Lest Darkness Fall

Brits Banning Glass Pints

2009-08-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

When I think of going to a pub for a pint of beer, I have a few specific ideas in mind:

beer will be good
beer will be served at the perfect temperature
beer will have the perfect amount of carbonation from the tap
beer will be served in a nice and heavy pint-sized glass

If I'm going to leave my home, travel to a pub and then spend as much on a single beer as I would on a six pack at the grocery store, I want that beer to be perfect. I suspect that an awful lot of pub-goers share these opinions, especially during a global recession in which it is getting increasingly more difficult to come up with recreational spending money.

According to the BBC story in the title link, Britain has decided that pint glasses made out of actual glass are too dangerous to be tolerated and are considering banning them from pubs. The plan is to replace the traditional glass with shatter-proof plastic. Here's why:

"Official figures show 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales."

At first glance, 5,500 people being attacked does sound frightening. A closer look reveals that this number includes both bottles and glasses. Of those attacks committed with glass pints, no indication is given as to how many people were actually harmed. Thus, the relevant number could be a lot less than 5,500. It sounds like a nanny state government is just blowing everything out of proportion in order to get credit for "doing something". When you weigh these 5,500 attacks against the roughly 6,552,000,000 (six point six billion) pints served annually, you end up with less than 0.00008% of the pints actually being used in attacks.

This is why I loath and detest government bans against practically any object. Bans almost always start the same way. Somebody gets harmed by a person using a particular object in an unlawful manner and makes a fuss. Law makers and bureaucrats eager to earn their keep decide to "do something" and protect people from an alleged new public menace. The object that was used for an unlawful purpose suddenly becomes "bad" or "dangerous", without regard for its usefulness and without any responsibility being assigned to the attacker who used it in an unlawful manner. The next thing you know, a ban deprives society of a useful object and the thug grabs the next closest item and uses that as a weapon and the whole process starts over again.

For the most part bans are nothing more than knee-jerk reactions foisted onto simple-minded people who lack the reasoning skills to comprehend that they won't solve societal problems. If the goal is to disarm thugs in pubs, banning glass pints won't help. Bar stools, chairs, silverware, bottles, billiard balls, pool cues, darts, loose coins in a sock and countless other objects are just as dangerous. The only way to make pubs perfectly "safe" would be to turn them into padded cells where customers are stripped naked and chained to the wall while a medical team carefully administers alcohol-free beer through a tube.

To make matters worse, the pubs are already being hit hard by the recessions, as shown by these other BBC stories:
UK 'is losing 52 pubs each week'
Pubs are closing, but who cares?
Our pub's about to shut?!?

Here we are, in the middle of the decline of an industry, and these people want to make struggling businesses spend money to replace their glass inventory with a product that is likely to annoy their customers. All so that less than one ten thousandth of one percent of the pints served each year can no longer be misused by criminals who will undoubtedly pick up something else to wield as weapons.

72yr Old Businessman Shoots 4 Robbers

2009-08-14T09:59:00.000-07:00

This is another good one. A 72 year old businessman sees one of his employees being pistol whipped by the 4 armed robbers that were in his store. He opens fire with a 12 gauge pistol grip shotgun and hits all 4 of the bad guys. Sadly, it looks like two of them might survive.

Here's a frustrating pair of quotes from the story:

Augusto told cops he bought his shotgun after a robbery nearly 30 years ago. Browne said it was unclear Thursday night if Augusto has a license for the weapon.

A police source said that if Augusto is hit with a charge, it will be a minor one. "It doesn't look too bad for him," the source said.

The guy stops an armed robbery, saves an employee from a life threatening beating and reduces the criminal population by two, yet they have to end the story with thoughts of him possibly facing some sort of criminal charge. This guy should get a marksmanship award from the NRA and a good citizenship medal from the mayor. If they decide to charge him with something, I hope the neighborhood drums the district attorney out of office.

(As always, clicking on the title link will take you to the full story.)

UPDATE:
Here's a link to the NY Times version of the story with a few more details.

Woman Beats Armed Home Invaders with Can of Peas

2009-08-08T12:28:00.001-07:00

The title link is to a story about a Toledo woman who used some common sense survival instincts, ordinary household items and good preparation to triumph over home invaders. Per the article and the associated video interview, the woman heard a knock on her at 5:30AM. She thought it may have been her brother, so she opened the door and was attacked by two masked men, at least one which had a gun. One of the men pointed a gun at her and started pulling the trigger and for some reason the gun didn't fire. He then started beating her head and face with the gun. Fortunately for her, she had answered the door while holding her improvised home defense weapon, a long heavy sock with a can of peas at the bottom of it. She fought back and beat one of the attackers so badly that he was taken to the hospital in critical condition. Let's hope he doesn't pull through.

Let this story be a lesson to everyone. With a bit of thought, many common household objects can easily be transformed into effective and potentially deadly self defense tools. This woman said she stashed several of these sock and can flails around her house in case of emergency. When you use the sock to swing around a heavy object, the speed of the swing adds tremendous momentum and can deliver enough power to break bones. Even a large handful of change in a sock can be dangerous. For those afraid, unwilling or legally unable to keep a firearm for self defense, remember that you can still arm yourself in other ways. If someone starts pounding on your door at odd hours, having a weapon at hand when you answer the door could save your life.

Although I found it quite uplifting that this woman had the foresight and courage to fight back, there was one sad spot in the article. Here's a quote from a neighbor who witnessed the attack:

"Very scared. So scared that I thought I was going to die because I thought they were going to come to my place and kill me because I had my head out peaking [sic] out"

I find it disheartening that someone could witness this sort of brutal attack and do nothing more than "peek out". If people were quick to protect each other and fought back against crime more often there would be a lot less of it. Grab a chair, a wine bottle or a hammer and bash the attacker's head in while he is occupied with beating his victim. Stab them a dozen times with a kitchen knife. Come up behind them and kick them in the groin or knee as hard as you possibly can. Don't just "peek". Fear is never a valid excuse for not doing the right thing. I can somewhat understand not getting involved in a fair fight between two strangers when there is no obvious "bad guy" and "victim", but when you see two guys with ski masks bashing their way into your neighbor's home there is no doubt about who needs to be stopped. If a witness does nothing to help a victim they are partly responsible for whatever happens to the victim.

Stop AB 962, The Bill That Could Kill

2009-07-28T13:30:00.000-07:00

In the never ending war against liberty, California is considering passing a bill that would likely result in accidental shooting deaths and injuries. The bill would prevent handgun owners from practicing sufficiently to maintain their skills. If a gun owner is forced to use a firearm in self defense, society at large will be much safer if that person has recently been target shooting and is not fumbling around incompetently. Regular practice can mean the difference between the bad guy getting shot and a stray round striking property or an innocent bystander.

The bill would reduce safe practice by:

Forbidding the sale or transfer of more than 50 rounds of handgun ammo per month to anyone who is not a licensed dealer
Require ammo only be bought in person (i.e. banning mail order sales)
Requiring vendors to keep a record of every ammo sale and report all sales to the state
Require vendors to keep all ammo out of reach from customers so that buyers must seek assistance from staff before purchasing
Require vendors to pay a licensing fee to the state (even if they already have a license to sell firearms)

Anti-gun people will probably think I’m crazy for opposing these restrictions, but take a moment to think it through before you decide. A leisurely one hour practice session with a hand gun for most people consumes about 200 rounds of ammunition, even when most of that hour is spent loading magazines, setting up targets, inspecting targets, collecting spent brass and other non-shooting tasks. A semi-automatic hand gun fires a round as quickly as the user can pull the trigger. In a regular slow fire practice session, a person will fire a shot every few seconds. Thus, a standard 10 round magazine will be emptied in about 30 seconds. 50 rounds of ammo during an unhurried practice session can be consumed in about 2.5 minutes of firing. If the shooter is practicing double taps, defensive shooting and quick reloads they might go through 50 rounds of ammo in less than half of that time (1min 15sec). Do you really think it a good idea for people with potentially lethal defense tools to be forbidden to practice with them for more than 1-2 minutes per month? What will happen when an unpracticed gun owner tries to defend themselves? Where will the bullets go if they they pull the trigger and miss the bad guy?

To make matters worse, the law doesn’t seem to distinguish between different types of hand guns. A typical concealed carry permit holder might be allowed to legally carry two or three different kinds of guns. For example, they might be permitted to carry a tiny gun that can be easily hidden under summer clothing, and a regular gun that can be concealed under normal clothing. Chances are good that those two guns will use different kinds of ammunition. If you are only allowed 50 rounds of ammo per month and need to practice with two different guns, you can practice with each gun half as much. That brings us down to maybe one minute of practice per month per gun, less time than you spend brushing your teeth before you go to bed each night.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, gun owners commonly own both a rifle and a handgun that fires the exact same type of ammunition. This simplifies ammunition purchases and lets them carry a single type of ammo when shooting. .22 rimfire, 9mm, .38 special, .357 magnum, .44 magnum and .44 special are a few examples of ammunition commonly used by both rifles and handguns. How can you prove to an ammo vendor what kind of gun you plan to fire their ammo through?

A single round of .45ACP ammunition costs about $0.30 if purchased in bulk (1000 rounds) over the internet. If purchased in a typical 50 round box at a local gun store, a single round will cost about $0.40, 25% more than by bulk. If we ban bulk purchases and tack on licensing fees and compliance costs, the price of ammo could go up by 50%. The cost of ammunition for a typical one hour 200 round practice session with a common .45ACP pistol would go from $60 to $90 (assuming they remembered to save up 4 months worth of ammo to allow for a one hour practice session). Such a large increase would significantly discourage practice.

Note that a similar Federal law was repealed in 1986 after the BATF testified that it was useless at preventing crime. The City of Pasadena passed a similar law, and repealed it two years later after realizing that they were generating a huge and costly database wasn't actually helping the police.

Please contact your state assemblyperson and the senators on the California appropriations committee to demand that they oppose this bill. Even if you hate guns you should oppose this bill because it will only serve to reduce the competency of law abiding gun owners without reducing gun ownership. No matter how you feel about guns, it is in your best interest that whoever squeezes a trigger on a firearm be well practiced, accurate and safe when they do it.

Emergency Preparedness and Survival

2009-07-20T15:02:00.000-07:00

Every time our country is hit by a major disaster, be it a flood, hurricane, fire or something else, the news is filled with sad stories about woefully unprepared people being left with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Too many people falsely believe that our government and emergency services will take care of them and keep them safe. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) suggests that people keep at least a three day supply of food, water and other essentials on hand at all times for each member of their household. They strongly encourage people to expand this to a two week supply if they can afford to do so. It can easily take several days for the government to get help to disaster victims. If the disaster is not limited to a small geographic area, it could take much longer. For example, if a tsunami wipes out the eastern seaboard or if terrorists detonate suitcase nukes in several major cities, there simply may not be enough emergency workers and supplies to go around.

Imagine for a moment that a disaster hits your home or office. It could be a dam failure, fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake or even a terrorist attack. 3,000 gallons of raw sewage could erupt from your drains and toilets when city maintenance goes awry. A small plane might crash into your home without warning. Your building may be destroyed or authorities might simply deem it unsafe and force you to leave. Streets could be blocked, flooded or collapsed making it impossible for you to drive to safety. How would you fare if you have only moments to quickly grab a couple of items before you are forced to flee on foot?

Are you ready to survive in an overcrowded gymnasium or stadium for several days with nothing more than what you can carry? Will you be passably comfortable in a room packed with people when you have nothing more than a few square feet of space on the floor? Will you be like the hurricane Katrina victims that were stuck in rescue shelters and rooftops without food or water if the government is slow to deliver supplies?

All of the gear in the world is of little use if you don't have it packed into a portable and quickly accessible package when you need it. You might not have two hours to dig through piles of camping gear to find what you need when your house is about to slide down a cliff. Unless you are a die-hard backpacker, chances are good that most of your recreational outdoor equipment will be too bulky and heavy for you to carry very far if roads are blocked and vehicles can't be used.

For around $150 and an hour or two of effort you can easily put together a good emergency kit that will help you and a loved one survive for a few days without running water, electricity or help from others. Hunger, thirst, cold, wet, minor injuries and boredom need not overly trouble you if you are adequately prepared.

The ability to create fire, construct shelters, patch up injuries and plan for a variety of adversities helps distinguish humans from less intelligent animals. Please take a moment to look over your emergency kit and make sure that it is complete, accessible and in good condition. If you don't have a kit, get one. Here are a couple of links that may help:

The Disaster Preparedness and Survival Gear section of my Amazon store

The FEMA "Are You Ready?" page (tips, checklists and guides from the US government)

Once you get the basic survival gear together, consider adding these additional items to your pack:

Underwear and Socks in a zip-lock bag: Dry socks are especially important as they help keep your feet healthy so that blisters, infections, fungus and other things don't prevent you from trekking to safety
Paperback novel and a deck of cards in a zip-lock bag: Survival can be surprisingly boring. These can keep you sane if you get stuck in a shelter for days and can even be used as kindling.
Batteries for radios, cell phones, flash lights, GPS devices, etc.
Prescription medications for yourself, family and pets
Feminine hygiene products (tampons, pads, etc.)
Powder: It can prevent heat rashes, dry wet feet to prevent blisters, help sweaty hands grip slippery objects and partially deodorize clothing.

'Anti-Stab' Knife On Sale in UK

2009-06-16T10:34:00.001-07:00

New Point Knives in the U.K. is offering kitchen knives that are designed to minimize the risk of accidental and fatal stabbings while maintaining more or less their full functionality as food preparation tools. Many blogs and web sites are already overflowing with scornful comments about these products, with phrases like "knives don't kill people; people kill people" and other such rhetoric. Although I am about as pro-weapon and anti-nanny state as it gets, I decided to give this product the benefit of the doubt.
I am a somewhat serious amateur gourmet and am picky about my kitchen knives. They must each go into the proper slot in the cutlery block, be kept razor sharp, and must be washed by hand and put away the moment they are not in use. In spite of my fussiness about knives, I was hard pressed to come up with legitimate criticism for the concept of these new products. There really aren't that many uses for an endlessly long point on some larger types of kitchen knives. The New Point knives that I have seen so far do indeed have points, but the points are protected by a smooth rounded curve that would make it more difficult to thrust the blade deeply into something. Enough of the point is exposed to easily split the skin on fruit and even slice most food items. Granted, this sort of design would be impractical for various tasks such as boning, filleting and paring, but New Point doesn't appear to be offering those kinds of knives.

If the New Point knives are well balanced, sharp, comfortable and of high quality steel, I see no harm in their use and there are a few situations in which they could be quite helpful. For example, when teaching cooking in a home economics class, these knives might slightly reduce the risk of accidental stabbings in a room crowded with uncoordinated students. People with repetitive motion issues and nerve problems might find such a knife comforting as it would be less likely to stake a foot to the floor if it slipped out of a hand.

In short, I think it silly for someone to get angry about these products, especially if the person claims to believe in liberty and personal choice. Although I have no interest in owning one, I see no reason to grumble about them being on the market. To be honest, I think such grumblings just portray the pro-weapon and anti-nanny state people as unreasonable and makes it easier to dismiss their opinions on more serious issues. As long as nobody mandates their usage or tries to ban traditional knives, they aren't hurting anyone and could even be useful in certain situations (if they are of decent quality). I do, however, hope that people are not so foolish as to think that these are magically safe knives that can be treated carelessly or that all knives should use this design. They still have an edge and presumably can remove fingers and open arteries. Nonetheless, they may slightly reduce the frequency of some of the more serious accidental kitchen injuries that are commonly treated by emergency room staff.

TV News Ignores Iranian Election Protests

2009-06-14T12:12:00.000-07:00

I’ve been following the Iranian post-election protests and riots via social networking sites like YouTube, Twitter and others. Last night while the streets of Tehran were filled with people chanting “Death to the Dictator!” after a clear case of election tampering, CNN was running a fluff piece about whether or not Obama is more popular than effective. Los Angeles based TV news programs talked about illegal aliens working at a car wash, a newsworthy discovery on par with finding tools in a hardware store. FoxNews ran a story about a peeved Sarah Palin. A continuous scan through all available satellite TV news channels revealed similar drivel, with nothing of substance about Iran.

I find this disconcerting given Iran’s important role in the Middle East, their efforts to become a nuclear power and their influence on international policy. Iran is one of the world’s most powerful theocracies and their government has more or less been an enemy of the United States for decades. When their people protested a rigged election, did battle with police and chanted “We want freedom!” in the streets they were mostly ignored by American news networks. This lack of coverage is even more disappointing now that the Iranian election protests have spilled over into large American and European cities.

I realize that there are logistic difficulties in placing reporters inside of a nation that is hostile to foreign press, but this didn’t entirely stop the BBC. Their reporters managed to capture video footage of the protests and were even briefly arrested while reporting on this story. They managed to get enough footage out of the country that Iran has since been actively jamming the BBC communications satellite.

CNN is a very active user of the Twitter microblogging service and used to seem savvy about social media. They were one of the first Twitter users to achieve over a million followers and at one point had 45 official twitter accounts. Why did they not improve their coverage after being twittered with thousands of requests for this? At the very least they could have put a political analyst in front of the camera to discuss what was happening. For many hours, the 2nd most popular trending topic on Twitter.com was #IranElection and the 3rd most popular was #CNNFail. I am surprised that an event of global significance combined with this much social media outrage wasn’t enough to motivate them to cover the story.

The more that I use the internet, the less use I have for main stream media and entertainment. I found dozens of videos on YouTube covering the Iranian riots while they were actually happening. There were hundreds of photographs of the riots on web sites like Flickr. I even found live clandestine coverage on twitter purportedly from a protesting Iranian student as police assaulted a university. I’m beginning to think that traditional news media outlets no longer have much to offer. They are slow, unwieldy and subject to the bias of advertisers and network executives. Television news networks often worry so much about ratings that they focus on entertainment as often as information. "News" stories about “American Idol”, “24” and Obama going on a date with his wife get nearly as much coverage as events of global significance. Once upon a time they may have cared about facts and integrity, but stories like the Dan Rather incident have shown us that their slowness is not caused by diligent fact checking.

If traditional media networks do not find a way to more effectively leverage emerging internet technologies they will soon find themselves without viewers and sponsors.

UPDATE:
CNN's coverage has improved today and they even acknowledged the criticism they have been receiving from the internet/Twitter. Ironically, #CNNFail is still in the top ten list of trending topics on Twitter, and comments there indicate twitterers are either too busy watching the internet to notice CNN's improved coverage or are still angry that it took them so long to start covering this issue.

Student Uses Gun to Stop Robbery and Rapes

2009-05-06T22:52:00.001-07:00

Another great self defense story. Click on the title link and see the full story, complete with a video clip of the news story. Here's an excerpt:

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’”

If you read further and watch the video, you will learn that the student pulled out a gun, shot and killed one of the attackers and then kicked down the door to the room where the women were being held and opened fire on another attacker who was trying to rape his girlfriend.

Although one student was admittedly shot in the exchange of gunfire, they are expected to fully recover. Even with this mishap, this is a great outcome as it prevented one or more of the women from being raped or worse. It's great that this student had both a gun and the courage to use it in defense of others.

CA Band Girl Beats Off Two Muggers

2009-04-30T13:25:00.000-07:00

I love stories with quotes like this one:

one got a punch in the nose and the other a kick to the groin. Rust says the girl then beat both of them with her band baton

It sounds like this young lady knew exactly what she was doing, and may have had some training. Going after vulnerable spots, delivering a few extra hits to make sure her attackers aren't able to pursue and then running to safety is exactly what is called for in this type of situation. It just goes to show that with the right mindset, the smaller/younger/"weaker"/out numbered person need not be a victim. I hope this young woman left a lasting impression on her attackers and inspires others to react to crime in the same manner.

Click on the title link for the full story.

Only You Can Stop Gun Crime

2009-02-20T15:14:00.000-08:00

For those worried about the possibility that guns may cause violence and crime, the title link goes to a site made just for you. There is a web cam showing an evil firearm for you to carefully monitor. Watch closely, for you never know when it might wreak havoc.

Be sure to leave a comment here if you see it causing any trouble.

Enjoying My Amazon Kindle

2009-02-06T17:52:00.000-08:00

(image not actual size)

I got an Amazon Kindle about 8 months ago and I love it as much now as I did then. I can't believe how many books I read now (5+ novels per months plus various other things). I keep it within reach nearly all day long. The built in memory holds roughly 200 books so no matter what mood I'm in I always have something on hand that suits me. The e-ink technology is MUCH easier on the eyes than a computer screen (no flicker and no back light), and the adjustable font size is great for when you are desperately trying to finish an engrossing chapter at 2AM while you can barely keep your burning eyes open.

Although it costs around $350, it has already more than paid for itself. Here's how: There are countless multitudes of free legal ebooks readily available on the internet. I'm not talking about stealing, file sharing or piracy, but legitimate honest to goodness free books. Since ebooks are quite small (roughly 1MB each), they can be downloaded almost instantly and transfered to the Kindle via USB. Sites like ManyBooks.net actually let you download free books in Kindle format. Other sites such as Baen Free Library give away legal free ebooks from popular science fiction authors. Some popular current authors such as Cory Doctorow give away ebooks free in hopes that it will gain them a larger following and thus a larger customer base. I quite literally have THOUSANDS of free books that will take me forever to read, which means I'm now spending much less money feeding my reading habit. If you want current books and don't mind spending around $10 for them, you can use the built in free EVDO wireless internet connection to download them from Amazon directly to the Kindle device without any need for a computer. The original purchase prices comes with unlimited free EVDO internet access so you can download books and surf the web nearly anywhere in the U.S. where you can receive a cell phone signal. The e-ink is a bit slow to refresh and the browser is primative, but sites like Amazon.com and WikiPedia look pretty good. I've used my Kindle to read and post to Twitter.com, access Google Maps to find my approximate location on a map and find nearby restaurants and businesses. I admit, the web browser leaves a lot to be desired but you can use it as much as you like for free, something that's pretty nice as a side benefit to a full featured ebook reader. Here are some of my favorite things about the kindle:

Not much bigger than a mass market paperback yet it can hold hundreds of books and offers access to the internet
Battery lasts a long time (more than a week when I have the EVDO modem turned off)
Great for traveling as I no longer have to fill my carryon luggage with heavy bulky books
All content on the device is searchable, which makes it easy to look up facts and find favorite passages
You can use the built in keyboard to take notes and mark up your favorite texts
It's a great way to read popular fiction without filling your real book shelves with one-time reads that don't add particular value or distinction to your home library

Here are my few complaints about the kindle:

Would like a higher contrast screen. Current screen is good, but white background is not pristine white and is a more like the off-white paper used for newspapers
It should really come with a better case that offers a bit more protection and security
Would like a smaller "next page" button so that it is not as easy to accidentally advance to the next page
Would like a more robust web browser (I know, it's an ebook reader and not an iPhone, but I think with a minimal effort they could have made the browser much better)

Other features that people might like to know about:

It has a head phone jack and volume controls for listening to mp3 files or even audio books
It has an email address that only accepts mail from addresses you designate, so you can send txt files, word docs, pdfs and kindle files directly to your device

I know this probably will just look like an ad to most folks, as I am admittedly an Amazon.com affiliate. Nevertheless I thought I share this review with everyone in the hope that others will enjoy it much as I do and find themselves reading more. In this media saturated world where everyone has multiple TV's, computers, iPods and other forms of entertainment, it's all too easy to give up reading. This device makes it so convenient that people who own will find themselves reading more, which means that they will get more mental stimulation than most other forms of passive entertainment.

Krav Maga

2008-09-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

Given the current legal and social climate, carrying a firearm isn’t a viable option for most people much of the time. Many employers have so called “anti-violence” policies that include bans against possessing a weapon in the workplace or even in your vehicle if it is parked on company property. Some countries/states/counties/cities make it virtually impossible to legally carry a gun for personal protection. If you are like me, and are plagued with such restrictions, consider signing up for Krav Maga lessons.

Krav Maga is the fighting system of the Israeli military and has recently been making its way into numerous U.S. law enforcement agencies. It was designed from the ground up to be something that everyone can use, including people of greatly varying size and strength. Military service in Israel is compulsory for both men and women, and Krav Maga is designed to simultaneously teach people of both sexes how to fight for their lives and survive dangerous situations.

Krav Maga is all about self defense. It is not a ritualized art and it most definitely is not a sport. It emphasizes brutally effective moves that some would consider “dirty” or “dishonorable”. Groin kicks are a staple of this system, as is attacking throats, eyes, knees and anything else that can quickly neutralize an attacker. It is all is about doing whatever it takes to give you the best chance of making it home safe and sound after an attack.

I recently became a student of Krav Maga, and have been extremely impressed with this fighting system. I like how they always try to prepare students for the worst. It is always assumed that that an attacker will have an advantage, such as superior size, superior numbers, weapons, the element of surprise and possibly all of the above. In my very first day of class I was taught to throw a basic punch and kick, and then told to close my eyes and stand in a relaxed casual position. A training partner would then run at me from a random direction and slam into me with a pad, partially knocking me off balance. I then had to immediately open my eyes, face the pad and throw a series of punches and/or kicks at it. Since then, I have often been required to stand in a casual position (i.e. not in a fighting stance) when learning to defend and counterattack against various moves. The idea is to change the shock reflex so that rather than freezing up during a startling attack students immediately launch an overwhelming counterattack.

Much of the training is done full force against one or more pad wielding partners. This conditions the striker to hit hard and use the proper technique. It also teaches the person with the pad to recognize what it looks like when someone is attacking them and to not be intimidated by it. Tell tale indicators such as a slight twist of the hips or shoulders, tensing of muscles, etc., can all be safely studied so that the pad holder learns exactly what an attack looks like when it is first initiated. Holding the pad against strong attacks also strengthens core muscle groups as they tense to absorb the blows.

Krav Maga also gives you a really good workout. When I first started the class, the intensive warm up routines had my heart hammering and my lungs heaving and was nearly more than I could handle. This cardio workout is then followed by stretching and then vigorous combative training. The intense beginning serves both to get students in better physical condition and to tire them out so that when they are practicing they will get used to fighting while tired. After all, muggers and other attackers aren’t likely to give you a pass just because you happen to feel fatigued on the day that you encounter them.

If you’d like to get in better shape, lose some extra weight and/or would like to learn how to protect yourself, seriously consider taking up Krav Maga. My physical condition has improved noticeably in just half a dozen weeks, and I am told that after only a few months of training I likely will be better trained for hand to hand combat than most ordinary police officers. Given how much I have improved already, I’m inclined to believe it.

S.C.O.T.U.S. Affirms 2nd Amendment (sort of)

2008-06-26T20:34:00.000-07:00

By now, nearly everyone has heard of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Washington D.C. ban on handguns. For the most part, it affirmed the 2nd Amendment, which is fantastic news for anyone who believes in the right to bear arms for self defense, checking government power, or both. It also affirmed that the 2nd Amendment bestows an individual right, and not merely a right for militias to bear arms.

For the most part, this ruling made me happy, but I'd like to caution firearms advocates not to celebrate too hard. There are several things that really should be considered about this ruling, lest complacency lead firearms owners to think that they can rest on their laurels.

Problem #1:
The fact that this issue was credible enough to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court is a bad sign. The 2nd Amendment is very clear, and should not require a prolonged process of legal escalation for a gun ban to be thrown out. The very first judge who looked at this case should have thrown out the ban without much more than a few minutes consideration. What part of "shall not be infringed" did the lower courts not understand when this was first challenged?

Problem #2:
This was a 5 to 4 decision. That means that a single swing vote is all that stood between the highest legal authority in our nation declaring that the 2nd Amendment was null and void. It means that 4 justices, people that are considered the most experienced and powerful legal experts in the country, disagreed with the the decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Think about that for a moment. Our country is still dangerously close to invalidating a cornerstone of the U.S. constitution. What happens when this issue comes up again (it will), and on that day we have one additional anti-gun justice on the bench?

Problem #3:
This decision included enough wiggle room for other kinds of gun bans to successfully be passed. Here are some quotes from Justice Scalia:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Note that the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording says nothing about conditional limitations on the right to bear arms. Scalia's comments undermine this simple clarity by saying that it is indeed possible to establish quite a few limitations on firearms ownership, and if enough of these limitation are passed into law, owning, selling and transporting firearms could become so onerous as to create a de facto ban of them.

Don't get me wrong; I think today's ruling came out about as well as we could have expected, and gun owners are entitled to a little celebration. Nevertheless, I think it is important to keep this ruling in perspective and continue to actively support pro-gun organizations and vote against any politician who expresses a desire to further restrict the private ownership of firearms.

WSJ Refers to Global Warming Scare as "Yellow Journalism"

2008-06-26T20:20:00.000-07:00

It's about time a main stream media source is talking candidly about the unsubstantiated theory of man made global warming. I encourage you to click on the title link to read the full story. Below are a few of the better quotes from the article:

"even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure.""

"Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

"whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public."

Solar Researchers Predict Cold Temperatures by 2020

2008-06-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

Kenneth Tapping, project director for Canada's National Research Council, believes that the sun might be entering a period of minimal activity, which could lead to the lowest global temperatures of the past couple of centuries. Here 's a quote from the IBD article:

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

Has the media pendulum begun to swing again? I've been seeing 1-2 new stories per week for the past few months about "global cooling", "upcoming ice age", "reduced sunspots and solar activity" etc. How long will it be before the next Al Gore pops up as the media's favored eco-messiah and warns us of the dangers of Global Cooling while raking in millions in appearance fees and doing absolutely nothing tangible to protect habitat or preserve ecosystems?

NOAA Study Suggests Global Warming Not Increasing Hurricanes

2008-05-18T23:26:00.000-07:00

After Hurricane Katrina, lots of people were quick to tell us how global warming was to blame for an increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Now, a recent study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests that this isn't the case. Read the title link for the full story.

This is the sort of thing that frustrates me about globing warming alarmism. Otherwise rational people jump to unsubstantiated beliefs much in the same way primitive peoples used to blame bad things that they didn't understand on evil spirits. We have enough proven and fully understood environmental problems that we can work on without needing to invent a climatic bogey man. Lets cut down on water pollution, slow down population growth, protect some natural habitat and work on things that we can make a definite impact on. When science comes up with a climate model that actually works, is accurate and survives a couple of decades of peer reviews, we can use it to figure out what negative impact mankind is having on global climate and what we can do to minimize it. In the meantime, let's make quantifiable and measurable progress towards making the world a better place without relying on guesswork and ineffective knee jerk legislation that is far more likely to harm our economy than it is to save the planet.

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

2008-05-03T16:21:00.000-07:00

The title link is to a great article showing how different sources of historical temperature data tell conflicting stories. Data from NASA implies that global temperatures are increasing while information from the UK Meteorological Office, University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems clearly show that temperatures have been falling for quite some time. To further confuse matters, the often cited NASA data did not support global warming until the raw data was massaged to no longer match the original measurements. Older temperatures were interpolated and adjusted downwards, and recent temperatures were presented as higher than the actual raw values that were initially recorded.

I suggest you peruse the entire article, as it offers graphs and visual aids to clearly illustrate the issue and help open-minded rational people understand just how imperfect global temperature predictions are. You might also like to read the much shorter Herald article discussing how global temperatures are not likely to increase in the next decade.

Global warming is an easy and seductive cause precisely because it is so difficult to measure or prove. Climate models are imperfect and ever changing. Good intentions, alarmism and knee jerk reactions have taken the place of objective science in this politically charged issue. Vote to tax SUVs or mandate that corn be turned into fuel instead of food and suddenly you are “saving the planet”. Climatic data never actually needs to improve as lack of success can always be blamed on too little effort, freak climatic anomalies, or the ever popular "we did our part but China’s pollution nullified our efforts". To make matters worse, now that the global warming movement has gained so much momentum, powerful individuals and groups have become vested in the global warming “problem”, and scientists must produce research that supports this belief or risk losing their funding and positions. Science is rapidly being replaced by dogma which makes it much harder for us to objectively learn more about our climate and what impact our species is having on it.

In the late 1800’s there was fear of an impending ice age. By 1930, we were supposedly threatened by global warming. In the 1950s, people decided that global warming wasn’t happening after all. In 1975, the New York Times reported “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” and public schools taught children that we were beginning a new ice age. Most of these scares were based on a perceived average surface temperature change between 0.5 and 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Think about that for a moment. As little as ½ of a degree of change has been grounds to proclaim globally and historically significant climate change. Here we are on the surface of a thin crust of rock covering a ball of molten magma spinning around a massive and ever fluctuating ball of burning gas, subject to cosmic radiation, solar flares, plate tectonics and volcanism and yet people really think that a perceived and heavily disputed tiny average temperature change is absolute proof of a long term trend caused by humans. It is especially absurd if you consider how few years worth of data we have to analyze compared to the vast and complex climatic history of our planet.

Glaciers are indeed melting in places, but they are growing in others. In places such as Greenland and Switzerland, receding glaciers have revealed ancient villages, proving that the areas were devoid of glaciers in the not so distant past. How can we then say that the current absence of glaciers in such areas is unnatural and caused by manmade carbon emissions? Sure, polar bears and other species are threatened by climate changes, but so were dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and countless other species that were wiped out long before the dawn of human industry. Our climate is so vastly complex that we are unlikely to understand it well enough within our lifetime to accurately predict long term climate changes.

We would be far better of if kindhearted people applied their good intentions to othe environmental issues where they could make real and measurable progress. If for example, global warming activists instead spent their efforts buying up land to protect it from development, globally distributing contraceptives and educating people about the dangers of overpopulation, they could protect a vast amount of unspoiled habitat and slow the rate of new polluting consumers being brought into the world.

Peeping Tom Beaten and Arrested

2008-02-13T23:32:00.000-08:00

According to a Fox8 news story, a Greensboro N.C. man heard noises from under the bed he and his girlfriend were laying on:

"(When) I looked underneath there, I saw these eyes staring back at me. I was like 'what the crap! This ain't normal,'" said Lynn. "So I start(ed) slinging him around. I was upper cutting him, beating him left and right."
...
"I talked to the cop. He told me if I wouldn't have caught him, he planned on spending the night."

Police are in the process of notifying the victims of the other cases and anticipate more charges will be filed.

Click the title link for the full story, a photo of the peeper and a video interview with the man who found him and give him a well deserved beating.

Female Blackbelt Marathon Runner Foils Burglary

2008-01-20T18:53:00.000-08:00

This from the sun-sentinel.com:

A would-be burglar met his match when he tried to elude Margo Foster, a marathon runner with a black belt in karate who also knows kickboxing and kung fu, police said.
...
Without thinking twice, she said in an interview, she bolted through the living and dining rooms and followed the startled man out to the backyard. Police said he had one of Foster's backpacks strapped on his shoulders, filled with her property. She wanted it back.
A seven-block-long chase had just begun.
...
As related by Foster, the intruder began to climb the 6-foot-high wooden fence in the yard, when she "grabbed him by the neck, ripped him off the fence.. threw him to the ground, and put my knee to his chest."
...
"Go ahead and run," the former yacht detailer said she yelled. "You're not going to get away from me. I've been running for 40 years."

This is great! If everyone fought back like this, crime would go down. Yes, it's dangerous and obviously some victims will end up hurt, but if most people were willing to fight back like this crime would be much less attractive to thieves. In the long run, we would have a better, safer and more mentally healthy society.

14yr Old Boy Beats Burglar With Bat

2008-01-19T15:16:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I haven't posted in quite some time. This is because I got tired of following the mostly disappointing and frustrating news feeds in order to find the occasional good tidbit worth commenting on. Yesterday, however, a friend sent me a great story that I just had to share with you all.

From MSNBC.com:

“I only hit him twice,” Michael said almost apologetically of the incident that played out Tuesday morning in the Phoenix suburb.
He demonstrated for Vieira how he whacked the burglar, later identified as Thomas Garza, a 30-year-old career criminal who was on parole at the time, twice across the back and shoulders.
On the 911 tape of the incident, Garza can be heard yelling “Please! Please! Please!” after being hit.
…
When Garza left the building, Michael climbed out his window behind him, saw the police arriving, and showed them where to go to find the suspect.

Nice work, Michael! Too bad you didn’t get him in the head before the police got him.

Weapons and Tactics Reviews from Iraq

2007-05-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

The title link is to a letter posted on the Tactical Shooting Forums allegedly from the son a U.S. Marine in Iraq. It provides an interesting review of both U.S. and enemy weapons, and describes some of the groups of people that our soldiers are fighting.

Here is an excerpt:

The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one.
With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso
hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it. The old government model 45's are
being re-issued en masse.

Warning:
The full story contains some profanity and may not be safe for work or appropriate for young children.

Thanks to Palantirion of Sanitycheck 101 for sending me the link.

11yr Old Girl Kills 2 Armed Illegal Alien Home Invaders

2007-05-02T21:31:00.000-07:00

Here's an excerpt from the Libertypost.org story apparently borrowed from the NRA Files:

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington...
It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

You've got to read this full story. You'll enjoy where this little girl shot the first of her attackers :)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find main stream news sites discussing this story in more detail. From what I can tell, it may have appeared in a November 2006 printed copy of an NRA publication, as this is how have I seen it posted as on various gun friendly discussion boards and forums.

Disney Fired Husband and Wife Over Legal Gun

2007-03-26T22:16:00.000-07:00

Zendo Deb over at TFS Magnum pointed out the story in the title link. Here's a couple of excerpts from the letter published at NRA-ILA.com:

I represent Doug and Linda Gray, a husband and wife who were both employed by the Walt Disney World Company. ...The Grays had to begin their commute before sunrise, and had to travel through some less than safe areas. In fact, they had been accosted on their commute to work in the past. They contacted law enforcement about this and were advised that they should purchase a firearm for their own protection during their commute. Based on this advice, Mr. Gray purchased a revolver to protect he and his wife. When the Grays arrived at work, the revolver was locked in their vehicle.
...
Just 17 days before their 10th anniversary of employment at Disney, they were both terminated. While Mrs. Gray was being asked about an absence from work, she responded that her husband was unable to attend, and she didn't feel safe traveling into work without him. Upon further questioning, Mrs. Gray revealed that Mr. Gray had the firearm in their vehicle for their protection. Disney had the vehicle searched, and the firearm was found, locked in the vehicle where the Grays indicated it was. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray were terminated. Additionally, Disney had the Orange County Sheriffs issue a trespass warning against Mr. and Mrs. Gray, so that neither could step foot on any Disney property again.

This same basic issue has come up repeatedly. Weyerhauser fired a dozen employees for possessing firearms in their vehicles, and in response to this the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a law forbidding employers to prevent employees from having legally owned firearms in their vehicles. (Here's my post on that story.)

I think employers should not be able to inquire about the contents of nor search employee vehicles. When you drive your car on a public road, police officers do not have the right to search your vehicle without either a search warrant or some evidence that your vehicle contains an illegal item (i.e. probable cause). Under the law your automobile is treated much like your home or your clothing in terms of privacy and the search rights.

I have often heard people say that the private property rights of the employer should allow the employer to make any rules they like about what vehicles can park on their property. I strongly disagree. An employer should have the right to forbid people to enter their property, but they should not have the right to violate your privacy as a condition of granting you access. Allowing employers to search private vehicles is a violation of privacy similar in spirit (albeit not as traumatic), as allowing employers to conduct daily body cavity searches. After all, an employee could hide a folding knife, a home-made hand grenade, poison, drugs or other potentially dangerous items in an orifice.

Just how far are people willing to let employers violate the privacy of employees? Could an officer of the company require all female employees to bare their breasts to them so that the officer can verify that they don't have a small Seecamp or a Bobcat hidden inside their bras? Could an employer demand the right feel the breasts of busty female employees to try and determine if their allegedly silicone implants and gel filled bras might instead be hi-tech liquid explosives? (TSA agents already have the right to do this at airport security checkpoints.) Can an employer randomly squeeze the crotch of male employees or put their hands up women's skirts to make sure they aren't wearing Thunderwear holsters?

If an employer can forbid employees to have legal firearms in their vehicles, I don't see why they couldn't legally ban any other item they don't like. With this crazy logic, a Christian Scientist employer could forbid medicine in cars, an atheist employer could forbid bibles and a censor-happy employer could forbid "immoral" books and music. Perhaps a Catholic employer could even forbid contraceptives and copies of The Da Vinci Code.

I say that the 4th Amendment should protect employees from such unreasonable searches and bans:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Potential U.S. Terrorist Database Quadrupled in 4 Years

2007-03-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

My previous post mentions that government shouldn't be trusted with a massive identity database. The WashingtonPost.com story in the title link further supports my case, and I encourage you to go read the article in its entirety. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it. "The single biggest worry that I have is long-term quality control," said Russ Travers, in charge of TIDE at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean.

Pause for a moment and think about that. 435,000 people are already in this database, which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of Kansas City, Sacramento or Cleveland.

The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, Travers acknowledged.

I understand that there is probably a legitimate need to track potential terrorists, but there should be a simple process for getting yourself removed from this database in the event that you are experiencing negative consequences as a result of a mistake.

In 2004 and 2005, misidentifications accounted for about half of the tens of thousands of times a traveler's name triggered a watch-list hit, the Government Accountability Office reported in September. Congressional committees have criticized the process, some charging that it collects too much information about Americans, others saying it is ineffective against terrorists.
...
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said last year that his wife had been delayed repeatedly while airlines queried whether Catherine Stevens was the watch-listed Cat Stevens. The listing referred to the Britain-based pop singer who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The reason Islam is not allowed to fly to the United States is secret.

I have followed this issue since the passing of the Patriot Act, and have found news stories about infants, two year olds and other seemingly harmless people that have been added to the no-fly lists. While I have no use for Ted Stevens, it is ridiculous that a U.S. Senator's wife gets flagged by the system because of a similarity to a male British singer. The system needs to work better and include a modicum of common sense.

The 80 TIDE analysts get "thousands of messages a day," Travers said, much of the data "fragmentary," "inconsistent" and "sometimes just flat-out wrong."

With any old scrap of unreliable information being fed into this database, it's no wonder that the list of names have quadrupled in four years. At the current rate of growth, by 2010, this system will contain nearly 2 million names, a number larger than the population of 15 different U.S. states. If this same growth continues until 2014, the list will include 8 million people, more than the population of 39 different U.S. states. Data mining is a useful tool, but the database must be accurate, and must have a viable mechanism for removing faulty information. We need to take a serious look at the current TIDE system and ensure that it is actually increasing public safety and is not evolving into something that violates the privacy of innocent people while generating false leads that could potentially spread our security staff so thin that they no longer have the resources to catch the real bad guys.

Government Selling Your Identity Online

2007-03-24T18:45:00.000-07:00

Here's another example of why you should fight the concept of national ID cards and any other form of comprehensive identity database.

From the Napa Valley Register story in the title link:

SACRAMENTO -- The Social Security numbers, addresses and signatures of more than 650,000 Californians have been available for purchase since 2004 -- for about $6 each on a Web site operated by the secretary of state's office.

...

The Web site had been used to post bank lending and collateral statements -- so-called Uniform Commercial Code filings -- that were frequently purchased by financial institutions conducting loan research. The site contained about 2 million records, a third of which contained individual borrowers' information. The rest had information about business loans.

From NBC11.com:

For three years, the Secretary of State's office routinely placed thousands of documents containing Social Security numbers on the Internet and then sold them to the public for $6 each." The state has literally been selling on the Internet an ID theft starter kit," said Sacramento assemblyman Dave Jones.

From CBS13.com:

"I was really surprised to see this and really stunned to see the names of people I knew in the community, businesses large and small and see their social security numbers, signatures and their addresses," said State Assemblyman Dave Jones.
In fact, Jones' staff got 14 people's records from the Secretary of States' website for less than $90.

As if this particular issue of selling identity information online wasn't bad enough, here's another story to make privacy conscious people cringe:

From SCMagazine.com:

The personal information — including Social Security numbers — of 71,000 Indiana state health care workers were accessed by a hacker in January.

The attacker accessed the data, as well as the credit card information of 5,600 individuals and businesses.

If you are curious about what people might be doing with these Social Security numbers, here's an example from WRAL.com:

Raleigh — The state Division of Motor Vehicles issued about 27,000 driver's licenses to people with invalid Social Security numbers, according to a state audit released Tuesday.

...

Almost 12,800 of the invalid numbers belonged to dead people. About 7,500 of the people who provided those numbers had revoked or expired driver's licenses.

About 7,200 of the people providing other invalid Social Security numbers also had revoked or expired licenses, according to the audit.

...

The DMV didn't require Social Security numbers to issue a license before last year. Since August, the agency has used an online verification program that allows employees to check the authenticity of Social Security numbers with what officials call "ironclad accuracy."

Keep in mind that the above stories all came out in just the last few days. If you keep an eye out for the subject of identity theft, you will continuously find stories like these on the internet news sites. If you let the government put all of our identity data in one place to create a multipurpose national ID card, you will simply do the following:

Create a single target for people to hack, bribe, buy and steal identity information from
Allow criminals to operate with impunity once they obtain such an ID card, as the government keeps telling us how this "hacker proof", "theft proof" ultra secure" cards can't be compromised and thus can be trusted by everyone

We are safer when government agencies and corporations have as little information about us as possible, and when that information is as compartmentalized and as difficult to access as possible. We don't need a single magic number that lets a data miner access our credit history, medical records, buying habits, home address, tax records, firearms ownership, driving privileges, etc. all from a single database. We are already near this point since people widely misuse Social Security numbers for more than tax purposes. Lets not make matters even worse.