There are times I like to think I'm smarter than the average bear. But then I realize that only holds true so long as the bear doesn't have the home field advantage.
There's lots to know and experience in life, and none of us knows everything about everything in every circumstance.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
One Reason Why America is Different
Guns scare most people, and with good reason. Perhaps as much as anything, the right to keep and bear arms represents the very nature of the relationship of the People to their government. As someone once summarized, the People have a government, not vice versa. The Second Amendment is both a manifestation and a reminder of that fundamental arrangement.
Charles C.W. Cooke, a former(?) Briton who writes for National Review recently had an article published about this. He grew up believing that Americans were "batty" and wondered, "Who needs an AR-15? What is all this nonsense about 'liberty'? If you want to play with weapons, join the military." He started out with that in mind as he put together his thesis in school. As he got into the topic, he discovered some interesting things.
Tench Coxe, the 1789 delegate from Pennsylvania, on the importance of the proposed Second Amendment noted: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
One great quote from Cooke's article, "As Coxe implied, the oft-repeated notion that the Second Amendment exists as an anachronism or was passed to protect 'sport shooting' or 'hunting' is as defective as the idea that the First Amendment exists to protect Shakespeare or the Beatles. Certainly it does those things, too. But primarily such protections were chiseled deep into American scripture in order to afford the people the perennial scope to take their government to task."
He goes on to say, "Nobody doubts what guns do. The important question is, Who in society gets such weapons?" He also points out that it was John Locke's beliefs that led us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as expressed by Thomas Jefferson). "...from the notion that one controls one's body and may defend it, we get the attendant right to bear arms; you can't defend yourself with parchment." "The police, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are employees of the public, not the sole enforcers of public order. Americans who would leave the means of violence in the hands of the state and, inevitably, the criminals would remove the means of self-defense from the one group in American life for whom the social compact was constructed: the People."
It seems to me that there is too much unjustified trust in the government to handle all our affairs. As Mr. Cooke points out, our own history shows that governments can and do go bad, and that "it did happen here." In the 17th century, he notes, "colonies prohibited the sale of guns to Indians, while the 'Black Codes' of 18th-century Louisiana required free French colonists not only to disarm but to beat 'any black carrying any potential weapon.'" "After the Civil War, the Democratic party's own 'Black Codes,' which were designed to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns in the South, had the same execrable purpose. [As a response to this abuse] the first draft of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act rendered it a federal crime to 'deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." It's easy to say it can't happen here, that we can't become like Venezuela. History says otherwise, I think. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
As unpleasant as guns may be to some or many, it seems to me that things would be very different (worse, I think) without them.
Charles C.W. Cooke, a former(?) Briton who writes for National Review recently had an article published about this. He grew up believing that Americans were "batty" and wondered, "Who needs an AR-15? What is all this nonsense about 'liberty'? If you want to play with weapons, join the military." He started out with that in mind as he put together his thesis in school. As he got into the topic, he discovered some interesting things.
Tench Coxe, the 1789 delegate from Pennsylvania, on the importance of the proposed Second Amendment noted: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
One great quote from Cooke's article, "As Coxe implied, the oft-repeated notion that the Second Amendment exists as an anachronism or was passed to protect 'sport shooting' or 'hunting' is as defective as the idea that the First Amendment exists to protect Shakespeare or the Beatles. Certainly it does those things, too. But primarily such protections were chiseled deep into American scripture in order to afford the people the perennial scope to take their government to task."
He goes on to say, "Nobody doubts what guns do. The important question is, Who in society gets such weapons?" He also points out that it was John Locke's beliefs that led us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as expressed by Thomas Jefferson). "...from the notion that one controls one's body and may defend it, we get the attendant right to bear arms; you can't defend yourself with parchment." "The police, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are employees of the public, not the sole enforcers of public order. Americans who would leave the means of violence in the hands of the state and, inevitably, the criminals would remove the means of self-defense from the one group in American life for whom the social compact was constructed: the People."
It seems to me that there is too much unjustified trust in the government to handle all our affairs. As Mr. Cooke points out, our own history shows that governments can and do go bad, and that "it did happen here." In the 17th century, he notes, "colonies prohibited the sale of guns to Indians, while the 'Black Codes' of 18th-century Louisiana required free French colonists not only to disarm but to beat 'any black carrying any potential weapon.'" "After the Civil War, the Democratic party's own 'Black Codes,' which were designed to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns in the South, had the same execrable purpose. [As a response to this abuse] the first draft of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act rendered it a federal crime to 'deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." It's easy to say it can't happen here, that we can't become like Venezuela. History says otherwise, I think. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
As unpleasant as guns may be to some or many, it seems to me that things would be very different (worse, I think) without them.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Electricity Costs
Something is severely wrong with our system when a 15kW diesel generator is cheaper to operate than purchasing electricity from SDGE.
To illustrate, a 15kW generator running at full load consumes about 1 gal/hour, and if you get diesel for a generator you don't pay highway taxes on the fuel, so you're at say $3.50/gallon (that number should be a little high, even in California). $3.50/15kW is $0.23 per kWH. If you've looked at your SDGE bill lately, tiers 3 and 4 are well above that price (and who isn't into those tiers when the baselines are so ridiculously small?).
Granted, a house doesn't run at 15kW continuously, so the exercise is not realistic (at less than 1/4 load, the generator is still likely consuming at least 1/4 gal/hr), but in terms of order-of-magnitude comparisons, it serves as context for SDGE's prices. It's also not convenient to continuously fill a diesel generator every few days (depending on the size of the tank and consumption).
But isn't the main selling point of a utility that they can generate and distribute power more efficiently? That obviously isn't happening here.
Adding insult to injury, 18.8% of the electric portion of my most recent bill has nothing to do with the electricity we've used; it's for "public purpose programs" which are defined as "the costs of certain state-mandated programs (such as low-income and energy efficiency programs)." That's right: 18.8% of my bill is to pay for someone else's electricity.
Another ridiculous factoid: the "distribution" and "transmission" portions of the bill are more than the "electricity generation" cost.
The net result is the same question: how did we get to the point where it's even in the same order of magnitude to generate electricity on your own as purchasing it from a utility like SDGE?
To illustrate, a 15kW generator running at full load consumes about 1 gal/hour, and if you get diesel for a generator you don't pay highway taxes on the fuel, so you're at say $3.50/gallon (that number should be a little high, even in California). $3.50/15kW is $0.23 per kWH. If you've looked at your SDGE bill lately, tiers 3 and 4 are well above that price (and who isn't into those tiers when the baselines are so ridiculously small?).
Granted, a house doesn't run at 15kW continuously, so the exercise is not realistic (at less than 1/4 load, the generator is still likely consuming at least 1/4 gal/hr), but in terms of order-of-magnitude comparisons, it serves as context for SDGE's prices. It's also not convenient to continuously fill a diesel generator every few days (depending on the size of the tank and consumption).
But isn't the main selling point of a utility that they can generate and distribute power more efficiently? That obviously isn't happening here.
Adding insult to injury, 18.8% of the electric portion of my most recent bill has nothing to do with the electricity we've used; it's for "public purpose programs" which are defined as "the costs of certain state-mandated programs (such as low-income and energy efficiency programs)." That's right: 18.8% of my bill is to pay for someone else's electricity.
Another ridiculous factoid: the "distribution" and "transmission" portions of the bill are more than the "electricity generation" cost.
The net result is the same question: how did we get to the point where it's even in the same order of magnitude to generate electricity on your own as purchasing it from a utility like SDGE?
Monday, August 13, 2012
Open Letter to the California State Legislature
Good evening. I am writing you to ask that you OPPOSE SB 249. Please remind your fellow legislators of the following key points:
- The scope of the bill affects every citizen, whether or not they are in their immediate voting district.
- Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
- The use of weapons to commit crimes is already covered by dozens of existing laws.
- The state’s economy is in shambles. Several cities are insolvent with many more on the way. The legislative body has no excuse for focusing on a non-issue like this.
- The proposed bill has no provision for mens rea or criminal intent; it merely criminalizes the actions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens that they were elected to represent, regardless of the fact that they would never commit a “real” crime.
- The proposed bill turns a paperwork violation into a felony.
- Inventing new crimes by criminalizing the existing, legal behavior of good, tax-paying citizens will cost the state untold millions of dollars in defending this unconstitutional bill, millions more will be spent in prosecuting innocent civilians, with yet more millions being spent on housing them in prisons.
- If you want to help, create jobs, not crimes. Get the government out of the way and off the backs of the people so that the economy can grow.
- The more you try to exercise absolute control over everything and everyone, the more you strangle the people, and by extension, the economy.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The War on Drugs
I read recently an article by Conrad Black wherein he argues that the war on drugs is a failure. This argument is not new, but I was surprised to read it in a conservative media source. It brought to mind the words of Austin Farrer, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.), which lead me to ponder on the argument against the legalization of drugs such as marijuana.
In Mr. Black's article, he stops short of arguing that cannabis should be legalized, but gives a number of statistics that suggest that prohibiting it has been an expensive failure. The only downsides he points out fall into half a paragraph where he also dismisses the argument (using statistics) that cannabis use is a gateway drug. Even the negative effects he attributes to cannabis he characterizes as, "less damaging and dangerous to society than alcohol or tobacco."
Among the cannabis characteristics Mr. Black considers "less damaging" is "psychological problems." I find "less damaging" as strange a euphemism as referring to drug use as "recreational". Various medical reports link cannabis use to depression, impotence and other problems. In a time of worldwide financial trouble, not only are we left with the medical bills for these problems, but our society loses out on these individuals' capabilities to create, to better, and to participate.
To argue that cannabis is less damaging than alcohol or tobacco is to effectively make alcohol and tobacco the gateway drugs to cannabis. The former are allowed, goes the reasoning, therefore they should all be allowed; we're already there, and this isn't any worse. And down we go on the slippery slope.
Life and Death
There are some in the world who claim that it is inconsistent to be "pro-life" while also being in favor of the death penalty for crimes such as premeditated murder. The reality is that this argument is specious. It erroneously attempts to find a contradiction where none exists.
It's really this simple: it's the difference between punishing you for your own bad choices and punishing you for someone else's.
The ironic reality is that the only contradiction is in opposing accountability for one's own actions while legalizing and supporting the death of the truly innocent. It is an argument as old as time: In ancient times, slaves were considered "property" and could be treated as inhumanely as their owners saw fit. So too the modern equivalent that innocent embryos are somehow not "life" but only little more than property. The results are awful and terrifying. Such behavior reminds me that whenever people can be persuaded to do evil and to call good evil that "the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice".
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Where are the warning labels?
Many places in the US have regulations and taxes on the purchase or consumption of various items, especially if someone deems them dangerous. For example, you may not be able to purchase Tobacco or alcohol without showing proof of minimum age. Due to pressure by the Federal Government, Tobacco products now carry labels on the product packaging and in the advertising warning of the dangers associated with their use. Advertisements for alcoholic products (apparently voluntarily) include warnings about "responsibly" using their products. You cannot purchase a firearm without showing not just proof of age, but also undergoing a background check and, in some places, passing a basic proficiency test. California even recently passed legislation to require a thumbprint for purchasing ammunition, something not even required for alcohol. For alcohol and Tobacco, on top of the warning labels, we also impose "sin" taxes. But what if there were a product that was far more harmful and addictive than Tobacco or alcohol? Now suppose it carried no warning labels, didn't have any "sin" taxes applied to it, and its distribution network was far more extensive than that used by alcohol and Tobacco?
That product is pornography. Its use is widespread, and its use is found among all age groups. It is highly addictive and some estimates put it at over $100B a year in worldwide revenue. Nowhere does it carry warning labels, and it is available in every household with a computer. The trail of carnage left by pornography range from failed marriages to self-esteem issues among both men and women. It evokes only lust, the same thing that led King David in the Old Testament to commit adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his most faithful soldiers, whom he later had murdered as he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions. Not something to be taken lightly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)