Titled: Blogging ... Blah, Blah, Blah

U.S. News & World Report reported last week that several senior Republican senators — upon hearing that "blogs" had uncovered the Dan Rather scandal, helped to defeat Tom Daschle and pushed for the resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan — demanded that "blogs" be added to their official Web sites.

Even though, as a Capitol Hill Web consultant told the magazine, most of them hadn't the slightest idea of what a "blog" actually is.

Nor would they be all that happy with all that is said on many of those Blogs. Most of the Conservative Bloggers, at least the ones I read, and I suspect many of the liberal bloggers are more libertarian in their political philosophies. In the last election there were many Conservative Bloggers who endorsed Republican candidates somewhat reluctantly are were not shy about talking about where they differed from various candidates.

To be successful in this arena you have to stand out and being a political party cheerleader is not enough. I cannot think of too many politicians with the political courage to stand by unrestricted political speech when a Blogger they have linked to happens to disagree with them on some issue. I suspect in such a case the politician will suddenly learn a new "Blog" term. A term known as delinking.

It's an amusing story, but the more I read about the weblogging phenomenon from traditional media sources — the more I hear about it from talk show hosts and pundits, and the more triumphalism, tribalism, and group hurt we're starting to see from the "blogosphere" — the more I'm convinced that even "hip" reporters and tech-savvy bloggers themselves don't really "get" blogs any more than those senior Republican senators do.

In truth, "blogs" are nothing more than a relatively new way of distributing information, just as radio, television, newsprint, and conventional Web sites once were. Blogs differ from other media in that they provide links for easy referencing, they're more easily and quickly updated (and, consequently, many times less carefully edited), they allow for more interaction between reader and publisher, and there's virtually no barrier to entry — meaning just about anyone can start his or her own blog. You don't need to win the approval of an editor. You don't need start-up money from a publisher. You don't need a radio tower.

The Blogosphere has given birth to millions of independent self publishers. Instead of a printing press a connection to the internet and some space to fill is all that is required.

I think the Founding Fathers would be proud.

 

Titled: No Encryption for E-Passports

Despite widespread criticism from security experts that a proposed high-tech upgrade to Americans' passports actually introduces new security risks, the government is declining to encrypt data on new high-tech e-passports, according to proposed new rules published last week.

..... [snip] .....

The new passports will include a radio frequency identification tag, a chip that will store all the information on the data page of the passport, including name, date and place of birth, and a digitized version of the photo passport, according to the proposal in the Federal Register.

..... [snip] .....

The lack of encryption baffles privacy advocates and security researchers, who say the new passports are vulnerable to "skimming," an attack that uses an unauthorized reader to gather information from the RFID chip without the passport owner's knowledge.

The State Department concedes that skimming is a legitimate threat, but says the chips will have a read range of inches, that eavesdropping at border stations would be very conspicuous and that the passports will have a shielding mechanism -- perhaps a foil case or a weave in the cover that will cloak the chip when the passport is closed.

At least they're taking security seriously. Or not.

 

I was just browsing M-Law's Lawsuit Abuse Watch site and came across these great examples of the term frivolous.

Two Alpena, Michigan men set an arson fire in their store with the hope of collecting insurance money. They admitted that they intended to simply have a small, smokey fire that would damage their inventory, which apparently wasn't selling very well, so they could collect on their insurance policy. However, when the fire spilled over into the adjoining store, the men sued the insurance company. They argued that they set the fire in their own store, but that the fire next door was accidental and therefore they should receive coverage for the damage to the other building. A panel of the state Court of Appeals amazingly reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss this ridiculous case, but the Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, eventually reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled that the fire "cannot be characterized as an accident

---

According to a Michigan Assistant Attorney General testifying before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee, frivolous prisoner lawsuits are overburdening state and federal courts. In Case No. 9650302, a prisoner sued the state blaming the food in prison for his flatulence problem. The Attorney General's Office estimates the annual cost of defending the state against frivolous prisoner lawsuits to be several million dollars, all paid for by the state taxpayer

---

A Michigan couple sued the owners of a nearby business claiming that dust, noise and vibrations invaded their property and therefore were trespassing. A jury actually found in their favor, but a Court of Appeals panel overturned the jury's verdict. The Appeals court stated that noise, vibrations and dust are intangible objects and can not be considered as trespassers.

Reform. Please Hurry. They also have a contest for the wackiest warning labels here. My top three favorites are:

1. A label on a baby stroller warns: “Remove child before folding
2. A warning on an electric drill made for carpenters cautions: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill.”
3. A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about the ACLU, and there are a lot of items on that list, is that they never seem to apply the same passion for the 2nd Amendment as they do the 1st. Well apperently someone from the local ACLU is out to change that (well that is my hope anyway).

Is there a Right to Keep and Bear Arms in either the Federal or Michigan Constitutions? This is a question that will be presented at the Bill of Rights Program, sponsored by the Southwestern Michigan Branch of the ACLU. This program is to help educate the community about the Bill of Rights, the issues involved and merits of the positions on all sides. The March 16th portion of this program, presents our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and would be of interest to Michigan gun owners. Past president of MCRGO, David Felbeck will be one of the participants. You are cordially invited to attend and participate.

Check out the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners web site for more info.

 

Titled: The Right to Carry. An Awesome Responsibility

From Southwest Michigan's premiere training center comes the self-study book for individuals wanting to meet their legal obligations for training for the renewal of their Michigan Concealed Pistol License. In addition to allowing you to self-study, there is also a suggested course of fire, a multiple choice test, and an option to send that test in for scoring and thereby receive a certificate of completion for your records. Praise for The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility comes from: "The Michigan Concealed Pistol Law has made it possible for thousands of law abiding Michigan residents to safely carry a concealed pistol for self protection.

I applaud the efforts of sportsmen, like Joel Fulton, who have trained so many applicants on the safe handling and proper use of pistols. His course book provides the right emphasis on the need to avoid confrontations, for each licensee to constantly train and become familiar with his or her pistol, and to safely store firearms from children." --Mike Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan "The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility by Mr. Joel Fulton is a "must read" for every law-abiding Patriot of the American Constitution. Extensively researched, the author provides with crisp, concise clarity, everything a loyal Michigan Resident must know in exercising his or her 2nd Amendment right.

This is a guidebook your personal library must not be without." --Charlie Bassett, NRA Training Counselor Program Coordinator "Serving as Chairman of the Calhoun County Gun Board in which Joel and Jared Fulton train the majority of their students, the level of excellence with which this book is written comes as no surprise. Students of this book will walk away in the same fashion as students of the Fulton's classes: Prepared and Well-Informed!" --John Hallacy, Calhoun County Prosecutor

If that reads like an editorial review it's because that's exactly what it is. I copied / pasted the whole review from Amazon.com. This is a book I am going to purchase soon. I happen to live in Southwestern Michigan and coincidently am in the process of applying for a concealed pistol license. What timing!

 

Titled: Gun law had little effect on crime

Police say there's little evidence gun use is up in crimes or that permit holders have prevented violence.
 
Opponents warned of vigilantes run amok, more accidental shootings and road rage escalating to gunfire.

Backers of Michigan's expanded concealed-weapons law talked of thwarted attacks by thugs, reduced crime and personal safety.

Three years of experience in Jackson County and statewide indicate the biggest impact of the July 2001 shall-issue law is peace of mind for some 110,000 people packing heat.

See I told ya. The article claims that there was no positive effect on crime either. However, if you check out the stats you will see that there has been a pretty steady drop in the violent crime rate as CPLs have been widely available in Michigan. I am not saying there is a definite correlation but the numbers are available. You can judge for yourself.

 

Titled: Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

Another non surprise.

 

Titled: The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Why doesn't anyone in the media ever ask such questions? It's a great question especially when you consider this.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

I didn't cut and paste the text covering recent events involving the use of firearms in defense. I recommend you follow the link and read the whole thing. One more teaser.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

How true. Not ten minutes after I read that article I came across this short editorial from the Review Journal.

EDITORIAL: Gun ban

The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.

And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reports, five of the city's 11 city supervisors submitted a measure to the Department of Elections that would prohibit the ownership, "sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses."

If voters approve the plan in November, residents would have 90 days to turn in their guns. Good luck.

There are some exceptions to the proposal. Law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment" would be free to keep their weapons.

Oh, yes, and so would one more favored class: violent and petty criminals.

Yea. What he said.

 

Titled: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low

A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

“The continuing decline is good news that’s attributable to a number of factors, but certainly the overarching theme is increased awareness of gun safety and responsibility,” said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearm industry.

The numbers of fatilities have decreased as the number of CPLs and States that allow them have gone up. I, for one, am not surprised.

 

Some tweaking of the Michigan CPL law.

Introduced by Rep. Gene DeRossett on June 9, 2004, to require concealed weapon licensing board to issue or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) renewal within 30 days after the application is properly submitted, and if they do not do so, to extend the original license for 180 days or until the renewal is issued or denied, whichever comes first. Also, to waive the fingerprint requirements for CPL renewals, and not charge fees for fingerprints required for a CPL. Referred to the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 9, 2004. Reported in the House on November 10, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass. Substitute offered in the House on December 2, 2004. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004. Amendment offered by Rep. Gene DeRossett on December 2, 2004. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004.

In short the bill requires the CPL board to grant or deny an application within 30 days. It also drops the requirement for a second set of fingerprints during a renewal, which in turn will lower the cost of an application. The latter change will decrease the cost of the CPL by $15.00.

There is a $105 fee both for the original application and for the renewal; this fee includes the cost of fingerprinting. The fee is disbursed as follows: $26 to the county clerk, $15 to the county sheriff, and $64 to the state police. The state police use its disbursement to process fingerprints and reimburse the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its costs. (The FBI charges a $24 fee to conduct a comprehensive national background check.) If fingerprints are taken by the local police agency, the applicant must pay an additional $15 fee. Some people contend that having a set of fingerprints taken for renewal applications is unnecessary because a set has already been taken for the initial license and the applicant's identity can now be established by photo identification. The renewal fee could be reduced if fingerprinting was not required.

Makes sense to me.