R.I.P. Soupy Sales

I had the good fortune to be a fan of his in my childhood. Did you?

Here's the Time obit.

Before making it big, he worked in a radio-TV spot in Cleveland. He later said he left that job for health reasons — "They got sick of me."

Years later this happened:

He did make trouble for himself on New Year's Day 1965, when, annoyed by having to work on a holiday, he impishly instructed kids to tiptoe into their parents' bedroom, take out "green pieces of paper with pictures of guys with beards" and send them to his New York station. The punch line: "And you know what I'm gonna send you? A postcard from Puerto Rico." For that he got suspended. He said that the kids were hipper than his bosses: many sent him Monopoly money. One adult enclosed a few dollars and wrote: "Now go to Puerto Rico."

What a character, huh?

John Lott and Michael Bellesiles

Laci the Dog posted an interesting piece about two professores, one disgraced and the other praised, in thier respective fields.

I have been asking this question for quite some time: How can Michael Bellesiles be ripped to shreds for his book Arming America, yet we still see John Lott cited as authoritative about CCW reducing crime?

John Lott makes Bellesiles look honest as heck. Tim Lambert catalogues Lott's unethical behaviour. In fact, Lambert basically rips apart everything John Lott says.

I know the answer to that. It's due to the incredible tenacity of the pro-gun movement in America. They can ruin someone or make him a hero, regardless of the truth. Citing an old Mother Jones article, Laci submitted this:

The right has good reason to stick by Lott: "The entire ideology of the modern gun movement has basically been built around this guy," says Saul Cornell, an Ohio State University historian who has written widely on guns. Over the years the pro-gun intellectual agenda has had two prongs: Defending a revisionist legal understanding of the Second Amendment in constitutional law, and refuting social scientists and public-health researchers who argue that the widespread availability of guns in America plays a key role in the nation's staggering number of homicides and suicides. Without Lott's work, the latter argument becomes much harder to make.

What's your opinion? What do you think about those "two prongs" described by Saul Cornell? The first is a "revisionist legal understanding of the 2nd Amendment" and the second is the old DGU business, that guns do more good than harm. Do you agree that these are the two fronts upon which the gun battle is being waged? Are the pro-gun folks winning this battle?

What about the difference between Lott and Bellesiles? Are they very different really in their methods, in their ethics?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Ohio Woman Kills Armed Robber

10TV.com reports on an Ohio woman who shot and killed an armed robber.

The woman and her family traveled to Columbus earlier this week from Ironton to attend the All-American Quarter Horse Association. They were staying at the Continent Inn in North Columbus on Wednesday night when a man armed with a gun barged into their hotel room and demanded money.

As the family members were extracting money and jewellry to give the thief, the 70-year-old mother pulled out a gun and shot the robber. To me this is one of the cleanest DGUs I've read about. I applaud that woman for her courage and for her aim.

I do have a couple questions though. In Ohio is it legal to carry a gun in one's purse? Are there no requirements for doing so? Isn't that like carrying a concealed weapon which often requires a permit?

Why does the story say she saved them from being murdered? Is the fact that the robber aimed a gun at them enough to express it like that? Isn't that an exaggeration? Isn't it true that we have no way of knowing if she saved them from being murdered or from just being robbed? And if that's the case, isn't it a shame to kill someone for attempted robbery?

What do you think? Do you see a dillemma in this level of response to armed robbery?

Please leave a comment.

The Winnepeg Gun Runner

The Winnepeg Free Press reports on the sentencing of the gunrunner Gokhan Ozturk.

A Winnipeg concert promoter was sentenced to 57 months in a U.S. federal prison today after admitting to his role in an international guns-for-drugs smuggling operation.

Gokhan Ozturk, 23, said he is ashamed at the damage he has caused by arranging to have at least 22 handguns brought into his hometown. Only three have been recovered – all in the hands of local criminals, court was told.

We talked about this case before when the two accomplices were in the news. They both received one-year sentences, but what's never been made clear is what if anything was done about the gun sellers. Isn't that where the real problem lies? The exact point at which a gun passes from the hand of a lawful owner to that of a criminal is what we need to zero in on. I'm not sure everything is being done in that regard.

What do you think? Is there a laissez faire attitude about the gun shops whose customers lie on the paperwork or present straw purchasers? Isn't there some way of motivating gun dealers to be more careful? In this case you've got under-aged boys buying dozens of guns from a handful of places. Doesn't that imply a non chalance on the part of the sellers?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The White House vs. Fox News.

Liberal Viewer puts the controversy in perspective. I wonder if the commenters over at Althouse saw this? Over there they love to compare Obama to Nixon.

Medical Marijuana

Reason.com ran an article today which traced the background of the medical marijuana situation.

In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn't matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a "medical necessity."

It was a far-fetched argument—but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall's favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a "compassionate use" program.

This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."

The liberals are all cheering, the conservatives are either lambasting or mocking the President. Only Phuck Politics had this to say.

"...he didn’t change jack shit. He didn’t sign any legislation barring the Justice Department from arresting medical marijuana patients. He didn’t tell Congress to draft legislation barring the Justice Department from arresting medical marijuana patients. And he hasn’t condemned the Justice Department from raiding dispensaries the last time he promised this shit .

So this is just Obama’s go to move when his base is pissed off.

And his base bought it hook, line, and sinker, because they’re praising his name...

Except me. Because I don’t trust this corporate whore.

What's your opinion? Is Phuck Politics on to something here? Is this really a nothing move while the big deals are all up in the air, Health reform and Afghanistan, to name two?

I must admit, after starting out as an unabashed Obama fan one year ago, I am beginning to have my doubts. Several promises have been completely ignored and a number of Bush policies continued. I don't know what to think. What about you?

Please leave a comment.

The Supreme Court on Guns

The PJTV site posted a wonderful video outlining the facts behind the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago Gun Ban.

I liked very much how he described the issue and its importance. But I wondered about a few things he said.

Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical, like how many people are killed each year in murders and suicides with the aid of firearms. You could call that an emotional argument, but I think your reason for doing so is to denigrate your opponent. What's your opinion?

Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws" routine. This has been completely debunked but pro-gun folks continue to use it. The idea is gun control laws are not aimed at the criminals they are aimed at the law-abiding. The results of proper laws properly enforced upon the law-abiding gun owners results in diminished access to guns by the criminals. It's simple really.

And finally, he said some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military. Is that true? I don't think I've heard that one yet.

What's your opinion? His citing of John Lott's study is quite compelling, except for the fact that there are other studies with the exact opposite findings. One thing I do agree with is the question of whether guns do more harm than good is at the heart of the matter.

Please leave a comment.

Rep. Alan Grayson on Helath Care

via Phuck Politics

Investing in Guns

The Daily Finance site has a fascinating report about investing in the gun industry.

Cerberus, the private equity fund that nearly ruined itself by making bad bets in Detroit, particularly on Chrysler, is considering taking its gun company interests public. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the firm "is in advanced preparations for an initial public offering of Freedom Group Inc." The company has about $900 million in sales.

The move may be a profitable one for Cerberus. Gun company Smith & Wesson (SWHC) trades at just above $5, near the high end of its 52-week range. That gives the company a market cap of $300 million on sales of about $345 million. On a ratio-and-proportion basis, that would make Freedom worth close to $800 million.

It seems clear that the gun industry is a much steadier money-maker than the auto business. "Last quarter Smith & Wesson made an operating profit of $17 million on revenue of $102 million, an impressive margin. The company has $35 million in cash and modest long-term debt of $83 million."

There are probably as many guns in the U.S. are there are cars. Gun sales to law enforcement and military interests are always going to offer a steady flow of sales.

Cerberus will probably be able to do with guns what it could not do with its auto interests -- make money.

Is that true? Are there as many guns as cars? This is bad news for those of us who hate comparisons. If this get out, I'll be bombarded with the old substitution game again.

What's your opinion? Are guns a good investment? Besides law enforcement and military, America is certainly a sellers market as far as firearms are concerned.

Please leave a comment.

Guns on Michigan Campuses

The Detroit News reports on the proposed bill which would deny colleges the right to ban guns on their campuses.

Colleges would lose the right to prohibit concealed weapons on campus under a proposed bill that was blasted by university officials at a House committee hearing in Lansing on Tuesday.

Universities and colleges are exempt from a state law that prohibits local governments from regulating firearms. The bill would extend that prohibition to institutions of higher learning.

We've certainly discussed this one before. I admit I was somewhat persuaded by the pro-gun arguments. It makes sense to me that the Brady claims of wild frat parties by armed students is not realistic. I agree that most college students who have concealed carry permits would be older and more responsible. Yet, I still lean towards caution and the gun control argument still appeals to me.

The article mentions the problem of mixing young people, alcohol and weapons, but it doesn't make clear the real problem is that we cannot be sure of the folks who have concealed carry permits. I've often referred back to my Famous 10% to argue this, but recently there have been reports about how poorly the system is managed which determines who gets a permit.

In support of the proposed law, there is this:

Second-year Wayne State University medical student Peter Howard told the committee he should be able to carry a concealed weapon on campus. He arrives at school early in the morning, and doesn't leave until late at night.

"I take precautions to walk in lighted areas, (but) a close friend of mine got robbed at gunpoint last year," Howard said. "I'm not living in fear, but it's something I'd like to take precaution with."

I don't know. I think I'd rather take my chances on the criminals rather than have to worry about Peter Howard and all the other concealed carry guys AND the criminals.

What's your opinion? Isn't it interesting that Mr. Howard was quoted as having said "I'm not living in fear, but..." Do the folks who carry guns sometimes get a little defensive about this "fear" business? I know whenever I bring it up, it rouses everything from outright denial to insulting counterattacks. What's your opinion? Is it a reasonable fear to worry about getting mugged on college campuses in Michigan? Is it a reasonable response to want to be armed? What then, a shootout, a gun battle? Is that the answer?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Governor Rick Perry on the Death Penalty

The Dallas News reports that Gov. Rick Perry reiterated his support for the state's death penalty system Tuesday after one of his predecessors raised questions about its reliability.

"Our process works, and I don't see anything out there that would merit calling for a moratorium on the Texas death penalty," he said after voting early on a slate of constitutional amendments. "It's fair and appropriate, and we will continue with it."

Questions about the arson investigation that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham prompted former Gov. Mark White, a Democrat who ran as a strong advocate of capital punishment in the 1980s, to say last week that he now opposes it. Perry said Texas' system is sound.

Perry has been criticized for replacing members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission as it was about to hear from a scientist whose review raised doubts about the case.

Willingham was executed in 2004 in the 1991 Corsicana house fire that killed his three children.

What's your opinion of the governor of the Lone Star State? Is he being a little stubborn about this Willingham investigation? Is this statement an example of "the best defense is a good offense?"

What's your opinion? Is he right when he says it works fine? Isn't that idea refuted by the facts now?

Please leave a comment.

Houston Murders

khou.com reports on the incredible lack of murders in Houston.

Ten consecutive days passed in Houston without a single homicide report, and police said they can’t remember a longer lull in violent crime.

The Houston Police Department said there wasn't a single murder reported in the city from October 10-20.

“The murder rate is nearly impossible to control or predict in any city,” said HPD Chief Harold Hurtt.

Hurtt said HPD’s veteran homicide investigators can’t recall a single week in the last 10 years without a murder.

“We welcome this lull in violent crime, due –perhaps—to an increased focus of police resources to hot spots throughout the city,” Hurtt said.

Year-to-date, there have been 233 murders reported in the city, compared to 242 during the same time period last year – a 4.13 percent decrease.

I wonder if there could be another explanation. Maybe all those concealed carry guys are finally making a difference. What do you think? Maybe in a state famous for its death penalty record. they're finally seeing the benefits of deterrence. What do you think?

What I really think is Houston is a big a cesspool as Chicago and Newark when it comes to gun crime and the cops are having a weird reprieve. The only difference between the gun violence here in Houston and that of Chicago or Newark is the guns are mainly bought locally. You don't think there's an iron pipeline coming from the North-East down to Texas, do you?

What's your opinion? Could there be yet another explanation?

Please leave a comment.

More Advice for the Gun Children

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published an article which contains advice for children concerning guns. But first, things must be put in perspective, which is a favorite of some of our commenters.

According to the CDC, for all children younger than 15: 54 died from firearm accidents, but almost twice as many died from falls or poisoning. More than 400 children died from smoke, fire or flame; 761 drowned; and more than 2,000 died in car accidents. No children younger than 1 year old died from firearm accidents.

After downplaying the whole business, the author Bob Aldridge, goes on to explain that the small numbers doesn't mean it's not important. There are things we need to do.

There are two ways to prevent children from dying in gun accidents: child-proof the gun and gun-proof the child. Child-proofing guns is fairly easy to do. First, keep guns unloaded and locked in a storage device, such as a gun safe, that no one can access but the gun owner. Second, keep all ammunition in a separate, locked container that no one can access but the gun owner.

What's your opinion? Are there gun owners who actually do this? Wouldn't storing your gun like that eliminate whatever benefit you wanted to have from the gun in the first place? Assuming the gun is in the home for self protection, what possible good is it locked up and separated from the ammo? So, I'm guessing that most gun owners don't do this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

About gun-proofing the child, does anyone who has now, or ever has had an inquisitive five-year-old around the house believe this? Do you really believe the Eddie Eagle type education of young children, instructing them not to touch, works. I personally don't believe it and I would consider it the height of irresponsibility to depend upon such methods.

So, what that leaves us with is keeping the gun loaded, but in a place where the child either can't reach or doesn't know about. Extremely risky behavior.

Children should never handle guns without a knowledgeable and responsible adult supervising. Children should, repeatedly, be taught the following if they encounter any gun under any circumstance without adult supervision: Stop! Don’t touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!

When I was a kid, these kinds of warnings only served to increase the curiosity. How about you?

The pro-gun folks who won't bend on anything no matter how sensible, ask, "well how come the numbers are so low then." Well part of the answer is in the fact that we're talking about deaths. If you add injuries, the number increases. If you add shots fired which accidentally miss, which I think count, the number increases still. If you also add times the kids play with the gun but don't fire it, again by luck or timely intervention, the number increases once again.

What's your opinion? When people who own guns have children, what should they do? I say they should remove the guns from the house entirely. That's the only way to ensure safety for the kids. The only exceptions should be those homes which are frequently broken into by rapists and kidnappers, homes in which the domestic arsenal is the only thing standing in the way of tragedy. All the others should use some common sense and get rid of the guns.

What do you think?

Las Vegas Shooter Gets 26 to 90 Years

The Associated Press reports on the extremely harsh sentence given to the man who shot up the New York New York Casino two years ago.

A 53-year-old unemployed house painter apologized to his victims before he was sentenced Monday to 26 to 90 years in prison for opening fire with a handgun and wounding four people in a Las Vegas Strip casino more than two years ago.

"Please forgive me for my actions," Steven Francis Zegrean said, standing in shackles before Clark County District Court Judge David Barker, who moments later meted out a harsher sentence than the 16 to 64 years recommended in a state pre-sentencing report.

"I know I will go to prison," Zegrean said during his only public statement since his gun jammed after the 16th shot and he was tackled by two off-duty military reservists on a balcony at the New York-New York casino early July 6, 2007.

What kind of a gun is that, I wonder? Sixteen shots and it only stopped because of a jam? And I wonder where it came from, if he owned it legally?

What do you think about the severity of the sentence? To me it seems a bit heavy for only wounding 4 people. The article goes on to say he was charged with one count of attempted murder for every shot fired. Is that ridiculous, or what?

Zegrean was not motivated by hatred, his lawyer told the judge, and there was no evidence he aimed at people when he began peppering the casino floor with bullets. Zegrean even asked the first police officer who interviewed him whether anybody had been wounded.

Shouldn't his obvious mental impairment have been taken into consideration? One theory is that this was more an attempted suicide by cop than attempted murder.

What's your opinion?

Laci on Collective or Individual

Laci the Dog wrote a sweeping post in response to some of our comments.

It starts:

Quick Answer for Sevesteen: gun rights are illusory in common law.

And ends:

I find the more research I do with primary sources on this subject, the more it becomes apparent that the founders saw a difference between civic and personal uses of firearms. The Civic right was that covered by the Second Amendment with the private uses being subject to common law and the police power of the States.

In between there's a treasure trove of information. Of course for me, suffering from ADD and not being a lawyer, it's a bit difficult. But what I understood is the individual right to own guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, in spite of all the hype to the contrary.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

My Answer to Any Complainers

Thanks to Laci the Dog.

Meat Loaf

A funny story.

"We were doubly blessed."

Hudson WI Back in the News

The TwinCities.com reports on a standoff and shootout in Hudson Wisconsin.

Four teenagers were trapped by a gunman inside a Hudson house Saturday, hiding in a closet while multiple shots were fired, then escaping to safety out a basement window, police said.

A 43-year-old gunman was shot and critically wounded by sheriff's deputies, after firing at police at the end of a seven-hour standoff, officials said. None of the teenagers nor the police were wounded, although the gunman fired perhaps two-dozen shots during the incident.

The St. Croix County Sheriff's Department identified the shooter as Daniel Christenson, 43, whose house is directly behind Hudson High School. Police said Christenson had been in an argument Saturday night with his son, Zachary, 19, when the father pulled out a pistol and began firing.

The son called 911, while three of his visiting friends — one girl and two boys, ages 13 to 15 — hid in the basement. All four escaped after about 30 minutes, police said.

How exasperated do you have to get at your teenage child before you pull out the gun and start firing? Teens can be very trying for a dad, especially if that dad is a proud member of the 10% club.

I was wondering where I'd heard of Hudson Wisconsin before. It seemed like we were just talking about it, which of course we were. It was only yesterday that the Hudson gun rally was all over the news. I wonder if Daniel Christenson had attended earlier in the day?

What's your opinion? Do you think if Mr. Christenson was just trying to scare those kids? He couldn't have been that bad a shot. And then, shooting at the cops, what was that a death wish or just out-of-control behavior.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Texas' ex-Governor White on the Death Penalty

The Dallas Morning News reports.

A former Texas governor says it's time for the state to rethink the death penalty.

Mark White was involved with 20 executions as a state attorney general and governor. In an interview with the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, the veteran Democrat says the death penalty no longer deters murder.

He says the long delays between convictions and executions means there is no swift justice. He also says he's increasingly concerned that the law isn't administered fairly and that the risk of putting innocent people to death is too great.

His comment come at a time when Texas Gov. Rick Perry is under criticism for replacing member of the Texas Forensics Commission. That delayed consideration of a report questioning the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Now it's official. When someone like this comes out questioning the death penalty, things are definitely moving in the right direction - against capital punishment.

What's your opinion? Is the former governor saying that we need to rethink the policy because it's not longer a deterrent? He does mention that little problem of executing innocent people, but I had the impression if "swift justice" could be had he'd still be in favor of it. He is from Texas, after all.

What's your opinion? Does this put additional pressure in the current governor? Where's this leading?

Please leave a comment.

Virginia: Close the Gun Show Loophole

PilotOnline.com reports on a fascinating new poll concerning guns in Virginia.

Most Virginians say they want to close the so-called gun show loophole that permits some gun sales without criminal background checks, and they dislike the notion of someone carrying a concealed firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol, according to a new poll.

Not only that, but the percentages were extremely significant. About background checks, almost 81% said change the law. On restricting guns in restaurants and bars it was almost 70%.

What's most fascinating about these numbers, even taking them with the proverbial grain of salt, is that the pro-gun crowd has been telling us something totally different. Imagine the truth is most people agree with the gun control folks, even in Virginia. I guess most people are concerned about gun crime and realize that it's absolute nonsense to think more guns in more places would address that problem.

Sebastian covered it already. His idea is that the questions were worded in an unfair way to elicit the responses desired by the pollsters. Do you think that's true? Could using words which Sebastian says carry negative connotations like, "loophole" and "unlicensed" account for a whopping 81%? I don't think so. I think the poll demonstrates that Virginia is more progressive and reasonable than many of us thought.

What's your opinion? Do you find this a surprise? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Gun Rally in Hudson Wisconsin

The Local ABC TV News reports on another Tea Party rally where people showed up wearing guns.

Hundreds of armed people filled a Hudson park Saturday afternoon as part of an anti-tax and pro-second amendment rally.

"It's our right to carry guns and I think everyone needs to know," said a gun rally supporter.

Openly carrying a firearm is legal in Wisconsin, in fact the only legal way to have a firearm there is to openly display it, but it is rare to see so many people doing so at once.

We've discussed this before when some folks made national news wearing guns to the Obama rallies in the summer. My opinion then was that they do more harm than good to the cause they represent. To most people who are not involved in the gun rights movement, they appear to be fanatics. That was exactly my impression watching the video of the Hudson Wisconsin rally.

What's your opinion? Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns? They don't to me. They seem like people who are angry, some of whom could be volatile and dangerous. Why do the pro-gun folks not understand that the rest of us don't feel safe around people like this? Whether we're right or wrong, shouldn't our impressions count for something? Insisting on wearing guns, and in states where it's allowed to carry them concealed, to me seems like a form of bullying. In this video, for example, weren't the gun owners bullying the rest of the citizens?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

California Gun Stores Prepare

The Sun of San Bernadino California ran an article about the difficulty gun stores will face when the new law goes into effect. Today it's fairly simple and straightforward, you go into the store, pick up a box of ammo that you need and pay for it at the register. In 2011, things will be very different.

"We'll have to rearrange the store," said Hector Garcia, owner of Cold War Shooters, because the new law will force gun and sporting goods stores to keep handgun ammo where customers can't reach it. "But that will be a minor inconvenience compared to the paperwork."

The most important piece of the new law, which has already drawn the ire of the National Rifle Association and some Republican lawmakers, is a requirement that anyone purchasing handgun ammunition provide his or her name, address, phone number and thumbprint. Gun stores will have to keep those records - which also include the type, brand and amount of ammunition sold to customers - and allow police to go through them.

In discussing this recently, I've been flipping back and forth. Commenters pointed out that the inconvenience to gun owners who require large volumes of ammunition, like sports shooters, and gun owners who train regularly, will be significant while the potential detriment to criminals will be minor.

Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, sponsored the bill, saying it gives law enforcement agencies a way to check if criminals are buying ammunition.

"You could walk out of San Quentin (state prison) ... and walk into a gun store and by any ammunition you'd like," de Leon said. "Theoretically, you're not supposed to buy it. But practically, they don't have to check."

Does that make sense? Wouldn't it be good to prevent convicted felons from buying ammo even if they account for only a small percentage of the overall sales?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Stephen Colbert on Glenn Beck

From the Liberal Viewer. "Free association conspiracy theory ethos."
Great stuff and as a bonus a new word.

All the Answers are in The Bible

Newser.com ran a fascinating story about a Texas jury that consulted the Bible before rendering a verdict of death.

Death-row foes are complaining that a Texas jury ordered to consider only evidence presented in court consulted the Old Testament before condemning a man to death. Jurors examined highlighted passages in Bibles passed around the jury room to help them decide the fate of Khristian Oliver. The con killed a man by shooting him in the face and beating him with a rifle. One of the passages stated that a person who smites somebody with iron "shall surely be put to death."

The use of the Bible made the trial a "travesty," charged an Amnesty International official. "Religious texts provide consolation and spiritual guidance for billions of people the world over, but this use of the Bible to decide life or death in a capital trial is deeply, deeply troubling," she told the Telegraph. The Supreme Court has refused to hear Oliver's appeal and he is due to be executed early next month.

This is even worse that the usual Texas Justice we hear about. Usually it's simply that letter-of-the-law, excessively harsh, vigilante justice, you know that one that says, "Let's give 'em a fair trial and then take 'em out and hang 'em." But this is something else again.

Here's a Guardian article with more details about the case.

What's your opinion? Even for Christian jurors, is this kind of thing acceptable? Isn't this the very thing jurors are screened for before being admitted to participate in the trial?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Redistribution of Wealth - Madman Ranting

Think Progress published an interesting article which included this amazing video. I suppose the people who buy into Glenn Beck's performance are all the more impressed with his ranting. I mean, he's talking about serious stuff, right?

The hysterical haranguing about "redistribution of wealth" and likening it to the policies of Castro and Mao, connecting Obama to these philosophies, calling them Marxist, all combine to attract viewers. Unfortunately, many of them are taken in.

The Think Progress article showed that Thomas Paine, whom Beck likes to quote as an example of true patriotism in the American style, actually held some of these dangerous beliefs himself.

What's your opinion? Are people really frightened that they will have to "share their wealth" with the have-nots? Wasn't that already happening through income taxes and welfare programs? What is Beck stirring up, fear that it will increase?

Do you think this might show how difficult it is to call upon 18th century ideology and apply it to today's society? Isn't that what the gun folks do when citing the 2nd Amendment as their authorization?

What's your opinion? Is there a real point to Glenn Beck's ranting?

Please leave a comment.

Oregon Woman Fends off Rapist

katu.com from Portland, Oregon reports on a story of a potential rape victim who protected herself with a rifle.

Police have arrested a man after a woman was sexually assaulted in her own home in Forest Grove, just west of the Portland suburb of Hillsboro.

Floyd Dale Elliott faces rape and burglary charges after being accused of entering the victim's home in the middle of the night last month.

Police said he then tried to rape her.

The woman reportedly grabbed a gun, hidden near her bed, and started firing. No one was hurt.

The victim's friends identified Elliott in the investigation. Elliott was arrested without incident.

That's the original story as reported in the local media. Of course I'm extremely happy for the outcome of this near-tragedy, but I wondered if anyone else is bothered by the idea of someone shooting a rifle wildly inside a house or apartment. Isn't that dangerous? I'm thinking about my next-door neighbors doing that while my kids are playing within sight of their windows. But, as I say, I'm happy for the end result.

The article contained an update:

We're told that the woman grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott's general direction, and he ran off.

Police arrested him not long after the incident in his van on Forest Grove's Fir Road. Police tell KATU that Elliott did not break in, as other media has reported.

Police said the house was unlocked and the suspect let himself in. A burglary charge still applies, since he was not supposed to be there.

Now, this makes me wonder what really happened. The original report said he "tried to rape her." But the update says she, "grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott's general direction, and he ran off." It's hard for me to reconcile those two facts. Originally I pictured her wrestling with the guy, kicking and fighting him off, and heroically reaching her rifle and firing it wildly, which scared him off. But the undate puts all that in doubt. So, I wonder what really happened. What do you think?


And what about the door being unlocked? I'm not saying anything that could be misconstrued as blaming the victim, but I'm just asking if it makes sense that someone could be so concerned for her safety that she keeps a loaded rifle near the bed, and leaves the door unlocked? Is that possible? Maybe kaveman can tell us since this is his neck of the woods.

What's your opinion? Is this one of the exceptions to my idea that "guns are bad news for women," or does it disprove my theory, or is it something else altogether?


What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.