Via One Utah.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Frank Zappa Returns to Baltimore
(statue of Frank Zappa stands in Vilnius, Lithuania. Sun photo by Mindaugas Kulbis / May 7, 2008)The Baltimore Sun reports on a Frank Zappa story. (hat tip to Notions Capital. Check out Mike's links; he really knows how to put a story together).
Everything I know about Baltimore, however, I learned on the Wire.
Monday, March 23, 2009
New Commenting Policy
I feel compelled to change my long-standing commenting policy, which you can read here. The reason for the change is the fact that a couple commenters seem to have lost the ability to argue and disagree respectfully. I've asked for it and not gotten it. So now it'll be enforced through comment moderation.
I think the problem stems from my idea that all gun owners share in the responsibility for gun violence. I admit this is a debatable premise, and that's exactly what we've been doing until recently when it turned particularly vicious and personal. I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it, but when I'm repeatedly called "liar" and "bastard," and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.
If you feel so strongly about my premise and are convinced that by proposing it I deserve to be called a "liar" and a "bastard" and if you really think that by engaging the pro-gun community in an argument like this I deserve to be slandered as a child pornographer, I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about? Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that. But, I'll tell you what I do respect. I respect someone who argues their point passionately, even heatedly. I can even accept some name-calling; we've had plenty of that around here. But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it. And if anyone cares to notice, I hold myself to the same standards.
Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear what you have to say about this.
UPDATE June 28, 2009
Personal attacks will be rejected at my discretion.
I think the problem stems from my idea that all gun owners share in the responsibility for gun violence. I admit this is a debatable premise, and that's exactly what we've been doing until recently when it turned particularly vicious and personal. I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it, but when I'm repeatedly called "liar" and "bastard," and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.
If you feel so strongly about my premise and are convinced that by proposing it I deserve to be called a "liar" and a "bastard" and if you really think that by engaging the pro-gun community in an argument like this I deserve to be slandered as a child pornographer, I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about? Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that. But, I'll tell you what I do respect. I respect someone who argues their point passionately, even heatedly. I can even accept some name-calling; we've had plenty of that around here. But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it. And if anyone cares to notice, I hold myself to the same standards.
Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear what you have to say about this.
UPDATE June 28, 2009
Personal attacks will be rejected at my discretion.
Tucson Arizona
The New York Times reports on the ever-increasing violence in Tucson Arizona.
This may very well be further evidence that the so-called "war on drugs" is failing. What do you think? It makes sense doesn't it that if the United States is the biggest consumer of these illegal drugs, the drug gangs would either be in the business of distributing in the U.S. or would have close ties with the gangsters who do? Either way, the violence and death in the Mexican drug wars is not limited to Mexico.
Of great interest to me was the following paragraph in the NY Times article:
Do you think the New York Times newspaper has a vested interest in convincing people that the guns come from the U.S.? I don't. So, I'll ask again, why do gun owners find this suggestion so difficult to accept? How does it harm them? When we discussed this before, it seemed like many pro-gun people take this personally. Why would that be? Why would law-abiding gun owners be interested in protecting law breakers by denying that they even exist?
Please leave a comment.
This city, an hour’s drive north of the Mexican border, is coping with a wave of drug crime the police suspect is tied to the bloody battles between Mexico’s drug cartels and the efforts to stamp them out.
Tucson is hardly alone in feeling the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade. In the past few years, the cartels and other drug trafficking organizations have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada. Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
This may very well be further evidence that the so-called "war on drugs" is failing. What do you think? It makes sense doesn't it that if the United States is the biggest consumer of these illegal drugs, the drug gangs would either be in the business of distributing in the U.S. or would have close ties with the gangsters who do? Either way, the violence and death in the Mexican drug wars is not limited to Mexico.
Of great interest to me was the following paragraph in the NY Times article:
Law enforcement officials on both sides of the border agree that the United States is the source for most of the guns used in the violent drug cartel war in Mexico.
“The key thing is to keep improving on our interdiction of the weapons before they even get in there,” said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security and the former governor of Arizona, who will be testifying before Congress on Wednesday.
Do you think the New York Times newspaper has a vested interest in convincing people that the guns come from the U.S.? I don't. So, I'll ask again, why do gun owners find this suggestion so difficult to accept? How does it harm them? When we discussed this before, it seemed like many pro-gun people take this personally. Why would that be? Why would law-abiding gun owners be interested in protecting law breakers by denying that they even exist?
Please leave a comment.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tom Diaz Addresses the House of Representatives
Tom Diaz is a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center and a well-known advocate for strict gun control. Because he is a former NRA member and competitive shooter, who became a gun control activist, some of us feel his opinions carry more weight than someone who might not be familiar with the other side.
On March 12, 2009, Mr. Diaz made a statement in the U.S. House of Representatives before the Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs under the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was part of a Hearing on “Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S./Mexico Border?”
In the very beginning of the statement, in keeping with the title, he has this to say:
This made me stop and think about several recent discussions we've had. News reports had come out recently stating that this just isn't so for the simple reason that the Mexican drug wars require far more weaponry than is possible to smuggle across the border a few pieces at a time. Now, here comes an expert on the matter, a guy who's been on both sides of the argument and presumably knows what he's talking about, addressing the House of Representatives with as strong a statement as this.
He goes on to explain, exactly what we've heard before in the Iknadosian case, that there are thousands of FFL dealers now along the border. Diaz describes the process as an inexorable army of ants moving guns over the border. To me it's convincing.
One of the surprising bits of information I learned in this statement was the fact that over the last three decades the numbers of guns have actually diminished in certain quarters. There are fewer hunters, for example. The demographics show that hunting is an older man's activity. Other survey data shows that "during the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006."
I found that amazing, but not as amazing as the gun industry's response.
This increased lethality, naturally serves the gangsters, both foreign and domestic, who make up a certain percentage of the buyers. Guys like Iknadosian, and apparently there are thousands like him, have become expert in concealing the fact that their product is not all destined for sportsmen and collectors.
In his statement Diaz concludes with clear suggestions about what can be done. Examples of these measures include stopping the production and import of military-style firearms such as semiautomatic assault weapons and 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles, and making all transfers of firearms subject to a background check.
What's your opinion? Do you feel Diaz' credibility is increased by the fact that he was formerly a member of the NRA? Are you swayed by the argument that thousands of gun dealers could actually supply the Mexican drug war with guns, transporting the weapons like a column of ants across the border? Do you think his suggestions fall into the category of "common sense gun laws?"
Please leave a comment with your opinion.
On March 12, 2009, Mr. Diaz made a statement in the U.S. House of Representatives before the Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs under the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was part of a Hearing on “Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S./Mexico Border?”
In the very beginning of the statement, in keeping with the title, he has this to say:
It is beyond question that firearms from the U.S. civilian gun market are fueling violence not only on both sides of the U.S./Mexico Border, but in Mexico itself.
This made me stop and think about several recent discussions we've had. News reports had come out recently stating that this just isn't so for the simple reason that the Mexican drug wars require far more weaponry than is possible to smuggle across the border a few pieces at a time. Now, here comes an expert on the matter, a guy who's been on both sides of the argument and presumably knows what he's talking about, addressing the House of Representatives with as strong a statement as this.
He goes on to explain, exactly what we've heard before in the Iknadosian case, that there are thousands of FFL dealers now along the border. Diaz describes the process as an inexorable army of ants moving guns over the border. To me it's convincing.
One of the surprising bits of information I learned in this statement was the fact that over the last three decades the numbers of guns have actually diminished in certain quarters. There are fewer hunters, for example. The demographics show that hunting is an older man's activity. Other survey data shows that "during the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006."
I found that amazing, but not as amazing as the gun industry's response.
For the gun industry, innovation has translated into introducing increasingly deadly firearms into the civilian market. The gun industry uses firepower, or lethality, in the same way that the tobacco industry uses nicotine. Firearm lethality is a means to “hook” gun buyers into coming back into the market again and again as more deadly innovations are rolled out. As a consequence, the profile of the civilian gun industry today is defined by military style weaponry.
This increased lethality, naturally serves the gangsters, both foreign and domestic, who make up a certain percentage of the buyers. Guys like Iknadosian, and apparently there are thousands like him, have become expert in concealing the fact that their product is not all destined for sportsmen and collectors.
A large number of the firearms smuggled from the United States into Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America come from the Southwest, the states of which are notoriously lax in gun control laws and law enforcement regulation. It has been reported that there are more than 6,700 U.S. gun dealers within a short drive of the southern border — more than three dealers for each of the approximately 2,000
miles of the border.
In his statement Diaz concludes with clear suggestions about what can be done. Examples of these measures include stopping the production and import of military-style firearms such as semiautomatic assault weapons and 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles, and making all transfers of firearms subject to a background check.
What's your opinion? Do you feel Diaz' credibility is increased by the fact that he was formerly a member of the NRA? Are you swayed by the argument that thousands of gun dealers could actually supply the Mexican drug war with guns, transporting the weapons like a column of ants across the border? Do you think his suggestions fall into the category of "common sense gun laws?"
Please leave a comment with your opinion.
Chris Crocker
Chris Crocker covers a few subjects near and dear to our hearts: the government, fundamentalist Christian beliefs, the Founding Fathers, history, carbon dating and then back to the government.
People do not die, that's all theatrics.
Medical Marijuana
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The new administration seems to be moving in the direction of accepting medical marijuana as a legitimate option for those people whose doctors feel they need it. How much of this is just a front for people who want to get high, do you think? If there is a significant percentage abusing this option, do you think that'll ruin it for the people who really need it, the glaucoma patients, for example?
It seems to me that for every person with a true medical need for marijuana, there are probably two or three who are just taking advantage of the situation. But, I think that's a good thing, as long as that abuse does not hinder the overall program. For me, marijuana should be the first drug to be removed from the so-called "war on drugs." Perhaps what happened in Massachusetts last year along with these recent announcements by the Attorney General is the beginning of the long-overdue reversal of America's attitude towards recreational drugs.
What's your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)