NEW LINK ADDITION

There are many blogs out there; the ones worth reading are far outnumbered by the ones you can safely ignore. Faisca's site is definitely worth your time to take a look at. I hope you'll find his observations as well-written as I have.

WHO IS TO BLAME?

While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth.

Fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words.

They are perspectives.

SHERYL, CONT.

Late update: After some more research, I've found a line on Sheryl's personal blog that says she was joking about the toilet paper and sleeve napkins. I wonder if she was joking before the world began to mock her, or afterwards. As I recall, Don Imus said he was joking too... right before a few thousand people demand he be fired. ;)

These people, however, are not joking about a lifestyle free of toilet paper.

But Sheryl's overall environmental activism is not a joke (at least not to her, anyway). She and Laurie David are quite serious as they tour the countryside in the Bio-Diesel bus. So in light of their campaign to stop humanity from enjoying the advantages of modern life (while fully enjoying it themselves), I'll leave my original post below.

4 SQUARE INCHES

Regular readers will note that most of my posts have a common theme, relating to firearms in some way. Either the guns themselves, or the laws that affect gun owners and the politicians that write the laws. So you'll have to forgive me for straying off the path a bit... this one is just too much to grind my teeth and ignore.

Today we were treated from a new revelation from musical artist Sheryl Crow. She's currently on some type of environmental tour with her friend and cohort Laurie David, a wealthy environmental activist. To pass the time, Sheryl has been writing down different ideas that occur to her - ways in which we can all save the planet.

Here's the one making the biggest news:

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

4 Square inches per bathroom visit should suffice, except for "pesky occasions". One is left to wonder if it's double-ply. The idea itself is rather ludicrous, but I'd like to draw attention to one particular part: "I propose a limitation be put on how many...". Everyone catch that? A limitation, not a suggestion. How exactly would she propose we be limited in our paper usage? Will this be voluntary, or will there be a ration per-week based on family size? Will one have to apply for an exemption in the event a family member becomes stricken with stomach flu? Will one be able to purchase "toilet offsets" in the same manner than Al Gore has justified his electric bill?

But wait - Sheryl's not finished. Now that she's leaving behind all social rules regarding bathroom hygiene, she moves on to the dinner table:

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

We're to continue saving paper by wiping our mouths (and runny noses when sick) on our sleeves. I'm not sure which is more disgusting - a person walking around with their head cold all over their sleeve, or the lack of cleanliness associated with their bathroom visits.

It's little wonder Karl Rove said "Don't touch me", when Sheryl reached out to touch his arm at the Annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner earlier this week. If she's already experimenting with these strange ideas, I'd rather she not touch me either.

Perhaps her oncologist should schedule some tests for brain cancer...

Laurie David is a special case as well.

While (Robert Jr.) Kennedy admiringly calls her "relentless," others say she's over the top. "Laurie can be effective, but also heavy-handed and a browbeater," said one politically active Hollywood insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "She'll go so far as to say that people who drive SUVs are terrorist supporters. That turns people off."

Such criticism doesn't faze Laurie, who indeed produced a set of controversial 2003 television commercials that equated people who buy big SUVS with backers of terrorist training camps. This is a woman who's not afraid to chase down Hummer drivers so she can flip them off from the seat of her Prius.

This from a woman who regularly flies cross-county in a Gulfstream 200, using 1200-1500 gallons of fuel in the process. That's about equal to driving a one Hummer 15,000 miles in a year.

Now don't get me wrong: I have no problem with Laurie David flying around in a private jet, nor do I particularly care that she owns mansions on both the east and west coasts. I'm not bothered that Sheryl's last North American tour consisted of three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. And if Al Gore is happy with his 10,000 sq ft home, burning through 18,000+ kWh per month - hey, it's his money.

Here's what I have a problem with: the damned hypocrisy.

I live in a relatively modest condo, and drive a small Japanese car. I don't take a convoy to work, Sheryl. I don't pay $1200 electric bills every month, Albert. And Laurie - I fly on Delta.

When the three of you cut your "carbon footprint" down to the size of mine (without your Purchase Carbon Offsets scam), then you can begin to offer me suggestions on what I can do to stop destroying the planet.

Until then, shut the hell up.

FIRST-TIME SHOOTERS

One of the reasons some people have an aversion to firearms is merely a lack of proper exposure to them. They've seen them in movies, television, and music videos but haven't ever actually fired a weapon. The depiction of guns in film is often tightly married to feelings of fear, domination, and gratuitous violence... emotions which are quite rightly something that people don't feel comfortable with.

Those of us that actually own firearms know that the real experience of going to the range has nothing to do with fear nor violence. Learning to shoot is a very fun-filled experience. It can give you a feeling of accomplishment as you improve, and at the same time give you a skill that may someday save your life.

The best way I've found to get someone over their fear and dislike of guns is to invite them to the range and let them experience what firing a gun is really all about. A few months ago, I took The Bethy out to shoot a gun for the first time. She was worried that she might not do well, and as a result not enjoy the experience. We started off with the Ruger MKII, and after she got comfortable she tried the Glock 19. We had a lot of fun, and she did great.

Today, it was my co-worker Aaron's turn. I'd casually asked him at one point a few weeks ago if he'd like to try shooting. He said he'd never shot a gun before (except an air pistol), but would like to try it. Today was the day, and we hit the range with plenty of .22 and 9mm ammunition.

Aaron is the type of guy that likes to know all the details of what he's doing... how everything works as it does, and why it was designed that way. We had to wait about 20 minutes for a lane, but that gave me plenty of time to completely explain the mechanical workings of the guns... and most importantly, discuss ALL the aspects of gun safety.

When we finally hit the range, I could tell he had taken all of that talk to heart. His muzzle and trigger discipline were outstanding. Though his stance and grip are something we'll continue to work on, he certainly had the fundamentals down. It showed in his targets. We started with the Ruger, and once I felt he was comfortable we moved onto the Glock. For a first time shooter, Aaron was a great student.

As we packed up for the day, I could tell he had enjoyed it - especially when he mentioned that the next time I go shooting, he'd like to come along again. I'll be taking him up on that... range trips are always more fun if you have someone to shoot with.

Find a co-worker, a friend, or a neighbor that's hasn't shot a gun before. Invite them on your next range trip, and show them what firearms are really about. At the very least, you can mitigate some of the fears they have about guns. Even better: you may even introduce them to something they'll enjoy for a lifetime.

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES

One of the benefits - or downsides - of working in the media is that you are treated to hearing the news throughout the day. Most people that watch the news do so at their leisure, and watch a particular news program at a particular time. Some people make it a point to always watch Shepard Smith on FoxNews; at least 139 people watch Katie Couric on CBS every night.

But those of us that toil every day to create the news have a slightly different perspective. We hear and read all the news - not just the snippets that are edited together for broadcast. Furthermore, we hear all of the broadcasts throughout the day - not just the 6pm newscast. And believe me, the news pieces that air at 11pm are sometimes quite different than those airing at noon or 6pm.

It's not really a conspiracy matter. The news programs have different content based on market research. For example, morning news is typically "lighter" than the evening. People don't like to wake up to gloom and doom... it's not the type of thing that gets them in the mood to drive to work.

Perhaps I should start getting to the point...

Over the past 3 days, I've heard an incredible amount of news related to the Virginia Tech shooting. As the story continues to develop and mature, I'm beginning to sense a particular slant or trend that involves the motivations of Cho Seung-Hui. Writers, researchers and reporters are all scrambling about to learn the details of Cho's past, in an effort to find out what events in his own history led to his final murderous actions.

I've seen reports discussing the fact that Cho came from a poor family, and that he felt a derision towards rich people. I've been informed that Cho was bullied in Junior High School, because he was Korean. I've read that Cho suffering from deep depression. I've seen news reporters remind us all of the symptoms of depression - how to recognize it, and interact with a depressed person. I've listened to people talk about Cho's feelings in inadequacy, as it relates to his mastery of speaking the English language. I've heard his classmates at VT describe him as a loner, and socially withdrawn... rarely talking, and having no friends (nor apparently wanting to form friendships with others).

Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about Cho's past and I'm insulted that somehow I'm supposed to feel a bit of pity for the man.

Forgive a quick tangent on an important, but minor matter: please note I called him a "man" in the sentence above. Not a child, not a college kid. He was neither a child nor a college kid. Cho was 23 years old. He hadn't been a "kid" for several years... so please, let's have no more descriptions of him which imply that somehow his age was a factor.

When Cho's victims were staring down the barrel of his gun, his past history was of no consequence. His motivations did not matter. There were only two relevant factors:

1. He had a deadly weapon, and was intent upon killing as many people as possible until he was stopped or became bored with killing.

2. How could one stop such a person from continuing to kill people?

One of the most saddening things about that day was that no one in the building had an effective way of stopping Cho's rampage. Virginia Tech has a firm policy in place which forbids students who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon from bringing a gun onto campus. Virgina Tech is what people call a "designated gun-free zone". Depending on your locale, bringing a weapon into such a place can lead to expulsion or arrest.

It's nothing if not obvious that Cho had no concerns about VT's gun-free policies. Someone who is anxiously planning the death of 32 people is not concerned with any such policy. Gun-free policies only affect one type of gun owner - the ones that would never commit such a crime to begin with.

Some politicians, such as Carolyn McCarthy and Barbara Boxer have already begun to talk about new legislation which will somehow prevent this kind of thing from happening again. They're discussing waiting periods, gun shows, registration, and banning "high capacity" magazines.

Where did Cho purchase his guns? No, he didn't take advantage of the mythical "loop hole" at a gun show. He purchased them from a licensed gun dealer, after undergoing the required federal background check.

How did the waiting period affect him? Virginia prevented Cho from purchasing both guns at the same time; I've read the state has a "1 handgun a month" law. That wasn't a problem for Cho. He purchased his first handgun in early March, and then purchased the second one a month later. He had planned this attack for weeks; a three-day waiting period was of no corcern to him.

High-capacity magazines? Would it have really made any difference if Cho had to reload twice instead of once? Cho wasn't discretely carrying one handgun with a magazine inserted; he was carrying two guns and had extra magazines stuffed in his pockets. I don't believe that his killing spree would have been any less effective if he had to carry five magazines instead of four.

With all their talk of creating more restrictive gun laws, it seems that many lawmakers, colleges, and a few law-enforcement brass are overlooking the one solution hasn't been tried: allowing people more latitude to arm themselves in self-defense.

They made laws to restrict Cho in nearly every way possible. They made him wait to purchase his guns, they declared he could not bring a weapon on campus, and most certainly they've made murder illegal. Cho showed patience with the laws that were inconvenient, and completely ignored the other ones.

That day, the laws only denied the victims their means to defend their lives.

I'm not clairvoyant. I cannot say with certainty that if one student had been armed, Cho would have been stopped. Perhaps that one student would have been the first victim.

However, I can say with certainty what the result will be when no one but the murderer is armed. Watch the news, Carolyn McCarthy. Watch the news, Michael Bloomberg. Watch the news, Sarah Brady. The result is 32 dead college students... all of whom followed your pathetic laws, all of whom were unarmed and unable to offer any effective defense.

You believe that if we can somehow come to "understand" what led to Cho's actions, and further restrict American gun rights, we can prevent such things from happening again. Here's another newsflash for you: crazed murderers don't care about your laws. Once a person has decided they are willing to break one of the highest laws - the one against murder - it's laughable to believe that your law banning guns at school will have any effect.

And finally:

To all the politicians, writers, pundits and police captains who believe guns could not have stopped this tragedy, I ask this question:

When the students were dialing 911, who were they calling for help?

People with guns.

YES, SHE'S PAID TO MAKE LAWS

If you're trying to ban something, you should at least have a clue as to what it is you're trying to ban. Carolyn McCarthy is one such clueless person.



No, Carolyn. A barrel shroud is NOT that "shoulder thing that goes up". It doesn't make the weapon more deadly. It doesn't allow the weapon to fire more bullets, or fire at a faster rate.

Carolyn, a barrel shroud is simply a piece of sheet metal with holes it. When you fire a gun, the barrel heats up. The shroud covers the barrel so that the shooter can't touch the hot barrel and burn their hand.

In other words, Carolyn: it's a safety feature.

The resulting safety factor is no different than the plastic guard on a document shredder. The guard doesn't help the machine shred any faster. It just protects the user's fingers from accidentally being shredded along with the paper.

Kudos to Tucker for not letting her evade the question until she had demonstrated her complete ignorance.

TOO MANY GUNFIGHTS

There are far too many gunfights going on far too regularly. I could be in the minority here, but I tend to doubt it. Everyday, another one seems to start here and there. Never a winner, never a loser - yet the participants seem to think there can and will be a victor at some point and the battle will end.

I'm not talking about people who fight with guns, by the way. I'm talking about people who fight about guns.

Humankind has a lot of passion, and one thing we all seem to be passionate about are the choices we make... even to the point of fault. For example, it's often not enough to be satisfied with a choice; some feel that their choice has to be constantly reinforced as the "correct" one by telling someone else that their choice is wrong.

Visit a random forum that deals with firearms, and you'll doubtlessly find one of these endless battles.

...

The posters that believe the revolver is a simple, yet superior handgun will argue with the fans of the semi-automatic.

The semi-automatic fans argue amongst themselves about which is better, the 1911 or a more modern polymer handgun.

The polymer crowd argues the merits of Glock vs XD.

The Glock owners argue which caliber Glock is the best, 9mm vs .40.

The 9mm guys argue over which is the better choice, a G17 or a G19.

The ones that own a G19 argue about whether it's better to go with a fast & light 115gr or a slower & heavier 147gr.

And I'm sure at some point there's been a heated discussion over which brand of 147gr hollowpoint is the most effective.

...

It's one thing to be passionate about your choice of handgun, but it's also important to remember that your choice is exactly that: YOUR choice. One person's reasons for choosing to carry an HK do not necessarily have anything to with why another chooses to carry a Kimber.

When people choose to enter an internet gun battle, it should be for the right reason. It's good to offer knowledge and experience about a particular firearm, in order to help someone learn more about it. It's rather pointless to carry on a flame war, acting as if someone's dislike of your gun is akin to them spitting on your mother.

Or to paraphrase a succinct post I came across in one of those 12-page flame wars:

"What if people spent as much time writing to politicians, demanding fewer gun control laws, as they do yelling at each other about which gun is the best?"

It's worth considering.

INTENTION VS RESULT

The Bethy and I have a few debates we occasionally return to. I doubt either of us may ever change our opinion to the other's, but it's always a good discussion ;). One of our disputed topics is the notion of Intention vs Results.

Beth maintains that if one's intentions are good and noble, there is virtue in attempting to solve a problem... even if the problem itself remains unsolved. I take the opposite view; unless you've solved the problem (or actually done something tangible to improve it), there's nothing virtuous about it at all.

To put it in the simplest terms, Beth will give you credit if you try to do something good - even if in the end you fail. I'll only give you credit if you succeed.

So it was interesting this morning when I read that there has been a new discovery in the matter of Amelia Earhart's disappearance... someone has found the diary of a reporter who was covering her ill-fated trip around the world. (IMHO, this diary won't give much insight to Amelia's actual fate. It's a good headline, though.)

As I stepped out onto my balcony for the day's first smoke, I began to think about Earhart. And then it suddenly occurred to me: who was the first woman to circle the globe solo?

Countless books have been written about Earhart, and though I don't feel like checking Google or IMDB, I'm sure there have been a few movies or TV specials. Certainly the History Channel has taken up her story. Back in the days when children actually learned history in school, all of us knew the story of the brave female aviator who attempted to prove that flying around the globe was not only something a man could do.

The only problem is: she didn't prove it.

Our culture remains intrigued by the fate of Amelia Earhart, yet we've mostly forgotten who actually accomplished flying solo around the world.

Jerrie Mock was the woman that succeeded. Go on and click the link for her story... it's a very good one.

We remember Earhart for her intentions, but have forgotten Mock's results.

How strange.