My kind of hymn.
For Readers in Washington State
I can't remember if Raven is currently living in Washington state or not, and it may be that others of you are. Your legislature is considering a bill, HB 1553, that could make life a little bit easier for bikers.
The law is supported on a bipartisan basis. It simply forbids using the wearing of "motorcycle-related" clothing and gear as part of a profiling decision by police. Thus, while engaging in unlawful activity would still make you subject to being stopped, questioned, and so forth, merely wearing a biker shirt or a club vest (or something that could be mistaken for a club vest) would not.
If you're a Washington state resident, you can consider the text of the bill and inform your representatives of your opinion on it.
The law is supported on a bipartisan basis. It simply forbids using the wearing of "motorcycle-related" clothing and gear as part of a profiling decision by police. Thus, while engaging in unlawful activity would still make you subject to being stopped, questioned, and so forth, merely wearing a biker shirt or a club vest (or something that could be mistaken for a club vest) would not.
If you're a Washington state resident, you can consider the text of the bill and inform your representatives of your opinion on it.
The Dubliners' Guide to Dublin
Ran across this this evening. Haven't watched it all, but it seems interesting.
So, Atlanta Had A Good First Half
Brother-in-law is a huge Pats fan, so I'm enjoying the affair more than usual.
So far.
UPDATE:
Turns out that scoring 21 unanswered points in the first half won't save you if you give up 31 unanswered points in the second half plus Sudden Death overtime.
So far.
UPDATE:
Turns out that scoring 21 unanswered points in the first half won't save you if you give up 31 unanswered points in the second half plus Sudden Death overtime.
Problems with Statistics on Refugees
Matt Y. over at Ricochet makes the argument that American Christians should welcome the refugees from the Middle East instead of opposing their resettlement here. He does make some good points, but he also uses the following statistic, which seems irrelevant to this argument:
I think there are three problems here, and this is the second article I've seen these same three problems show up in, so I'd like to address it.
First, there is no real opposition to "refugees," but rather "Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems." In fact, among Americans who oppose taking in more Muslim refugees, I suspect there would be a strong willingness to take in Christian and Yazidi refugees from these same regions. The conflation of terms here implies a general xenophobia rather than specific concerns about a specific population, and although I don't think it is intentional, it is insulting.
Second, limiting the geographical area to the United States is also problematic because most of the Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems have gone to other places, such as Europe. So, to be relevant, one should include all nations that have accepted these refugees.
Third, the fear of taking large numbers of these particular refugees is not limited to terrorism. When Europe began taking in large numbers of these refugees, there were immediate problems with sexual assault and other crimes.
Because of these factors, it seems to me that the only really meaningful statistic would cover the particular refugee populations in question regardless of geographic area of resettlement and it would include all crimes, not just terrorism. If that statistic were used, I suspect the argument would look very different.
All that said, I have yet to see anyone arguing for bringing in 100,000 Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems address some of the deeper concerns of their opponents, including issues of long-term assimilation and the radicalization of second and third generation Muslims in Western nations. These are also important issues, and if someone wanted to change my mind about bringing in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems, they would have to address them as well.
The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.
I think there are three problems here, and this is the second article I've seen these same three problems show up in, so I'd like to address it.
First, there is no real opposition to "refugees," but rather "Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems." In fact, among Americans who oppose taking in more Muslim refugees, I suspect there would be a strong willingness to take in Christian and Yazidi refugees from these same regions. The conflation of terms here implies a general xenophobia rather than specific concerns about a specific population, and although I don't think it is intentional, it is insulting.
Second, limiting the geographical area to the United States is also problematic because most of the Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems have gone to other places, such as Europe. So, to be relevant, one should include all nations that have accepted these refugees.
Third, the fear of taking large numbers of these particular refugees is not limited to terrorism. When Europe began taking in large numbers of these refugees, there were immediate problems with sexual assault and other crimes.
Because of these factors, it seems to me that the only really meaningful statistic would cover the particular refugee populations in question regardless of geographic area of resettlement and it would include all crimes, not just terrorism. If that statistic were used, I suspect the argument would look very different.
All that said, I have yet to see anyone arguing for bringing in 100,000 Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems address some of the deeper concerns of their opponents, including issues of long-term assimilation and the radicalization of second and third generation Muslims in Western nations. These are also important issues, and if someone wanted to change my mind about bringing in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems, they would have to address them as well.
Frog spit
Frog tongues are incredibly soft, which helps them glom onto prey. Apparently, though, the saliva is even more ingenious:
A mixture of cornstarch and water becomes solid if you hit it. Ketchup becomes runnier if you shake the bottle. Saliva is like ketchup: Forces makes it less viscous. But while human saliva becomes around ten times less viscous if you apply force to it, frog saliva becomes a hundred times less viscous.
So when a frog tongue strikes an insect, its saliva flows freely and readily seeps into every crack and gap. When the tongue slows down and starts retracting, the saliva thickens again into a paste, the equivalent of a closed fist grasping the insect for the journey back.
“The analysis helps to explain many bizarre observations, like why frogs use the backs of their eyeballs to push prey down their throats,” says Kiisa Nishikawa from Northern Arizona University. When the insect’s in the frog’s mouth, the frog has to get it off its tongue. Fortunately, all of its adhesive tricks work best in the perpendicular direction—it may be really hard to pull the insect off, but it’s comparably easy to slide it off. The frog just needs something to push against the insect—so it uses its eyeballs. Twelve years ago, Robert Levine used X-ray videos to show that a frog swallows, it retracts its eyeballs inwards, and uses these to push victims off its tongue.Cat tongues are another kettle of fish.
MS treatment advance
A new treatment for multiple sclerosis, using the patient's own stem cells from the bone marrow, shows surprising promise.
Gunsmoke Blues
Ran into this while listening to a bunch of old blues on YouTube:
Big Mama Thornton was the first to record "Hound Dog," made famous by Elvis, and we get to hear her sing it in this video somewhere a bit after the 50-minute mark.
During a production hiatus of the popular TV Show "Gunsmoke", the film crew decided to take off and film a barnstorming blues revue making it’s way across the country and they ended up in Eugene, OR, with cameras rolling to film Muddy Waters, Big Mama Thornton, Big Joe Turner and George "Harmonica" Smith as they performed in a music hall. Date: October 20, 1971.
Big Mama Thornton was the first to record "Hound Dog," made famous by Elvis, and we get to hear her sing it in this video somewhere a bit after the 50-minute mark.
Opening Up the White House Press Briefings to Local News Reporters
Saw this on Ricochet. A recent White House press briefing was set up for Skype and four local newsfolk* who were not in DC were able to ask questions.
This was great. First, it further breaks the monopoly of the national media on the president. Second, it allowed the news people to ask questions about how national policy might influence their local situations. Third, it brought in points of view not often seen in the national media, such as a pro-coal publisher who framed his question in terms of the damage being done to the Kentucky economy by anti-coal regulations.
Wiley at Ricochet has videos set up so you can watch while the questions are asked and answered.
*Technically, one was the publisher of a local paper, not a reporter.
This was great. First, it further breaks the monopoly of the national media on the president. Second, it allowed the news people to ask questions about how national policy might influence their local situations. Third, it brought in points of view not often seen in the national media, such as a pro-coal publisher who framed his question in terms of the damage being done to the Kentucky economy by anti-coal regulations.
Wiley at Ricochet has videos set up so you can watch while the questions are asked and answered.
###
*Technically, one was the publisher of a local paper, not a reporter.
That "Netherlands Second" Video
Apparently there are now a bunch more, as European nations jump on the bandwagon.
They are strangely self-critical, these videos. They seem to be mocking their own patriots almost as much as Trump. At some point, the series becomes a mocking of the idea of patriotism itself.
They are strangely self-critical, these videos. They seem to be mocking their own patriots almost as much as Trump. At some point, the series becomes a mocking of the idea of patriotism itself.
Knife Rights in Georgia
The Georgia Legislature is in session. Our friends at Knife Rights are seeking support for a Senate Bill that would alter the definition of a "knife" in Georgia. I'm not sure it's a good idea, though I completely support the right to carry knives of any kind.
SB 49 would change the definition of a knife, for the purposes of a carry permit, from "a cutting instrument designed for the purposes of offense and defense consisting of a blade that is greater than five inches" to "a pointed or sharp-edged instrument consisting of a blade that is greater than 12 inches," with both of them specifying that such a blade has to be attached to a handle. (Is a hatchet now a "knife"? Only if its blade is greater than 12 inches, I suppose. Perhaps an axe is.) There are no laws restricting the carrying of a "knife" per se; rather, a further definition is that a "weapon" means a "knife or handgun," and the law restricts the carrying of a "weapon."
Now, read the code section where this definition would apply.
I think the argument is that this would simply eliminate any standard by which knives shorter than 12 inches are barred from being carried. However, it seems to me it would also remove the clarity that the knife I am carrying is specifically authorized by our laws.
SB 49 would change the definition of a knife, for the purposes of a carry permit, from "a cutting instrument designed for the purposes of offense and defense consisting of a blade that is greater than five inches" to "a pointed or sharp-edged instrument consisting of a blade that is greater than 12 inches," with both of them specifying that such a blade has to be attached to a handle. (Is a hatchet now a "knife"? Only if its blade is greater than 12 inches, I suppose. Perhaps an axe is.) There are no laws restricting the carrying of a "knife" per se; rather, a further definition is that a "weapon" means a "knife or handgun," and the law restricts the carrying of a "weapon."
Now, read the code section where this definition would apply.
(a) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license.It sounds to me as if the Senate Bill in question narrows the protections of the weapons carry license rather than expands them. As the law stands, with my weapons carry license I can carry a Kabar (8" blade) and it's covered. Under the proposed revision, a Kabar wouldn't be considered a knife. While that is (a) absurd in itself, (b) that means my carry license no longer explicitly licenses me to carry it.
(b) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner.
(c) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry any handgun provided that it is enclosed in a case and unloaded.
(d) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun who is eligible for a weapons carry license may transport a handgun or long gun in any private passenger motor vehicle; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135.
(e) Any person licensed to carry a handgun or weapon in any other state whose laws recognize and give effect to a license issued pursuant to this part shall be authorized to carry a weapon in this state, but only while the licensee is not a resident of this state; provided, however, that such licensee shall carry the weapon in compliance with the laws of this state.
(f) Any person with a valid hunting or fishing license on his or her person, or any person not required by law to have a hunting or fishing license, who is engaged in legal hunting, fishing, or sport shooting when the person has the permission of the owner of the land on which the activities are being conducted may have or carry on his or her person a handgun or long gun without a valid weapons carry license while hunting, fishing, or engaging in sport shooting.
(g) Notwithstanding Code Sections 12-3-10, 27-3-1.1, 27-3-6, and 16-12-122 through 16-12-127, any person with a valid weapons carry license may carry a weapon in all parks, historic sites, or recreational areas, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-3-10, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, in wildlife management areas, and on public transportation; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a handgun into a place where it is prohibited by federal law.
(h) (1) No person shall carry a weapon without a valid weapons carry license unless he or she meets one of the exceptions to having such license as provided in subsections (a) through (g) of this Code section.
(2) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon without a license when he or she violates the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
I think the argument is that this would simply eliminate any standard by which knives shorter than 12 inches are barred from being carried. However, it seems to me it would also remove the clarity that the knife I am carrying is specifically authorized by our laws.
I do hope so
I read somewhere last week that Scott Walker was meeting with President Trump to discuss union-busting. Mike Gecan opines in the New York Daily News that the President's opponents are making the same mistakes that Walker's did:
The Trump team is following the Walker playbook, with some variations. Like Walker, it is running aggressive plays right from the start. It doesn’t have to feel out the opponents’ soft spots and tendencies. It knows them.
The difference is that it isn’t just running one play. It’s running a series of them, one right after the other, to keep the defense confused and on its heels.
Second, it’s counting on the opposition to fall into the same trap that the Wisconsin opposition did — to rely on massive demonstrations and to ignore the need to do hard, local, person-by-person organizing back in the local towns, villages and counties.Trump doesn't seem like a guy who loses sight of the difference between showy and effective actions. If he's showy, it's because he expects to achievable an effect. I supported Walker in the primaries because he'd mastered tactics to achieve his goals, and I was so tired of D.C. Republicans who couldn't seem to navigate their way out of a closet, if indeed they genuinely cared about the goals they claimed to be pursuing. Trump turns out to share a lot of my goals, to my enormous surprise, and I look forward to his implementing them systematically, while his opponents mistake squawking and violence for persuasion and the pursuit of concrete influence.
Fake News
NYT:
Nor was this the only way in which Iran violated the so-called 'deal.'
I'm not sure the whole Obama administration had a "pillar" among them. This certainly wasn't one.
President Trump, after promising a radical break with the foreign policy of Barack Obama, is embracing some key pillars of the former administration’s strategy, including warning Israel to curb construction of settlements, demanding that Russia withdraw from Crimea and threatening Iran with sanctions for ballistic missile tests.I'm sorry, was I supposed to believe that new sanctions on Iran was a "pillar" of the Obama administration's foreign policy? I would have described them as 'something they did their very best to fend off, but finally recognized was going to happen whether they liked it or not.' The Obama administration opposed new sanctions on Iran throughout its second term as it sought its so-called 'deal' with Iran. Iran engaged in multiple ballistic missile tests after the so-called deal, which even the UN viewed as violating the terms of the arrangement.
Nor was this the only way in which Iran violated the so-called 'deal.'
I'm not sure the whole Obama administration had a "pillar" among them. This certainly wasn't one.
The Ship May Have Sailed on That, Sarah
I'm guessing a certain NSW unit is getting chewed today, not that they will probably care all that much.
Rethinking the Probabilities on Harley-Davidson
President Trump meets with Harley-Davidson officials at White House
So, in light of today's very public meeting, I'd have to say the probability of the CNN story being true has declined substantially. It's not impossible that the visit to Harley's factory or museum was in some planning stage and then dropped because of fear of protests. However, this is a very public visit that took some trouble to visually associate their products with the President.
The man had something to say about bikers, by the way.
He greeted the five bikers warmly, saying, “Made in America, Harley-Davidson.”Apparently there remains a background issue in that Harley-Davidson has recently outsourced some of its IT work. President Trump didn't make a big deal of it in the photo-op, but there is some reason to think they might have discussed it inside.
Mr. Trump added that during the campaign, bikers “were with me all the way.”
But he did not hop on for a ride. Pres. Trump joked to the journalists gathered to watch the welcome: “Boy, would you like to see me fall off one of these!”
About 125 positions were eliminated at Harley-Davidson in the process — and workers who lost their job are now suing, claiming they were discriminated against in favor of South Asian employees."Made in America" is not just about manufacturing jobs. I wonder if it came up. Likely we will know soon.
According to the complaint, most of the workers Infosys brought on had H-1B visas, which are intended for highly skilled fields in which there are a shortage of American workers. But the suit argues that there were plenty of qualified workers available: the ones who just lost their jobs at Harley-Davidson.
Quasi-markets in education
I thought Thomas might appreciate this article about the difference between regulating a market and regulating a monopoly. One of his arguments is that we can use some market tools even in a heavily regulated area, and that the likelihood of a tool's usefulness will alter depending on who exercises the choices and with what degree of freedom. He makes the interesting suggestion, for instance, that most ventures fail, and that it makes more sense to employ a strict standard on the back-end, in deciding what failed ventures to withdraw public support from, than to regulate strictly what sorts of ventures can be started in the first place.
What kind of conservative is Gorsuch?
AEI is on fire today. Here is a careful analysis of where Gorsuch is and is not in line with traditional conservative judicial trends. The bottom line: "If Gorsuch is confirmed, he is likely to be a vote for deference to state governments and to Congress but not to government agencies." He may be skeptical of the "dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine, as Scalia was; in other words, he may be inclined to support federal control over arguably interstate commerce only where Congress has explicitly occupied the field, not in every area where Congress might conceivably opt to occupy the field someday. Also like Scalia, he is skeptical of government agencies' attempts to usurp the legislative function and might be inclined not to grant them the usual deference when they do so. In these areas he is in line with the most recent developments in conservative judicial theory.
He may be a bit of an outlier, however, in his principled refusal to override state or federal legislative authority in any other areas. That may make him a bit like Justice Roberts: not inclined to rescue voters from the bad effects of their decisions where there is any doubt at all about the Constitutional issue implicated.
He may be a bit of an outlier, however, in his principled refusal to override state or federal legislative authority in any other areas. That may make him a bit like Justice Roberts: not inclined to rescue voters from the bad effects of their decisions where there is any doubt at all about the Constitutional issue implicated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)