The REAL Grassroots of American Politics: A report from Idahos first Republican Caucus

Since 1920, the 43rd state has had either a convention, or a presidential primary to select the the Republican party presidential candidate (the Democratic party allowed each county to decide whether to have a caucus or a primary, up 'til 2008, and the counties varied between caucuses and primaries. In 2008 they changed the rules and have caucused statewide since).

Idaho has historically had a late season non-binding primary, held in Mid may (and still does for everything other than president), by which time the presidential nominee is almost always decided.

For 2012, the Idaho Republican party was tired of being irrelevant to the election, and sought some way of moving their participation to earlier in the process. Unfortunately, moving a primary has some negative consequences. Because the early primary states like to protect their position as favored by the presidential candidates, each of the parties has rules that penalize states (by reducing the number of delegates they control) if they make their primaries earlier than they were in the previous election.

For 2012 however, the GOP changed their rules, so that if a state held a binding caucus, on or before April 6th, but not before March 6th (super Tuesday), and changed from a past the post winner take all system to some type of apportionment; they would not be penalized.

There was a very big, and very nasty fight within the party about this plan; with most of rural Idaho, particularly north and north central Idaho opposing it, and the major metropolitan areas Boise, Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, and Pocatello, supporting it.

A Sidebar: For those of you reading this not familiar with the politics or demographics of Idaho, and who primarily think of Idaho as a farm state... potatoes and all... a little background would probably be useful. 

Idaho is a pretty BIG state geographically (14th largest at 83.6 thousand square miles), but with one of the smallest populations (11th smallest at 1.6 million), and thus the 7th least dense in population (19.1 per square mile, about 1/5th the national average). 

Another important point: although Idaho is only the 14th largest state, because of its very odd shape (big and rectangular-ish at the bottom, long and narrow up top, kinda triangular in the middle) at 480 miles top to bottom, and 560 miles on the long diagonal; only Alaska, California, and Texas are longer north to south, and only those plus Montana and Nevada are longer (only by 60 miles for the latter two) on the long diagonal. 

Combine that big state geography, and small state population, with our... unique... landscape, and things are a little weird here. 

Let me describe to you what I mean by unique geography. 

Idaho isn't the big flat farm state that most people imagine in their mind, thinking of Idaho potatoes. Idaho is smack in the middle of the Rocky mountains, and is in fact the most mountainous of the lower 48 states by land area classified as "mountains" (Colorado is slightly larger and has a higher mean elevation, but is half mountains, half plains); as well as having the third most land area in National forest service land (20.5 million acres, only 300k acres behind California, and 1.5 million behind Alaska; and thus the highest percentage of land area); and at over 60% the third highest (behind Nevada and Utah) in percentage of land controlled by the federal government (which includes NFS and BLM lands).

There are six population centers in Idaho, and about 75% of the population lives within their catchment areas: Boise (620,000 metro population. 40% of the states population lives within 50 miles of Boise), Twin Falls (99,000), Pocatello (90,000), Idaho falls (130,000), Moscow/Lewiston (87,000), and Coeur D'Alene/Sandpoint (179,000, but only because that counts the entire population of the two counties. The actual "micropolitan" population is more like 100,000 between the cities and large towns within an hours drive); and they are mostly separated by pretty substantial stretches of mountains. Just to top things off, the northern half of the state (north of the Salmon river) is in the pacific time zone, while the southern part of the state is in the Mountain time zone. 

The geographic separation is such, that the quickest way to get to Boise from Sandpoint, where we live, is to drive over 100 miles out of our way through Washington and Oregon. It's only 320 miles in a straight line, but the shortest route by road is an 8 to 9 hour, 420 mile drive on mountain roads (many of which are impassible much of the time in winter), or a 500 mile 8 to 9 hour tri-state drive by interstate. 

Those of us in north Idaho have basically no relation to Boise or Pocatello at all; except in that they dominate statewide politics because of their population. We're far closer connected to eastern Washington (Spokane, Pullman(, or to western Montana... or even to Seattle.   

From my house, it's a hell of a lot easier (and faster. It's 350 miles and about 5-6 hours) to get to Seattle than it is to get to Boise. Hell, we're only 220 miles from Calgary. Though it's a 7 hour 350 mile trip by road; it's still closer to us than Boise.   

Check out the topo map below to see what I'm talking about: 

 

You can see, there isn't very much at all in between the Boise area, and the Lewiston area, except BIG mountains; and a few towns along U.S. 95, and around the lakes and big rivers.

U.S. 95 is one of the old original U.S. higways by the way; and one of the very few left that hasn't been replaced by interstates. It runs through almost the entire state of Idaho north to South, from the Canadian border, down to southern Oregon at Ontario near Boise; into northern Nevada near Winnemucca and over to Fernley near Reno; from Reno down to Vegas, from Vegas down to Blythe California, then over into Arizona near quartzite; turning south again down into Yuma, and then into Mexico at San Luis Rio Colorado, on the Colorado river. I have driven the entire length of it (unfortunately not all at once, but in pieces), and from top to bottom, it is some of the prettiest, and most geographically varied, road you'll ever drive. 

Because of this geography, and the population differences, Idaho is effectively two VERY VERY different states; north and north central Idaho in the pacific time zone, and southern and eastern Idaho in the mountain time zone (with the dividing line at a little town in the middle of the bitterroot mountains called Riggins). 

Both are very conservative overall, but the southern part of the state are very heavily Mormon, and very religious and socially conservative; while the northern part of the state is more catholic and protestant (but not really hardcore baptist, pentecostal, hardcore evangelical etc...), and much more libertarian. 

The big problem, as far as north/north central Idaho goes, is that although it represents about 40% of the land area, out of a population of almost 1.6 million, the north only has about 320,000 or about 20%; and that 320,000 is very thinly spread across 10 pretty large counties, vs. the 1.25 million (or about 80%) across 34 generally smaller counties in the southeast and southwest. 

Thus, the northern half of the state is generally marginalized as a political constituency, with Boise or Pocatello generally both setting the statewide agenda, and having things decided their way. 

Of course, this situation probably sounds pretty familiar to Arizonans, Nevadans, Michiganders, Minnesotans, Floridians, and New Hampsherites (all have a very big north south split); Washingtonians, Oregonians, Coloradans, and Montanans (all have a very big east west split); and of course Texans and Californians (which both have a three or four way split depending on how you count it). 

Predictably, Boise won; and Idaho became a caucus state, at least for presidential purposes. Idaho also, for the first time, became... at least somewhat... relevant to the selection of a presidential candidate. So much so that in the weeks before Super Tuesday, Idaho had visits from all the major candidates.

And believe me, there was plenty of interest and participation in this process; both by the people, and from the campaigns.

Our candidate visits included Ron Paul up here in Sandpoint, just this past Monday. On Sunday, the organizers of the event emailed me saying that I shouldn't worry about parking or seating, there should be plenty. Unfortunately, the event was so packed, by the time I got there I wasn't able to get in. They expected 400 or 500 people, and the hall at the county fairgrounds filled to capacity (at 1300).

Also the telephone banks were operating in force (I got two calls in the last two weeks from the Ron Paul folks, both actual human beings; and over a dozen from Romney and Santorums campaign, all robocalls).

And finally, last night, the Idaho GOP held their first ever presidential caucus.

It was a resounding success... so much so that it almost ended up a total disaster.

Based on Democratic caucus participation (in 2008, their most attended caucus ever, only 20,000 Idaho Democrats caucused), and participation in caucuses in other states, the state central committee planned for between and 3% and 6% of total registered voters to attend the caucuses; expecting as little as 1% in some counties, and as much as 10% at most in others.

This year there were about 750,000 total registered voters in Idaho (a bit less than 50% of the population); and while something between 55% and 60% of registered voters vote Republican in general elections, Idaho has been an open primary state up till now, and in any given year only around 10% of voters are actually registered Republicans (this year, based on previous participation, Idaho has "official" party affiliation recorded for "Democratic", "Republican", "Libertarian", "Constitution" and "Unaffiliated". The large majority of Idaho voters are registered "unaffiliated").

I spoke to several Idaho state Republican party staff members, and given the low Democratic caucus turnout, and that in most caucus states the turnouts are 3% or less (even Iowa on a good year gets 6%) they expected something like 10,000 people state wide, and 20,000 at the very outside, would attend this years Republican caucuses (remember, the most Democrats to ever caucus in Idaho was 20,000 in 2008).

Not only that, but just about all the "smart folks" were predicting a low turnout due to "lack of energy" and "lack of enthusiasm" etc... etc...

They were wrong.

VERY wrong.

Nearly 10,000 people showed up to caucus in just one county alone (in Ada county, population 300,000, which contains Boise, more than 10,000 people went through the doors at caucus locations, and 9,050 cast first round ballots).

 All told, about 45,000 people statewide cast a final round ballot, in whatever round their county went to. If the numbers in other counties are at all similar to those in Bonner county (the only county I have direct numbers for), at least 60,000 and maybe as many as 80,000 people actually showed up at caucus sites.

And of course, that doesn't include the people who showed up, saw how busy it was, and left; or the people who, never having attended a caucus before, were confused about the process and gave up earlier.

In Sandpoint, there were so many people wanting to caucus, that many people simply left; either angry or frustrated at the long lines and waiting in the cold (it was 36 degrees and full dark before we got through the doors).

I spoke with several staff members at Sandpoint High school (our local caucus site), and Priest River Jr. High school (the caucus site in Priest River), and with several county Republican committee members and volunteers; who told me that hundreds of people didn't understand the process, and had showed up at the caucus sites during the day, wondering about how to vote. After finding out they had to come back at 6pm and stay for several hours, most of these people left (often angrily) saying they wouldn't come back.

I arrived at our caucus site, our local high school, at about 5:30pm; 30 minutes before the designated "door opening" time and 90 minutes before the caucus was supposed to begin at 7pm. When I arrived, the 438 space main parking lot was already full, with the remaining 200 spaces in the side lots filling up rapidly.

By 6pm, the parking lot was completely full, and the line to get into the caucus site was wrapped halfway around the school. I, having arrived at 5:30, didn't get in to the registration table until 6:45pm (in the end, they continued processing people through until around 8pm).

Bonner county, where my family and I live, has a population of just about 40,000, with 22,794 registered voters as of 9am yesterday morning; however, over 80% of all the registered voters in our county are unaffiliated (though the county generally votes over 60% republican). Prior to yesterdays caucuses (Idaho allows same day registration and affiliation), the total number of registered Republicans in Bonner county was just 1,662.

The county party committee, following the central committees guidance, were told to prepare for something like 600 to 1200 people to show up for the whole county; and had intended to use the 300 seat high school auditorium for the caucus site in Sandpoint (half the registered voters in the county live within 10 miles of Sandpoint).

That auditorium was filled in the first ten or fifteen minutes.

By the time my wife and I got through sign-in and ID check at 6:45, we had already filled up the cafeteria; and were well over 500 strong. In fact, by the time we hit 700, we hit the fire code maximum for the auditorium, AND the cafeteria and the overflow room. Finally, at around 7pm (when the first round of voting was supposed to start), they pulled the bleachers out in the school gym. By the time they finished letting people in, there were over 1100 of us in the building (including a lot of kids, there with their parents; which my wife and I found heartening).

Because of the huge turnout, there obviously weren't enough staff volunteers. The staff ended up asking for some additional help from the attendees, and the high school kids who wanted additional community service (which was gladly given); and everything was delayed by over an hour.

There were four caucus sites for the county. By the time we started the first round of balloting it was after 8pm; and 856 of us cast a first round ballot in that building alone. All said and done, there were 1411 first round ballots cast for Bonner county; when less than 12 hours before, there were only 1662 total registered Republicans.

Before I continue I should note the rules and process for the Idaho Republican caucuses, as conducted last night.

There were five candidates that qualified to be listed for the caucuses: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Buddy Roemer.

Voting would proceed county wide, in rounds, eliminating lower performing candidates in each round, until a "50% plus one vote" winner could be declared for each county (NOT for each caucus site). In the first round, any candidate that failed to achieve 15% support would be eliminated. In any subsequent round the lowest performing candidate would be eliminated.

Also, I should be clear that the county Republican party commissioners and volunteers conducted themselves in as professional and courteous a manner as they could given the difficulties; and they conducted the primary in an entirely open and transparent way. I would like to particularly thank our county commissioner (and party chair) Cornel Rasor and county party treasurer Alan Banks, for working so hard to make things work given the difficult circumstances; and for being so open and encouraging to people who wanted to witness, film, photograph, record, and report on the process (at one point Cornel said "Please, everyone, tweet this, post it on facebook, blog about it... we want everyone to see that we're conducting the most open caucus in the country).

23 of Idahos 44 counties had a 50%+1 vote winner in the first round (including most of the top ten population counties). Every county that finished in the first round went for Romney except one; Latah county, which voted for Ron Paul. Most of those counties went for Romney by 60% or more, with two (Madison county and Bear Lake county), hitting 90% for Romney (notably both counties are almost entirely Mormon, as were most of the counties that went for Mitt more than 60%).

One should note, Latah county, with a population of just 35,000, and less than 2000 registered Republicans prior to their caucus, had 982 votes cast yesterday. 52% voted for Ron Paul, and only 20% voted for Romney.

... and that rather nicely illustrates the political divide between north and north central Idaho, and southern Idaho.

In the first round, Bonner county cast 1411 votes, including 558 for Ron Paul (39.55%), 291 for Romney (20.77%), 290 for Rick Santorum (20.43%) 173 for Newt Gingrich (12.26%) and 4 for Buddy Roemer. This meant Newt and Roemer would be eliminated after the first round.

Six of the remaining 21 counties went through two rounds of voting, including Boundary county just to our north (they are the county bordering Canada) who went for Ron Paul at 54% (Romney at 18%, Santorum at 28%... they really don't like the government very much in Boundary county). The other five counties that  finished in two rounds also went for Mitt Romney.

In the second round, even though we didn't cast our ballots 'til around 9:30pm, our polling place only lost 28 voters, and Bonner county as a whole only lost 138 voters, dropping from 1411 to 1293; 564 for Ron Paul, 277 for Mitt Romney, and surprisingly, 452 for Rick Santorum, causing Romney to be eliminated.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks were pretty sure the caucus would only go two rounds; and left immediately after casting their ballots, not waiting around for the vote count.

The one real black mark on last night caucus, at least in Bonner county; wasn't from the party, it was from the left... Unfortunately, many of us recognized a number people we know to be hardcore Democrats, far left liberals, or otherwise very anti-republican (and definitely NOT libertarians or Ron Paul supporters), in the caucus crowd last night. I have spoken to people who were at the other three caucus sites in the county, as well as some people in other counties; who have told me the same thing.

There are not a lot of Santorum supporters up here; and there ARE a large number of Romney supporters (it's still at least 20% mormon up here, plus the pragmatists who think that Romney is the only one who can actually beat Obama).

A number of the folks who were there, are pretty sure that those people we recognized as leftists made up a lot of the Gingrich and Santorum voters in the Bonner county caucus last night.

When Gingrich was eliminated in the first round, as everyone knew he would be; we all expected the Gingrich vote to MOSTLY split between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. When basically ALL the Gingrich vote went for Santorum, eliminating Romney and forcing us into a third round... Let's just say that everyone was more than a little surprised...

... Actually extreme shock and more than a little disgust might be a better description.

Like 15 other counties, the caucuses in Bonner county last night went to three rounds, but the difference between the second and third round was much greater than between the first and second. Bonner county only lost 138 voters between the first and second round. Between the second and third round we lost 341. Notably, that included a lot of the folks who we recognized as leftists; and almost none of the Ron Paul supporters.

When we finally cast our third round ballots, well around 10pm (the count came back around 10:30), 555 Bonner county republicans cast their ballot for Ron Paul, and 487 cast their ballot for Rick Santorum; Paul winning the county at 53.28%.

I don't think there is any question, given the numbers I've seen and talking with people in the other polling places and other counties; that some democrat/leftists manipulation was going on in Idaho last night, trying to undermine Romney and Paul by artificially boosting support for Santorum.

Overall, Ron Paul won six counties and 18% of the vote, Rick Santorum won seven counties and 18% of the vote, and Mitt Romney won thirty-one counties and 62 percent of the vote.

Officially, Santorum received 29 more votes state wide than Ron Paul, so he came in second; though as I said, I believe that result was the result of deliberate manipulation. Romney should have received even more votes than he did, as should Ron Paul, and Paul should have been in a very clear second place.

Although Idaho's Republican caucus for 2012 was technically an apportioned caucus, not a winner take all; the rules that the Idaho Republican committee decided on, were that the counties would be winner take all, and if more than one candidate won more than 50% of the counties delegates, than that candidate would have all the states delegates committed to them.

Since Mitt won 31 counties, he got all 32 of Idahos delegates. Given the results overall for Super Tuesday; although Romney is not a mathematical certainty for the nomination, he is almost certainly the nominee.

Of course... he's BEEN "almost certainly the nominee" since shortly after November 4th 2008; when the RNC decided that was who they were going to line up behind for fundraising and groundwork for the next four years to beat Obama....

but that's another rant for another day.

From a personal standpoint, other than the manipulation issue, and the party VASTLY underestimating the level of interest, passion, and participation of the people of Idaho... I found my first caucus experience to be  very interesting and personally far more rewarding and engaging than a primary. There were certainly a lot of folks who were irritated by the process, or who feel that a caucus is simply improper or an inferior way to vote for a candidate; but I can certainly see the advantages of it.

As to which I think is better?

Neither.

I believe that the primary/convention system used in this country is essentially a sideshow for the benefit of the media, the fundraising arms of the party, and the fundraising efforts of the candidates themselves. It is a detriment to political discourse and serves to perpetuate an inherently corrupt process of candidate selection by party insiders and political money brokers.

...but, as I said above, that's a rant for another day.

Life Gets in the Way

Combined, Chris and I probably have at least 30, if not 40, posts that we have yet to write.

To say that we're dealing with multiple balls in the air would be a bit of an understatement. More like we're juggling some double-edged swords and a couple of flaming torches.

However Spring is definitely coming in more ways than one. Life is definitely turning the corner.

Some good news for a change

I've got a job offer incoming.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a week or two to go through "the process", but tentatively, it looks like in a few weeks,  I will be gainfully employed once again

Dog Sick and Swollen

So by around Thursday last week, Mel and I both started feeling a bit of the dreaded travel crud; but were able to stave it off (mostly) through sheer energy and determination... and the wonder of modern pharmaceutical medicine.

By the time we had to get on the plane Sunday though, we were both full on sick. Head and chest filled with crud, joint pain, light fever, the whole thing.

The fact that we were both running on serious sleep debt, to add exhaustion to the mix, certainly didn't help.

The last two days at least I've been able to sleep it off some; but Mel has ben working. She got sent home early today as too sick to work.

My added complication is that I wasn't able to take my diuretics most of last week (two days out of seven). Combined with all the sitting in cars and airplanes I did, I managed to gain over 30lbs, and swell up my hands, feet, and face, quite thoroughly.

Normally a few days back on the diuretics would take care of such a situation; but you can't take diuretics when you're sick like this, because they'll dehydrate you, and thicken your mucous.

At this point, my hands and feet are so swollen they actually hurt to touch; and I'm going to need to start back on the diuretics in the morning no matter what.

Oh and I have a final job interview for one of my potential new jobs tomorrow, so, yay...

Wish me luck or something.

Home, dry, and frikken exhausted

We pulled into our driveway at 1:30am today; 90 minutes short of seven days from our departure, having traveled about 2400 miles by plane, and another 1500 miles by car.

In the midst of that, I managed to get a TOTAL 6 night sleep hour count of 14; including two 40+ hour days (both of which also included several hundred miles of driving). 

More to come later. For now, Mel and I are going to collapse into our beds and not leave til forced by angry mobs. 

Don't call me today, or I WILL wreak vengeance upon thee. 

Homeward Bound

Well, it's 8:30 on a Sunday... beautiful out, sunny, breezy, cold... A perfect late winter New England day.

This has been an odd and interesting week, and I'm going to be writing about it a great deal in the next few days; but for now, it's time to finish packing up and checking out.

We're actually going to head to the airport twice today; first time we're swinging through, and picking up Ambulance Driver, to take him to lunch.

Actually, we're secretly hijacking him and taking him for a full Irish breakfast with my family, including fresh sodabread baked by my tiny Irish grandmother.

I figure AD, me, and my dad all in the same room ought to be fun.

Then we drop him off for the afternoon with TOTWTOTYR so they can hang out for the afternoon, before the second New England blog dinner of the weekend, tonight at Polcaris in Saugus.

Unfortunately, after a final afternoon visit with family, we will be flying out, just as they are all meeting up;  reaching Idaho around midnight local.

What a week man...

Blogdinner in northeastern Massachusetts

Mel and I, JayG and hopefully a half dozen others (lots of interest so far not a lot of confirmations) will be having a blogdinner meetup in northeastern Mass, this Saturday, around 7pm til whenever.

I'm leaving the restaurant pick up to JayG since I haven't eaten at a restaurant north of Boston and south of Nashua in 13 years. He should have a pick for us later today, and I'll update the post then.

UPDATE: The dinner will be at Angela's Coal Fired Pizza in Saugus, MA.

Theres another dinner on Sunday for Ambulance Driver. Unfortunately we're flying out at 6pm so we won't be able to make it to that one, thus a second dinner on Saturday.

If you're going to be in the region and want to drop by, let either me or JayG know via email or comment.

One hell of a long day... but in some respects, still a good one.

So, it's 2335 eastern, Monday.

My body, in theory, thinks its 2035, but in reality I'd say it has completely lost the ability to judge the passing of this strange thing called... Time.

Mel and I have been awake since 0735 pacific, Sunday; and have been traveling since 0300 Pacific Monday... No point in trying to sleep for a couple hours late Sunday night just to wake up more groggy and disoriented, and then have to drive to the airport.

37 hours.

She's finally asleep. I've probably got a ways to go, because although most of my days are now good days in terms of pain, inflammation, and edema; days that I spend 4 hours driving and 6 hours sitting in the torture devices they amusingly call "economy class seats" (there's three lines in one) in airplanes are most definitely NOT good days for those particular issues.

Basically from the elbows down I'm one big inflamed and swollen sore spot.

However, it was still a good day in one very important way:

I was able to make my father truly happy for a few minutes; in a way that wouldn't mean much to anyone else... but to me, to him... it means more than I could ever say in words.

I'd gladly deal with ten times the pain, to be able to do that. To do it in a week when there is so much pain, and hurt and anger going on in my life...

...Well, no matter what comes later, this is now a good week.

Anyway, I'll write about it some time later this week, hopefully with some pics. For now I've got to take my diuretics so I can deflate the waterballoons I call my hands and feet; and some anti-inflammatories and painkillers.

Hopefully after a few hours... removing excess fluid... I can try to get some sleep, so in the morning (LATE morning, trust me) we can get a running start at all we need to do while we're here in Boston.

Testing Google+ integration

I haven't really done much with Google+ since it started up; mostly because most of my friends and family only use facebook. Also, when Google+ was started, there wasn't a simple way to automatically crosspost from my blog into G+. Then Google did a stupid thing and removed the post to plus function from its websites, (you can only +1 things, and even then only on some sites, or with certain browser plugins) and I basically ignored it from then on. Well, they came up with a way to automatically crosspost some time ago, and I finally got around to testing it now, with this post. Let's see how well this thing works shall we?

Shippin up to Boston

Mel and I will be in Boston, the surrounding area, Connecticut, and New Hampshire; from late afternoon Monday the 20th, through late afternoon Sunday the 26th.

We're going to try to visit with some of my family, celebrate my mothers life as we can.

Our schedule isn't firmly set, and probably won't really get that way. We're pretty much going to have to take things as they come.

Unfortunately, my family wont be able to gather together as a group, so I'm going to try to visit people individually as and when I can.

Also, unfortunately, I haven't managed to reach everyone to tell them my plans yet. We had all assumed we were going to have a group gathering this week, but plans for that fell through. Unfortunately I had already made unchangeable travel plans, and Mel had already taken the week off for bereavement leave; and we're certainly not going to waste the money canceling the trip.

We're staying near 95 and 128, for convenience of travel.

We need to visit friends in Nashua on Wednesday evening, and at some point we are going to try to head up to the Lake Winnepesaukee area... Maybe Wednesday morning, to hit Nashua on the way back. Thursday morning we'll be heading down to Hartford and visiting with friends.

I'll need to be in Marlborough, Quincy, and Waltham during business hours, at least a few hours each; though I'm hoping to be able to do more than one in a single day.

Also Mel has never really seen or done anything in Boston, and she'd like to do that at least one day. Maybe go to the aquarium or the science museum. If the weather cooperates, maybe do the trolley tour thing.

Basically, we expect to be all over the entire region for the entire week.

Saturday afternoon, or Sunday late morning/afternoon (our flight's at 6) and I'm hoping to try to get at least a few of my family members together at some point.

Saturday night we're trying to have a blogger meetup dinner, probably in northeastern Mass (I've got JayG signed on so far, and have several invites out. If you're a blogger or reader in the region and want to join in, drop me a line).

So, if any friends are going to be around where we're going to be, and want to get together, drop us a line.

The only one you can "Beat" in a salary negotiation, is yourself

A poster on the guncounter forums pointed me to this article on salary negotiation:

Salary Negotiation: Make More Money, Be More Valued

I thought it was interesting and useful enough to share; and more than a little relevant to my current circumstances.

However, I also wanted to point out a few things the article didn't go into, or to my mind, didn't go into enough.

Unfortunately, I have recently conducted two unsuccessful salary negotiations. Unsuccessful in both cases, because both companies set a certain expectation of skill and career level coming into the interview process, but decided to try to pay at a lower career/skill level rate once it came time to negotiate.

We're not talking a small difference either; we're talking a 30% plus difference, such that their max rate for the position was below my "I can pay my bills with this" level.

I found out later talking with some contacts, that they had gone through similar issues with those two companies (both are contracting agencies). Apparently these positions have gone unfilled for a long time, because the companies have painted themselves into a corner where they can only bill so much, but the skillset and experience they need to complete the jobs are priced by the market at higher than they can bill, never mind what they are willing to pay.

That's one of the first points I wanted to bring up that wasn't addressed in the linked piece.

It's an unfortunate fact of life, that often, companies are VERY unrealistic as to what they need to pay, to get the skills and experience they need (or at least that they are asking for). Not only that, but they are often very pissy about it, acting as if you should be grateful for the opportunity to be stupidly underpaid.

DO NOT accept a job with such a company, unless you are desperate to pay your bills, and plan on finding another gig as soon as possible. Trust me, no good will come of it.

My personal recommendation, is never take a job whose takehome won't cover your bills plus 20%, AND never take a job for more than 10% below market.

You might think you can get in, wow them, and get paid what you're worth through raises in the first year or two. While that was once true, it hasn't really been true for years. These days, in most companies the only way to get more than 3%-5% a year, is to change jobs.

There is a very strong impulse to be polite in our culture; particularly when you are trying to make a good impression on a new prospective employer. A lot of people don't want to ruffle feathers or "create a bad impression" etc... in being a tough negotiator on their salary.

This feeling is entirely wrong.

You certainly don't want to be "difficult" or unreasonable, but you are negotiating for your primary source of income. If you don't ask for what you are worth, the person you are negotiating with will not respect you, and if you get the job, they will not value you as highly as you should be valued.

The linked piece mentions this, but I wanted to bring it up again for more emphasis.

There IS one major thing, which they kinda touched on but didn't specifically emphasize enough to my mind:

In a salary negotiation, the only person you can "beat" is yourself. It's not about you winning, and the company losing. If you approach it that way, you WILL be the one losing.

A salary negotiation is about coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement. A two way handshake where you are both happy with the result, and HOPEFULLY both feel you got a good deal.

Understanding the current market value of your skillset, and the position you are applying for (or for renegotiation at raise time, your current position),  your direct net economic value to the company, and your requirements for compensation, are critical to achieving the win win position.

If you don't understand what the market is paying for your skillset, or for the skillset the company is asking for (very experienced people will often find that most jobs they apply for will only use a small portion of their skillset), you need to start researching.

There are literally hundreds of web sites where you can find these things out, even for very obscure and specific skills and positions. And there's always your network of colleagues and contacts with similar skillsets and experience (and you absolutely should use their knowledge and experience to help you).

Basically, If you can't find salary data, and benefits comparison, for your skillset and career level, you aren't looking very hard.

Also remember, there are a lot of considerations other than cash compensation. The cost of living, and general quality of life in your home area (or relocation area) is a HUGE consideration. So is the amount of free time you'll have with the job, the benefits package, the non salary compensation (bonuses, profit sharing, benefits offset compensation, non-cash premiums etc...).

All of these together add up to the total package value; and it's the total package value you are negotiation. The salary is just one part of that total value.

The next part of the question is your actual cost to the company.

Your cost to the company as an employee is, as the linked article said, typically somewhere between 1.5 and 2 times your gross salary. Assume 2x for the purposes of negotiation.

Your cost to the company, must be offset by sufficient value to make you worth hiring.

Your value to the company, in revenue, cost avoidance, or cost savings; must be at least 3x your gross salary, and preferably 4x or more, for the company to realize enough value from its expenditure on you to reach a breakeven proposition (at least for large enterprises. Small businesses generally have lower overhead per employee, and also have a lower level of realized value where it's "worth it").

So, for a large enterprise, 3x is about the minimum realized value to cost multiplier for a reasonably well managed company, and smart management tries to get over 7x if they can.

That multiplier turns into a revenue per employee number; which is one way analysts judge the profitability and earnings potential of a publicly traded company.

A well managed, efficiently run company will have a MINIMUM gross revenue per employee of about $200,000. Very well managed companies are often into the $1 million or more.

Pepsico, which has very large manufacturing and transport operations (which are very inefficient business sectors overall), has an average salary of about $70,000 per year, on an average revenue per employee of just under $200,000 per year (slightly under 3x).

They are a "worst case" example, of an operation that is highly profitable, but simply cannot be much more cost efficient. They don't have any wiggle room in their employee cost, because of their huge legacy overhheads and structural inefficiencies (which are not really fixable); but they have spent decades pounding those costs down to the point that they are as efficient as they possibly can be.

Google has an average salary of about $140,000 per year on an average revenue of about $1.9 million per employee (about 13.5x). Google is a "best case" example, of a company with extremely high gross productivity, and an inherently cost efficient structure, and business segment. It's nearly impossible to be more efficient than Google; and they have a LOT of wiggle room on their employee costs.

What all that breaks down to is YES, seriously, in order to be worth hiring someone at $50,000, that person has to generate at least $150,000 or they are a at best a breakeven proposition to the company; and at least $200,000 to really be worth bothering to hire.

If you want to make $150,000 you need to be worth $600,000.

There are only two common exceptions to this rule of thumb (lots of uncommon exceptions in odd market corners though):

1. If you are an independent contractor on 1099 or corp-to-corp, where the company you are contracting with has no benefit or tax burden associated with you, and no (or minimal) office and facilities cost to employ you. In that case you only need to provide 2x your gross salary to be a net positive value (or even 1.5x in a very small, very efficient operation, and you are relatively highly compensated).
   
   
   
2. If you work for a company that provides your services as a service to other companies (a contracting agency, professional services organization or consultancy); in which case they can make money (barely) at about 25% over your gross costs to them.
   
   So if the company can charge $150 an hour for you, they can start making acceptable money on a gross cost of $120 an hour. Remember, there's still about a 20% overhead even on a 1099, and about a 35% overhead on a W2, presuming they are reasonably well managed and efficient; and that has to be factored into the gross cost.
   
   That's for very well managed, very efficient companies. A lot of places aren't so well managed, and they may have another $5 or even $10 an hour in costs; and they'll need to pay less accordingly. You will NEVER see a contracting company take less than $25 an hour on their gross cost for your labor, and they'll try to take a minimum of $35 to $40.
   
   Given this, if they're getting $150 an hour from the client, they're going to want a maximum labor cost of $110 an hour, but may go as high as $115, or in dire need $125. That includes your wage plus the overhead of about 20% on 1099 and about 35% on W2, so the highest they're ever going to go is something like $105 on 1099 and $95 on W2, and much more realistic is $90 1099 and $80 on W2. 

Now remember, these are the maximums they will want to pay you and still make good money off your services. They're going to want to cut that down a bit and make more money off you; and that's not exploitation, that's business.

Most companies will try to start their negotiating position at about 1/2 what they think they can make money on. So, if they can charge $150 an hour for you, and they start making money at a gross cost of $125 a hour, they're going to want to start their negotiation at around $65 an hour W2.

You know that they can still make good money on you at $85 an hour W2.

You know that the absolute maximum they could possibly pay is $95 an hour, and that's unlikely.

Those are your negotiating boundaries.

If you don't know what rate they're getting from the client, a decent rule of thumb is to take the salary of a full time permanent position in thousands, cut it in half, and that's the maximum dollars per hour they are going to want to pay you on W2.

It isn't necessary the maximum they WILL pay, but it's the maximum they will want to pay. The absolute maximum they WILL pay, is a little more complicated, and is based on how much they can charge the client, and how little they are willing to take over your rate.

On that contract they're probably charging the client about 1.5x to 1.75 times the permanent salary (though it may be as little as 1.35 to as much as 2x), divided by 2000 hours.

So, on what would be a $150,000 a year full time position; they're probably charging around $125 to $130 an hour, but may be charging as much as $150, or as little as $105 (if it's that little, it's as a loss leader or special rate for a big client, and the normal percentages go out the window. You'll probably get a max of about $65 W2 for that, about $5 more than you would max out at otherwise).

If they're charging $130, you might be able to get them up to $85 an hour 1099 but they're much more likely to top out around $80. If they're charging $150 though, you may get from $90 up to an absolute max of around $105 (again, that top number is if they're both desperate, and extremely efficient. $95 is much more realistic). On W2, you've got a range topping out at $95 or so if they're desperate, and getting $150 an hour; going down as low as somewhere in the $65-75 range if they're only getting $125 or $130.

Thus, the most they're going to want to pay you W2 is $75, but you MAY be able to negotiate up to $95; and the most they're going to want to pay 1099 is probably $90, but you may be able to negotiate up to as much as $105.

Now, one more thing...

How do you figure out your economic value to the company?

Honestly, this one is about understanding your business, not just your job, and it's something I can't help you with.

That said, it's something you ABSOLUTELY MUST be able to evaluate,  and to communicate to others. You don't necessarily need to be able to put a hard number to it (though it's very useful if you can), but you need to be able to at least understand and estimate it to within a reasonable approximation; unless you can clearly communicate that the number is well over 4x your cost to the company.

If you can't communicate your value, you will never be paid what you are worth... or anywhere near it; and you will never reach a senior level in your field.

2,556 days

2,556 days, 3,385 posts, 2,586,108 unique visits, 3,660,432 unique page views...

Yes, today is my 7 year blogiversary; which is roughly 4 gajillion in blog years.

Actually, since the average "active" blog lasts two years, I suppose the "blog years" works out to about 39 years (based on U.S. average life expectancy) per year, so my blog is now 273 years old.

That would explain why it's not quite as vigorous or "regular" anymore...

3,385 posts... and man I generally write long posts so there must be at least a couple million words in there. Honestly I have no idea how many, but given the dozens or maybe hundreds of 10,000 word posts I've written (and a couple of 20,000 word posts), and the at least a thousand (probably more) 2,000, 3,000, and 5,000 word posts; I think it's at least 5 million and it wouldn't surprise me if I'd written 10 million words on this blog over the past seven years.

Given the average novel these days is around a hundred thousand words, that's something like 50 or 100 novels worth of blathering.

It's been an... interesting... seven years.

In the last seven years I've acquired a wife and two children, spent five years in one job (something I'd never done before), moved our entire life from Arizona to north Idaho, lost my mother and my brother, gained over 200 pounds, lost over 120 pounds of that, and developed cancer (which I am still fighting).

I met my wife six months after I started this blog, and we've been together since three months after that.

It's just... absolutely bewildering to me how different my life is today, from how it was on February 14th 2005. I could never have predicted this.

Thank you to all my readers, and all my friends. I've said this before, I do this for me not for you, but I appreciate everything you've given me, done for me, experienced with me... My life would be far poorer without you.

...and I have a question for you:

For my long term readers, or for newer readers who have read the archives, what do you consider to be my best post of the last seven years, and why?

My Mother is Gone

My Mother, Jane Elizabeth Dinsmore, passed on just a few minutes ago.

This has been coming a long time. She's been very seriously ill for some years.

Three weeks ago, while she was hospitalized for a stroke and a seizure (unfortunately not her first stroke, or even her tenth), they discovered that one of her cancers had come out of remission, and metastasized, and there was no possibility of treatment.

She has been in terminal care for the last few weeks. Last week she stopped taking nutrition, so we knew it would only be a few more days.

My Aunt Maureen has been with her the whole time. I can't even imagine how hard this is for her. I can't thank her enough for being there when I couldn't.

I was at least able to say goodbye to my mom over the phone before she lost the ability to understand.

My mother was only 55 years old, and had spent more than half her life fighting cancer.

I first knew about her cancer when I was 7 years old, but by then she'd had it for around 2 years. The first time was breast cancer. The doctors had told her she didn't have long, and that she should get her affairs in order, so she told me she was dying, and that I would live with my grandparents, and I had to take care of my little brother.

She went off all treatment, and wanted to live or die on her own terms. A few weeks later, she went into complete remission, and stayed there for years.

That's how the last 30 years has gone. Every few years, she would get sick, she would go through treatment, it would look bad, then a sudden remission. It must have been... maybe 7 times I think? Honestly I can't remember. She has had breast cancer, skin cancer, throt cancer, lung cancer, spinal cancer, and brain cancer.

After the spinal and brain cancer, the blood vessels in her brain were severely weakened, and she started having aneurysms, strokes, and TIA. That was... about 9 years ago now? We thought she was going to go then. I moved back from Ireland in 2003 to be closer to her then.

But like always, she fought back, and she got better.

Only that time, she didn't really.

Since 2003, she has been ratcheting down. Each time she'd recover, but a little worse than she was. Each time she had a major episode, it looked like she would go, but she would somehow fight out of it... but shed be further down the ladder than she was before.

At one point, she lost a very big chunk of her memory. At another time she went blind for a while, though her vision came back, severely degraded, but back nonetheless. At one time she lost the ability to speak... but she got it back.

Finally after 30 years of fighting her body, tonight it was finally too much.

Morals, Ethics, Law, and Force

Some folks have a particular problem of reasoning, that makes them do something I (and other libertarian types), find quite irritating.

There are three sets of "rules" for life if you will:

• Morals
  
• Ethics
  
• Laws

Morals are those things which are right or wrong, because your conscience tells you so. They are internal to the self (though they of course may be built on, and guided by, the teaching and precepts of others; morals are by their nature, internal).

Ethics are the rules that are set before you by an organization or entity, to which you belong; but which are not subject to coercive force. Rules of professional conduct for example.

Laws are the rules which are set forth by a state (or other governmental entity), and which are enforced with the coercive force of the state; up to and including physical restraint and violence.

The problem I'm speaking of is the foundation for the most dangerous words in any language "there ought to be a law".

A lot of folks... probably just about everyone, on some subjects at some time in their life... have a problem confusing that which is or should be legal or illegal, with what is or should be ethical or unethical, or what is or should be moral or immoral.

This is a reasonable thing to be confused about. In a free society, that which is illegal should be illegal because it is either immoral or unethical; malum in se, it is bad because it is bad.

All too often though, things are illegal simply because they are illegal; malum prohibitum, it is bad because it is prohibited.

Taking this precept, the people who have this problem I find so irritating, then extend it further, to its inverse. They believe that which is immoral, or unethical, should also be illegal.

That doesn't necessary follow.

Yes, anything illegal should be immoral or unethical (or both); but not everything immoral or unethical should be illegal. Only those things where the coercive force of the state is absolutely required to correct or protect, should have the force of law behind them.

For example, most personal behavior which is immoral or unethical, should not be subject to the coercive force of the state. Infidelity is a matter between you and your partner, not you, your partner, and the state.

Unfortunately, for many, this impulse is uncontrollably strong. They simply cannot accept that what they believe to be immoral or unethical behavior, can be allowed to happen; and in their world view, we must use the coercive force of the state to stop it.

I simply cannot abide this view.

It is, in all seriousness, dangerous.

Giving the state the power to prohibit anything someone believes is immoral, would be disastrous to liberty. Who is the arbiter? Certainly not the majority, who are more tyrannical than any dictator. Certainly not an elect few. No-one has the wisdom, never mind the authority, to make such decisions, and any attempt to do so is tyranny of the highest order.

We must simply accept, that people will behave badly, illegal or not. They will do and say things we find disgusting, or reprehensible. We are not required to put up with them doing so around us, we can exclude them from our lives and our property (I'm all for shunning and exile); but we can't bring the coercive force of the state to bear on them.

That's the ugly side of liberty. Believing in liberty, means believing in liberty for everyone, even the immoral, and the unethical.

Impossible Ideology, False Dichotomy, and Unacceptable Conclusions

This post is a clarification of an ongoing theme I've addressed before... and which has been addressed many times before by myself, by other bloggers, and by scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell.

I'm talking about the "Stupid or Evil" false dichotomy.

Those of us with a libertarian, or economic conservative bent (social conservatives seem to suffer from this tendency as much as liberals, just in a different area), frequently have a huge problem understanding why "Progressives", liberals, socialists etc... keep advocating and even implementing clearly nonviable ideas, against all past results or evidence.

How anyone can still, not slightly, but whole heartedly, and with the entire force of a government behind them; implement socialist ideas? The entire 20th century stands as incontrovertible evidence that socialism, in any form, in any way, for any reason; is not just a failed political system, but a horrible idea in general.

And yet, millions of people around the world still advocate for it passionately... even kill or die for it.

When we oppose these people, or these ideas, they declare us to be "stupid" or "ignorant", "delusional", "defrauded and manipulated by evil/greedy masters" or simply "evil" ourselves.

The question here is not one of fact, it is one of ideology; in a belief structure where the political is the personal, and political ideology substitutes for tribal identity, or religious faith.

For these people evidence, and reality, are irrelevant. Something is true not because of evidence, reality, or history; but because their ideology says it must be true. Something is false not because evidence says so, or because it doesn't work; it is false because it differs from the ideology.

This behavior is maddeningly baffling to those of us who attempt to use reality, history, logic, and a healthy appreciation for the law of unintended consequences; as a guide for our ideas and our actions.

Warren Meyer over at Coyote Blog, put up a post this morning, that put me in mind of this particular topic again (emphasis mine):

"I am perfectly capable of believing Drum honestly thinks that further deficit spending will improve the economy this year. I think he’s nuts, and working against all historic evidence, but never-the-less I believe he is sincere, and not merely pushing the idea as part of some dark donkey-team conspiracy. Why is it that he and his ilk, from both sides of the aisle, find it impossible to believe that their opponents have similarly honest intentions?

I mean, is it really so hard to believe — after spending a trillion dollars to no visible effect, after seeing Europe bankrupt itself, and after seeing the American economy begin to recover only after crazy stimulus programs have mostly stopped — that some folks have an honest desire to see economic improvement and think further stimulus programs are a bad idea"

Yes, it is impossible.

It is impossible, because they are arguing from ideology not from reality. They believe in what HAS to be true, because their ideology says so; not what reality, or experience, proves to be true.

Their ideology is core to their perception of their identity, and their sense both of self worth, and the worth of others. Their judgement and reason are based on it. Everything is filtered through this ideological prism, because it HAS to be, for the health of their own psyche.

For someone whose entire perception of self worth depends on their adherence to an ideological precept ("I am a good/better person because I believe this morally better thing"), then anyone who disagrees with this precept must be stupid, ignorant, defrauded, deluded, or evil.

There is no room for honest disagreement in this. To preserve their self worth, and sense of identity, there can be no doubt, and no acceptance of any possibility of error. There is one true path, which they follow, and anyone who deviates from it is apostate.

If therefore, one cannot dismiss opponents of their ideological precept as stupid, ignorant, defrauded, or deluded (and in the case of clearly intelligent, well informed people, presenting reasoned arguments against your precepts, you obviously cannot); the only thing you can challenge is their motives.

Your opponents MUST KNOW that you are right, that your ideology is right; since they are intelligent and well informed, and of course any intelligent and well informed person (such as yourself) can see your ideology is clearly morally superior (just as you did).

Therefore your opponents must be evil, or at best venal and self-interested.

It simply must be that way, because any other conclusion is unacceptable.

Lilyhammer is a must watch

If you are a netflix subscriber, you need to watch Lilyhammer, right now.

For those who haven't seen anything about this yet, Lilyhammer is the first independently produced show specifically for Netflix (in cooperation with Norwegian television), and I have to tell you guys, it's great.

How great?

Well, I watched all 8 episodes of it in the last 12 hours.

I won't spoil anything here, I'll just say it's the best comedy drama I've seen in a long time.

Every once in a while, being an insomniac has a fringe benefit.

Last Minute Prediction

Kickoff if a couple minutes away, and my prediction for the superbowl tonight is...

27-21 Patriots

Vegas is saying 28-25 pats.

UPDATE: Well... I was half right

Bacon... Milkshake?

One of the benefits/ drawbacks of working in a bank is that quite often you see the same people day in and day out. The manager of the local Jack in the Box is one of those people I see every day, and I actually like to see on a daily basis.

On Wednesday he came in and by the luck of the customer line draw I ended up helping him that day. That conversation is how I found out about a new limited time item on the menu, the Bacon Shake.

Tonight I ran over to ye olde Jack to pick one up for a very intrigued Chris.

 First off, there were no signs up for this concoction, at least as far as I could see. I asked the person at the drive-thru if there was indeed such a thing (it wouldn't have surprised me if he was pulling my leg after all) and sure enough it does exist.

As Chris said, "imagine smoked vanilla ice cream topped with maple syrup and a few shakes of salt."

Does it taste exactly like bacon? No. Does it taste like someone took the essence of smoke and bacon and waffles with syrup and blend it together? Yes.

It is a very odd, very compelling taste. We couldn't finish the entire shake though, as there is such a thing as too much smoked ice cream.

Jack in the Box gets 3.5 out of 5 stars for taste, and 7 out of 5 stars for an awesome concept.

Mel

So, So Very Revoked

see more Very Demotivational

Unfortunately, I (Mel, not Chris) already knew such things existed. No, pantyhose for men is not a hoax, in fact you can buy them here (found while looking for stockings for myself, thankyouverymuch.)

Despite the wide availability, somehow I think I'll still be the only adult in the family who wears pantyhose to work.

Mel

So, 9 months out, my prediction for the 2012 election

So, some of y'all might have noticed that we're having an election this year.

You know, like anyone who isn't actually dead and buried (and even then, if you're in Chicago...).

Given that it's just about 9 months out (next Tuesday to be exact), I figure it's time to gestate a prediction on the election.

As of now, this is the state of the countries presidential preference, according to the various polls being used by http://www.270toWin.com (a site which has proven in the past two election to be somewhat left biased in their poll selection, so if anything it's probably a little stronger for republicans):

I disagree with some of those being listed as swing states. I think there's about ZERO chance that Virginia, South Carolina, New Hampshire, or Florida, will be voting Obama this year, and Pennsylvania is so Anti-Obama they may actually drag him down in other sates.

Oh and Obama is only polling significantly over 50% (as in out of the margin of error) in TWO states right now.

Which two?

New York and Hawaii.

Even California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts are all at 50% or so. EVERY other state is below 50% support for Obama. Even New Jersey. Pennsylvania is down to about 35% support for Obama.

Yes, my prediction here is assuming the undecideds break almost entirely against Obama, but I believe that's exactly what is going to happen in most states.

So, here's my guess for the final result:

I'm pretty confident that, presuming nothing insane, ridiculous, heinous etc... happens between now and november, that I will come within 20 votes, and I am moderately confident that I'll be within 10 (the only state I see as particularly iffy here is New Mexico).

Oh and for anyone holding out hope for a miracle, or a revolution... stop, please. It's not going to happen, and it's just making Obamas chances better. The republican party nominee IS Mitt Romney.

Not "will be" or "might be"... IS.

Ron Paul is never going to be on a Republican presidential ticket. Nor Newt, nor Santorum or any of the other sideshow candidates (yes, I choose that word deliberately).

Get over it, and get used to voting for "not Obama".

Hmm... Yeah, all three pretty much

I work with all three, and yes, that's pretty much exactly what I do... Well, 'cept I've got no neckneard, just a VanDyke.... unless I get lazy for a week or two anyway.

Oh and if you get this joke, and don't have "the Brads" in your comic feed, you should.

The more music I listen to in my life

The more I realize, that no-one ever has been, or will be, as good as Thelonious Monk.


There has never been a better piano player certainly; nor a better composer of jazz music.


Why Monk isn't mentioned in the same breath as Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven, I simply do not understand.

The more you can adjust things, the more you can screw them up

Tweaking is for the experienced, for those who don't really need what is being tweaked all that much; or for those who have enough time and money on their hands to fix things (or have a professional fix things) when they inevitably screw them up.

General rule of thumb for almost everything...

The more things there are to adjust on a rig, the more things that:

1. Can be misadjusted
2. Can drift out of adjustment
3. Will go wrong

This can also be expressed as "there more there is to tweak, the more there is to fuck up".

It's not that you don't want adjustability; it's just that the more adjustable something is, the more you're going to need to adjust it... pretty much universally.

It doesn't matter what it is; guns, cars, stereo equipment, cameras, airplanes, motorcycles, bikes... anything mechanical, electrical, or in any way technical; the more there is to adjust, the more there is to screw up.

That's why stuff for amateurs usually offers limited adjustable bits, and limited ranges of adjustment; while stuff for professionals usually makes as much adjustable, with as wide a range of adjustment, as possible.

Professionals have the time, knowledge, and experience to adjust things properly, and monitor their adjustments. Amateurs don't, unless they are expert amateurs at that particular thing.

Admittedly, some expert amateurs are actually better at whatever thing they're expert at, than the professionals. Professionals often don't have the time or energy to explore the outer limits and weird capabilities or fringes of the thing they are working in, focusing mostly on their day to day work.

However, becoming an expert amateur requires even more time, effort, training, education, money, and resources than doing something professionally (and you don't generally get paid for it).

So, if you're not prepared to take the time, money, and effort to become either a professional, or an expert amateur at something, DON'T FUCK WITH IT.

Thank you, that is all.

Educating those outside the gun culture who've been defrauded

As I mentioned the other day, my post "Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture" was a repost of something I wrote in another forum.

It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:

"I would hesitate to advise one to carry a gun only because many people do not fully understand the reality that if not prepared to use the weapon and possibly kill a human being, one risks having that weapon taken from then and used on them...


I am not up on current statistics but I believe from past classes that the statistics were pretty high on injuries and deaths from ones own weapon."

I wasn't going to do this, because as I said, this can be an emotional issue for many; and because of the huge infodump required.... But I really hate to see it when a fraud is unknowingly perpetuated by someone, who doesn't know any better.

To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.

There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.

"You are 14 times more likely to be injured by a gun in your own home, than if you don't have one"

and

"Thousands of children are killed by guns in the home every year"

Let's talk a bit about those claims.

First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...

However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.

The reality is very much different.

Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully;  which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.

When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.

Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.

Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.

Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.

The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.

Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).

Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.

Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.

Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).

Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.

Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.

Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...

The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.

Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.

There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.

Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.

Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.

You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".

There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million -  so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).

About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).

Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.

Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).

The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.

The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.

The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.

Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.


The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.

The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.

Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.

For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works,  "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.

Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture

Almost all my readers are "gun people", in that they own guns already, are interested in guns, guns are a hobby and form of recreation for them etc...

However, I'm also a part of several other communities or subcultures if you will, where guns are an uncomfortable subject, or just a mystery.

For example, I teach basic self defense, to women, and to gays, for free. I fully and firmly believe, armed women don't get raped, and armed gays don't get bashed.

I have a lot of friends in what you might call "alternative sexuality" or "alternative lifestyle" communities. These folks often engage in what you might consider fairly risky behavior; in that they meet strangers in private places etc... Basically, a lot of the necessary conventions of these communities, because they require discretion, privacy, secrecy etc... are the exact things the self defense classes and books tell you NOT to do.

I used to have a lot of friends who were escorts, strippers, in porn, or some combination of all of the above (I did security for them. You make friends pretty quickly in those situation). They have all those same risks, only turned up to 11.

I'm involved in gaming, both casual and hardcore, both tabletop and video gaming; and a lot of gamers and geeks just don't know a damn thing about guns or self defense... or worse, what they "know" is dead wrong... meaning it will get them, and others, dead.

We in the gun community or the gun culture if you will, understand that there is a hell of a lot of just plain bad information out there in the non-gun world; and we should, when we can, try to help others to get GOOD information, and to learn how to defend themselves safely, and responsibly.

To that end, I'm going to repost something I wrote on a forum for one of those groups I mention above.


-----------------------


The best way to protect yourself is to avoid being in danger in the first place, absolutely; but when that plan fails, the best way to defend yourself is a weapon.

Less lethal weapons are always an option if you feel you can't carry a gun, or can't kill someone who is trying to hurt you. Stun guns and chemical irritant sprays CAN be useful and effective if used properly.

Though I have seen far too many cases where they were not effective enough, to trust them as a primary means of self defense, any advantage you can give yourself in a life or death situation, is one you should tale. Also, unfortunately, in many places, these may be your only lawful means of self defense.

If you do choose to use a contact stun gun, a taser (they are two very different things by the way, and the difference is important), or a chemical irritant; you NEED to get training in how to use them safely, and effectively; and you ABSOLUTELY must practice with them at least once.

The time to say "huh, that didn't work the way I thought it would" is in training, NOT when someone is about to rape you to death.

Now, lot of folks in this community are not comfortably with firearms, but they carry knives; and they believe they will defend themselves with a knife if the time comes.

Let me tell you right now, you want to think of a knife as your absolute last resort in a defensive situation.

Unless you are an expert martial artist, trained for years in self defense with a knife, you are unlikely to be very effective in doing so; and you are likely to hurt yourself badly if it ever happens.

Even knife experts, and I'm one of them; hurt themselves badly, when defending themselves with a knife... and I'm one of them.

I've been in a couple of knife fights. Trust me on this, you REALLY want to avoid a knife fight under any circumstances. Next time you see me, ask me to show you some of my scars.

The two things most people don't understand are:

1. It's VERY hard to defend yourself with a knife. It's pretty easy to hurt someone pretty badly, but it's very hard to STOP them from attacking you, which is your goal; and it's very easy to hurt yourself in the process. Plus in order to use a knife effectively, you have to be close enough that they can grab you, and really, you should avoid that if there's any way you can.

and

2. You are far more likely to die or be permanently disabled or disfigured by a knife wound, than by a gunshot.

That's counterintuitive, but ER statistics prove it out. You are far more likely to die from a knife wound, because you are likely to lose more blood, have a greater chance of shock, and are more likely to suffer more severe infections, and more secondary infections.

So, while I won't say knives are useless for self defense, or not to grab one if it's your only weapon (any weapon you can use, is better than no weapon at all, if you're defending your life)... don't make it your plan to defend yourself with a knife, and don't carry a knife for self defense, unless it's your only option, or it's a backup to your other self defense methods.

My personal recommendation is, if you are able to deal mentally and emotionally with the concept of killing someone (and you need to be 100% able to deal with it, otherwise you are going to be a bigger danger to yourself and others than a rapist or killer is. If you can't, stick to less lethal weapons) you should carry a firearm.

Nothing stops a rapist so well as a bullet... or five.

Again, I want to stress, you shouldn't carry a gun unless you are entirely comfortable doing so; and have accepted the idea that you may, no matter how much you dont want to, need to use the thing on another human being, and you are safe, mature, stable, and responsible enough to do so.

If you are bi-polar or depressive, and your illness is not well controlled with medication you take religiously, you probably shouldn't have a gun. If you're an addict who is not doing well in recovery, you probably shouldn't have a gun (if you are an addict who is not in recovery at all, it is illegal for you to have a gun). In general, if you're someone who has great difficulties with mental or emotional stability... you probably shouldn't have a gun.

I won't say you definitely shouldn't, because everyone is different, as are everyones individual issues... but in general, unless you are sober, and stable, you shouldn't have a gun.

Also, you shouldn't carry a gun if you are not physically safe and secure (crackhead roommate? No guns til you move, which you should do immediately), responsible and conscientious about your possessions (if you lose your purse every week... don't carry a gun), and you have received training in self defense shooting, and the legal issues surrounding armed self defense in your state.

Note, I'm not saying it should be illegal for you to own or carry a gun without training in firearms safety and the legal aspects of self defense. What I'm saying is that unless it's a life or death emergency, you shouldn't, you're an idiot if you do, and I don't want you carrying a gun around me or mine.

You should also train with your defensive firearm at least once a month; both to ensure that your skills in shooting are adequate and safe for self defense, and to ensure that the firearm is still functioning properly.

Finally, when you decide to own and carry a gun, you accept a burden to behave in a safe and responsible manner.

People who carry guns for lawful self defense, can't allow their anger, or their depression, to get the best of them. They can't get into bar fights. They can't get into domestic disturbances. They can't get drunk or high.

Carrying a gun for lawful self defense means you always need to be the better man or woman in any situation. You need to turn the other cheek, and exercise restraint and caution, even further than those who don't carry.

Now, if I haven't scared you off after all that heavy stuff, here's my offer.

I am an NRA certified firearms instructor; and have additionally been trained in firearms use and instruction by Gunsite Academy, Frontsight Academy, Massad Ayoobs Lethal Force Institute, and several other firearms training facilities. I have acted as a trainer for several law enforcement organizations, security contractors, and for private clients; for almost 15 years.

If anyone in my region, wishes to learn how to shoot a gun for the first time, wants to learn about firearms safety, want's their kids, or family to learn about firearms safety; want's advice about firearms for defending themselves, or wants to get back into shooting; I will give them free instruction, and use of my firearms and safety gear, any time I'm available.

The only thing I ask, is that if you can, you pay for the ammo. If you can't afford it, I've got a fair bit, and I'm glad to share it with you... but ammo isn't free, and these days, it isn't particularly cheap.

Just had to share this quote...

From Richard Kadreys "Sandman Slim":

"I hate Glocks. Guys who love Glocks love Corvettes. Not because it was a hot car, but because it was cool forty years ago and they once saw a picture of Steve McQueen in one. Their dad probably had a Vette when he was young, but he was never cool. But if they have a Vette, maybe they can forget the fat man who made them mow the lawn when they should have been out with their friends sneaking into R-rated movies, and who embarrassed them in front of their girlfriends. Maybe their dad was the guy driving fast and locking lips with Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair. Maybe their dad was cool after all and maybe that made them cool, too. That’s what Glocks are. High-precision killing machines that scream “Daddy Issues.”

Note: This is coming from the mouth of a character who carries a knife, a collapsible spear/naginata type thingy, THREE single action revolvers, a 1911, and a sawed off shotgun all at the same time.

Ok, I don't hate Glocks at all, never mind for that reason (don't like how they feel in the hand, or their triggers, even when very well massaged), but I think that paragraph is just funny as hell.

Also, given the association with fat men, and corvettes, I think Kadrey is basically saying "Glocks are for douchebags".

Much as the corvette is now permanently tainted with douchebag stench from all the douchebags who bought them (these would be the douchebags who bought vets at 40... they owned Iroc Zs when they were 20...), the Glock is permanently tainted with douchebag stench from all the douchebags who bought them because of rap videos and action movies.

Though... I think there's a much stronger case to be made that the douchebag gun of the last 30 years is the Desert Eagle...

The Greatness of America

It's 2am.

I'm sitting here, in my underwear, looking out at the most beautiful snowscape, 50 miles from nowhere.

Eating leftover Sichuan chicken (extra extra hot)...

Drinking ice cold cream soda...

Watching old punk videos, streamed over the net...

This is why we win.

It didnt...

...Except to gay men who care more about how the clothes look, than the women.

An Explanation... for almost everything really...

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

-- T.S. Eliot

We don't go black... we try to turn on lights

We're not going black today, over SOPA or PIPA.

In case you by some miracle hadn't noticed it yet, tens of thousands of web sites around the country and around the world, are "going black" or putting up banners explaining that they are not available or there is no content today etc... In protest against the "Stop Online Privacy Act" and the "ProtectIP act", which are currently (or were recently), being promulgated in congress.

We don't have a problem with anyone who does. It's important that people understand what SOPA and PIPA are (or were), and most folks are sadly unaware of the kind of stupid and harmful things that our government does.

Google and Wikipedia are two of the most important and most used sites on the net; and by participating in this protest, they will very certainly make a lot more people aware of this issue.

But "going black" isn't what we do here.

We talk about political and social issues here; in particular about liberty and freedom. We try to inform people about the important issues, events, and principles of liberty and freedom; and then talk about them in as free and open a way as we can.

I personally think that going black would be entirely against what we are about here; and while it might help to draw more attention to the problem, it wouldn't help us inform you, or help us begin the conversation about the issue.

... and of course, you can't go to wikipedia today to find out about it...

Note: actually, you can. All other searches are redirected to a "Stop SOPA" page, but you can research SOPA all you like... but it was too smartass not to say.

So, I personally, would like to do something that is in the spirit of protesting the idiotic and harmful nature of these pieces of industry lobbying masquerading as legislation...

...And share a few things:

That's the best explanation of why the freedom to share (within fair use of course, copyrights ARE important) is important; and why legislation like PIPA and SOPA are not only stupid and harmful, but entirely antithetical to the American system of ordered liberty.

And then there's this piece by my friend (and bestselling author, buy his excellent books please) Larry Correia:

"for all of the people out there on the internet having a massive freak out about the government potentially damaging something they love… WELCOME TO THE PARTY.

You think this is something new or unusual? Nope. This is just about a topic that you happen to be familiar with. If you fall into that camp, I want you to take a deep breath, step back, and examine all of the other issues in the past that you didn’t know jack squat about, but your knee jerk reaction was to say “there’s a problem, the governement has to do something!” Well guess what? The crap the federal government usually comes up with to fix these problems is similar to SOPA. In other words, the legislation addresses a perceived problem by instituting a bunch of stupid overregulation and taking away someone’s freedom.

You think people need access to affordable medical care and shouldn’t be denied coverage? Well, you got used and we got the bloated ridiculous mess that is Obamacare. You saw a news report about how big business defrauded people and said congress should do something? Well, everyone in the business world got screwed because of Enron by completely useless new arbitrary crap laws, and a few years later we got into an even bigger financial crisis which the arbitrary crap laws we spent billions conforming to did nothing to prevent. No, because that financial crisis was caused by people saying that there was this huge problem that needed to be fixed, so more people who couldn’t afford to pay mortgages could still buy houses, and the government simply had to do something to fix this problem!

Any crisis… Any problem… You ask the feds to fix it, you get this kind of answer. Almost never do the laws fix the actual problem. Instead the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers and it doesn’t fix the issue. When the problem gets bigger, then the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers that actually make the problem worse. Oh look! Despite all of these laws the problem has gotten even bigger? Whatever should we do? Why, I know! Let’s pass an even bigger law that takes away more individual freedom and gives the government more control!
Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Any topic, any situation, any problem.

They address it, you lose freedom and they gain more control. Some of you are only offended today because this particular law hurts something you enjoy. The rest of the time? Screw it. You can’t be bothered to pay attention. Or worse, people like me who are up in arms over an issue are just cranks or anti-government crackpots."

I was going to write something roughly similar to this, but Larry beat me to it... and I'd rather share what he wrote, because it's good, and because I can.

At least for now...

Missed another milestone

Huh... looks like sometime in November I passed the 2.5 million unique visitors, and 3.5 million page views.

I've kinda stopped paying attention to the numbers.

I'm also coming up on my 7th anniversary as a blogger in about a month.

So... what would you Irish that up with?

Everclear, or 151?

7 years on... "Why I carry and gun", and "Superiority Complex"

Just  about 7 years ago, I wrote a pair of posts, about why I carry a gun, and how I feel about carrying; titled "why I carry a gun" and "Superiority Complex".

I thought this would be a good time to republish those posts. Unfortunately, in the great Haloscan purge of 2010 I lost most of my sites comments before 2009 (Haloscan comments prior to some point in 2009 were unreadable by the import engines of other commenting systems. Thousands of bloggers lost their comments); so you can't read the literally hundreds of comments, both good and idiotic, on these posts.

I'm republishing these now; first because Kevin reminded me of the posts by linking to "superiority complex" in a recent link chain (to a post from 2010 actually); but also because the world has changed a lot since 2005.

I think it would be interesting to see how comments run these days.

So, here we go (note, I updated the dates, fixed typos etc...):

Why I Carry A Gun

My favorite anecdote about Bill Jordan goes a little something like this:

Now Ol' Bill, he was a direct man, and a big one at that, so most of the folks he put away were willing to chalk it up to "just business", and leave it at that.

Well Bill heard this feller was raisin' a stink about comin' round to get some back at him for, but he didn't think too much of it.

A few days later, Bills sittin' out there on his porch, and he's got his trademark combat magnum in his lap. His neighbor walks by and says to bill "See ya got yer pistol there Bill, you 'spectin trouble?", So says Bill "Nope, if I was expeting trouble, I'd have my rifle"

I carry a gun whenever it is legal, and not impolite for me to do so (I respect peoples property rights). When I am entering the home or place of business of someone I don't know, I will inform them I am armed, and ask them if they would prefer I not carry a gun while there.

It's just polite.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you carry a gun, do you expect trouble?"

No, I carry a gun not because I expect trouble, but because I can...

If I was expecting trouble I'd carry a 12ga.

The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bullshit; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them.

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

Many people are uncomfortable with that responsiblity. They believe that they can't be trusted with it, and by extension, neither can anyone else. They fall back on saying "the police" or "the government" should take care of that. Someone with special training, and the blessings of the state should be responsible, but not me, or you, or anyone else.

I can think of no clearer way of saying "I am immature, and not to be trusted".

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen.

A few years ago, I broke up with a girlfriend over this. She asked me what I would do to someone if they tried to rape her. I told her flat out that I would kill him. No hesitation there at all. She told me later that from that moment, she was afraid of me.

I asked her what she would do if someone tried to rape her. She said she wouldnt fight. "What if you had a gun, would you shoot the guy to stop it", no she wouldnt do that. "ok what if I was there and I shot him, would that be OK", no of course not. Finally I asked "What if a cop came along, and he shot the guy would that be ok" well of course, he's a cop.

That attitude frankly baffles, and disgusts me, yet there are so many people who hold it. They feel morally superior because they would never "sink to that level".

Personally I would consider that pretty clear evidence of moral bankruptcy.

The same applies to people who would never fight in a war, but are OK with soldiers and cops defending their rights. Oh, they'll protest, and march in the streets, but actually doing anything? No they're all above that and have disdain for everyone else who isn't, calling us savages, and rednecks, and barbarians etc...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

And the second post:

Superiority Complex 

In my essay "Why I Carry a Gun", I explicitly state some thing that either piss people off, make them uncomfortable, or provoke irrational emotional reactions.

To wit:

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

...

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen

...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).

The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.

Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.

More in the extended entry...


ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.

Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.

Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.

I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.

I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.

Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.

Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?

Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.

Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.

What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.

Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.

Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.

Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.

Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.

I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.

Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.

Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.

Just in case there was any confusion, I feel exactly the same way I did seven years ago.

I have no problem with you if you don't want to carry a gun. Lots of people don't want to, for any number of reasons.

But if you believe that you are not responsible enough to carry a gun, what you are saying to me is "I am irresponsible, and cannot be trusted".

If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a car, or a knife, or gasoline, or household cleaners... You certainly can't be trusted around my kids.

You are saying that the only thing preventing you from doing wrong, is that you don't have the tools to do so; and I don't want you around me.

All that said, you and I don't have a problem with each other. You live your way and I'll live mine... just stay away from me, and my kids.

If you think that because you are not responsible enough, no-one is; you are simply dead wrong. You may not be responsible enough, but plenty of us are.

Perhaps you can learn for yourself that you are wrong.

Talk to a responsible gun owner. Go out shooting with them. It's fun, and maybe you'll learn something. Guns aren't magic, they're just inanimate objects. Two pounds of metal, with no will, and no intent. They're tools; and just like any other tools, they can be used or misused.

If, after learning a little bit about guns and safety, and gun ownership, you still decide that you are not personally responsible enough... I respect your decision, and your self awareness; but you should understand that just because you are not mature or responsible enough for gun ownership, doesn't mean I am not.

If you believe that YOU personally are responsible enough, and police and the military are responsible enough, but the rest of the law abiding citizens of this country are not...

...Well then there's no help for you.

Haven't really been able to write for over a week now

Yeah, I wrote a post on Tuesday, but it was one of those "I'm still alive, and really frustrated" things...

I'm on the horns of a dilemma...

There's a couple of things I really want to write, but also don't want to write... and they're not letting anything else come out until I finally figure out what I'm going to write... or decide not to write at all.

The first thing is about California and politics. The second is about the upcoming election, and our "choice" of candidates.

Those are fairly predictable topics for this moment. What I'm going to write isn't going to be predictable, and will probably piss people off...

On the other hand, I'm not sure I even want to get into it.

I'm so worn out on politics right now... hell, I have been since what, 2008?

When was it that I wrote about being tired of making the same arguments over and over again, and already having said it all?

The other thing though...

The other thing is what's really freezing me up.

My brother died a year ago this last Monday...

Sunday, January 9th, 2011, my not quite 32 old brother died; of a combination of a severely weakened immune system due to cancer, an untreated septic infection, and the effects of both prescription and illicit drugs.

I really don't know what to write about that.

I really don't know HOW to write about that.

I NEED to say something, and I can't; and I can't seem to say anything else until I do.

... and I... just... can't.

Not now.

Maybe later.

Finally recovered (mostly)

I've been sick since the week before Christmas. Upper respiratory infection and sinus. It's had me flat on my ass most of that time.

About half way through, I decided I was better, and resumed a few days of regular activity; which, of course, made me even sicker.

I'm FINALLY, mostly, recovered.

In the meantime, I missed a review appointment with the Idaho department of Labor, which caused me to miss a week of unemployment. Yay. Got that sorted out yesterday; and because I couldn't get it sorted til yesterday I actually miss two weeks (a little under $700). Not good.

No, they don't pay back benefits either (some states do), they just tack the extra two weeks onto the end of my eligibility.

Yay.

Oh and the IDOL are actually great, and this wasn't their fault in any way.

Because I was sick, I missed the notice that they sent me saying I needed to go to the review (apparently they sent it the wednesday or thursday before christmas. I was already sick when it got in the Monday after christmas, and didn't notice it). I got the second notice, saying my unemployment was suspended, last Friday, after close of business. It was automatic based on my not showing up, or responding to their initial notice.

First thing Monday I called them up and we were able to do the review over the phone; it was only because of the holidays messing with mail delivery timelines etc... that things got so screwed up. They were extremely helpful, courteous and professional; and they view their job as helping me return to gainful employment, not to try to catch me cheating.

Meanwhile, theres a $700 hole in my already limited budget for the month.

Again, yay.

It's 51 frikken degrees out...

In January.

In North Frikken Idaho.

And it's GOING to be 57 before the day is done.

IN JANUARY IN NORTH IDAHO...

What the hell?

So, you know what happens...

When you're sick, and you feel a lot better, so for a couple days you resume your normal activities... only you weren't actually better?

Of course you do, because, like me, most of my readers do the same thing.

You get a HELL of a lot sicker than you were before.

That's what I've been for the last week. A hell of a lot sicker than I was the week before last.

Still am actually, probably will be for another few days.

Blargh.