Gym Shooting Proves Concealed Permit Holders Do Kill

One of my favorite sources of controversial subjects is "Opposing Views".

They'll accept/select opinions from anyone, and then let you to track down the sources to make up your own mind.

One of the problems with this (excuse the expression) "Shotgun Technique" is that most many of the cited articles are written by individuals or organizations with cultural bias. Another is that most many of these articles fail to present reference links which allow the reader to examine the original statistics by which the authors' conclusions are reached.

It has been my experience that, unless the article (or White Paper) includes such a link ... usually as a citation rather than an actual link, it's all too easy to accept the prejudices of the author(s) as fact.

This article (see the link at the top of this page) is no exception to the general rule. In fact, the articles usually present links, which are supposedly offered to support their claim, from their own in-house opinion pieces! (See

Let's dig into this and see if we can't find some truth we can believe in.

The original (July 20, 2009) opinion piece by the Violence Policy Center (verified expert) asserts:

Concealed Gun Holders Kill 7 Cops, 44 Citizens in Two Years

Washington, DC -- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).


This is, of course, a National Tragedy. Make no mistake, murder of either police officers or private citizens is a problem that we must all work to eliminate.

The question is whether the portion of the problem committed by "Concealed handgun permit holders" is so endemic and so overwhelming that the obvious solution (as is hinted at by the VPC article) that issuing Concealed handgun permits to citizens should be abrogated.

The purported genesis of this article is this (hence the title of this blog-article):

CHICAGO – Yet another concealed weapons permit holder and “legal” gun owner, George Sodini, with no prior criminal record, committed mass murder. On the evening of Aug. 4, Sodini attacked an aerobics class at the LA Fitness gym outside Pittsburgh where he used three handguns, two of which used high-capacity ammunition magazines that could hold up to 30 rounds, to gun down three women and wound nine others before killing himself.

The shooting tragedy is yet another indisputable example that, despite gun lobby rhetoric, “law-abiding” gun owners and carrying concealed permit holders do commit crimes, including homicides and rampage shootings.

I do encourage you to go to the link for this article, follow the story and entirely familiarize yourself with the background.

(And you might dwell for a moment on the COMMENTS engendered by this article. Not everyone seems to accept the VPC interpretation of the raw story.)

Essentially, the facts as stated seem to be correct.

However, the implications as stated seem to be ... skewed to support the VPC basic precepts:

• guns are bad,
  
• guns in the hands of civilians are bad,
  
• fewer guns available would result in fewer deaths of police and civilians,
  
• and (in this specific instance) that no measures to keep guns out of the hands of outlaws yet allow their possession by 'honest citizens' are adequate to prevent outrageous murder.

Well, on that final concept, we can only accept that no practice or policy or procedure is perfect, and even in the realm of the NCIC (which The Brady Bunch and VPC have supported with few reservations since it's original inception) ... there are bound to be a few wackos infiltrating the system.


Still, is it reasonable to expect that a program being conducted under the auspices of the Federal Government be "perfect"? (Despite voluminous reports by the FBI detailing how the NCIC system prevents criminals, maniacs and other 'undesirables' from being allowed to purchase firearms.)

What are you talking about Willis?

Who here expects any better than mediocrity from the Federal Government? These are the people who brought to us MediCare, MediCaid, the U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, the Income Tax, Cash for Clunkers, and with a lot of lobbying going around ... ObamaCare.

Sorry, I digress.

No governmental program is perfect, and perhaps the most nearly perfect Governmental Program is that which has not yet been enacted.

So you got to ask yourself; do I feel lucky?

After all, how well has the National Instant Check System and (more important) the Concealed Carry program on the state level ... been administered.

With our federally mandated, state-level programs to allow Concealed Handgun Permits really working? Are we filtering the "Honest Citizen" from the General Population, and vetting these Honest Citizens to the benefit of the general population?

Or is this only a program supported by the Right Wing-Nut Conservatives in support their own nefarious agenda?

Maybe, somewhere, we can find some real "Statistics", from a "reputable source", in our Search for Truth.

For sure, we can't find Truth in the Popular Media.

Or can we?

---

During my research, I found that even the most egregious left-wing anti-gun websites sometimes cannot resist the urge to cite their sources. Sometimes, it does not reflect their particular agenda in the very best light.

---

Let's look at: "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Permit Holders"

It's only when you get very near the bottom (look for "The Tennessee Experience") that you see ... curiously, a link to a "Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders, Texas Department of Public Safety, Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm"

Now select "2007 Conviction Reports Rate (PDF)".

Texas may be considered one of the most "liberal" (excuse the expression) issuers of Concealed Handgun License in the nation but surprisingly the Texas state reports do not, to my jaundiced eye, reflect a preponderance of crimes committed by Handgun Permit Holders.

In their report:

Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders
Reporting Period : 01/01/2007 - 12/31/2007

... Texas listed a mere 0.2612% of CHL holders cited for 'offenses' (160 offenders for 61,260 offenses committed). No, that's not 26% ... that's a tad more than one quarter of one percent of 5,000+ offenses a month being committed by CHL holders.

Curiously, of the 160 offenses committed by CHL holders, there are some which seem less than than immediately threatening to the community:

IMPROPER PHOTO/VISUAL RECORDING AROUSE/GRA - 16 - 2 - 12.5000%
This might be interpreted as taking photographs (not of children, that's another category and does not list by CHL holders as participants) which might be likely to cause arousal. Of 16 offenses, two (12.5%) were committed by CHL holders.

UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER 15 9 60.0000%
"Unlicensed carry of handgun"?? I don't know what this can possibly mean, unless it means carrying a handgun in an area which is not permitted by the terms of a CHL. Whatever, it means that 9 of the 15 offenders hold a CHL, for a whopping 60%. This is the largest congestion of CHL offenses, which makes one wonder ... how did the other six get bundled into this category?

UNL CARRYING WEAPON 3,738 29 0.7758%
Here's another category which denies interpretation. "Unlicensed Carrying a Weapon"? One can only assume that 29 (out of 3,738) offenders chose that day to carry a weapon which was not a Concealed Handgun covered by their CHL,

PROH WEAPON SWITCHBLADE/KNUCKLES 939 4 0.4260%
This must be closely related to the previous two offenses. Apparently 4 out of 939 offenders were CHL holders who, on that occasion, chose to carry a switchblade knife or Brass Knuckles rather than/in addition to ... the handgun which they were permitted to carry concealed by the Great State of Texas. [Maybe they wanted a "non-lethal" alternative"? If they were police, we would consider this a virtue, wouldn't we?]

In this small sample we see in 4248 of the relatively minor offenses (nobody got shot, or even had a gun pointed at them) 46 were committed by CHL holders ... who didn't even have a gun with them at the time of the offense. Uh ... that represents just over one percent of the total offenses, doesn't it? Isn't that a big part of the 0.26+% of the total CHL Holder offenses? Let me see: 40/1560 = 28.75%. Yep, more than a quarter of these offenses have nothing to do with Concealed Handgun usage.

How about plain old, everyday "murder"?
MURDER 371 2 0.5391%

Two of the 371 murders were committed by CHL holders.
Something to think about, eh?

Yet according to the VPC, during the 1/96-10/97 period, Texas CHL holders were arrested for 946 crimes 263 of which were felony offenses.

The keyword here is "Arrested". That doesn't mean "Convicted". In fact, that doesn't even mean "Charged". (If they were found innocent at their trial; if they were released before trial; or if they were released before they were even taken to booking ... it still counts as an "arrest".)

It only goes to prove that statistics can mean whatever you say they mean, especially if you don't feel obligated to prove the validity of your statistics by citing source of the data.

I don't have the specific figures for how many citizens within the Great State of Texas actually
have applied for, and have been approved to legally carry a concealed weapon. However, if YOU are willing to do the research, I would be very interested in any data you can provide to prove that more than 00.26% of the citizens in Texas have a CHL.

Bottom Line:
Yes, we have some Bad Boys in CHL lists; but their number is exceedingly small. Far beyond their representation in the General Population.

The Brady Bunch and VPC have campaigned for tightened restrictions on private civilian firearms ownership for YEARS, and when the Federal Government has replied in accordance to their desires, these NGO organizations, instead of acknowledging that the Feds are working hard to respond to their concerns ... have only become more strident in their calls for more restrictions, and less acknowledgments that the general populace of the United States of America actually includes reasonable, sane people who are not driven to mass murder by the simple possession of a firearm.

(Do NOT postulate this to a member of VPC or The Brady Bunch; it would ruin their day and drive them to madness, with who-knows-what consequences to Law Enforcement Officers and Private Citizens.)

UPDATED 17-AUG-09 to break down the statistics from the TEXAS sources, and correct numerous typographical errors.

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision

TheHill.com - Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision:

Here's good news for Olde Pharts:

"The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as 'death panels' to encourage euthanasia."

Why is this "Good News"? Well, it saves you from a bunch of Socialist LugNuts who want to talk to you to, instead of that MRI your doctor says you desperately need? Just try taking Tylenol 3 for the rest of your short happy life.

The "Bad News"?

Well, they 'just aren't going to talk to you about it".

Instead, they're just going to deny your request for an MRI. Because it may not be available. Who's going to pay for it?

The Brits
The Brits like this, because under the rules of National Health Care (NHC), if you are too old and need 'special treatment', they just won't give it to you. And if you have 'retired out of country' (although you have contributed to NHC for your whole life), or if your drugs are "too expensive", they won't give it to you.

Perhaps you have paid privately for a drug which may extend your life, because can afford the payments for a specific treatment which the British NHC has denied you? Then you can (and apparently, WILL) be denied ALL other heath care benefits regardless of your previous participation and contributions to NHC.

The Canadians:
How about the many stories that Canadians pay less for health care?

We recently wrote about Canadian Health Care, and the summation (if you believe the source, which I find not entirely unreasonable), if you want to get 'fixed' in Canada, it won't cost you much money. On the other hand, actually GETTING the Health Care may not happen within a time-frame which meets your "immediate care" needs. That is, Health Care may be cheap, but if you can't find a doctor who can treat you before you lose a leg or two ... how much help is that?

The sad fact is that when you can't belly up to the bar, mates, the cost of the drinks is immaterial.

There are lots of articles suggesting that Canadian Health Care is superior to American Heath Care, but they're built upon the same fallacy: talk about the cost, not about the abundancy of health care plans which are available ... now ... when you need it.

There's one guy (Arthur Salm in San Diego, as a GOOGLE-chosen example), who claims that "Canadians Are Not Dying By The Milions").

Good to know, but misleading. Hell, we all die sooner or later. What counts is the Quality of ife.

Let's take a look at Mr, Sam's assertions:

... in Canada, everyone is covered. No one worries about how they’ll pay for medical care, no one is afraid to leave their job because they’ll lose coverage, no one is bankrupted by medical bills, no one has to choose between a prescription drug and putting food on the table. The Canadian government doesn’t mandate or guarantee health insurance; the Canadian government mandates and guarantees health care. Doctors receive payment from, but are not employed by, the state. No “government bureaucrat” determines what test or treatment a patient will receive; if a doctor orders it, the patient gets it. Period.

Lots of stuff in that single paragraph.

And in the entire article, because the author doesn't even mention the difficulties involved in getting in to see an actual DOCTOR, not a NURSE. (Doctor can initiate health-care procedures; nurses can filter access to over-worked doctors.) People with "non-elective" health-care problem get attention in Capitalist America; people in Socialist Canada with the same problem go piss up a rope. If you only have a leg to stand on, in Canada they'll saw off the healthy leg first.

Is this what Fox News means when they say "Fair and Balanced". Should it be the primary health-care criteria in America? I think not. I think if you have one bad leg and one good leg you should let 'em take the bad leg first. Then wait and see what happens to the good leg later.

I only mention this seemingly facetious story because it (a) is described in a previous link, and (b) may illustrate the point that medical care in Canada does not derive from the goal to "be the best physician in the Provence" but from "I get paid the same as a doctor whether or not I provide the best health care".

This is the essence and substance Socialistic Health Care.

Doctors don't have to be 'good' to attract a customer base (patients ... who incidentally don't even have to be able to pay, they just have to show up). Doctors who show up at the beginning of office hours and stay until the end of office hours are paid the same as those who can save lives.

Socialist Medicine is not a meritocracy; on the contrary, it rewards mediocrity.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I take my Ford Explorer to the dealer and ask him to do a brake job and check the suspicious quiver in my front wheel bearings, it's not as important to me as trying to find a doctor who can tell me "your left leg is gangrenous due to diabetes, and we have to take it off NOW because if we don't amputate it now the gangrene will spread and we will have to remove both legs."

And even more important, I want to have confidence that the doctor will amputate the gangrenous leg before the healthy one.

Am I overstating my point?

Good.

Are you paying attention?

Good.

That's all good because the point I am trying to make is that the Doctors in America are not only profit-oriented, they are ego-oriented. That's a good thing in a Doctor, when compared to doctor who don't really care because there is no economic incentive to attract new patients other than to fill their day.

Let me say that in another way:
Good doctors want to save patients. Mediocre Doctors want to save customers..

In a Socialist state, the doctors who attract new patients often are those doctors who have room on their schedule; the doctors who are more than marginally competent are probably not accepting new patients.

I would rather be considered a Patient, than a Customer.

Wouldn't you?

No Blood For Oil

Families Outraged Over Possible Release of Lockerbie Bomber - Political News - FOXNews.com

Families of the victims of the infamous 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing are outraged that the Libyan man responsible for killing 270 people -- most of them Americans -- may soon be released.

Officials in Scotland said Thursday they are considering early release for Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is the sole person convicted in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The former Libyan secret service agent, who is serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison, has terminal cancer and could be freed as early as next week on compassionate grounds -- much to the dismay of the U.S. State Department, which said Thursday al-Megrahi should remain in jail.

"It's absolutely grotesque and hideous," said Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., whose 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, was aboard the London-to-New York flight.
--

"We have had nothing you would call justice for the mass murder of 270 people -- the worst terrorist attack before 9/11. And this has nothing to with compassion -- it's all about oil," Cohen told FOXNews.com.

She said Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi will feel vindicated if al-Megrahi is allowed to return to Libya -- and that the U.S. and other countries will do little to intervene because of oil interests in the Middle East.

"The powers of the world believe that Qaddafi has to be pacified, and part of that has to do with al-Megrahi's release," Cohen said. "The man is a tyrant, but he has oil."

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that Mrs. Cohen has a point here.

We have endured cries of "No Blood For Oil" since the Iraq war started over 5 years ago, and that was one of the catchphrases of those persons of the Liberal persuasion who demanded out support of the "Bush Lied, People Died" school of thought.

Yet here, in the early days of what seems likely to prove the most Liberal administration since FDR, a friendly government appears to be willing to release a proven terrorist and mass murderer .. and one cannot help wondering it this may just be an attempt to achieve the "most favorite nation" status in regards to a trumped-up despot of the middle east.

Muammar al-Qaddafi (the infamous terrorist-supporter, agent of terrorism, supporter of Arab Nationalism, supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization, author of the 1986 Berlin Discotheque Bombing and the terrorist bombing of the 1988 Pan Am 103 flight explosion over Lockerbie Scotland (which killed 270 people and led to international sactions) and the 1987 bombing of French Flight 772 which lead to a further 170 deaths... is not a nice man.

The West has no reason to love him, or his agents.

Yet here we see that The Brits is prepared to release one of his terrorist agents "on compassionate grounds.

How much "commpassion" has Qaddafi -- or his agents -- shown the West?

Crystal ball sets unforeseen fire

Crystal ball sets unforeseen fire | The Sun |News

The 20 (British Pounds Sterling) ornament refracted the rays straight into the back of Kim Yeates's TV which overheated and exploded, igniting a nearby sofa.

Kim, 53, who lived alone, was out visiting a friend and returned to find 10,000 (British Pounds Sterling) worth of damage caused to her first-floor flat.

Firefighters blamed the 4in-diameter glass sphere she had kept in her window in Worle, Somerset.

I am posting this because, as bizarre as the situation seems, I have some familiarity with the phenomenon.

In the mid 1980's, I was married to a lady who was a believer in many New Age philosophies including the metaphysical healing powers of crystals. She brought with her two daughters (8 and 10) from a previous marriage.

One Christmas my wife bought a six-inch diameter crystal ball for her younger daughter, for purposes which were perhaps meaningful only to her. The crystal ball came with a small stand, and the daughter placed that stand on a mirrored dressing table in her bedroom.

There it stood through the long winter, into the spring and nearing summer.

One Saturday morning in May, we were all at home having breakfast when I noticed the smell of burning wood in the house. Since we were no longer using the fireplace, I was concerned. There was no reason to smell smoke; our house was closed, and even if the neighbors were using their fireplace we were unlikely to be aware of it.

We investigated, following the smoke smell from the dining room to the living room, down the hall, to the daughter's bedroom at the end of the hall.

When we entered the bedroom, we saw the morning sun shining through the east-facing window. The early morning sunlight was refracted by the crystal ball and focused on the back-board of the dressing table much as a magnifying glass will focus the rays of the sun. There was a perfect circle burnt into the maple backboard, less than a quarter of an inch in diameter, and so much smoke was curling from that circle it was obvious that it was near to the point of ignition.

Obviously this had occurred within a few minutes of the sun striking the crystal ball, because over time the burnt spot would be elongated to an oval by the movement of the sun.

I stood in front of the crystal, blocking the sunlight from the window, and the intensified sunbeam blinked out.

We removed the crystal ball and put it in a drawer, making sure that all of us understood that the object should stay in the dark unless it was brought out for ... whatever purpose crystal balls serve. It should never be left unattended or on display.

Because we were all witness to this phenomena of nature and refracted light, the crystal ball was no longer a fire risk in our house.

Still, it's very easy for me to understand how this young lady in Somerset passively burned her own home down.

Yes, it's a long and boring story. The point is that it's not a matter of Brit governmental incompetence at work, but something which could happen to everyone.

If it could save just one child ...

... and is it meaningful that the article was posted by a newspaper called "The Sun"?

(Can you hear the theme song from "The Twilight Zone?")

Microstamping Ammunition in California: LAW

I've spent 3 days, and exposed myself to no small amount of embarassment trying (and failing) to establish whether a current California law exists which mandates "Microstamping Ammunition".

I have finally established that such a law exists. It was difficult to find because the actual law does not include the word "Microstamping".

Search Parameters
I searched "California Law" for "Microstamping", with no hits.
Then I brought up all California Laws under the google "Find California Code" and got a list of the 10 most recent bills.

From that list, I worked from the top down and searched each for the literal "MICROSTAMPING". Because I typed the search argument (CTRL/F) as I typed the literal, I got a hit on "MICRO" under the category "PENAL CODE SECTION 12125-12133".

And here, in an (undated, of course) section 12126(b)(7) I found the following:

12126. As used in this chapter, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001, for which any of the following is true:
...
(b) For a pistol:
...
(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph.

The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.

I leave it up to the reader to search for the cited sections of California Law. And I wish you luck, because that entire range of bills which should include 12090 and 12094 are missing from the website.

12131, however, IS available:

12131. (a) On and after January 1, 2001, the Department of Justice shall compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns, and may be sold in this state pursuant to this title. The roster shall list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and model name.

To summarize, it is indeed not legal in California to purchase (as of 2010) a firearm which

"...is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.

Whether the Attorney General (and/or the Department of Justice) can certify that the technical requirements are able to be met ... well, that remains to be seen. Given the current political climate in California, one may be forgiven for assuming that the qualifications will be judged on the widest possible criterea. That is to say, the DOJ will not insist on rigorous testing to confirm that the tracking of handguns based on Microstamping will be 100% infallible, only that it be shown that a certain percent (whichever prevails after cursory testing) be demonstrated 'on occassion'.

If I seem dubious as to the rigor of application of criterea, that's only because I assume that the Great State of California is less concerned with "apprehension of criminals" than with "eliminating private possession of handguns by insuring that law-abiding citizens are denied access, by fiat".

In the meantime, I do heartily render apologies to those who have asserted that "Microstamping" requirement have been enacted into law in California. In particular, I offer "Mea Maxima Culpa" apologies to the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association (PAFOA) for a comment doubting a 10/13/2007 thread on "CA: Microstamping Bill Passed"

KiethPA was right; I was wrong.

Sorry about that.

Microstamping Ammunition in California: 2007 vs 2009

Okay, I'm following up on a LOT of websites which state categorically that the Microstamping Bill has been "passed" in California.

I don't believe itg.

Here's the skinny:
The microstamping bill in the CA 2007-2008 session is AB1471, and it has been given the status of "inactive".
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1471&sess=PREV&house=B&author=feuer

That has been confused with the "procurement of materials for Los Angeles Transit Authority" bill for the CA 2008-2009 session, also labeled AB1471, which may or may not have been passed.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1471&sess=CUR&house=B&author=feuer


You may notice that the URL for each bill is identical, but the destination of each URL is entirely different.
(Note: don't copy & paste, but click on the actual links. If this confuses you, let me know and I'll later provide the links which lead to the links for the appropriate legislative session. It's a Geek Thing, you wouldn't understand. In fact, I don't understand except that I suspect the California webmasters screwed up by not being careful about how they build their links.)

I thnk a lot of commenters and bloggers have confused the two links with the result that they think the Microstamping (2007-2008) bill passed, when actually the" Metropolitan Transit" (2008-2009) bill was the one that passed.

There may be more on this later, because there are a LOT of articles which clicked on the 2007-2008 bill to discover the contents of the "passed bill", and that clicked-link referenced the wrong (2008-2009) bill comment from, among others, the Governor of California.

Strange that there has been so much commentary, even in the MSM, stating that the Microstamping bill has been passed in California ... and the link they refer to has been the MTA bill.

So much for the MSM claim that they are "more reliable than bloggers" because they have this "backup for facts-checking" thing going for them.

New Jersy Microstamping: V_2009

It's a New Jersey Day, and I 'blame' it all on Cemetery's Gun Blog who replied to a recent Cogito Ergo Geek blog article in a comment.

You should see our handgun microstamping bill that our public safety commitee has. It affects **ALL** handguns. Yup. Revolvers. Muzzleloading pistols. Cap and Ball. Self loaders. In NJ, a handgun, is a handgun. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

(He also posted the information on the [www.newjerseyhunter.com] New Jersey Hunter forum.)

Of course I had to follow it up, if only because (a) it was a guest comment and (b) we spent a lot of time reading about MicroStamping last year. Bedsides

Sure enough, New Jersey's Assembly Bill #3848, in the 213th legislative session (March, 2009) presented this bill.

Now March 9 seems a bit late in the legislative session to present a controversial new anti-gun bill, and I don't know how long the session lasts. But here's the search results on this bill number, which shows a comparable senate bill S498 introduced on January 8, 2008 --- which was described as "PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2008 SESSION".

Here's the 'statement' on S498:

This bill would require that all newly manufactured handguns sold by licensed retail firearms dealers be micro-stamped.

Micro-stamping is a laser technology that can engrave or etch minute identifying characters or letters on small, even exceptionally small, objects or items. In the case of a handgun, these engravings or etchings would be placed on the firing pin of the handgun in a manner to ensure their imprinting on each cartridge case when the handgun is fired. The array of characters or imprints on the cartridge could then be utilized by law enforcement to identify the make, model and serial number of the handgun.

The bill requires licensed retail firearms dealers to report their handgun sales to the State Police. The information required in this report is substantially the same information these dealers currently record in a sales register they are statutorily required to maintain. The bill directs the State Police to establish and maintain this information in a data base.

The verbiage on the Assembly is similar, if not identical.

There is nothing new in either the 1/8/08 Senate bill, or the 3/9/09 Assembly bill. While I haven't bothered to compare the two bills to determine whether one has more restrictions than the other, my experience has been that within a given state in which a "microstamping ammunition" bill occurs in both the Senate and the Assembly (or "House") generally they're both reading from the same playbook. Also, that playbook has been provided by the same external source, whether Gun Control NGO's, or the company which purports to provide the technology to support the bill ... at great expense, and with unproven reliability. But I digress.

Looking at the NJ Legislature BILLS BY COMMITTEE, I'm unable to determine the status of either the Senate or the Assembly bill. I haven't yet determined when the NJ Legislative Session ends, although the official website does not list 2009-2010 bills, which implies that the 'next' session has not begun. (Typically, State Legislative Sessions roughly parallel their Fiscal years. Bills which have not been acted upon, or which remain "in committee", tend to fail by default. They may be introduced in the next legislative session, but that requires that they go through the entire process of legislative review.)

I see no evidence that this bill has enjoyed any activity in either NJ house, and so I assume that it will die.

Probably, there has been so much effort in attempting (successfully) to pass Governor Corzine's pet anti-gun bill limiting individual firearm purchases to one-per-month, the Legislature has decided to put all of its anti-gun energy there and ignore all other anti-gun bills for the current (2008-2009) legislative session.

Still, that doesn't mean that New Jersey (or other stages) are giving up on Microstamping Ammunition entirely. In a July 26, 2009 article, NJ.COM "Real Time News" reports that

"Corzine calls for tougher gun control laws"

Gov. Jon Corzine convened a press conference today with his running mate and several Democratic allies to call for additional reforms.

...

The governor also is likely to stoke the ongoing debate between gun-control advocates and gun rights groups in New Jersey, where regulations are among the strictest in the nation, with his microstamping proposal.

Corzine called for the mandatory microstamping of new semi-autmoatic handguns, an emerging technology in which lasers inscribe numbers on firing pins. That means spent casings show a serial number that law enforcement can trace.

A bill introduced in the Assembly March and currently in committee calls for new handguns to be microstamped. The procedure has been adopted by one state, California, and is under consideration by several others. [CGE Note: it's news to me that California has made this law!]

Again, as of 2 weeks ago the Microstamping bill was in committee. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed, but it doesn't mean that it won't come up again.

On the other hand, in 2007 - 2008 Cogito Ergo Geek (CGE) has apparently underestimate the political "will to do harm" at the state level.

Still, regardless of the notions of the Main Stream Media, the latest OFFICIAL news from the Golden State suggest that the California bill AB1471 (introduced) status has not yet become 'enacted to law'.

I may be confused by the similarity of bill titles, or others may be confused by a blogger article dated February of 2009, which states that:

"One thing that has had many Californians fearful for their continued 2nd Amendment rights is the signing into law of AB 1471, Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007, effective January 1, 2010.

This law requires that new concealable weapons to have a means of imprinting the make, model, and serial number of the weapon on cartridge cases fired by that weapon.

The text of the law may be found here."

But the cited link (see above) refers to AB1471 of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session.

As nearly as I can tell, the AB1471 for the 2008-2009 Legislative session refers to materials procurement for the Los Angeles MTA:

 COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER  : A.B. No. 1471
AUTHOR : Eng
TOPIC : Procurement: Los Angeles County Metropolitan
       Transportation Authority.

TYPE OF BILL :
          Active
          Non-Urgency
          Non-Appropriations
          Majority Vote Required
          Non-State-Mandated Local Program
          Fiscal
          Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2009
July 9 Read second time, amended, and re-referred to
 Com. on  APPR.
July 8 From committee:  Amend, and do pass as amended, and
 re-refer to Com. on  APPR with recommendation: 
 To Consent Calendar.  (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July  7).
July 1 In committee:  Hearing postponed by committee.
June 29 In committee:  Hearing postponed by committee.
June 4 Referred to Com. on  T. & H.
May 21 In Senate.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS.
  for assignment.
May 21 Read third time, passed, and to Senate.
  (Ayes 77. Noes  0. Page 1631.)
May 18 Read second time.  To Consent Calendar.
May 14 From committee:  Do pass. 
  To Consent Calendar. (May  13).
May 5 Re-referred to Com. on  APPR.
May 4 Read second time and amended.
Apr. 30 From committee:  Amend, and do pass as amended, and
   re-refer to Com. on  APPR. with recommendation: 
   To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes0.) (April  27).
Apr. 21 Re-referred to Com. on  TRANS.
Apr. 20 From committee chair, with author's amendments:
Amend, and re-refer to Com. on  TRANS.
    Read second time and amended.
Apr. 2 Referred to Com. on  TRANS.
Mar. 2 Read first time.
Mar. 1 From printer.  May be heard in committee March 30.
Feb. 27 Introduced.  To print.

I may be wrong, and the NJ.COM and other internet sources may be right. But so far, I've been unable to find any evidence that the Microstamping of Ammunition has actually been enacted. If you have information to the contrary, I would be grateful if you would provide the evidence so that I can address what most of us would conceive as 'an egregious misapplication of the legislative process'.

When I am corrected, I'll post The Real Truth here. Immediately ... well, as soon as I verify the evidence.

New Jersey Governor Corrizone signs One_Handgun_a_month_law

Office of the Governor | News announcement of '1 gun a month' law


New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine announced on August 6, 2009, the enactment of a bill which will limit the civilian purchase of handguns to one per month, with a limit of 13 per year.

The Philly Enquirer wrote about this measure:

New Jersey will become the fourth state in the nation to limit handgun purchases to one every month. Gov. Corzine signed the controversial measure into law yesterday.

Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer joined Corzine and called on Pennsylvania to become No. 5. The law, which is aimed at slowing gun trafficking, would make life safer in New Jersey and neighboring states by fighting trafficking, he said.

"I just hope Pennsylvanians would make it safer for us by passing this bill," Palmer said at a ceremony outside Trenton City Hall.

The law aims to impede "straw purchasers" - people who have clean records and buy guns legally, then pass them to criminals. The law will take effect in early January but could see some changes before then. A task force is reviewing its potential impact and will make recommendations this fall.

--

California, Maryland, and Virginia have similar laws.

Corzine announced the new gun-control bill during a classic "court-house steps" press conference, appearing backed by dozens of adolescents dressed in blue-over-yellow gym outfits.

The seven-minute press conference is available on Corzine's official web site, and is also presented here: [UPDATE: because the video begins automatically whenever it is referenced, and because it loads slow and runs long, the embedded version has been de-activated by Cogito Ergo Geek. Frankly, it's pedantic, ponderous, and boring. But the link will remain for those who wish to find the original source of the comments quoted below.]

Some of Corzine's most quotable statements include:

"Believe me, the advocates for the status quo, for no change, are willing to go to incredible lengths to make sure that we don't have the gun control laws safety regulations that we need in this state, and in this nation."

and -------

"It is a very simple concept. Somebody can purchase one gun a month, thirteen a year ought to be enough for anybody. And anyone who would argue otherwise, I think, is actually losing track of what is happening in our cities. Twenty-eight percent ... of the guns that get traced back in crime events are actually purchased in New Jersey. And many of those that are bought are bought in bulk purchases.

Corzine's office did not offer sources to support those statistics.

(H/T: Cemetary's Gun Blob Website; here and here. Also note his comment on the Cogito Ergohere. Details on his comment will be addressed in a future article ... say, in about an hour from now when I finish my research.)

New Jersey vs The Shooting Wire

Once again, our friend Jim Shepherd of "The Shooting Wire" excoriates an Eastern Seaboard State which has a Big Johnson against the Second Amendment, and once again I quote his thrice-weekly opinion piece supporting the Second Amendment.

[And also, because The Shooting Wire remains determined to provide a "permanent link" to Shepherd's commentary, I am obliged to quote the thrice-weekly commentary in full, in order to provide you with his opinion. Again, I urge you to subscribe to The Shooting Wire to avail yourself of ... in this instance ... his incisive commentary also on "Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against the District of Columbia in an effort to compel the District to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens", and "the National Park Service has launched a program encouraging hunters to voluntarily switch to alternative ammunitions and stop using lead bullets. The NPS says the lead's a health threat." You should subscribe to The Shooting Wire here. Do it now!]

Geek take: transparent attempt to undermine the Second Amendment.

Shepherd sez:

Bad Laws, Bad Legislators, Bad Ideas

On Friday, it would be nice to be able to talk about the anticipation with which we all look toward the weekend. After all, it's the most continuous time many of us have to enjoy the outdoors. Some Fridays, unfortunately, that's just not possible.

Yesterday, New Jersey became the fourth state to pass legislation limiting state residents to one handgun purchase every thirty days. We have been told, however, that this isn't legislation designed to be anti-handgun - it's anti-violence legislation.

Right. It's necessary in a state with almost as many firearms regulations as indicted legislators. It's nothing more than "feel-good" legislation. The bill's supporters says it's going to cut of a supply of guns to gangs and others who use straw purchases to do their gun buying for them.

In fact, says Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, [link added by Cogito Ergo Geek editor] "The only people who need more than 13 handguns a year are legitimate collectors, exempted by the law, and handgun traffickers who need to buy and sell handguns in volume to make a profit from their dirty and damaging and illegal trade."

To their credit, supporters of the bill have managed to keep the wealthy collectors off their backs by exempting "legitimate collectors." They've also kept hunters from having much of a voice in the argument, too. Handguns are illegal for hunting there.

"This premise of this law is a fallacy," stated state Assemblyman Gary Chiusano. [link added by Cogito Ergo Geek editor] "Many New Jersey residents have to wait upwards of 100 days to obtain a pistol permit. So after passing background checks, getting fingerprinted, and paying fees to obtain the permit, which are only valid for 90 days anyway, government is now telling people they can only purchase one handgun in a 30 day window after going through all of this bureaucracy. This bill is pure symbolism."

"In a recent Executive Order, Governor Corzine [link added by Cogito Ergo Geek editor] created a task force to examine New Jersey's firearms laws," said Assembly member Steve Oroho [link added by Cogito Ergo Geek editor] , who volunteered to serve on the task force. "But in less than a month after creating the task force, he is already pushing for new gun laws. The Governor is looking to score political points among his far left constituency in what he probably hopes will one day be a universal ban on private citizens owning firearms."

It's wishful thinking, but any company that manufactures or sells handgun-related products in New Jersey (or Maryland, or Virginia, or California - the other three state with similar legislation) should be in the process of packing and relocating. It's time firearms manufacturers started demonstrating their disapproval with idiotic legislation by removing their contributions to the tax base that pays the salaries of these legislators.

Like I said, wishful thinking.

And like I said:
this is a "transparent attempt to undermine the Second Amendment."

The part of the "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't specify Congress. It isn't just in imposition on "CONGRESS". It's worded such that every governmental entity not only should, but must take heed of this elementary "right of the people".

It is a basic American Constitutional concept that our citizens enjoy certain "unalienable rights". The difference between "Unalienable" and "Inalienable" is significant. (See previous link. Discussion on that difference is available here.)

The concept of "States Rights" is also significant. In the 10th amendment of the Constitution, we discover that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

In this specific case, we see that the Federal Government does indeed, in the incarnation of the Bill of Rights, take precedence over the rights of the individual state.

Here, the State of New Jersey has taken it upon itself to abridge the Second Amendment (" ... Shall Not be infringed") The state has not this permission according the the Constitution, any more than has Washington, D.C. the constitutional permission. As has been established by the Heller Decision of 2007:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause.

[emphasis added by Cogito Ergo Geek]

We see here that a state has subdefined the number of firearms which an individual may purchase during an arbitrary period of time. While it may suggest a valid reason for enactment (to prevent 'straw purchases" of weapons for later sale), it still constitutes an 'abridgment' of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Despite their obvious good intentions, the legislators of the good state of New Jersey have obviously run afoul of the Constitution of the United States of America. That presumption cannot be allowed to stand without challenge.

Often Underestimated

Many have underestimated the will of the American people

Political Commentary -- Pttuiiii

I am mindful that a lot of the posting I have been submitting lately has been political in nature. (I say that just in case you think I have been sleep-writing.)

This was not the original intention of this blog.

The sad fact is, I've been reading newspapers more frequently than I have been participating in shooting competition, and frankly I have been more appalled by the political events in my homeland than I am by the many reasons I have not been doing as much shooting as I would prefer.

If you find yourself in the same situation, you too may be suffering from "Politiomiolitis", which is loosely defined as ... well, make up your own definition. I'm making up this entire article as I go along, so it's entirely fair.

Here's a piece of Full Discovery:
At one time, I found myself being very grateful to God that my son was not obliged to be drafted into the military. I tried that once. Didn't much like it.

Now my much-beloved son has volunteered to join the military. I am proud of him for his decision, and for the reasons he made that decision, but I am so concerned that he has put himself "In Harm's Way".

Ultimately, almost everything I do is showcased against the background of concern for my children. Perhaps you find yourself applying the same yardstick; perhaps not.

But I look at the ways that politics is poisoning the country of my birth, and I grieve for my children.

I'm old, I won't have to put up with this 'stuff' much longer. I fear that politics may shorten my life, given the Rationed Health Care Bill which looks frighteningly likely to end up looking like the British Health Care System. There are so many other easy-spending bills which seem to be passed without the opportunity for our legislators to even read, even understand the new programs. My son, my daughter, and their children will have to pay for them even if they see no real benefits to these "cloudkookoolandian" attempts at socialism.

And so [sigh] I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with my persistent politicization of Cogito Ergo Geek.

As the saying goes, I love my country but I fear my government. Mostly, I fear that the current administration may historically be viewed as the worst in the past century, and the burdon of correcting these economic and societal errors will be visited upon our progeny.

Our grandparents had to deal with the problems of The Great War ... World War I, "The War to End All Wars".

Our parents faced similar problems recovering from the ill effects of World War II.

We were in charge of The Viet Nam War; the War Against Poverty; and The Great Society -- and we handled it badly. We do not have the luxury or our fore-bearers, we cannot claim to have successfully faced fearful challenges and emerged triumphant. We even elected Jimmy Carter. Who is going to name US "The Great Generation"?

Nobody, and rightfully so.

Now we discover the need to defend ourselves against an administration which is more intrusive that LBJ, less competent than Carter, and sneakier than Tricky Dicky. (Side note: I cast my first ballot against Richard Nixon, because I would not buy a used car from that man. I think it's an honest commentary to assert that I would not buy a condom from Barrack Obama.)

You and I probably will not be the ones who will decide which direction our nation will move in this decade.

We can only hope that we have raised our children well, have educated them to think for themselves, and that they have learned to take counsel of their native good sense to identify and know a charlatan when they see one, reject his attempts to undermine our culture, indemnify his attempts to legislate our country into a Socialist Society, and seek leadership from an as-yet-unidentified leader who relies less on rhetoric and more on the Constitution which has served us so well.

God help us.
-----

PS: yes, I will probably continue to speak out against political measures which, in my opinion, threaten our country and our culture, despite attempts by our new rulers to encroach on our constitutional thought and the exercise our First Amendment rights as if it were a terrorist action.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

There's something "fishy" about that, all right.




Fred Thompson's frantically paced (perhaps necessarily) take on this subject is available as an audio file here.

The Smallest Minority Drives On

In case you didn't catch Kevin's comment in the sidebar, the Gun Bloggers Rendesvous has found a new organization to handle the ticket sales to benefit Soldiers Angels (see the earlier post explaining their disappointment with the hopolophobic PayPal here).

There's a full update at Kevin's website, so clicky on The Smallest Minority, here and take a look at the pistol they're raffling off.

Kevin's not only a talented writer and a consummate researcher of information, he's a thoughtful and generous person. All the more reason to check his website frequently.

I do.

"Facts Are Stubborn Things" - 5 things I don't like about the Obama Administration

Every day I promise myself not to write about Politics, and every day something new comes up that I just can't ignore. Until, eventually, I find myself writing about another Political subject. The only thing I can do now is to combine them into one great Mega-Blog (similar to BlogMeat) and let it rip.

So, here are the "5 things I don't like about the Obama Administration

#1: Squealing on Your Neighbor:
The White House - Blog Post
- Facts Are Stubborn Things
The White House recently 'encouraged citizens' to report friends and neighbors who say something "fishy" about Obama-Care.

Why?

Isn't this the land of the First Amendment? Remember "Freedom of Speech"? Does this sound like Nazi Germany? (Remember "BusHitler"?)

If people do turn in Bloggers, Email addresses, friends, neighbors, family ... what is Obama going to do with it? Is he going to invite Anti-Obama citizens to the white house for a beer and a chat? Why does the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, need to closely monitor -- for example -- Internet Chat? Is he that insecure? Or is he that controlling.


#2: ObamaCare
I've talked about this before. Perhaps the best "Quote Of The Day" is:
"Do you want us to believe that a Government that can't even run a 'Cash for Clunkers' program us going to run one seventh of our U.S. Economy?"
(Note that this is presented under the Democratic National Party proposition that "Town Hall Meetings Are 'manufactured'". This proposition appears to be intended to undermine the verisimilitude of Private Citizens who are willing to stand up to powerful Democratic politicians in a public venue.


#3: Cash For Clunkers
Last weekend ... the first week of the 'Cash for Clunkers' program (which promised to give the consumer up to $4500 toward the purchase of a new car by trading in a fuel-inneficient 'old car') was allocated one billion dollars. The program ran through the first billion in one week. Then they voted another TWO BILLION DOLLARS to continue the program for an unspecified period of time.

On Saturday, I listened to a radio program called "MoneyTalks". It features Economists discussing the day-to-day American Economy. (I would include the URL, but I cant' be sure I have the right program in my search.)

The segment that I heard featured a New Car Dealer who was trying to deal with the new federal laws regarding the "Cash For Clunkers" program.

His point was that he had to get RID of the clunkers, and also to be REIMBURSED by the Federal Government for those clunkers he had accepted as trade (usually at a greatly enhanced price, far above their resale value.)

According to the caller, the whole point of the program was to get the 'Clunkers' off the road. The accepted solution was to send the Clunkers to a junk yard which would crush/smash said Clunkers into a Rubiks Cube of indefinable junk metal.

Unfortunately, according to the Caller, there are "over 400 pages" of Federal Regulations. The junk yard owners in his area were unwilling or unable to interpret the regulations concerning the rendering of "Clunkers" to "Scrap Metal", and therefore he could not even give the "Clunkers" to a scrapyard.

Ultimately, the dealer was forced to accumulate these Clunkers, and daily acquire even more Clunkers (by Federal Law), but until he could dispose of them ... he could not petition for re-imbursement from the Federal Government.

We have heard stories of Dealers who were cycling Clunkers rapidly, and making money off the deal. But I certainly haven't heard a dealer say that he was NOT LOSING MONEY from the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Either before or after it ran out of money.

And by the way, even if the "Cash For Clunkers" program was working, why are we paying for it? Has anyone here voted to spend his taxes on this P.O.S. initiative?


#4: Big Brother Programs: ObamaCare
August 4, 2009: Hitler Jugend reincarnated

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

The "disinformation" is being defined by the Obama Administration. Essentially, anyone who speaks out about the ObamaCare bill is "Fishy", and should be Reported to the Authorities.

But this isn't about the "Squeal On Your Neighbors" program, its about the National Health Care Bill

We should all be concerned about a bill which is being rammed down the throats of Congress without allowing the congress-persons to even read the bill, let along assimilate the meaning of the various sections of the bill. We already know that it is being pushed by the Obama Administration to be voted on "quickly" (see Senator Arlen Specter's speach being interrupted by the attendees at a Town Hall meeting when he advocates that the bill should be passed "Quickly".)

I have notified my (Democratic) Representative, and my (Democratic) Senator that I would prefer they not vote in favor of any bill which they have not read, fully understand, agree that the measures proposed meet with thefull support of their constituents, and that they not vote along "Party Lines" unless they are certain that the bill would improve the lot of their constituents.

None of my representatives, of course, have replied to my letters. That's okay, I didn't vote for them anyway, and if this P.O.S. bill passes I won't vote for them again.


#5: The Big Lie (Town Hall anger "Manufactured")
The thing that really pisses me off is that we, the "Little People", are finally speaking out in direct dialogue with our political representatives .... and the Democratic Party is spinnin this as "Manufactured Debate".

That is to say, the Vested Interests (Drug Manufactureres, and Medical Community Lobbyists) are influencing what we, "The Little People", say in response to ObamaCare.

This is just the lowest, cut-throat Political Spin-Meistering I can conceive of. Th

The idea that private citizens who are confronting their elective representives in a Town Hall setting because Corporate vested interests have somehow got to them is not only insulting and demeaning, it's downright libelous. But because it is political speach, the scare-mongerers are protected by the First Amendment.

This is the point at which private citizens need to rise up, declare their independence, and excoriate the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration for their underhanded, shady political tactics.

They have been doing that to us for years, and if we don't start hoisting them on their own petards we will find ourselves encumbered with a Regency and so-called "Social Programs" whic not only don't work, but discrimate against the Poor, the Sick, the Lame and the Old.

Interpretation: If Obama can't convince you to change your vote to support him, he can (between the federal law to make all of your personal information made available to the Government, and his Socialist Agenda of "Redistribution of Wealth") tie you up in strings until you are unable to function as an independent Citizen.

--

SWMBO Report: SWMBO and The Tissue Sample

You may recall, those of you who are personally acquainted with SWMBO (She ... Who Must Be Obeyed) that my last update described our outing to San Diego in early July and the news that she had been accepted for an experimental 'genotyping' program out of Massachusetts General.

The first step, after enrolling (which she did a month ago) is to submit a tissue sample to the ancilliary facility at U.C. Irvine.

That "simple out-patient procedure" was performed last week at the local Hospital here in Oregon. It was suppose to have been done on Thursday, but due to a scheduling F...-up error she had to go back on Friday to have it actually performed.

The last time they performed this procedure, almost a year ago, they managed to collapse her lung and, in the words of the lead surgeon "we almost lost her on the table". Consequently, I was not entirely phlegmatic last week, but eventually they did manage to get her into the actual operating room and acquired the tissue sample by the simple process of shoving a horse-doctor needle through her ribcage and sucking "stuff" out of her lungs.

Whew! We're both glad that we got past that procedure okay.

That was Friday, July 31, 2009.

Today (Wednesday, August 5, 2009) I was asking SWMBO if she had any idea when she would get the results of her genotyping.

Turns out there's a story here.

Yesterday -- Tuesday -- she had an appointment with her local Oncologist. He hadn't sent the tissue sample out, yet. Why? Because he didn't have a mailing address.

Fortunately, SWMBO had the business card she had received in Irvine from the interviewer, Doctor Woo. (I may not have spelled that right. When SWMBO says it, it sounds more like "OO" ... no double-u sound, rhymes with "You". But I digress, as usual.)

After making photocopies of the business card, her doctor called Dr. Woo. No answer. No secretary (turns out she was 'at lunch'). No voice mail. Also, apparently, no back-up phone numbers on the card and who knows if there's an email address. Are these people barbarians? No email address?

So SWMBO mentioned to her Oncologist (who, she explained parenthetically, was seeing back-to-back patients all day, every day, and really doesn't have time to be making phone calls while his waiting room as a queue at the front door) that his Office Assistant seemed to have had no trouble making contact with the appropriate people at U.C. Irvine, and if he just turned the problem over to that lady she would probably manage to extract the proper street address where he should send the tissue sample ... which had been sitting in his office for FIVE DAYS!

[emphasis mine. SWMBO is much to refined to raise her voice unless she is the RO at a USPSA match, in which case, you had better "get off your ass and tape these targets". But that's another story.]

At this point in her story, I interrupted SWMB O:

• (me) "Wait a minute. You told him how to run his office?"
• (she) "Uh, well, yes. I guess I did."
• (me) {laughing} "I think he should hire you!"

Okay, so maybe you had to be there.

The point is that the original deal was a vague explanation that it would take "two to four weeks" to process (is the correct word "genotype"?) the tissue sample ... after it arrives.

Which may be a while, because as far as either of us know today the tissue sample hasn't even been sent yet. But I think the local office has a mailing address, and I assume that they have acted expeditiously to get the dreck in the mail.

--

SWMBO was a little chastened when I pointed out that she had told her doctor how to run his office. "I guess I'm a Pushy Broad, huh?" she asked.

"No", I replied.

"I think you are your own best advocate. I think you are a resourceful, dynamic, strong and independent woman who has her best interests at heart and a clearly defined goal; survival. I think this is a marvelous opportunity for you to act as your own advocate. It provides a challenge for your mind and an output for your energy. And it also gives me something that I can do to help. Give me a white pleated skirt and a pair of pom-poms, and I will be your cheerleader."

We negotiated, and I won. No actual pleated skirt, and the pom-poms can be any color combination except Black and Orange (the 'school colors' of my alma mater and my employer).

Then we had a lengthy conversation about the atrocity God had visited upon us by inventing the deplorable color "orange". She likes it, I don't. But then, she grew up in a town where the university and the neighboring town adopted "Black and Orange". Pity, the lovely lady never had a chance.

And you thought it was Easy Being Geek.

Blogmeat Around The World

Once again it's time for me to waste your time, reading about silly things that people do ... just because I can.

Today's BlogMeat has an international flavor. Why should we constantly point out the logical inconsistencies of Those Silly Brits?

Speaking of which, here's TWO reasons why we should be proud that we're not Brits. (Not that we're that far away from them; by my reckoning, Obama will have us marching in lockstep with The Brits before the decade is over.)

Mom in U.K. fined for grieving too long at baby son's funeral
That's right. You have 30 minutes to whine and whimper and generally indulge in a "Pity Party" when your child's to be cremated in Jolly Old England. After that, you're paying for their time. The fine was $173 in this specific instance.

Officials at the crematorium, run by a local English council, impose an extra charge if any funeral runs over its 30-minute slot.

However, the couple's funeral directors said there was plenty of time for the next funeral which was not due to take place for another 50 minutes.

Rouse’s partner, Lee Smythe, said the fee was "sick and disgusting.""Terrie was weeping hysterically," he said. "She just wanted a few extra minutes to say goodbye to our much-loved little boy."

So much for "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". In this case, he's holding a stop-watch in one hand and an "Over Parking" ticket-form in the other.

Is all tha color too much for you? Are you a "Smallville-kind-of-person"? Do you prefer life to be in black-and white?

No problem. Also from Our British Cousins:

Teen Charged over Harry Potter Bleach Attack
When a bunch of yobs were chatting it up during the matinee at the cinema, one brave British Mother asked them to please be quiet so the rest of the audience could hear the movie.

Apparently incensed by the repressive actions of this Conservative RightWing Nutcase Judgmental Mother ....

... two people in the group followed the family to a nearby restaurant after the screening and threw bleach over the mother's head and back.

She suffered burns to her skin and possible permanent damage to her eyes.

That'll teach her to speak up in public!

What do you want to bet that the 2 Yobs --"Young, Outgoing Boys" -- will receive ASBO's? (Note: "Anti-Social Behavior Orders" are essentially a free-pass for any predator who chooses to 'act up'. They're supposedly a one-time entry-level penalty, about as intimidating as a Parking Citation, but you know The Brits: "It worked so well the last time, this time let's give him another ASBO. Then he'll REALLY be intimidated!"

But we have unfairly singled out The Brits. Let's look at another National Group displaying a frightful lack of Savoir Faire -- India!

Indian Activists Blast Ritual of Dropping Babies Off Mosque Roof

NEW DELHI Rights activists lashed out Friday at local officials who allowed hundreds of infants to be dropped from the roof of a mosque in western India in the belief that the fall — which ends when the babies are caught in a bedsheet — would ensure good health and prosperity for their families.

The ritual at the Baba Umer Durga, a Muslim shrine, is believed to have been followed for nearly 700 years, and each year hundreds of people, both Hindus and Muslims, take part in the ritual.

Local officials told television news stations there had been no reports of injuries.

Who are we, in this multi-cultural world, to say that one culture's practices are less acceptible than ours? Besides, in "nearly 700 years" of this practice, "there had been no reports of injuries"

Well, there wouldn't have been, would there?

Even in The West, we all celebrate "Bouncing Babies".


Still a little too close to home, isn't it?

Now for something really different; let's go to ... CHINA!

Two Rail Passengers Killed After Complaining About Humming

Two passengers have been stabbed to death after they complained about a man humming on a train, say reports in China.

The knifeman was humming along to his CD player when three people in the carriage complained about the noise.

A fight began and the trio wrestled the man to the floor and began beating him, said the state-run Xinhua news agency.

The man — identified only by his surname Yan — then pulled out a blade and stabbed all three of them.

One died on the train, while another died later in hospital.

The third man was taken to hospital and is recovering from his injuries.

Bernie Goetz, where are you when we really need you.

(See, we're really not so different after all, are we?)

Do we need to be a little closer to home? How about this, from Mexico:

Mexico Closes Cancun Beach, Alleges Sand Was Stolen

I knew that Mexico was "poor", but come ON!

No, I'm not going to touch that one. Clicky on the linky, read the story for yourself. It actually does make a scary sort of sense. Kind of.

.
.
.
Okay, okay, I guess we have time and space enough for just ONE MORE Turkey Story. This time, let's go to ..... Turkey:

Turkey demolition goes dramatically wrong as building fails to crumble and rolls onto its ROOF

Not much commentary, no comparisons with, for example, Red Adair or those demolitions explosive experts who took down large urban dwellings within the original footprint. We have grown to blase' about what happens when a building demolition goes 'right'. Here's what happens when it goes 'wrong'.

Pretty kewl, eh?

BTW, here's what it looks like when "implosions" go right:


__________________

Okay, okay, so let's look at how lame we can be (with a little effort) in the U. S. of A.:

How about Liberal radio talk show host speaking of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh:

Liberal Talk Show Host Wishes "Madness" on Sarah Palin; Death on Rush Limbaugh - Audio 8/3/09
(Link to just the YouTube version here.)