what bugs me
 

I consider myself a recovering lawyer.

60,000 wakadoos
 

All I know is that California is almost anti-gun as it is pro-choice. When we run pro-choice Republicans, the gun stuff is where they go. We ran a guy here for Congress, a pro-choice Repubican, and he had a D- rating from the NRA. But his opponent had an F. So they ran all sorts of TV commercials showing that brutal bank robbery in LA (with the automatic weapons and body armour) and said that the Repubican candidate had a better rating from the NRA. I went to the NRA and begged them to give our candidate an F also, but they refused to believe that a bad rating from them was better for our candidate.

The gun laws in California are really strict, but this is the only state where I have had a gun held to my face. And I don't know why people, that are not being stalked, want to carry firearms. Guns are heavy and a pain in the ass to carry around.

It just seems to me there are more important issues.

60,000 wakadoos
 

Sorry to hear that you had a gun held to your face. Seriously.

I know that maybe you haven't been here long enough to pick this up, but crime of all sorts is sorta like my favorite topic. More specifically, ways to reduce crime without locking up 4 million minor drug offenders, without making good citizens feel afraid in our society, without grossly increasing governmental expenditures etc.

I agree with you, to a point, about "I don't know why people, that are not being stalked, want to carry firearms". Partly because I don't and don't want to carry a firearm.

But I'd extend your list from just "stalking victims" to storeowners and all kinds of other "good, certifiable" people in bad neighborhoods. In the genteel suburbs of Virginia, this seems almost entirely academic. But in Richmond, I'd imagine a few decent people might want to carry a gun just to walk around the neighborhood.

Which is another way of saying, while guns and conceal-carry stuff shouldn't be the priority item on our list of political points to make, crime should be. And a decent conceal-carry program, which strictly scrutinizes permit holders and which bans the carrying of weapons in specified institutions and while the would-be bearer is in a medicated or inebriated state, is one of many crime-related topics that simply makes sense to me.

And then there's the right to keep a weapon in your home. Even in a blue state like Illinois, if a municipality tries to enforce its liberal-wackadoo gun laws on a righteous homeowner who shoots a home-invader, the liberal-wackadoos will feel a backlash that they apparently never anticipated.

But, the bigger picture (and I'd assume this is true in California also, but correct me if I'm wrong) is that crime of all sorts is an issue at some level in most any local race in this country.
I think crime is what drives voter support for the gun-rights movement more than any other factor in this country.

60,000 wakadoos
 

Hey, you'll be happy to hear, then, that HB 254, which would restructure sentencing for low level marijuana possession, finally got out of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Thursday. It got unanimous support in committee, and the only real worries were that representatives didn't want to look like they were getting soft on crime. The benefit, though, is that it clears up a lot of valuable jail space, and frees up law enforcement for other purposes. According to this fact sheet on the bill 57% of all 2003 drug possession arrests in Texas were for marijuana. Used to be in this state that you were thrown in jail for up to a year for possession. Looks like it's just going to be a hefty fine soon. More info on the bill here.

60,000 wakadoos
 

In Texas? Wow. That was my first choice pick for implementing my second choice option for drug users. If they ain't gonna just execute em in Texas, I need to think of a better second choice than execution!

On another note, some paper or another (of the majors... I think it was the NYT) this weekend had an opinion column about the "abortion reduced crime" thing. The writer was writing about a recent "debate" or something like it between the abortion-theory guy and one of the guys from the U of C... maybe even the one who argued that "concealed carry reduces crime". Anyway, according to the author, the consensus after the presentation is that the "abortion reduces crime" guy presents a pretty compelling case.

Even noting that New York legalized abortion 3 years before the rest of the country, and New York's drastic crime deduction started (arguably, of course) 3 years before the rest of the country.

Couldn't find the link. My apologies.

But this brings up another thought. I've heard in India or China, people are aborting girls waaaay disproportionately. I'd imagine here, people are aborting fetuses who are likely to be handicapped or ill etc. But I can't prove it. Anyone ever hear of any theories as to whether the incidence of Down's Syndrome kids or whatever is lower since 1973 or thereabouts... as a result of abortion? Couldn't help but wonder.

Hello

In his WaPo column today, Michael Kinsley parenthetically points out that the neo-conservatives did not predict the collapse of the Soviet Union -- "their theme had been that the Soviet Union was getting stronger and stronger while the United States diddled."

60,000 wakadoos
 

1) Anyone that is stupid enough to argue that abortion reduces crime (and therefore is a good thing) should be sterilized themselves. In all seriousness, this type of argument just bolsters the pro-life position. In China, I am sure that if they have access to the technology they would abort female fetuses. However, I do know that with the one child only policy, many families are killing their female babies so they can try again and get a male.

2) That is encouraging about texas. The fact that drug crimes are put in the same catagory as violent and sexual offences is "criminal". Most drug offenders need rehab not prison.

2)

A neocon as someone with a "messianic vision" of using American power to spread democracy, an indifference to the crucial distinction between what would be nice and what is essential to national security, and excessive optimism that we can arrange things according to our own values in strange and faraway lands.

That is me. Our foreign policy should be based on spreading free markets and democracy around the world. Not only does that help the rest of the world, but it also improves our national security. Woodrow Wilson was the first Neo-Con, and if the Senate had listened to him, I think the twentieth century would have been much better.

60,000 wakadoos
 

It was argued. Its not necessarily accepted, but its at least debated, and some people find his research/arguments somewhere between acceptable and compelling.

The article specifically notes that the guy who put the theory out has questions about the morality of abortion, and is not trying to justify an underlying position.

The column I couldn't find before is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/op...16tierney.html

(Reg. Req'd).

Anyway, I'm not taking a position on the whole thing, but it has been a topic of public debate for 18-24 months or more. I thought the column was worth reading, though I don't agree with several of the points made by various interviewees and/or the author.

Hello

60,000 wakadoos
 

Would you similarly reject the studies that suggests concealed weapons laws decrease crime?

It seems like a serious study that points out one of the ignored costs of the pro-life position.

60,000 wakadoos
 

I suspect that abortion of fetuses with Down's Syndrome or other detectable and severe developmental problems is disproportionately high in places other than China and India. Like in the US.

Once a woman reaches her late 30s -- I think it's 36 -- she is likely, if not required, to be screened during pregnancy for Down's Syndrome and several other serious developmental problems. That's because the incidence of such conditions begins to climb at that age (and increases to a really scary level within a few years). The process of this test leads people who would not otherwise consider having an abortion to consider it -- in other words, to consider terminating a pregnancy that was planned and desired, because they don't want to bring severely disabled child into the world. I have personally been through this discussion, though thankfully the tests were all negative and the decision we'd reached didn't have to be put into effect. And I know that I'm not alone in this. (In fact a friend recently went through the same process, but had to follow through with her decision.)

So, to answer your question -- I'm sure the incidence of Down's is lower than it would be because of abortion. I doubt that this trend began as early as 1973, however, because the testing procedures have gotten much more sophisticated and accurate in more recent years. And the overall incidence may well be up since, say, the 60s, because of other factors -- most importantly, more women waiting until they are in their late 30s or older to get pregnant.

My Girl Ann on Cover of Time
 

My Girl Ann on Cover of Time
 

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Atom-bomb designer Freeman Dyson, in a review of Max Hastings' new book:

• The history of World War II teaches us . . . the immense importance of the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of prisoners in mitigating the human costs of war. All through Hastings's narrative, we see a stark contrast between two kinds of war, the war in the West following the Geneva rules and the war in the East fought without rules. A large number of witnesses of the western war, German as well as British and American, owe their lives to the Geneva conventions. In the western war, soldiers fought as long as fighting made sense, and surrendered when fighting did not make sense, with a good chance of being treated decently as prisoners of war. Many of the prisoners on both sides were killed in the heat of battle before reaching prison camps, but most of them survived. Those who reached prison camps were treated in a civilized fashion, with some supervision by delegates of the International Red Cross. They were neither starved nor tortured.
  
  At the same time, on the eastern side of the war, brutality was the rule and the International Red Cross had no voice. Civilians were routinely raped and murdered, and prisoners of war were starved. Soldiers were expected to fight to the death, and most of them did, since they had litle hope of survival as prisoners. It is not possible to calculate the numbers of lives saved in the West and lost in the East by following and not following the Geneva rules. The numbers certainly amount to hundreds of thousands in the West and millions in the East. Americans who are trying today to weaken or evade the Geneva rules are acting shortsightedly as well as immorally.

more

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

The war in the East was rougher because the Germans were practicing genocide and the Soviets were responding in kind. It wasn't that one was not a party to the Convention- it was more that one group thought themselves superior and on God's side.

Meanwhile we're at war with people who chop of their prisoners heads. Does this sound more like the Eastern front or the Western front to you?