Saturday, December 23, 2006

Crime Scene Investigation

This morning, my front yard became a crime scene!

At about 7:30 a.m., I went out to get the paper. Strangely, the paper was on my front stoop, not in the driveway, as usual. Then I noticed that my garden hose, attached to a bib by the front door was laid across the stoop, across the front walk, and out to the driveway--and the water was running.

I stepped out front, and on the lawn on the other side of the driveway, was a large metal safe that had been cut open with a torch. Lying in front of the garage door were three shotguns. By the safe was an empty handgun holster. Ammunition was strewn all over the driveway.

When I called 911 to report the situation, I learned that police units had already been dispatched to a nearby house. Before long, a neighbor came by, and explained that two safes had been taken from his garage. One was on our lawn. The second was found later in the driveway of a house on the other side of the street, a couple of doors down. The guns all belonged to my neighbor, who is a hunter. Apparently, the only thing missing from the safe in my yard was a large amount of cash.

The neighbor said that a similar robbery took place on the street next to ours about a month ago. Articles from that robbery had been strewn along the footpath in the green belt that surrounds our tract.

Soon, more police units were here, along with a sergeant, and a detective. They interviewed Bonnie and me. We had gone to bed about 10:30 Friday night. Our dogs woke us as usual a few minutes before 7:00 this morning. Neither we nor the dogs had heard anything. The master bedroom is at the back of the house, and we use one of those white noise generators to mask out sound at night. The police checked the area around the house, but found no signs of the perpetrator(s).

Bonnie and I went about our business. We went shopping for groceries that we need for our Christmas Eve dinner. When we returned, the police were still here. They called in a tow truck to pick up both of the safes. It was after 11:00 a.m. before everyone was gone and things were back to normal. The police took my garden hose as material evidence. They said it may have fingerprints or DNA on it.

I wonder if I will ever find out who committed the robbery. I am pretty sure, though, that I will never see my garden hose again.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Gun Control

This is another issue that tends leads to a polarization between the right and the left. An email is going around on the subject, which I will quote in part:

  • In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Those are some dramatic statistics. Certainly, the confiscation of firearms by a dictatorship strengthens the dictatorship, and makes it easier to dispatch any opposition. But it is unlikely that something like that would or could happen in the United States.

The email proceeds to quote some ambiguous and misleading data about the recent 'buy back' gun control program in Australia. Snopes.com provides data that clarifies or refutes the statements in the email:

"It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:..."

Snopes states that the program was put in place in 1997. People who needed guns for professional or valid personal safety reasons were permitted to keep theirs, except for semi-automatic or pump action weapons.

"Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent."

According to Snopes, the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. The absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.

"Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!"

But, Snopes says, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years: 1995 -27.8%, 1996 - 25.3%, 1997 - 24.1%, 1998 - 17.6%, 1999 - 15.2%, 2000 - 14.0%

"In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)"

Snopes comments that Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.

Although I have never owned a gun, I have strongly opposed any law that would prohibit personal ownership of a firearm. I was even a member of the NRA for a few years. I believe that individuals should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or personal protection. It appears that the states that allow persons to carry concealed handguns have, in fact seen reductions in armed robbery.

But I see no need for private ownership of automatic or rapid fire assault weapons. These are the tools of war and police action. A private individual has no more need for them than he has for a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. And I see nothing wrong with the use of background checks to deter people with mental problems or criminal records from purchasing guns. So I think there is a middle ground on the regulation of firearms ownership.

Let's face it, outlawing private ownership of guns will not solve the problem of gun-related crime. The bad guys are going to get their firearms anyway, by deception and theft. The good guys should be allowed to possess firearms too. A person who complies with reasonable laws related to the purchase of his firearm will likely comply with the laws regarding its use.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Politically Correct Education

Elizabeth Kantor wrote in the Boston Globe about how researchers from the University of Connecticut interviewed 14,000 undergraduates at 50 colleges across the nation and determined that seniors know less about American history and government than entering freshmen.

In these 50 schools, students spend 4 years with professors who no longer teach English Literature, the classics, or any of the other pillars of Western civilization. If modern college students study "dead white men" such as Homer, Lincoln, and Shakespeare at all, it's to expose and condemn their patriarchal oppression, racism, and imperialism. Professors ignore Shakespeare's beautiful language and his insights into human nature, and teach instead that Macbeth promoted the domestication of women. They replace Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and John Milton with Erica Jong, comic books, or "queer theory." By graduation, the students have learned only that everything that happened before they were born was either irrelevant or wrong.

These dumbed down students may eventually become our corporate leaders, our prominent businessmen, even our senators and congressmen. And, worse yet, they will raise the next generation of children. They think they are smart, but they are totally ignorant of the knowledge of the ages.

You can read Ms Kantor's article here: Unlearning Literature

So if you or your children are in the process of selecting a college, take a close look at the course descriptions. Select a school that still teaches the beauty and wisdom in Shelley's sonnet, Ozymandias. Choose a college where both the exploits and the mistakes of Odysseus, Beowulf, and King Lear are analyzed. Avoid the colleges where the beauty and wisdom of the classics have been replaced by self-serving politically correct drivel. We owe it to our children and to the future of our society.

Elizabeth Kantor is the author of a book titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. It may well be worth reading.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Discrimination

Ooooh, there's a nasty word. It is not as nasty as the 'n' word, but for some people, discrimination is indeed an inflammatory word. While there is some bad discrimination, however, there is a lot more good discrimination. In fact, life would be a sorry lot if people did not discriminate.

For example, take the process of selecting apples at a produce store. We choose the apples we will buy on the basis of our past experiences and on what people have told us about the freshness, the size, the color, and the taste and texture of the different varieties. Rotten apples, we know, are not good for us. We also eliminate apples that are bruised, or that have worms. Green apples, we know, are good for baking in pies, but they taste a little too tart for some people when we eat raw. The Yellow Delicious apples are sweet and juicy, but sometimes have a pithy texture. Then there are the Macintoshes, the Romes, the Jonathans, and dozens of other types that vary in size, color, flavor and texture. If the apples are too large, they won't fit in the children's lunch boxes; too small, and they are a pain to cut and peal for that pie. We use our knowledge to match the apple with our specific needs and tastes. People with different needs and tastes will select different apples. I really enjoyed my last efforts at apple discrimination. I got some Jonagolds--a cross between the Golden Delicious and the Jonathan. They are yellow with a bright red blush, tart and crisp like the Jonathan, and large and juicy like the Delicious.

So discrimination is the process of making choices based on our knowledge and our past experience. We use it to choose a place to live, to select an automobile, even to select a spouse. Good discrimination produces good results--delightful experiences. Those who say discrimination is bad have encountered the results of poor choices. Either they had to live with the results of a bad choice, or they were the person who was rejected by somebody who was making a bad choice. It is not discrimination that is bad; rather, it is the inaccurate knowledge, incomplete knowledge, or unrepresentative experiences of the person who makes the choices that is bad. Which knowledge we use is also important. In the example of the apples, I did not use price as a basis for the choice. In my store, all of the apples cost about the same, and a small price difference had no bearing on my decision. For a poorer person, saving a few pennies on the price may have been more important than having to cut away a bruise or two.

For a discrimination to produce good results, the knowledge upon which it is based must be valid, relevant, and complete. We get our knowledge from other people or from direct experience. When our knowledge is tainted with lies, when we fail to consider all of the relevant facts, when we consider unimportant or irrelevant facts, or when we generalize from one bad experience, our discrimination is faulty, and potentially leads to bad choices.

Unfortunately, some of us learn untrue things. Even more unfortunately, some of us are so stubborn that we refuse to replace the lies with facts. We refuse to accept and believe the truth. That is to say, some of us are prejudiced. The bad thing, then, is not discrimination; the bad thing is prejudice, the stubborn unwillingness to replace myth with fact.

So go forth and get accurate knowledge. Use it wisely and without prejudice. Then enjoy the fruits of discrimination, because discrimination is necessary for our well-being.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Yet Another Police Incident

They are calling it "the 50-bullet shoot-out." In New York City, Sean Bell, age 23, was holding his bachelor party at a strip club. He was to be married the next day. Bell left the club and went to his car. An undercover officer at the scene believed that Bell was going to retrieve a gun and return to the club. The officer ordered Bell to stop, police said, but Bell instead tried to run him down. The officer fired, and then other officers began shooting, killing Bell and wounding his two companions.

The details are sketchy at best, and we'll have to wait for completion of an investigation before we know the whole story.

As usual, though, the critics of the Police Department are screaming about the racist cops and their excessive use of force. These critics, of course, don't need to wait for an investigation. They already know the REAL facts.

It's very possible that the firing of 50 shots was absurdly excessive. But perhaps the officers felt that some of the 'friendly fire' was directed at them. We need to consider, too, that a mere 5 gunshots might possibly have been just as lethal. The issue is not how many shots were fired, but rather whether any shots should have been fired.

The critics cry, "racism," even though some of the officers involved were blacks and hispanics. We are now being fed the ridiculous lie that the police have "institutional racism;" that policemen are all trained to be anti-black.

Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided already. He says that he met with Bell's family, and determined that the boys were unarmed, and that they had done nothing wrong. Of course his family believe that. But I think we still deserve to learn the unvarnished facts of the situation. If Bell did, as the police say, refuse to stop and instead try to run an officer down, then he did indeed do something wrong--something that triggered the shooting. If, on the other hand, when he was told to stop, Bell had calmly said, "yes sir," and exited his car, the entire incident probably would have not occured.

The problem is, neither Bell's parents nor we know exactly what happened. That is why there should be an impartial investigation.

In the absence of facts on this specific incident, simple statistics should help us to assess the most likely circumstance. Just do the math: If, say, 5 police officers out of 100 are either racist, or excessively brutal, or both, there is a 5% chance that a courteous and obediant citizen may suffer some harm when stopped. On the other hand, there is probably a 99% chance that a citizen who refuses to obey and attacks an officer is going to get hurt or killed. Given the choice of how to behave, I will take the 5% alternative every time. And it is very likely that the unfortunate Sean Bell unwisely trod the 99% path.

Why, then, do we continually criticize our police and cripple them with absurdly restrictive rules of operation? Why do we refuse to accept the consequences of our own actions? Why do we refuse to teach ourselves and our children to behave properly when approached by the law? Those who are so eager to deny any ownership of the problem and who rush to blame it all on "racists" are the real racists and the real villains.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Classical Music on the Web

I don’t know if you ever listen to classical music on your computer, or not. Even though the fidelity is limited by the (cheap) speakers on my machine, I used to open Windows Media Player, click on the radio tab, and select from the 10 classical music links that were offered by MSN. Usually, I chose “Mostly Classical,” which is offered by sky.fm. This gave me an alternative to cranking up the big stereo and listening to the local stations.

When I went to do that today, the Windows Media Player radio tab popped up an offer for a free trial of Napster, eventually, leading, they hope, to a paid subscription. The list of MSN stations is apparently no longer available. I guess Microsoft thinks that I want to pay for my radio music.

At first, I googled and accessed the sky.fm site, and found Mostly Classical, which opens just fine in Media Player. Problem solved.

Then, I did some more searching and found the following page, which attempts to list and link to ALL of the classical music stations that are available on the web: http://www.classicalwebcast.com/usa.htm. Now I have an even wider choice than MSN used to offer.

For those of you who listen on your computers, I am also putting the link in my side bar.