The Constitution really DOES mean what it says

This morning, the 9th circuit court of appeals confirmed that the 2nd amendment is indeed incorporated against the states under the selective incorporation doctrine, in the case Nordyke Vs. King.

This means that the 2nd amendment has a lawful status equivalent to that of the first, fourth, fifth, and other amendments which explicitly protect our fundamental rights.

Of course, that is only lawfully binding within the 9th circuit; but it is expected that other circuits will take judicial notice of the 9ths ruling.

If you aren't familiar with the Nordyke Vs. King; this is the case where a gunshow operator was denied access to use country fairgrounds for their gunshows, because a county ordnance prevented the posession of firearms on county property by anyone other than law enforcement.

The facts of the case as presented to the court are as follows (emphasis in bold and red are mine):

Russell and Sallie Nordyke operate a business that promotes gun shows throughout California. A typical gun show involves the display and sale of thousands of firearms, generally ranging from pistols to rifles. Since 1991, they have publicized numerous shows across the state, including at the public fairgrounds in Alameda County.

Before the County passed the law at issue in this appeal, the Alameda gun shows
routinely drew about 4,000 people. The parties agree that nothing violent or illegal happened at those events.

In the summer of 1999, the County Board of Supervisors, a legislative body, passed Ordinance No. 0-2000-22 (“the Ordinance”), codified at Alameda County General Ordinance Code (“Alameda Code”) section 9.12.120.

The Ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to bring onto or to possess a firearm
or ammunition on County property. Alameda Code § 9.12.120(b).

It does not mention gun shows.

According to the County, the Board passed the Ordinance in response to a shooting that occurred the previous summer at the fairgrounds during the annual County Fair.

The Ordinance begins with findings that “gunshot fatalities are of epidemic
proportions in Alameda County.”

At a press conference, the author of the Ordinance, Supervisor Mary King, cited a “rash of gun-related violence” in the same year as the fairground shooting. She was referring to a series of school shootings that attracted national attention in the late
1990s, the most notorious of which occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.

But the Nordykes insist that something more sinister was afoot. They point to some of King’s other statements as evidence that she actually intended to drive the gun shows out of Alameda County.

Shortly before proposing the Ordinance, King sent a memorandum to the County Counsel asking him to research “the most appropriate way” she might “prohibit the gun shows” on County property.

King declared she had “been trying to get rid of gun shows on Country property” for “about three years,” but she had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution, and been attacked by aggressive gun toting mobs on right wing talk radio.”

At her press conference, King also said that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as
icons of patriotism.”

Without expressing any opinion about King’s remarks, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Ordinance. County officials then exchanged several letters with the
Nordykes.

The General Manager of the fairgrounds asked the Nordykes to submit a written plan to explain how their next gun show would comply with the Ordinance.

As the County Counsel had told the General Manager, the Ordinance did not
expressly prohibit gun shows or the sale of firearms.

An aside from the the blog author: This is in fact a false statement. California statute in conjunction with federal law (i.e. the sum total of requierments imposed by boths sets of statutes combined; not each set individually), requires that firearms transfers occur face to face, through an FFL; that the FFL conduct a background check and in person identity verification of the person they are delivering the weapon to at the time of sale, AND at the time of delivery if those times are separate; and that the sale be conducted at the FFLs place of business, an organized gun show, or a licensed auction.


Effectively, the only way they could conduct a gun show, would be to have pictures of guns available, at which time prospective gun purchasers could arrange to meet the FFL later at their place of business to purchase a firearm. It would not even be lawful to explicitly arrange for a sale at the show and then complete the transaction later.

The county council knew, or should have known, that this was the case.

The Nordykes insisted then and maintain now that they cannot hold a gun show without guns; perhaps because they thought it futile, they never submitted a plan.

During the same period, representatives of the Scottish Caledonian Games (“the Scottish Games”) inquired about the effect of the new law on the activities they traditionally held on the fairgrounds. Those activities include reenactments, using period firearms loaded with blank ammunition, of historic battles.

After the inquiries, the County amended the Ordinance to add several exceptions. Importantly, the Ordinance no longer applies to [t]he possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, video, dance, or theatrical production or event, when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event, provided that when such firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant, it is secured to prevent unauthorized use.

This exception allows members of the Scottish Games to reenact historic battles if they secure their weapons, but it is unclear whether the County
created the exception just for them.

By the time the County had written this exception into the Ordinance, the Nordykes and several patrons of and exhibitors at the gun shows (collectively, “the Nordykes”) had already sued the County and its Supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various constitutional violations. The amendment did not mollify them, and their lawsuit has wended through various procedural twists and turns for nearly a decade.

I just want to highlight again one particular passage:

King declared she had “been trying to get rid of gun shows on Country property” for “about three years,” but she had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution, and been attacked by aggressive gun toting mobs on right wing talk radio.”

At her press conference, King also said that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

Disgusting.

Unfortunately the result here is mixed. The circuit has ruled that the 2nd is incorporated against the states; but that it did not overturn the statute in question... I'm not really sure I agree with or follow their reasoning on this one.

The ruling provides that the second amendment is explicitly incorporated against the states, in plain language:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right.

It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.

The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.

We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

There could not be a better, and more unambiguous, declaration of right than this.

What is puzzling to me is how they decided that the county ordnance did not then violate the second amendment.

Yes, they make clear that laws which make exercising fundamental rights more difficult do not automatically infringe upon them (from a legal standpoint); but it seems to me this is a clear cut case of a local government, promulgating a complete ban on the possession of firearms on land controlled by that local government.

Such a ban should be clearly unconstitutional under this analysis.

It would be like saying free speech did not apply on county property, which IS clearly prohibited. Yes, there can be reasonable restrictions, but total prohibition should be right out.

Given the relative weakness of argument supporting the ordnance, and complete lack of precedential support, I can only conclude they were desperately hunting for a reason not to invalidate ALL gun control legislation in one stroke.

Now, the real question, is whether either party is going to continue appealing, and file a petition for certiorari before the supreme court.

Both parties have grounds, and standing to file; and both parties have both incentive and disincentive to do so.

If they do, and the court decides to take it, it would be the second most significant second amendment case ever, after Heller (Heller clearly supersedes Miller, and is therefore more significant)

By the by, if you read the whole ruling (and I recommend you do) there is some extensive discussion of Cruikshank, Presser, and Slaughterhouse. I believe that Heller provided an explicit foundation for all three to be overturned (at least partially).

Actually I believe that proper jurisprudence suggests they should be overturned as having had no facial validity in their initial rulings, being clearly against the principals engendered in the constitution; but Heller gives a precedential foundation for this).

Although I'm generally not a big fan of Hugo Black; I think he had the right concept on the 14th amendment. In fact, I believe it should have been clear without the fourteenth amendment, and merely through the supremacy clause that ALL elements of the constitution as directly related to the people and the protection of our rights (as opposed to the structural components of the constitution) applied to the states.

Also contained therein, is an analysis of the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental individual right, and commonlaw right from before the founding of this nation through the passage of the 14th amendment and beyond; including a discussion of the racist nature of gun control.

The footnotes and citations too contain a wealth of information, this lovely nugget being my favorite:

we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.

In all, the incorporation portion of the ruling and opinion are so well researched, and reasoned, in such depth; that I cannot see how a credible argument could successfully be made against it, given an honest arbiter.

Conversely, the section (only a few paragraphs of a 40 page ruling) arguing that the ordinance did not violate the second amendment was so poorly argued that I can't see how a successful arguement COULD NOT be made against it, given an honest arbiter.

So I say, Alameda County, PLEASE appeal this to the supreme court on incorporation grounds; and to the Nordykes, please appeal the decision to uphold the law.

Thanks ever so much.

Legal Updates

Well, the 9th Circuit (no, I will not refer to it as the 9th Circus, particularly in this circumstance) has finally issued a FINAL ruling concerning the custody/jurisdiction/breaking of international treaty case. Based on the briefs, they have once again ruled in my favor.

Yay!

Also, it does not look likely that we'll be going before the Supreme Court with this issue so I may very well be done with federal courts as a whole.

Double Yay!

However, we have one legal irritation left.

My appeal to the Arizona Appeals Court.

Once again, I was informed the timeline was something between immediate and "2 years from now".

Our brief is due the Tuesday after Memorial Day.

Gah.

On top of that, the death of the truck and the necessity of buying a new vehicle took essentially all of our savings. Plus, I'm going to be out of work for a couple of weeks until I get re-upped for the next phase.

So we have currently outstanding legal bills (ugh) plus more forthcoming (double ugh). Plus, my lawyer's finances have taken a turn for the worst, as most of his clients are businesses, many of which are in trouble. He can't put off payment anymore.

From Chris: The "funny" part of that? Instead of my bonus going to pay down debt as had been planned, what was left after the taxmans bite went straight into buying the truck. That put us in an unhappy spot on the credit cards, as I was planning on paying a bunch of them off either completely, or at least 60% with the bonus money.

So we cut our spending to the bone, sold some stuff, took on some side work, and put off everything we could except the new carry gun; to clear up some cash from the day we bought the truck until this Friday.

In one month, we managed to pull $4,000 together to pay off about half the remaining outstanding credit card debt (we also owe about $4k on furniture. Thankfully it's on zero percent through the middle of next year).

A few minutes after the payments to the credit card companies went through, the lawyer called.

Ironically, it was the legal bills that caused us to run up the cards that high in the first place. We ended up short on cash at the same time as he needed $7,000, so we put everything but the rent on the cards for six weeks, and paid him.

I wouldn't normally have done something like that; but I did it because I had a zero percent balance transfer for life on my higher limit card, so I just transferred all the balances over onto that card. That way at least I wasn't paying interest on it. That's where most of that $4000 went.

Yes I know, that's a bad idea. Unfortunately, when the laywer needs money, he needs money right then.

Now we've been pondering a solution for this problem, and working on said solution, for about 4 months now. We're not going to do what we did last time, which was ask for ideas and end up with a bunch of donations instead (thank you though, because that really did save our collective asses).

This time we have something else in mind entirely, a side business whose proceeds will be going straight to the legal bills as well.

Stay tuned.

Mel

A Pit Bull In My Pocket

No, not the big ass dog currently attempting to lick my face off (he's a bit affectionate); the brand new carry gun sitting there.

As I mentioned in my BAG day post, my wife has snaffled my Kel-Tec P3AT for her daily carry gun; because it's the only gun we own... one of the very few available actually... that she can carry on body without a cover garment.

So, that found me looking for a new pocket carry gun.

S'okay with me, I've been planning on buying one of these since they came out:

That would be a Smith and Wesson, hammerless, 5 shot, J frame, scandium airweight, black non-reflective finish, in .357 magnum; a.k.a. the 340pd.

I've been a j-frame owner before, shot the scandiums (many of them, from .22 up to .44 magnum) many times; and owned a scandium L frame (a 386). I have not however been a scandium J frame owner as of yet.

...Well, until now.


That little cell phone holster there isn't actually a cell phone holder. It holds three 5 shot speedloaders quite nicely; while still allowing easy access, and of course while being very discrete. I actually prefer the Safariland speedloaders for this thing, but I happened to already have four of the HKS units around.

From the factory the gun comes with the UncleMikes/S&W licensed soft kraton version of Craig Spegels boot grips...

... which is great, if you have small hands. I uh... don't.

As you can see, I can barely get a three finger grip on there, never mind a four finger grip. Also, with the bare backstrap, the gun just isn't pleasant to shoot with anything approaching full house loads. .38+p+ is the maximum here.

The factory sights are... rudimentary would probably be a good way of putting it. Trying to site down that little black trough, in the dark, without my glasses on...

Yeah, no.

So, to kill two birds with one stone, I decided to put on a set of Crimson Trace lg-305 overmolded lasergrips. This version of the laser grip lets me establish a full (and comfortable) four finger grip on the gun, as well as giving me the laser.

I'm also considering swapping out the front sight for an XS BigDot, for lowlight redundancy.

The much larger grip lets me fire full house .357 magnum without discomfort (to my hand anyway. my eyes and ears are another question entirely), even though it's so light weight (just 15.5oz loaded).

Initially I had a concern that the size difference in the grip would hurt concealability; but I'll say, I have no problem with it.

Yeah, it's bigger, by quite a bit. Here's the two of them to compare:




It's about a half inch wider, and about a half inch taller, but not as wide through the palm swell. Also, it's sticky (with the soft and grippy Hogue overmolded rubber compound), but not as sticky as the stock grips.

I'll be honest with you, I think it's easier to carry with the laser grips on. It's CERTAINLY a hell of a lot easier to draw and establish a good grip; and with the smooth organic shape, it's very comfortable to carry in my front right jeans pocket, even sitting in the car.

So, how does the 340 compare to my previous carry gun, the P3AT?

It's bigger. Much bigger:


The numbers tell the story, at least somewhat.
Smith and Wesson 340 Personal Defense (PD):

Chambering: .357 magnum (120-158gr loads only. Short barrel loadings better)
Barrel Length: 1.875
Capacity: 5
Thickness: 1.3"
Height: with factory grips 4.3", with CT laser grips (305) 4.8"
Length: with factory grips: 6.375", with CT laser grips (305): 6.775"
Weight: 12.0 oz unloaded, 14.9oz loaded, with CT laser grips (305) 15.5oz loaded

Kel-Tec P3AT:

Chambering: .380 (browning lock type gun, +p are OK unlike blowback guns)
Barrel Length: 2.75"
Capacity: 6+1
Thickness: .8"
Height: 3.6"
Length: 5.2"
Weight: 7.2 oz unloaded (no mag), 10.2oz loaded

The reason I say the numbers reflect the tale somewhat, is that strictly by dimensions the 340 seems to come off quite badly; but the shape of the thing is very good, so the dimensions don't seem to matter as much.

Although the maximum thickness of the 340 is 1.3"; that is of course at the widest part, the round cylinder, which is actually a quite small portion of the gun; and the measurement makes the gun seem far chunkier than it really is.

Most of the 340 is only about a half inch thick, and is organically shaped; as opposed to the Kel-Tec, which is a nearly flat .77" thick, and is very linear. This makes the 340 actually FEEL thinner than the Kel-Tec, and in my experience it is more comfortable to carry in the pocket, and it prints less in most clothing.

Here's a pic showing both of them in their respective pocket holsters (a slightly modified Desantis nemesis for the 340, that is completely and exactly covered by the GuruDave holster for the P3AT):


The holsters are lined up foot and spine above; and the P3AT holster is almost exactly the same size as the 340s holster. The difference is the fair bit of the grip left out on the 340.

Again though, the shape of the thing is what really matters; because in your pocket, it doesn't look like a gun at all. My thigh is rounded, the P3AT is not, so the P3AT shows angles where angles shouldn't be, even with the holster; whereas inside the the holster, the 340 is all smooth curves.

That isn't to say the P3AT is hard to conceal (I've never had someone spot it yet, even trained and aware individuals); but the 340 just looks smoother in the pocket.

And, as I said above, it's a HELL of a lot easier to draw. Even in the holster, the P3AT has a tendency to want to rotate; at least in my pockets (which admittedly, are quite large).

The chambering is of course a major factor here. The 340 is a .357, even though it's only a 1.85" barrel. That means you're only going to get about 1100fps from 124gr at best; along with a HUGE fireball and muzzle blast.

Still, .357 is .357.

Take a look up at the factory grip above again, and you'll notice there is a deep undercut behind the trigger guard, a bare backstrap, and a very sudden and narrow transition into the web of the thumb.

On my hand at least, that means the trigger guard raps my knuckles, the frame hump tries to embed itself into the web of my thumb; and the narrow grip and bare backstrap puts the cylinder latch right against the meaty bit of the side of my thumb just waiting to tear a bit of flesh out if I'm not very careful to keep a thumbs down grip.

All of that says "DON'T SHOOT .357 THROUGH ME" very loudly.

Look again at the LG-305 though. Full 4 finger grip, broader and more hand filling through the palm, nice big rubber bit in the web of the thumb...

Really, with the big grip on it, .357 is not bad at all. I'm not saying it's like shooting a stainless L frame; but it can be accomplished without major drama in the hand... again though, and it may seem like I'm getting repetitious here, but it really must be emphasized; the muzzle flash and muzzle blast are staggering.

The cor-bon super hot .380 that I carry in the P3AT is supposed to be 1100fps, but that's from a 2.5" test barrel. Also that's effectively +p+ and only suitable for locked breech guns.

A P3AT is NOT a 2.5" test barrel, and what you've got is 90gr at around 1000fps from it's dinky barrel (and with a pretty large standard deviation by the way. It's hard to get a consistent burn in such a small barrel).

Buffalo bore has a 90gr load that claims 1100fps and Doubletap a 95gr load that claims 1000, but instead of a test barrel, both say that's their velocity from the P3AT. Both are above Saami +p like the cor-bon; and I'd expect the same kind of results, at 50fps lower than claimed, with a large deviation.

A note about barrel length: The stated length of the P3AT barrel is 2.75" vs. the 340s 1.88", but remember revolver barrels are measured from the forcing cone and don't include the chamber. Automatic barrels are measured from the breech face, so about an inch (.95" actually) of that length is the chamber, and the effective length of the barrel is in fact slightly shorter than the 340.

That's a worthwhile difference in mass, momentum, and energy (about 200ftlbs, vs about 400ftlbs). That means, even with full expansion, generally speaking the .357 is going to give you at least 2" more penetration; which is a big deal.

Now, as I have said repeatedly, any full .357 magnum load is going to give you a MASSIVE fireball and muzzle blast from that short barrel; and it's going to be unpleasant to shoot. For most people, most of the time, I recommend a .38spl +p (or +p+).

If you can get it (it's rarer than a liberal with a clue these days), I cannot recommend Speers gold dot short barrel personal defense ammunition strongly enough.

In either .357 magnum or .38+p it uses the same specially designed 135gr. bullet; made to penetrate, and give good, controlled expansion at the lower velocities of the sub 2" barrel. The loads also use a flash suppressed powder; and a powder charge whose burn rate, and volume is optimized to produce as little fireball, muzzle blast, and extra recoil as possible.

It IS a lower velocity round, at just about 1000fps from the 340, and 340ftlbs of energy; but it is specifically designed to BE a lower velocity round, so you still get good penetration and full expansion. Importantly, you get that nearly non existent muzzle flash, and greatly reduced muzzle blast (still substantial, but greatly reduced).

I plan on carrying the Speer, Doubletap, or Buffalo Bore .357 short barrel loads, if I can ever get 5 boxes together to qualify the gun with it. I'm on waiting lists at Midway, Midsouth, Cheaper than Dirt, and my local stores, and direct from BB and DT.

As it is, the ONLY defensive .357 I've been able to get my hands on is Federal premium self defense 158gr hydrashoks; which is excellent ammo, but not particularly well suited to such a lightweight gun (never go under 120gr or over 158gr on these guns. You'll get pull or setback, which can jam up, or blow up a gaun; and with loads above 158gr, you can possibly get forcing cone cracking and frame stretching).

So, all that said, I'm not particularly recoil sensitive; and with the laser grip, I get a full four finger grip that fills the hand nicely, and helps me control recoil well. That is clearly not the case with the P3AT:

By the by, that's not even an attempt at a shooting grip; it's just that when I have the P3AT in a proper shooting grip the only part of the gun you can see is the slide. I wanted you to see how much of my hand is hanging off in the breeze when I shoot that little gun.

Now honestly, most of the time it doesn't bother me. I can shoot the sucker very well, emptying a mag as fast as I can shoot into a 4" circle at 7 yards; which as far as I'm concerned is EXCELLENT pocket gun accuracy. I've put at least 15,000 rounds through the thing, including about 5000 super hot +p and better loads; and I find it reasonably easy to control and comfortable to shoot.

Well... 'Cept for one thing: with the hot loads, the front of the trigger guard beats the hell out of my trigger finger, and the bottom of it beats up my middle finger (the humped bit recoils right into my knuckle). I can get the best grip in the world on it, after 50 rounds I've still got two hurting fingers. It doesn't stop me from shooting the gun well, but it IS a pain.

Thankfully, Mels fingers are small enough that she doesn't have that problem; though she prefers milder loads to the ones I choose to carry; because she gets a lot more muzzle flip, and with he much smaller and not as strong hands, it's harder for her to control it.

So, which one would I rather shoot with full house loads?

The 340 with the laser grips; no question. Wih the factory grip it would be entirely the other way; but with the laser grip, the gun is quite comfortable and controllable.

... and of course I like having that .357 capability there in case I need it.

All in all, I'm very happy with my new carry gun.

I mean, wouldn't this view just ruin your whole day?:

(don't start snarking in comments about the four rules. The only thing at risk there was a remotely operated camera).

A Three Fer for Buy A Gun Day

Or sort of a Three-Fer anyway.

Yesterday was of course Buy A Gun (BAG) Day here in the good old U.S.A; coterminous with, not coincidentally, tax day.

In celebration and protest of this, we bought two guns, sold one to someone as their BAG day gun, and gave one away.

First, Mel appropriated my P3AT, because it's the only thing we have that she can carry without a cover garment or purse, so I needed a new pocket carry gun.

My next post will cover my new carry gun, along with some nice pics.

The other two guns are sort of a special case.

Our friend and my co-worker, a single woman and inexperienced shooter (she is an army vet, but shes 20 years out, and has only shot a few times in the last few years) recently bought a house.

Well, we sold her one of our guns (the custom HK USP compact .45 with night sights. She prefers autos to revolvers), a couple of different holsters and four spare mags, as her personal defense gun, and BAG day gun.

We also suggested she needed to get a shotgun for her house, with which she wholeheartedly agreed.

As it happens, her birthday is Saturday.

So, JohnOC, Mel and I got together and bought her a Mossberg 500a persuader for her home defense shotgun, second BAG day gun, and birthday present.

Is there any better gift than the tools of self defense, and self reliance?

A Refresher on Philosophy

In comments on The Liberty Papers, I have been asked to explain further my philosophies of liberty, government etc…

I’ve written extensively on the subject before, both here, and there (and when I say extensively I’m talking tens of thousands of words) so I thought I just post some of the more comprehensive and important links here:

My Philosophy:

1. What the Heck is a Muscular Minarchist?
2. The Politics of Liberty
3. Rights Penumbras and Emanation
4. Citizen or Subject?
5. No Philosophy?
6. The Fundamental Problem with Involuntary Collectivists
7. Authoritarian, Libertarian, Anarchist?
8. -isms Part One
9. A Couple of Sad Truths
10. To Amy, and Others who Believe that Government can do Good
11. I Can’t Bleieve I haven’t Explicitly Stated this Here Before
12. Differing First Principles

Read them all and you’ll get a pretty solid idea of the philosophical, moral, and practical underpinnings for the ideas I present here.

Somebody call Robert Rankin

Looks like the HCBOTA have met their match:

The Fundamental Problem with Involuntary Collectivists...

... and in fact leftists of any stripe (and some on the far right for that matter), is that everything they believe is wrong.

Yes, I mean that directly, literally, and completely. Everything they believe is wrong. Incorrect. False.

Everything they believe in is wrong, because it all flows from absolutely wrong first principles, which can best be summarized as:

1. If it makes me feel good, it must be alright
2. If it makes me feel bad it must be wrong
3. If I can get enough people to go along with me, we can do whatever we want, because we say so
4. If someone is very intelligent, and gets a lot of people to agree with him, I should agree with him too or there's something wrong with me
5. If we want something to be true bad enough, no matter what, it is true, because we say so
6. Anyone who disagrees with any of this is wrong and bad
7. Everything we do is right because we say so, and anyone who disagrees with is wrong and bad; therefore anyone who wants to stop us is stupid or evil
8. Anything goes so long as we get what we want

These are not principles at all of course; merely an attempt to rationalize doing what they want to do.

This, fundamentally, is evil, because it abnegates human liberty and the human spirit; and because it recognizes neither morality, nor ethics (one cannot call such notions ethics). Not only does it allow for the tyranny of the majority, it requires it. The will of the collective outweighs all.

Oh and never mind the inherent contradictions there. They are obvious and irreconcilable to a non-collectivist; but somehow not to a collectivist (though at least some distinction has to be made here between involuntary collectivists, and voluntary. The voluntary are still incorrect, but they aren't forcing anyone else into it, so that's OK)

Simply put, the coercive restraint of human liberty is inherently evil. Control of ones person, property, and behavior should be the exclusive province of the sovereign man. The only legitimate limitation of liberty is that which prevents transgression on the liberty of others, or which compensates those transgressed upon.

Collectivism purports to advocate for human liberty; but it does so through restraining it for the good of the collective? Only by giving up your freedom to all can you be free?

Doublespeak, and nothing more.

All they are really saying is, "Give up all your freedom and liberty to us, and we'll LET you do, what WE think you ought to do, when WE think you should do it".

It is entirely about command and control; just as is fascism, or any other kind of totalitarianism. They believe that if you give the "right" people, total control, then all the "right" decisions will be made, and everyone will be better off and happier.

This, frankly, is evil.

Intelligent leftists then spend all their intellectual energy creating increasingly convoluted, twisted, circular, and inductive arguments... no, to call them arguments gives them too much credit, they are in the main, mere tautologies; to justify what they believe in, and why they believe in it; even though reality shows again and again that their ideas are incorrect.

Amazingly, they often reach the same point as non-leftists do, by twisting their reasoning enough to reconcile their false first principles with the way the world really works. After all, at some point you have to say that an orange is an orange, don't you?

And that really is the proof of the thing. Leftists ideas simply do not work. They are not true. They are false. Reality disagrees with them.

When your theory does not match the facts, you must change the theory. Reality doesn't give a damn about your feelings.

The collectivist theory fails utterly. It doesn't match the facts at all. Twisting both the theory and the facts out of all semblance to reality to "prove" your pet theory, does not make it true.

Individualism in a relatively loose collective (a society, no matter the size), is the natural state of man. We are social individuals, but we are individuals.

We may band tighter together at time, when it is to our advantage to survive; but we do so out of enlightened self interest, not of a collective nature.

We may sacrifice, so that others might live, or live better lives; but we do this for the benefit of other individuals, and for that which we believe in; not for the collective.

In all things, we are individuals.

Capitalism is what naturally happens when people get together freely to exchange goods and services.

Private property and competition are what naturally happens when people seek to improve their lives, and their situations.

Unless people are artificially restrained from doing so, their natural condition is one of competition, and markets.

Yes, there are those who will seek to gain advantage by restraining competition, gaining monopolies, imposing laws and regulations... but those are not failures of liberty, failures of markets, failures of capitalism; they are the failures of command and control.

Command and control will always fail. It cannot succeed, because in order to work the commander and controller must have perfect information and perfect reason. Such a thing does not exist. There is no perfect man, nor any perfect collective of men, and there cannot be.

Not only that, but humans by nature are both rebellious beasts, and greedy beasts.

Yes, many are content to be... even crave to be... controlled. Many crave to control others (even if it si only as part of a collective). This is proven to us more and more every day. It was proven quite convincingly just a few months ago; when the great masses voted for a "perfect man", "the one"; the man on a horse, coming to simply sweep in and "heal us all".

There are always enough however who are willing to take advantage, or gain a little extra comfort, or just get a bit ahead, a bit more power, a bit more advantage... On the other side of things, there are always enough who chafe at the yoke, who jump the fence... There are always enough who refuse to be controlled, that the "perfect" system will be taken down from within.

Collectivists, your very foundational ideas are evil and wrong. They don't work. They are proven false every moment by the reality we live in. imposing them on us inevitably fails, and causes incredible misery, death, and destruction along the way.

Of course, this only makes them all the more dangerous. A man who is proven wrong at every turn, but who simply WILL NOT give up... well that is man who will do ANYTHING.

In case anyone needed any further proof...

... that Wil Wheaton really is one of us I present the following:

@WilW (twitter):

"Stupid goddamn plastic package on my new SD card: HAHA YOU CAN'T OPEN ME! Me: Oh. Really? My Leatherman gives me +10 to open, fucker."

You are "The Rich", and you didn't even know it.

Video From Reason.TV:

A lot of folks hear numbers like "the top 5%" of income earners, and they think that means Bill Gates, and fortune 500 CEOs etc...

No, although that's exactly what the government, and the media, would love for you to believe.

It's how they pit us against one another. It is a very deliberate divide and conquer strategy for class warfare; and the fact that 52 million people voted for it shows just how well it's working.

It works, because "The Rich" is always the other guy. You aren't "The Rich" after all, you're "working class" or "middle class" whatever those mean (and who exactly says the "middle class" don't work?).

Nobody wants to pay more taxes (well, except some of the extreme left), and very few people would vote to increase their own taxes; so they employ this class warfare rhetoric to get you to support tax increases on "The Rich", which will supposedly favor you, and "the less fortunate".

The only problem is, according to the government, there's a pretty good chance that You (yes You, with a capital "Y") ARE "The Rich".

How can that be? They're always talking about the "top 1%" or the "top 5%", and again people start thinking about Bill Gates, and bank CEOs, and Wall Street traders...

Actually, the top 5% likely includes a lot of folks you know. Theres a fair chance it includes you. It almost certainly includes people you interact with every day.

When we get down to as low as say, the top 15%, most folks would think that got to be people making like $250,000 a year right?

No, actually people who make $250,000 a year are the top 1% (in fact, anyone over about $180,000 a year is in the top 1%. $250,000 puts you into the top .8% or so).

Wait a sec... the top 1% is just $180,000 a year?

Yes, yes it is.

The estimated individual income numbers for 2008 (actuals wont be available for another two years. Also don't confuse these with household numbers, which account for multiple incomes) look like this:

The "top 1%" of earners in this country, is everyone who makes over about $180,000 a year.

The top 5% is everyone who makes over about $152,000 a year

In case you were interested, $100,000 is the top 5.63%

The top 10% is everyone who makes over $76,000 per year.

The top 15% is everyone who makes over about $64,000 a year.

The top 25% is everyone who makes over about $46,000 a year.

The top 50% is everyone who makes over about $32,000 a year.

So when somebody says "we're going to tax the richest 15% to pay for the other 85%" what they're really saying is anyone who makes more than $32 an hour.

Ayup, if you make more than $32 an hour, guess what, YOU are "The Rich".

If they say "we're going to tax the richest 25%" that means anyone who makes more than $23 an hour.

So, let me ask you, are you rich?

The top 15% pay more than 85% of all income taxes.

The top 50% pay more than 96% of all income taxes.

The bottom 50%, pay less than 4%.

The bottom 40% pay nothing at all.

The bottom 30% are actually PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT (and I don't mean civil servants).

Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, pretty much anyone with more than 10 years experience in any mid-level or higher job, in any professional career field or trade; that most likely puts you into the top 15% or so. Are you rich?

If you own your own business, the government ALMOST CERTAINLY classifies you as earning in the top 10% or higher... of course how much of that you actually KEEP is another story. Are you rich?

If you're reading this right now, demographically speaking, it's very likely you are in the top 15%. Are you rich?

If you have a college degree, live in or near a major city, and have more than 10 years experience in your career field, you are very likely to be in the top 5%, and almost certainly in the top 15%. Are you rich?

I'll tell you right now, I'm in the top 5% of income earners, and with my wifes income we're in the top 5% of household earners (in fact, the top 3%); and we are very definitely not rich.

We don't live an extravagant lifestyle. We have a 1600 square foot house in an old neighborhood in Scottsdale (not one of the McMansion areas), two used cars that were both under $30,000 each when we bought them, and we send our two kids to Catholic school that's subsidized by the parish, or else we couldn't afford it. We don't have a vacation home; no RV, no boat, no vacations to Switzerland every six months...

We're not rich.

As far as the government is concerned though, we are "The Rich".

In fact, it's very likely that you are "The Rich" too.

What they're really saying when they talk about "taxing the rich", is taxing you. Because as far as the government is concerned, unless you're taking money from them, hey, YOU'RE RICH.

Wife unit shaving the shaggy dog..

Amusing pics to follow.

Here's a before just for some perspective (these are 2 years old. He was even shaggier this morning):

Our Tax Day Protest, and Celebration

We’re not going to a tea party; mostly because we have jobs, and also because I think they’re both great, and ineffective.

Great, because it’s amazing that so many people are making it known publicly that they don’t want to have their freedoms abridged, and more of their money stolen from them.

Ineffective because basically all protesting is ineffective; unless the media is actively on your side, and making the protests seem huge, and significant etc….

Let’s face it folks, we could have 5 million people out there on tax day; the media would still report it as “a few right wing whackos, who are racist because they don’t support Obama, and hate poor people because they don’t want to have the government steal all their money”.

The only media reporting on the Tea Parties in any meaningful way (including the supposedly conservative Fox news; who are reporting in their typical populist and shallow manner) are the alternative conservative and libertarian media; like our blogs and other websites, and talk radio.

In effect we are playing to the home crowd with the Tea Parties. It’s a great pep rally and all; and I’m glad they are happening, but I don’t want to participate.

Besides which, there’s a lot of standing around at these things, and I’ve got bad knees.

I prefer more direct action. Lawsuits are a good start. Refusing to pay unlawful and unconstitutional taxes are also good; and generally result in lawsuits or even criminal prosecutions which can be taken to the supreme court etc…

Also, direct contact with your congresscritters tends to have at least some effect… sometimes… Make them understand that their constituents won’t vote for them if they don’t vote for tax cuts, spending cuts, etc…

So instead of standing around and getting all shouty, our tax day celebration and protest will involve pork.

Not the kind that Washington generates; the kind that you eat with sauce, beer, and cornbread. We’re going to be smoking pounds and pounds of pork, and then consuming it; along with other delicious comestibles.

We’re also going to be playing with firearms, and consuming large quantities of alcohol (obviously not simultaneously). We’d throw tobacco in for the full ATF trio, but none of us actually use the stuff.

I wish this was jsut a joke...

Where's the Outrage?

Off to the HamFest, in the rain

Which in most other places wouldn't be that unusual, but this IS Phoenix after all.

Of course being a hamfest, I doubt the rain will bother folks much... If you don't know hams, it can be hard to explain; but basically they're like the post office. Neither rain nor snow, nor gloom of night can deter them from their Elmerish pursuits.

Anyway, I need a new antenna for my HT (a Yaesu VX-5R, 6m/2m/70cm TX broadband RX). The factory stock rubber ducky has a hard time hitting a repeater just 5 miles away with 5 watts, and that's just sad.

For the uninitiated, "my HT" refers to my hand held portable radio transceiver; a compact model manufactured by Yaesu (A.K.A. Vertex Standard) electronics in 2004 (they've come out with a couple newer models since and discontinued mine), capable of transmitting on the 6 meter (50mhz), 2 meter (144mhz) and 70cm (440 mhz) ham bands, and receiving signals on many more bands, above, below, and between the ham bands (like AM and FM radio, public safety bands, aviation bands etc...).

My particular VX-5R is also modified to act as an aviation transceiver; however as transmitting on those bands is unlawful for non-aviation purposes, I don't transmit on that band ever. I did the modification so that I could signal aircraft in an emergency.

Oh and why do they call them HTs? Handie-Talkie is what Motorola called the first one in 1941, and hams are... let's just be polite and say a conservative and traditional bunch. They were called HT's 68 years ago, they're called HTs today.

People have backronymed it to "Handheld Transciever" but that's just so they don't have to admit to being old fuddie duddies (even the young ones).

Seriously, I'm not sure who is more conservative, hams, or gun owners... of course there IS a pretty significant overlap....

UPDATE: Well, that was a bust. Apparently, it was quite busy... from 6am to 8am; but by the time we got there, most folks had already buggered off.

Thankfully it seems they buggered off all of 300 yards away, to the local Ham Radio outlet; and I was able to get a new antenna for the HT. Actually I picked up two: One zero attenuation mini stubby (a Comet SMA-501), and one Diamond high gain 1/4 wave whip).

Zero attenuation in this instance refers to the fact that the stubby little antennae has no attenuation (loss of signal strength) compared to an equivalent end feed 1/4 wave vertical antenna, on both 2m and 70cm (which means it is electrically the same as a simple wire antennae 19" long for 2m operation, or 7" long for 70cm). Not bad for an antennae less than 2" long.

High gain, in this instance, refers to the fact that the Diamond whip antenna exhibits increased signal strength as compared a plain wire 1/4 wave end feed. Theoretically this particular antenna has 2.15 dbi gain (slightly less than doubling of signal strength. Every 3db is an approximate doubling of strength) on 70cm, and 6dbi gain on 2m (approximately 4 times the effective signal strength).

Unfortunately, because of the inverse square law, an increase in effective strength only actually increases the range you can transmit or receive by the square root of the increase (and that's in a vacuum, not accounting for terrain, interference, or atmospheric attenuation). So a +3dbi gain, or doubling of signal strength, gives you about a 40% improvement in range; and a quadrupling of signal strength only gives you a 100% increase in range.

And of course, that's only the theoretical physics of it. The real world DOES include terrain, and atmosphere, and other such inconveniences, which dramatically effect your range. In the real world, a +3dbi or even +6dbi increase only gives you maringally more usable range; because although you get a lot more theoretical maximum range, the signal at that extended range is still too weak to be useful (it's called being below the noise floor).

The Diamond is one of the antenna models I was interested in and specifically looking for; and HRO had it (Actually both of them) for well off list. It seems like a significant improvement over the factory rubber ducky. I'm having no problem hitting several repeaters I couldn't hit before. 'Course, it is twice the length of the factory whip (more flexible though).

The stubby is very useful for local short range operations, like car to car in convoy; and it is only very slightly less effective than the factory rubber duck. Plus, it's TINY (1-3/4"), fits into small spaces and isn't likely to snag on anything or break off.

While JohnOC and I were driving over there, I discovered the PTT on my headset was dead, so I also picked up a new speaker mike (about half the price of a new PTT headset, and more comfortable to use most of the time anyway).

I also snagged the 2009/2010 repeater director, the Gordon West tech, general, and extra manuals for Mel and I to study (Mel is now thinking she at least wants to get her general), and the 9th edition operating manual (I only have the 8th edition). I figure 'tween all those, we should be good to go.

'Til the last shot's fired

General and Extra Irritation

So as part of my efforts towards better preparedness and "getting to where we want to be" I'm upgrading my amateur radio operators license from Technician Class, to Amateur Extra within the next month or so (basically whenever I can find an exam session I can make it to).

I'm going to write a much bigger post about amateur radio communications in general, it's usefulness as a communications service especially in emergency situations, and it's practical applications and usage. That's one of the really big posts that I haven't had time to finish yet in fact.

Right now though, I'm just a little irritated, because theres a TON of this stuff that I SHOULD remember, that I don't. I have TWO frikken engineering degrees, and have been working with electronics since I built my first crystal set at age 6; but I've forgotten about 1/2 of the basic circuit diagrams, symbols, practices, and general electronic principles and rules, that I KNOW... they just aren't coming to me.

Stupid stuff like that. It bugs me. 'Course we all know, it is true, if you don't use it you lose it.

Anyway, I've been running the General class practice tests for about an hour now, and I'm up to getting consistently between 30 and 35 out of 35 (you need 25 out of 35 to pass); I just keep missing the silly stuff.

Oh and I need to work on remembering my operating privileges and bands better; and the weird and obscure regulations better. At least I tend to remember those after the first time I see them.

My other amateur friends have been bugging me a while (like since 2007 when they dropped the code requirements) when I was going to do the extra upgrade. Well, you've got your answer. Now I need to get JohnOC to upgrade with me.

Oh and Mel is going to get at least her tech as well.

Anybody know a good, free, CW tutorial available online? I'm horrible with code and I really should practice.

More Good Stuff from Camille Paglias' Mailbag

Remember a few months ago I mentioned I have a great deal of respect for Camille Paglia? Well here she goes again:

Something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power. The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak. (A superb 1990 documentary, "Berkeley in the Sixties," chronicles the arguments and misjudgments about tactics that alienated the national electorate and led to the election of Richard Nixon.) For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding -- there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play. Probably the main reason for my unorthodox view of politics (as in my instant approval of Sarah Palin) is that I had much more childhood contact with working-class life than appears to be the norm among current American columnists. One of my grandfathers was a barber, and the other was a leather worker at the Endicott-Johnson shoe factory in upstate New York. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, my father was able to attend college, the only one in his large family to do so. I was born while he was still in college and mopping floors in the cafeteria. Years later, he became a high-school teacher and then a professor at a Jesuit college, but we never left our immigrant family roots in industrial Endicott. To this day, I have more rapport with campus infrastructure staffers (maintenance, security) than I do with other professors or, for that matter, writers. Don't get me started on the hermetic bourgeois arrogance of American literati!

Read the whole thing; it's definitely worth a few minutes of your time.

For the two thirds of my readers...

Who stop reading blogs sometime Thursday afternoon, don't start again until Monday morning; and don't bother reading what they missed over the weekend; here's a list of the posts I wrote during my unusually productive weekend.


I started a new series of posts called "Getting to where we want to be":

Introduction

Part 1 - Goals

Part 2 - Broke Down

Patellar straps (a followup on broke down)

Here's where I bitch about getting a new CrackBerry

Finally, here's a post I wrote about the nature of Boston liberalism, and the failure of the Boston Globe.

For the rest of my readers who DO read over the weekend: Sorry, it was a ridiculously busy day at work today and the content I'm working on is long, and requires a lot of intellectual time energy I don't have right now.

I'll be back later with fun and interesting stuff.

The Trouble with Boston

The parent company of the Boston Globe newspaper, the New York Times; has threatened to shut the Globe down if they cannot get at least $20 million in savings out of the paper for next year.

[The story] quoted an unnamed person saying that in the meeting, management said that without the concessions, The Globe would lose $85 million in 2009. The Times Company chairman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and Catherine J. Mathis, chief spokeswoman for the company, each declined to comment or confirm the article. The company paid $1.1 billion for The Globe in 1993, the highest price ever paid for a single American newspaper, and it was highly profitable through that decade. But in recent years, the erosion of advertising and newspaper circulation has been more severe in the Boston area than in most of the country. Advertising revenue for the industry fell 16.6 percent in 2008, according to the Newspaper Association of America. The Times Company also wants to end a provision in The Globe’s contracts that gives certain employees lifetime job guarantees.

Well, first of all, seeking $20 million in cuts, in a paper that is losing $85 million a year seems... Absurdly inadequate I think is the phrase I'm looking for?

Also the fact that there are still lifetime job guarantees in today's economy ought to be a pretty strong indicator of a company that isn't exactly caught up to the realities of business today.

Though it's not mentioned in the story, I happen to know those lifetime guarantees are printers union jobs. I've known a few people who had them. They also had (and have) RIDICULOUS pensions as well. People retiring at 55 (30 years as a master printer plus 7 years as an apprentice and journeyman, hired on right out of highschool) with 120% inflation indexed pensions and full gold plated medical for life.

Any concession they wrung on those lifetime guarantees would almost certainly NOT include losing those pensions and medical benefits of course.

Aside from the structural problems however, the article credits the decline in advertising revenues; saying only that the Boston market was harder hit than New York.

Really? Because other papers in the market aren't seeing nearly the decline that the Globe is...

In fact, the Globe has been in decline faster and steeper than the other papers in the region, for about 16 years now. In 2008 the Globe's average weekday circulation fell to 350,605, down from 382,503, or 8.3 percent. Sunday circulation fell 6.5 percent to 525,959.

The competing newspapers for the Boston Area, the Boston Herald, and the Patriot Ledger (and to a lesser extent, a smaller local paper, "The Enterprise"), are doing alright... as much as any newspaper is anyway. Both are down about 4%, HALF the decline of the Globe; and counter to the general trend in the newspaper business (actually in most any business) of the second and third papers in a market (which they are) losing more circulation in a downturn than the market leader.

The important thing there is, the Herald and Ledger are both TRULY local; and more conservative than the Globe, especially on social issues. Though they are now owned by the same publisher (as of 2006, The Enterprise), they maintain their respective moderate center right, and moderate center left stances.

In addition to the general downturn in newspapers over the past 20 years, the Globe has lost more and more circulation, as it has moved further and further left; and especially as it has been controlled more and more by the editorial voice and opinions of the NY Times corporation.

The Globe is very clearly a left newspaper. They spent most of their 137 year history as a center left paper, drifting gradually more to the left since the depression; until they turned SHARPLY left, with the takeover by the NY Times (though they are in fact still not as far left as the Times).

Ok, Boston's something like the tenth most liberal major city in America, in the second most liberal state* right?

Well... Not really.

Massachusetts has a reputation as a very liberal state, and Boston a very liberal city; and to an extent that's true. Certainly it is reflected in the states voting record, and much of it's congressional contingent.

However, regarding Massachusetts as a liberal stronghold, fails to take into account the true nature of the states liberalism.

The vast majority of the Boston area is blue collar, and low level white collar, union, catholic, old line northeast democrats; with a significant minority of what we used to call Boston Brahmin democrats (rich, socially and politically conservative on a personal basis; but they support liberal politicians to seem "progressive", to make sure "the right people" run things, and because democrats are easier to buy off).

Outside of the immediate Boston area, Massachusetts is basically politically identical to western Pennsylvania. It's union Democrats, and center right Republicans; pro gun, pro hunting, pro business, and anti-leftist. Hell, still today, Western Massachusetts, and the adjoining parts of Connecticut and New York, are the firearms manufacturing capital of the western world.

I was born and raised in Boston, and just south of it. I know it. I lived it for more than 20 years (combined. I left, and then moved back during the .bomb). I was born in Southie, and have lived in Southie, Roslindale, West Roxubry, Dorchester, Mattapan, Milton, Quincy, Canton, Randolph, Newton, Dover, and Marlborough (not in that order).

I'm Boston Irish; with an Irish immigrant father, and a second generation mother. We're walking stereotypes. My family are all either cops, criminals, lawyers, politicians, teachers, nurses, firemen, civil servants, or tradesmen (or sometimes more than one of the above). Blue collar and low level white collar, social and political conservative, Democrats (well... I've got an aunt and an uncle who are ridiculous lefties, and a pair of uncles who are to the right of Pat Buchannan... but they're outliers).

Let me tell you, people from the area may vote Democrat; but they aren't anything like the Democrats in San Francisco or LA (except Cambridge and Brookline anyway).

What Boston area Democrats are, is machine voters. Democrats bring back more pork, more jobs, grant more favors etc...

If you want to be a part of the machine, you become a democrat, that's how it is.

If you want a building permit, you go to your cousin, the selectman, and he talks to the zoning commissioner for you. Of course, all the selectmen for your area are democrats. If you want a construction contract, you go to the public works commissioner, your brother in laws old friend; also a Democrat. In fact all the public commissioners are Democrats too.

That's how it is.

These folks aren't leftists by any stretch, and in fact aren't particularly socially liberal.

Just ask a gay man from Boston how easy it was to come out; or BE out, outside of downtown, Newton, Cambridge, and Brookline. Ask him if he would walk in Southie alone at night; or EVER, hand in hand with his boyfriend.

So when the Globe is run by clearly anti-American, anti-religious, anti-catholic, anti-israel, pro-islam, New Yorkers (even though it has local editorial and reporting staff)... Well, people just don't like it.

The Herald on the other hand does just fine with a center right viewpoint, a great sports page, a strong focus on being local issues, and criticism of Washington, no matter who is in power.

Funny enough, that suits Bostonians just about right.

* An aside for those of you counting more liberal cities and states: San Francisco, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, New York and Newark (not necessarily in order); and for states, California.

HT: Doug Mataconis

A Little Music for My Current Mood

Oh, how I feel his pain

Somehow, I don't think this means to them, what it means to us

A Crackberry User Once More

No, I'm not giving up my iPhone 3g. I love it, I use it constantly, and once jailbroken with useful non Apple apps added, it's exactly what I need in a PDA, a phone, and a portable personal computing device (minus the few Apple induced annoyances).

I've been resisting this for three years at work. Unfortunately, our workload has doubled over the past six months, and is going to double again over the next six months. We've already added one more person, and we NEED to add four more people.

So instead of leading a group of six (including me) I'll be leading a group of 10.

Plus I'm more and more involved in stuff for our CIO, and for the entire enterprise as a whole...

Anyway, yesterday my boss rather pointedly suggested to me that it was past time for me to have a mobile device 'pon which I could send and recieve corporate email.

Now technically speaking, I know a hack to let my iPhone do that; but that wouldn't be enterprise approved, and would be against security policy etc... etc...


Also, corporate mandate is now (well, it actually always had been but up 'til now they weren't enforcing it) that we can't tether, connect, sync, download etc... off our corporate systems with any non corporate devices. No pdas, cellphones, smartphones, external hard drives, or memory cards; and no syncing to external services like gmail or mobileMe.

Understand, my life is run off my outook calendar. I'm double booked 4 hours a day most days; and I can't keep things straight without calendar and contact syncing.

So I will once again be dragged kicking and screaming into crackberry land; and will also be a multi cellphone user once more.

At least it's not like when I was on call for a secured facility. I had my on call phone (secure), my secure phone, my non-secure phone (and yes, they made us have one of each. The ones that operated in both modes weren't out yet), my satellite two way pager, and my personal phone to deal with.

Yes, I was a walking Dilbert cartoon.

They gave me the choice of Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon; but if I went through either T-mobile or Sprint I'd have to pay the bill myself and then get reimbursement... Verizon it is then.

Then they gave me the choice of the 8130 (pearl), 8330 (Curve), the 8830, or the 9530 (storm).

Firstly, none of them have WiFi, which irritates the hell out of me. The T-Mobile versions have WiFi, the chipset supports WiFi, but Verizon doesn't want their customers using WiFi, so they disable it.

Also, why are they still offering the old curve and 8830, and not the new 9000 series Bold and 8900 series Curve?

The pearl is just WAY too damn small. I'm guessing it's actually better as a phone than the others, but the keyboard is useless.

The 8330 is heavy, large, and awkward to hold; yet has a worse keyboard than the curve. The whole point of this is remote email access, so a bad keyboard is a dealbreaker. It DOES have quad band capability and a SIM card slot, which is nice; but I don't plan on doing any international roaming with my work cell at the moment.

The storm is cool looking, and has a touchscreen. I HATE the touchscreen. Seriously, the thing actually clicks, like a chicklet keyboard... It's awful.

So the curve it is then.


At least the 8830 has mostly 3g (it's ev-do, but Rev 1 only, no Rev A. So 700k down, and 30k up ) and tethering. Oh and they are throing in the car charger, the leather holster, the bluetooth headset, and the 4gb memory card (remember, no non corporate memory cards allowed).

So at least I won't be stuck with the bill for the stuff, or stuck with a useless phone without it.

So, any worthwhile apps in the blackberry app store? Do they have an SSH client? How about VNC?

Patellar straps

Ummm... WOW.

So I spent all day walking around with my new patellar straps on, and I have to say, damn that makes a hell of a difference.

Not only did my knees feel much more stable all day; especially while in the process (and when you have knee problems, it is definitely a process) of sitting down or standing up; there is a HUGE reduction in pain.

I just walked around a Costco for almost two hours, and I'm feeling maybe 1/4 the pain I would have without the straps.... more importantly, I was able to make it through the whole shopping trip. Usually about half way in I have to go sit down.

I can't wait to get the full braces.

Getting to where we want to be - Part 2: Broke down

Something is stopping Mel and I from being where I want to be in my life.

Our bodies.

The last few weeks I had an inflamed meniscus (in the knee that still has something left to inflame, the right); and being the idiot that I am I still insisted on walking around some.

The inflamed meniscus made me walk funny, which caused me to pull a muscle in my calf.

The pulling the muscle in my calf caused me to walk even funnier which strained the other knee and calf; and did a number on my back. Which of course makes me walk funnier, and causes cramps in both the pulled and non pulled muscles (I was very careful about and constantly watching for clots. I know ALL about DVT).

Remember, at this point I'm still refusing to stay laid up in bed; because I am an idiot.

Finally, Tuesday night the inflammation has died down, but the walking on pulled, and cramped muscles has made my knees and calves swell up all to hell.

So yesterday, instead of staying in bed like I should have; I decided instead, I was going to sit in a chair for about 10 hours.

My swollen irritated, pulled muscle, cramped up legs responded by inflating like balloons (peripheral edema).

All because stubborn idiot that I am "won't let these damn knees stop me from doing what I want to do goddammit".

Yes, that is a direct quote from last weekend.

I'm fine. I know what all this is, I've been through it before... and knowing me I'll probably be through it again.

... but I think I'm going to finally break down and go get a handicapped registration on the car.

According to the docs I'm only "20% disabled". It feels kinda lame (no pun intended) to get a handicapped placard for that; but some days, I NEED that couple hundred feet of difference.

Just as a temporary measure, I've ordered some patellar straps. I've thought about ordering them before, but no-place ever had the right size for me when I checked. I found a manufacturer that makes one large enough (Cho-Pat) and ordered two of them a few days ago.

Now that I'm on good insurance again, I'm going to look into getting some new custom fit knee braces. I need the knee support; and they now have very comfortable designs that specifically support the patella (which is my particular knee issue - patellar instability, and associated joint, ligament, and tendon degenration, due to past injury).

They're also considerably cheaper than they used to be (my last one cost almost $2k. The knew ones are under $1k each) so even if insurance wont cover them, or will only partially cover them, I'm still going to get them.

I REALLY want to avoid further knee surgery, and especially knee replacement; mostly because the knees that are currently used in mainstream surgery (the only kind insurance will generally pay for) have about a 20-25 year lifespan. That means I would need at least two sets, one sometime in my late 50s when the body heals much slower... likely resulting in very limited mobility for my remaining years.

The doctors and engineers tell me that within a few years I should be able to get a knee replacement that will last me the rest of my life; I just need to hold out 'til my mid 40s if possible.

Of course none of this matters if I can't lose the weight I need to lose. When I can work out, I do great at losing the weight, but when I can't (and the repeated knee injuries often keep me from working out for weeks or months at a time), no matter what diet I try, I only have limited success.

Up until now, I haven't even considered bariatric surgery. Now however, I have to face that I need to do something fast if I want to keep my knees intact long enough to only need one set of knee replacements.

The knee braces and patellar straps will help, but the fact is, I need to lose more than 100 lbs; and get to around 265; if I want to preserve my knees.

My best diet projections have that taking two years, and that presumes I can maintain my excercise schedule. I've been able to take that first 40 pounds off a couple of times, but then I re-injure myself and it comes back on again.

I HAVE extablished much better and healthier eating habits then I had when I started on this whole diet thing a while back; but it isn't enough.

So, although I am still very resistant to the concept, and I may still choose not to do so; I am investigating lap band surgery, with associated liposuction and abdominoplasty.

It's going to take two years or so with a lap band to come down to where I need to be for my knees (presuming no additional excercise). Since I need to reduce the weight on my knees as fast as possible; and I'm going to need the abdominoplasty afterwards anyway given the amount of weight loss I need to achieve; I'm also looking at thereaputic liposuction and abdominoplasty.

The thing about the lap band surgery that I like is that it is adjustable to my needs and conditions; and eventually can be removed and reversed with far less complication than other surgeries.

The problem with it, is that in general docs don't like doing it for people with UC; however, because of comorbidities like diabetes risk, and my knees, I believe that it's justified.

Thankfully, Mel has far less, and far less severe issues to deal with. She's only a little overweight in comparison (about 50 lbs, on a 5'9" woman), she has severe panic attacks and anxiety issues, and she has pretty poor vision.

We're already working on the first two issues. Mel has been losing weight, slowly and with setbacks; but losing still.

We've been working together on her anxiety and panic attacks from the first time I noted she was having one. She didn't know what it was, and had never really heard of them; and had been mis-diagnosed several times as a teen as having some psychological issue or another. None of the treatments worked because none of them were actually useful for the problem she had.

Just talking it out, teaching her methods to control her anxiety, and her emotional state and its effect etc... worked very well. It brought down the frequency and severity of her anxiety and panic attacks greatly; but didn't completely eliminate them.

We were very resistant to the idea of pharmaceutical treatment for a long time. As I have said before, I believe most of the people taking psychoactive medication not only don't need it, but it isn't effective for them, and has lots of potentially negative side effects.

That said, there are still a lot of folks out there who can benefit from the right medication. It's important however that you have clear goals and targets in mind. You have to have a very good understanding of the problems you are trying to treat, and target the correct medications and dosages for the individual appropriately; making adjustments as necessary.

That means you need a real psychopharmacologist, who really knows their business. Most psychoactives today are prescribed to women by their gynocologists (yes, seriously)... and that's just not a great idea.

So, finally, together we decided that that last hard knot of issues couldn't be addressed without some clinical help; and that hopefully with medication she could finally work out the emotional issues that cause the anxiety (which could then obviate the need for the medication).

A couple months back, we found a therapist and a psychopharmacologist (who don't work together directly, but who do work together in her treatment, which is important) who she likes, and now she's on medication that is controlling her anxiety very well. They're still working to find the optimum balance, and that's a slow process (it takes about six weeks to stabilize on a new dosage or a new medication), but it's working. Mel is getting better every day.

Oh and the psychopharmacologist is a sharp one. Mels meds are on the $4 list at WalMart and the discount list at costco, k-mart etc... So even without insurance coverage, we'd be OK.

The hope is, as I said above; that the medication will control her anxiety enough, that she can address the underlying emotional issues that cause the anxiety in the first place.

Before the meds, any time she got down to a certain depth of emotion, she would just break down because of the anxiety. Freeze up, and start doing self destructive things etc... Now, she's able to start working through those deeper things, in the same way we have been working through the shallower things for the past few years.

The final health issue is one we share; we both wear glasses. I'm only moderately shortsighted, but Mel is both severely shortsighted, and astigmatic.

So, we've got a health care savings plan with our insurance; and we're putting enough into it every year that we should both be able to get eye surgery by the end of this year.

So, hopefully, in two years or so... maybe three; we'll be where we want to be with our bodies.

Getting to where we want to be - Part 1: Goals

As I said in the introduction to this series, my wife and I are not where we want to be in life right now; and we've decided to make a co-ordinated effort to get to where we want to be as quickly and effectively as possible.

Of course, in order to get where you want to be in life; you need to figure out exactly where it is that you want to be, where you are, and then how best to get from one to the other.

So first, where exactly are we right now?

1. Health and Body: Fact is, we're not doing so hot there. We're both overweight, I've got a lot of injuries, bad knees etc... Mel has some emotional health issues, and we've both got iffy eyes.
   
   On the upside, all of those things can be dealt with.
   
   
2. Work and Money: We're a bit better off there. I've got a great job with a lot of flexibility in location, and very solid earning potential. Mel is also currently working for the fedgov, though that's only going to be for 18 months or so.
   
   On the downside, we haven't been able to save... basically anything... over the past few years. Legal bills have eaten whatever savings we had.
   
   
3. Family: The girls are doing very well in school, they've got friends, we've got supportive family... things are generally great.
   
   On the downside, we are still not clear of the custody issue. That means more legal bills, and that we can't move anywhere until it's resolved.
   
   
4. House and home: Where we live, is not where we want to live. We like our house and our neighborhood, but we don't want to live anywhere near a major urban area; and we want land.
   
   
5. Education: Mel would like to finish her degree, and I periodically toss around the idea of a masters.
   
   Also, we would both like to get more and better education in more practical matters. I'd like to get re-certified as an EMT, or maybe even a paramedic, and Mel is considering the same. We'd both like to take classes in various skills that would be useful around the home we'd like to have.
   

So, where do we want to be then?

1. Health and Body: Mel and I both want to lose weight. I need to do something about my knees. We both want eye surgery.
   
   
2. Work and Money: The job situation is very good, we just need to be able to pay off whatever debt we have left (mostly the legal bills) and then save as much as we can as fast as we can.
   
   
3. House and Home: This is the biggie. We are planning on changing states, and changing lifestyles. We want some land, outside of any major urban area, but with relatively easy access to one (for medical care, and for work).
   
   
4. Education: That one is still fizzy. We both know there are thigns we want to do, but I think they're more likely to settle and come togheter after we make the other big changes we want.

So, the rest of this series is going to be talking about how we plan to get from where we are, to where we want to be.

Getting to where we want to be - Introduction

I'm not where I want to be in my life. Neither is my wife. Obviously then, we, as a family, are not where we want to be.

Oh sure, I've got a great job, and we've got great kids; and we're generally happy... but that doesn't mean we are where we want to be.

So a few months back, Mel and I started talking about this... kind of collecting the idea that have been floating around in our heads for a while; and decided to start really planning to deliberately move us from where we are now, to where we want to be; as quickly and effectively as possible.

I'm going to write a series of posts about this over the next week or two. Actually, I've got the first couple written already. I was going to post the first one yesterday, but decided not to post anything, because this is a serious topic, and yesterday was April Fools day.