions worthy of recognition as a peace generating enterprise?

2) 2012 European Union

What is the recognition for?  Did the EU keep the peace since the end of WWII?  No, I believe that was largely a strong U.S. presence and then a strong NATO.  Did the EU keep the peace after the cold war?  No, that would be a strong NATO.  By the way, the EU dropped the ball concerning the former Yugoslavia and that turned out very peacefully. 

1) 2009 Barrack Obama

Well, in the future I might do something that might make a difference in bringing peace to the world.  So, since I am not George W. Bush, and I might do something different in the future than my predecessor presidents of the U.S., I deserve this award and accept the award.  Well, in the future I might think more of Obama as a peacemaker, but currently not so much.

Okay, so I gave you six (with a third place tie), I could give more, but wanted to keep it sort of short.  And, I did not want to go Jimmy Carter (2002) bashing here, as Jimmy has enough detractors in the world.  It would also have been too easy to bash Amnesty International (1977).

I'll give you my top two most worthy recipients:

2)  1991 Aung San Suu Kyi--you rock woman, keep it up.
1) 1929 Frank Billing Kellog--you really can't outlaw war, but hey, you gave it a real shot.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Are You Kidding?

Anyone read the story today about the airport police office in Philly discharging a confiscated weapon and discharged the firearm instead.  Let's see here, if I pull this the bullets will come out...  Moron, firearms do not accidentally discharge, there are internal safeties built into nearly every firearm manufactured in the last 20 years to avoid accidental discharge.  The biggest safety of all is often forgotten...


Onerous

Onerous--(adjective) burdensome.

How burdensome is proof of citizenship?  Many complaints I have read about in news articles recently talk about making voters prove citizenship to register being onerous.  When you become a naturalized citizen the U.S. government gives you documents that prove this citizenship.  When you are born on territory of a state of the U.S. or territory of the U.S. or as a dependent of a U.S. government employ on recognized assignment in a foreign territory you receive a birth certificate that qualifies as proof of U.S. citizenship.  What is onerous about showing this document along with proof of current residency to be given the privilege of voting (oops, it is a privilege not a right--people should go back and read the laws and cases regarding voting).  Some states require a state issued photo identification card to be shown before you can vote--wow big, stiff requirement, this is a burden if I have ever seen one.

Continuing to read the drivel about burdensome requirements for voting is onerous to me.  At least that is my two cents worth.

Muslim Protests/Riots

"Iranian students chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the French embassy in Tehran in protest at the decision by satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish catroons of the Prophet Mohammad, days after widespread protests--some deadly--against a film made in the United States."
             --Robin Pomeroy, "From Nigeria to Athens, Muslim Protests Rumble On," Reuters 9/24/12

Does anyone else look at this and say, maybe this is why people look at Islamists and cringe or worry about the intentions of Islamists in the pursuit of the spread of Islam in the world?  Sure that idiotic film (hey I watched a 13 minute trailer--the film is just bad, regardless of the intended message) was made in California.  But, I did not make the film, nor did the elected government of the United States.  The cartoons were published in a European magazine--what do the people and state of Israel have to do with this publication?

Christianity and Judaism neither one teach violence in the spread of belief.  But, Islam does (I have also read the Koran).  Reasonableness is apparently lacking on the part of the Islamists, who equate every diminuation of their belief with an attack against all of Islam by the United States and Israel.  Does this mean that I would be in the right to protest against the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Israel whenever a musical is made that depicts Jesus Christ as homosexual or sexually involved with Mary Magdelene?  Oh wait, Christianity teaches love of enemy and acceptance of the authority of state in non-theological matters (As far as I can tell after also reading the Bible).  Again, the greater point here is the lack of reasonableness, not the theological debate of the ages, but it seems that one faith leads to a lack of reasonableness.  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Myanmar's Real Issue

To be blunt, the real issue in Myanmar is not really the future of democracy, but really is the future of democracy.  If you are not familiar with it, think long about Benjamin Franklin's statement about a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome.  The problem in Myanmar is Theravada Buddhism.

A recent column in Foreign Policy states:

Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem. Specifically, she faces an obstacle in the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority Burman Buddhists at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. Although the world has been largely focused on the drama between Burma's military leaders and "The Lady," fraught relations between ethnic Burmans, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, and the non-Burman minorities, who make up the remaining 40 percent, could leave the country politically fragmented -- and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip.(read the full article here)

I concur with this blunt assessment of the ethnic question in Myanmar.  Will the Buddhist sense of superiority carry over into the democratic realm causing real issues for pluralistic growth in Myanmar?  Would a democratically elected government treat Karen Christian's (about 20% of the Karen population is Christian, while the Karen population is a total of 7% of the population of Myanmar) differently than the current government or the military led juntas of the last few decades?  Why does Suu Kyi not address the ethnic question when talking about being progressive and democratic?


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

An Accreditation Issue? Really?

For those who have been under a rock, totally separated from any form of information provision for the last year, ugly things happened on and around the Penn State University Athletics Department (in particular the football program) under the care of former head coach Joe Paterno.  No, Joe Paterno did not do the ugly things, that was handled by Jerry Sandusky (as convicted by a jury in a court of law after a proper legal procedure).  But, my musing here is not to rehash who did what, when and where at Penn State, but to comment on the latest information I have read about this ugly event, namely that an accrediting organization is using this unfortunate situation as an excuse to issue an notice of jeopardy of the school's academic accreditation.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits colleges and universities in the Mid-Atlantic region.  Accrediting is the process created to supposedly maintain high academic standards for colleges and universities by having an outside agency decide if you are properly educating students.  What this generally means is that the accrediting agencies decide how you should write syllabi, lecture, what materials should be used, what types of courses should be taught--but of course the organizations claim that they are only doing what they have been asked to do by the schools, while the reality is that they are doing what the dept of education of the U.S. govt tells them to do.  Many opponents, myself included, believe that accrediting processes are designed to attempt to routinize education, so that academic liberty is at stake because eventually we will all use the same syllabus to teach the same material from the same books using the same lecture outline.  So, instead of building academic reputation based on the quality of the students you graduate, you now get an instant "reputation" as an accredited college or university based on inspection and report from the accrediting organization.  I'll stop griping about accreditation now.

So, here is my problem.  What did the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal have to do with the quality of academic life at Penn State University?  Under what reasoning is an accrediting agency throwing around its authority to ask Penn State University to submit reports by the end of September detailing the university's compliance with governmental requirements and the ability of the school to meet it's financial obligations stemming from the Freeh investigation and decisions of the NCAA (I may talk about this "august" body at some other time)?  As correctly noted by Blannie Bowen, vice provost for academic affairs at Penn State University, "This action has nothing to do with the quality of education our students receive." So, for my two cents the Middle States Commission on Higher Education needs to butt-out and go back to aggravating people with stupid requirements regarding wording of syllabi.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Cost of K-12 Education

I read an article this morning about the rising cost of sending your kid back to school (read it here).  I guess I went to schools that were "out of line" with other schools.  If you played sports you sold stuff to your neighbors and friends or your parents paid for your share of the athletic costs.  If you played in the band you provided your own instrument or you rented one from the school.  If you did extra-curricular anything, you paid for the cost of the program.

The article says that parents are required to pay for some classroom materials.  Well, we had to pay for our own pens, pencils, paper.  If you took an art class you had to pay for colored pens, pencils, chalks, paints, etc.  I guess I am not very sympathetic to the complaints.  If you want your kid to go to school, participate in extra-curricular activities, and have fun, you have to pay for it.  My parents paid for it, I pay for it with my kids sports activities, what is the big deal?  So what if I have to buy paper and pencils and pens for my kids to use in school? Quit whining, prioritize your spending habits, take care of your kids. 

By the way, in Grove City, PA we have kids that legitimately come from families that cannot afford to pay for extra-curricular activities and school supplies.  Two things come to mind.  One, life is generally tough and not very fair.  Two, many of our community make donations willingly to help those in need.  Just my two cents, but charity comes from people, not the government, regardless of the type of aid required by people who need assistance. 

Monday, August 6, 2012

Can Reporters Please Report Correctly

I am seriously getting tired of members of the news media incorrectly reporting about assault weapons and the 1994 "Gun Ban".  The items in question are what is an assault rifle, and just what was banned by the 1994 law that went out of enforcement in 2004?  So, let me give you my two cents on this matter.

To clarify what an assault rifle is for those, like most journalists, who do not understand much of anything about firearms, let me put some information on the table.  An assault rifle is a long-barreled (we generally take the term long-barreled to refer to any barrel over 10 inches in length) firearm designed for military and security (police, private security firms, etc.) forces.  We refer to them as assault rifles because they are used to "assault" enemy troops/defenses.  The major difference between assault rifles and other rifles is number of rounds that can be fired with one trigger pull and capacity of the magazine.  Of course, prior to design changes most assault rifles were lever action or bolt action, but in the contemporary world assault rifles are magazine fed and capable of automatic fire--which means more than one round is fired each time the trigger is pulled.  NOTE:  Many rifles exist which clone (look like) assault rifles but are not assault rifles because they do not fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger.  Because assault rifles are generally magazine fed, designers have spent much energy and research on developing magazines that have high capacity (high capacity is generally any magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition).

In 1994, the U.S. Congress determined that assault rifles should no longer be transferred from one private owner to another private owner or imported into the country for sale to a private owner.  Of course caveats to this decision existed.  One, if the rifle was made before and imported into the country before Jan 1, 1987 the rifle could be transferred using the approved system created in 1934.  Two, any rifle that looked like (cloned) an assault rifle or had certain features like a pistol grip was also included in this ban--with exceptions.  The exceptions to clones was that they had to have a certain number of parts from a list created by BATFE regulation that were manufactured in the U.S and the parts other than those which were U.S. manufacture were required to be manufactured prior to a certain date.  So, assault rifles were not banned, transfer of assault rifles to private owners was limited.  Dealers could still import for their businesses, but could not transfer those firearms to private citizens.  Private citizens could still purchase an assault rifle if it was already in the country prior to 1987.  And dealers and private citizens could make, sell, trade, etc. clones of assault rifles if they had the requisite number of approved U.S. manufactured parts from the required parts list.

What was banned?  What the 1994 law really banned was manufacture, import, sell of modern high capacity magazines.  U.S. based companies could not manufacture a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds of ammunition.  However, again if the magazines were already in the country, they could be sold, traded, etc.  The real intent of the 1994 law was to limit the number of rounds that could be easily fired at any one time from a firearm.  Of course, this law assumed that most users of firearms would not purchase several extra 10 round magazines and become proficient in their use, or that many firearms users would find high capacity magazines on the open market and purchase these magazines.

To illustrate my point I mention two rifles and one state's laws (California).  What is the difference between and AK-47 or AK-74 and an AKM?  An AKM is not capable of selective fire (that is to say that the AKM can only fire one round when the trigger is pulled).  Most of the bird brains in the press corps have not figured this out and incorrectly call every firearm that looks like an AK-47 an AK-47 (including the AK-74 which uses a different round and has some distinctives that trained eyes recognize).  What is the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 (or any variant thereof, like the M-4)?  The AR-15 is not capable of selective fire.  Now, both the AKM and the AR-15 can handle high capacity magazines, including some magazines that hold upto 100 rounds.  Most states do not keep owners from purchasing firearms that utilize high capacity magazines.  California does limit magazine capacity.  CA requires some types of weapons to have fixed magazines (magazines cannot be dropped and replaced rapidly) and limits capacity of even non-fixed magazines.  Has this made much difference in CA criminal use of firearms--well, you can check out those facts for yourself.

Again, for my two cents, I really wish the journalists would get things straight and call the firearm what the firearm really is and not what they want it to be or think it is without having made certain the information they are reporting to the general public.    

Friday, July 27, 2012

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Is There Something We Should Do?

Unless you were stuck without access to any form of news media for the last week and this is the first digital media you have looked at since your loss of access to news media (I am grateful, but really?), you have been made aware of the events in Aurora, CO.  A mentally disturbed (reportedly) young male went on a rampage using an AR-15 and two Glock pistols that resulted in 12 deaths and over 50 wounded.  (The toll could have been higher but the AR-15 jammed). 

Now we will hear from those who hate guns and U.S. gun culture.  They will claim again that the guns killed people and that we should do something to keep guns away from people.  These claims and thoughts will come from the usual suspects like the Brady Campaign  and from respected academics (yes, this is my mentor and PhD advisor's blog) and will be challenged by the usual suspects.  Since this debate will occur, I have decided to add my two cents.

First, I want to address reporting errors.  Four guns is hardly an arsenal.  Yep, the shooter owned four guns (AR-15, 2 Glock pistols, and a shotgun).  Be honest, how many of us know people who own 20+ firearms?  20+ firearms might be a good start at a personal firearms arsenal.  But, four is not an arsenal.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, an AR-15 is an assault rifle clone.  To actually qualify as an assault rifle, the rifle must be capable of full automatic fire (that is you must be able to pull the trigger once and empty the magazine), an AR-15 allows one bullet per pull of the trigger to be fired down range.  The misguided notion regarding what is and what is not an assault rifle is the same sentiment that has us putting orange tips on toy gun barrels.  Clips hold ammunition, they are not the vessel used to put ammunition in a firearm, those vessels that place ammunition in a firearm are called magazines.  The difference is quite noticeable.

Aside from the reporting errors, the big question that should consume our thoughts is what should we do in response to this event and other similar events that happened in the past and might happen again in the future?  After all, we are thoughtful human beings capable of finding solutions to problems.  But to collectively find solutions means to collectively legislate.  In making every issue political are we going too far?  I think we are going too far, not every issue needs to be politicized.  I ask the same question in regard to issues of value, lifestyle choices, etc. should we make everything a political question?  I am a political scientist and I have real doubts about the efficacy of making so many things in our lives political questions.  Governance is not the answer to all of life's problems.

What if we had laws limiting the number of firearms or type of firearms available?  Do you really think this would stop someone determined to use firearms for deadly purposes (does the name Breivik ring a bell for anyone)?  I think the answer is no.  Indeed, the Aurora shooter was also a "brilliant science student" and police found his apartment heavily booby-trapped.  The potential exists that this "shooter" could have been this "bomber".  Manufacture of homemade explosive devices is not really that difficult and does not require an exorbitant amount of scientific knowledge, skill, or equipment, but with a higher aptitude or amount of knowledge, skill, or equipment...well, guess what is possible.

What if we had laws limiting the showing of movies after 8 pm?  What if we had enforcement of laws limiting minors from being out after 10 pm without parent/guardian (I ask this because every city I have lived in has these types of laws and I have rarely seen them enforced)?  So, Is there something we should do? 

Operating from a premise of imperfect information (sorry news media, ya'll do not have the complete set of facts and probably never will, so neither will I), I do not believe there is a collective answer.  I know what I will do based on my imperfect information.  I will hope that due effort is made by law enforcement to ensure that the perpetrator of the shooting will be found, tried, convicted, penalized to the fullest extent of the law.  I will continue to pray for the comfort and ease of pain for those who lost loved ones, friends, family in this ugly event.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

To Fly or Not To Fly

Ok, tomorrow is the 4th day of the month of July.  A few years ago--236 if I can still do subtraction--a group of people we call patriots* in the U.S., but were called traitors in Britain, declared the territory they represented to be independent of the British Empire.  Great, hip hip hooray, I am pretty sure that I prefer the system of government that was created better than the system of government that has evolved.  I am also pretty sure that I appreciate what has evolved more than many other systems of government. 
         *Patriot--one who loves and zealously supports his/her own country.

So, tomorrow we show our adulation for country by backyard cookouts, fireworks, waving flags, etc.  I really love this stuff--well most of this stuff.  I cook brats, throw firecrackers around the yard, set off fireworks at dusk, watch the town fireworks display.  After all, this stuff is fun.  For the people out there who think citizens/residents of the U.S. are going overboard, maybe we are, but so what?  Are ya'll really so full of spite and hatred that you have to be that petty?  I do not recall getting upset over Canada celebrating Canada Days.  I do not recall really caring that you staged a week long fanfare for the Queen in England.  Last time Russians celebrated anything I am sure that I did not mind (though I really hope it irritated the ghosts of Lenin and Stalin that food courts and souvenirs stands were going full tilt in a show of capitalism on Red Square)  Sure, I recognize that my country has faults, heck I dislike the people who want to run the show here so much that I have not voted for a major party candidate since 1988, I recognize that my country does some really dumb and harmful things (but what do you expect with Neocons and Liberal Interventionists running the show?), but I am a citizen and I celebrate that heritage tomorrow, I am not celebrating being "better than you"--in fact, we may not be better than you--I am commemorating the declaration/founding of my home country.  Come on by the house, I'll throw a firecracker at you and hand you some to play with too--I love to celebrate with everyone.

But there is one real question:  Do I have to fly the U.S. national flag?  This flag did not exist in 1776.  Besides, I have a really nice collection of Confederate States of America national flags (I rarely fly the "Battle Flag" because I am not at war or engaging in conflict with anyone to the best of my knowledge).  I am currently flying the second national flag of the Confederacy outside my house.  What say anyone who reads this--must I fly the U.S. national flag tomorrow?

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Back Home

I returned from Russia this weekend.  A few immediate thoughts for now, and I will have some photo evidence later. 

One, gold costs so much because the Russians know all about bling--I am on Baroque palace overload, everything is covered in gold.

Two, the Russians need civil engineers who can explain the value of and proper construction of roads.  Three and a half hours to travel from Moscow to Tula (about 70 miles), really that is the amount of time it took, I am not kidding. 

Three, nostalgia for the communist years is alive and well, not for Lenin and Stalin, but overheard much about Nikita K. and the good he did (of course, the Russians forget that he was Stalin's hatchet man in Ukraine and probably responsible for as many as 20 million deaths).

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Student Loan Interest Rates

Lots of interest (ha ha) in student loan interest rates in the last few days--or at least so it seems to me as I have come across at least one article per day in each of the four wire services I check daily for the last three days.  The short story is, student loan interest rates are at an all time low and are set to double if the U.S. govt does not figure out how to fund the lower interest rate.  Both major parties agree that they want to keep the rates low, but they do not agree on how to fund the rates. 

Folks, get something straight in your heads, subsidized student loans are loans not grants, the current interest rate is kept artificially low by the federal government paying directly for the defaults instead of charging higher interest on the current loans.  8% interest was normal until the last few years and thus the program did not cost the government as much to fund as it does now.  And by the way, the government pays these default bills by taking money we pay in taxes (income, medicare, social security) and reallocating it to student loan programs.  So, we can either have low interest student loans or we can have other programs--money is not available for everything. 

And then, of course, we complain about the educational debt load.  Well, check out the following graphics from an article published today.

  Somehow, for my own two cents, I think it might just be possible for most people who have student loans to pay their student loan debt.  I have mine, I do not blame the cost of education for my debt, in fact I blame no one for my debt.  I have a job I love, a home, a family, and I pay my debts and will for the next 20 years to come.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Sexism and Superheroes

Ok, I know it is not Friday, but this is only partly frivolatry.  The other part of this post is the question of whether or not there a) should be female superheroes?, and b) if there are female superheroes, why do we pose them for posters and pictures in sexually provocative manner?  Think of what it looks like if we juxtapose the normal posing...


Friday, May 4, 2012

Friday Frivolatry

Today is Star Wars Day.  So, I thought what do all Star Wars geeks and fans alike need.  I am sure tehre will be lots of articles today where you can look at all of these gadgets, but for my two cents, the following are the best.

First there is the R2-D2 USB hub.  Then there is the Han Solo in carbonite USB flash drive
Han Solo MIMOBOT® with Carbonite carrying case

And best yet, the actual laser light saber



LaserSaberGo here for more details.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

If Realists Were in Charge

Kudos to Stephen Walt (again) for pointing out that realists are not NeoCons and hardly can be considered as interventionists.  Kudos to Walt for pointing out that NeoCons and liberal internationalists have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.  Personally I would go further and say that these factions have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the downfall of Nixon.  So what would U.S. Foreign Policy look like if realists were in charge?  Walt addresses this in his Foreign Policy blog

Not sure if I fully agree with his commentary on off-shore balancing or with what Walt considers a "normal" relationship with Israel.  For my two cents I do agree with his assessment on war with Iraq, the "War on Terror" (whatever the heck that means), and the lack of adventuristic, interventionist behavior that would be the norm if realists were still listened to in foreign policy decision-making circles. 

The U.S. would not be worrying about lost sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan to the extent made possible by 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama.  We certainly wouldn't be worrying about whether Putin is upset or not by silliness like missile shields and NATO expansion.  As a realist is there really any reason for NATO to still exist?  Plus, we wouldn't be in the business of making everyone else's business our business.  Realism is not about adventures in intervention, realism is about maintaining your own position in the hierarchy of power through pursuit of security or pursuit of power.  Of course, we can make arguments about type of realism on display, I would argue that Walt's comments are particularly forceful if one accepts a defensive realism as preferable to other potential realisms.

But, thanks again Stephen Walt for pointing out that the hacks in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the political aisle are not to be confused with realists.

Monday, April 30, 2012

To Interrogate or To Kill

My thoughts were once again drawn to the question of whether Bush or Obama is more contemptible in regard to prosecution of efforts to deal with terrorists by a short blurb in the Atlantic Wire.  The piece is actually about a book by a former CIA guy claiming there is real benefit to enhanced interrogation techniques and that this benefit was that American lives were saved.  I find this claim hard to really accept given recent reports to just the opposite, but am willing to look at the argument and as always to compel my fellow man to provide empirical proof in some form (In God I Trust, the rest of you better bring proof). 

But, in the midst of considering the merits of his book, "The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service Jose Rodriguez says President Obama is waging the nation's war against radical Islam in a far more brutal manner than his predecessor President George W. Bush," (Atlantic Wire 4/30/2012).  What is at the core of this statement?  Well, it really is simple, is it worse to kill them all and let God sort out the innocents, or is it worse to capture, harshly question (torture for those who can't read into the words), eventually adjudicate, illegally wiretap,  eavesdrop, etc.?  The Obama plan is marked by the former, while the Bush plan was marked by the latter.  Personally, I detest them both.  Of course, for my two cents, people can be taught to withstand torture, people will tell you anything to be relieved of pain, and killing people without first even thinking about capture is wrong--There never was even a single thought about capturing Al-Awlaki, just a decision by Obama to have him executed without trial. 

Monday, April 23, 2012

U.S. Presidential Scandals

The news that Chuck Colson died recently made me start thinking about U.S. Presidential scandals.  Was Watergate the worst?  What other scandals might have been the worst if they happened at a turbulent time in U.S. history or in a digital communication media age? 

GeneralStudiesDegree.net has compiled a list that they call the 10 Biggest Presidential Scandals.  I do not agree with their ordering/ranking.  I do concur, however, that these are the 10 biggest U.S. Presidential scandals.

In ordering and for my two cents, I cannot help but believe that The Whiskey Ring (#5) and Credit Mobilier (#4) would have been much bigger scandals than either Watergate (#1) or Monica Lewinsky (#2) if these had happened in an era of digital communications.  I personally also find Truman's Freezer (#9) to be more heinous than Sally Hemings (#5--so Jefferson messing around outside of wedlock is #5, but Clinton having an affair is #2?).  Personally Warrantless Wiretapping (#8) is overstated--while it is true they govt. is able to listen without a warrant, the material collected cannot be acted upon without a warrant--but were it not overstated this scandal(?) would be number 1 in my book. 

So, I guess my top 10:

1.   Teapot Dome
2.   Truman's Freezer
3.   Credit Mobilier 
4.   Iran-Contra
5.   The Whiskey Ring
6.   Watergate
7.   Monica Lewinsky
8.   The Plame Affair
9.   Sally Hemings
10. Warrantless Wiretapping (which could alternately be number 1, given specific circumstances) 

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Women and Combat Arms Positions

In an article in the Marine Corps Times on April 18th, the Corps and the world is informed that as part of the extensive review of jobs women can do in the USMC a test run will be held of placing female officers in the USMC Infantry Officers Course and allowing some enlisted women to also attend infantry training.  I was asked by an officer in the USMC what my two cents is on this particular issue.  Well, I thought in typical two cents fashion I would respond generally with consideration about women in combat arms roles.

First, why shouldn't women get the opportunity to engage in combat arms professions?  Conventions of modern western society have placed women on the pedestal, not capabilities.  Should we forget Amazons, Boudica, Joan of Arc?  The Soviets regularly placed women in combat roles (they fought effectively in WWII, not so much indicated about their performances elsewhere).  The Israelis have women in combat arms today in the IDF. 

Ok, so historically and in terms of capability women do prove themselves capable of handling combat situations.  Don't give me arguments about a weaker sex, I know just as many men as women who can't handle carrying the ruck for long distances.  My biggest concern is how men react to women in combat--biologically, psychologically?  For instance, the Israelis found that men's combat effectiveness drops because they are too worried about protecting the females in the unit.  The answer in most armed forces using women has been to have gender separate units that are trained to do the same job.  The biggest problem is society--we do not react very well when our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, friends either don't come home or come home permanently scarred and/or disabled.  How will society react when we are talking about their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, friends come home scarred and/or disabled or simply don't come home? 

So, my two cents, I am not sure I have one.  I am torn on the issue: gender neutrality does not bother me,  gender neutrality does bother me.  I would not, however, want my own daughter to take up the honorable profession of combat arms and my son better be absolutely certain that taking up the profession is his calling in life.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Fun Stuff

As a father of two boys--I understand.

Partitioning a Country--Sudanese Example

So, what happens when you partition a state as a means of dealing with a protracted ethnic/civil war?  For my two cents, not much good comes of partition.  I was not enamored of the idea of creating South Sudan, for while it appears a solution to a decades long struggle claiming way too many lives, it does not end the enmity between the parties involved.  Particualrly problematic is that the creation of South Sudan left unclear borders and unclear division of oil resources.  Now, what has happened?  South Sudan and Sudan are fighting over control of oil fields.  So what was an intrastate conflict is now an interstate conflict.  Once again, partition has failed to yield desired results.

Read about it here

A New Evita

Argentina's government has announced plans to nationalize YPF, the largest oil company in Argentina.  Of course this throws a monkey wrench into Spain based Respol's plan to sell of YPF (yes, the Spanish company owns YPF) to Sinopec (China Petrochemical Corp).  So, are the Argentines trying to get the best of Respol and make the deal with Sinopec directly?  Latin American leaders are mixed in response.  Felipe Calderon (President of Mexico) expressed concern because PEMEX (oh wait, a nationalized oil company) has a 10% stake in YPF.  Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) applauded the move.

But interesting was criticism in La Razon calling this Kirchener's dirty war.  Also pointed out by an article in Reuters was that another news venue, El Periodico, called Kirchner (or Fernandez, as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner prefers to be referred to these days) "The New Evita".  Apparently Kirchner announced the nationalization of YPF in a room decorated with large pictures of Eva Peron.  Is Kirchner trying to rally the population around her?  Is the Eva Peron comparison fair?  Lots of questions, I am personally not the best qualified to answer.  But, for my own two cents, it is never a good idea to nationalize industries.




Monday, April 16, 2012

Sorry to Be Proven Correct--at this time

BEIRUT (AP) — An advance team of U.N. observers was negotiating the ground rules with Syrian authorities Monday for monitoring the country's 5-day-old cease-fire, which appeared to be rapidly unraveling as regime forces pounded the opposition stronghold of Homs with artillery shells and mortars, activists said.
Even though the overall level of violence across Syria has dropped significantly since the truce took effect, government attacks over the weekend raised new doubts about President Bashar Assad's commitment to special envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end 13 months of violence and launch talks on the country's political future.


What does President Assad have to lose?  Will any country in the world invade if he defies the cease-fire?  If any country intervenes what will the end result be--Assad still in power, damage repaired with foreign funds?  Assad out of power (living in exile on millions of US dollars), damage repaired by foreign funds, uncertain government future?  If no country intervenes what will the end result be--Assad still in control, population broken, damage repaired by foreign funds?  Assad removed (possibly killed), damage repaired by foreign funds, uncertain government future?   Given four real possibilities, what do you think Assad will choose to do in the coming days, weeks, months?

Why I Love My Job

Quite frankly what I study and teach is most often a source of depression.  International security studies and particular emphasis on conflict processes means I study and teach about the dark side of humanity.  Believing man to be a fallen creature (most of us being slightly higher in moral fiber than dogs in heat) does not help my take on contemporary human society.  I mean if you study barbed wire, bombs and bullets used by man as tools to subjugate or kill our fellow man, you are not in for many pleasant hours of reading, studying, and teaching.

But ah the teaching.  See, teaching is not really the word either.  I am a trainer.  I train bright young minds on the means of gathering and analyzing information.  I train bright young minds on how to understand difficult techniques for cutting through and comprehending the massive amounts of information that are made available each day to find the important information and correctly apply this information to understanding human behavior in the political realm. 

Training is about the subject, yes.  But more importantly and more enjoyably, training is about the receiver of the effort--my students.  My students are the reason I love my job.  Bright young men and women, at a small, conservative, Christian liberal arts college.  Most of my students are not in the morally reprehensible categories of mankind (indeed, I am more morally reprehensible than most of my students).  My students provide me with great discussions and arguments, they force me to be more mentally agile and intellectually nimble.  The least intelligent of my students challenge me to find ways to make difficult techniques and information accessible.  The most intelligent force me to keep studying and researching.  So, I love my job because of my students.

Additionally, while I am quite sure that much of what is happening in our world is not working for the betterment of mankind, my students make me eternally optimistic.  I believe they will help put pieces of the puzzle in place.  I believe they can find solutions to problems that plague mankind.  I certainly know they can do no worse than my own generation--which I believe has added much to the problems and done little to solve the puzzles.  So, while I may not understand, nor agree, with much of the changes my students insist are needed in how we communicate, how we transmit information, etc.  I am edified daily by their growth and how they exemplify progress of the human mind and spirit.  So, current and former students, take my statements here for what they are, my two cents as it is, a great thank you, for you are the reason I love my job.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Next USAF Chief

Interesting stuff about the Air Force lining out who will be the next Chief of Staff.  My mentor blogs about this process and "picking on the Air Force" here.  AOL news has an article here.

Personally, I have met the current Chief, Gen. Norton Schwarz.  I have heard him speak twice on the Air Force mission and direction for the near future.  I have listened to him answer questions from staff officers, and students at the USAF War College.  I came away impressed by his forthright demeanor and agility in handling tough questions.  I came away less than enthusiastic about his seeming lackadaisical attitude about the specific needs of the Air Force and the cost-effectiveness of current Air Force programs.

I do, like Steve Saideman (mentioned above) find some of the language regarding what the AF is looking for in a new chief to be funny.  But, I recognize that a lot of the language game here is military speak for the purpose of feeding the egos of the generals within the USAF.   

  • The ability to effectively advocate for Air Force capabilities and who is not apologetic for those capabilities;
  • Someone who is not a "lapdog" to the SECDEF and simply does what the SECDEF says regardless if it is not the best way forward;
  • Someone who understands that "jointness" requires four separate and distinct services, and that the CSAF role is to advocate for the unique benefits and capabilities that the Air Force provides for the nation;
  • Someone who does not "go along to get along" thinking that is "jointness;
  • Someone who can restore the innovative nature of the Air Force -- the last four years saw the chief eliminate those who pushed new ideas, concepts, and technologies in favor of "yes" men (and women);
  • Someone who can get AF acquisition back on track and focus on cost-effectiveness, not simply cost elimination.
I find the statements about jointness funny, but credible.  Jointness does not mean giving up your identity for a mixed military force structure.  The Chief of the AF needs to recognize that fact and carry on.  Innovation was the realm of uniqueness in the USAF, it needs to be recaptured and that means getting rid of yes-men and women?  Not sure about all of this, but hope the guys and gals in Air Force blue get a new chief worthy of their efforts.

Syrian Ceasefire?

Ok, anyone who knows me understands the general contempt I have toward Kofi Annan (worthless as an under Sec-Gen of the UN, worse as Sec Gen), but does anyone really believe that the ceasefire and solution negotiated by Annan will really happen/work?  Hours before they are supposed to be ceasing hostilities the Syrian military initiates a new offensive and bombardment against Homs.  And what is up with "safe zones"?

At present the Syrian government shows no sign of letting up.  At best al-Assad's decision is to use heavy force right up to the deadline (typical in cases where ceasefires have been negotiated).  At worst al-Assad played Annan for the blithering idiot he often showed himself to be as an under sec-gen and sec-gen of the UN. 

Now, the second issue I mentioned is that of "safe zones".  Do we all remember how well safe zones worked in the Balkans?  Ask the Danish government that fell?  Ask the Canadians (wow me saying something nice about Canadians--sort of) who tried to deal with the mess after the Danes left.  Better yet, ask all the people who got killed because safe zones herded them into one place as ready targets for artillery attacks--oh yeah, can't ask the dead much.

Of course this is my two cents, but would someone quit letting Kofi Annan get people killed around the world?  And please, someone tell me again what the utility of a safe zone really is? 

Back to Work

I have returned from San Diego.  The meetings went well and friends, colleagues, and mentor are doing well.  Even made it to a Padres game--they lost but the fireworks display was great after the game.