Two shootings, two responders

Two shootings, two civilians responded.  The first was successful; the second died in the attempt.

The two found themselves in very different situations.

In the unsuccessful intervention the civilian responder did not know that the primary shooter had an armed accomplice.  In addition to that disadvantage, the shooters appear to have been right-wing nutcases.  They were probably more familiar and better trained with their firearms than a majority of the American police force.

In the successful response, the shooter was wielding a shotgun, which takes longer to reload, and reloading gave the civilian the opportunity to act.  He used the tools at hand and got the job done.  Still, he was fortunate.  The shooter he drew was mentally ill and suffering from delusions, not a well-prepared radical weary of waiting for the revolution.

The odds are that no one of us will be caught up in an act of violence that we cannot escape.  The truth is someone will be.  Not everyone will respond by seeking cover.  They were not born that way.

The question arises, should law abiding citizens who have imagined themselves caught up in violence not of their own and believe themselves to be responders, should they be allowed to arm themselves for the possibility?  Or should we leave them with bottles of pepper spray?  Some states severely restrict even that form of self-defense.

The it will never happen to me, duck, cover, and wait for a white knight in a police uniform crowd would say "no."

A free people who recognize the variety of human experience, that knights come dressed in all colors and few carry a badge, and that trust their fellow citizens say "yes."

Because it is my right

We do not all have the same religious views; we do share a commitment to defend the right for each person to have their own.

We do not all have the same opinions, still we share a commitment to defend freedom of speech.

The rights of the press and the sword are intertwined.

The thing is, we gun owners, do not have to defend why we own a gun to those who choose not to own one.  No more than my Christian wife needs to defend her faith nor do I need to defend my atheism, nor does the Wall Street Journal need to defend its right to publish.

Actually, those things do need to be defended because there are always righteous do-gooders out there of one strip or another who feel threatened by someone else's faith, speech, or willingness to bear arms for the common good.

We can talk about regulation for any and all of those freedoms.  Your right to swing your fist ends in some close vicinity of my nose.  If you attempt to advocate sharia law (Islam), take multiple wives and bill the social welfare system for it (fundamentalist Mormons), if you attempt to foster panic or call for the overthrow of the constitutional order, if misuse your firearm even by brandishing it, all of these will get you in trouble, and rightfully so.  

The truth is, all of our freedoms are intertwined.  The pen is only mightier than the sword when the sword is restrained.  The truth is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a sword is a good guy with a sword.

Those of us who carry firearms need to be vocal to one another about the need for civility and neighborliness.  We should work to reign in our own who need lessons in manners.

Two reasons I am not a member of the NRA: the spend too much money attempting to recruit me as a member and their inability to stand up to the impolite minority among us.

Let's discuss what measures are appropriate, but let's talk in good faith.  Gun owners have not always been treated very respectfully in the public square.  Some public figures have even been willing to break the law in attempts to embarress gun owners.

Because our rights have been defended by the courts, there are political forces that would love to re-write the constitution in order to "fix" the "problem" of the Second Amendment.

That topic is not up for discussion.  

State Compensation for Wolf Kills

I was surrounded by a bunch of beekeepers when a newer beekeeper asked about how to deal with a problem bear that had been harassing their hives.

"Three S's," a grizzled old man replied.

"What do you mean?" the newbie asked.

A wide grin came across a bunch of faces as the experienced hand described his stratagem, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."

Wolf and Hound: Enemies in fact and fiction

I am sure there is much bravado in these beekeeping circles.  Old men talk amongst themselves about killing problem wildlife in the same way young men talk about their exploits with young women. 

That the illegal killing of problem wildlife happens less than advertised, is not to say that it does not happen. 

Reducing teen pregnancy and reducing illegal wildlife kills both begin in the same place, accepting reality as it stands.  In the first case that means accepting that teenagers are sexual beings; in the second that abundant wildlife imposes a cost.

People feel emboldened when inaction costs them money.

These are widely understood.  My wife hit a turkey last month to the tune of a $2,500 repair bill.  My insurance company went out of their way to explain that, because the damage was caused by wildlife, my monthly premium would not change.  Urban drivers who are less likely to strike wildlife are, in effect, subsidizing my auto insurance. 

It is a price they pay to keep those who leave near wildlife from suffering from that wildlife.

Farmers are regularly compensated for livestock losses due to wildlife.  This is not controversial because most Americans understand the role of and are sympathetic to farmers.

One of the costs of hosting a wolf population

In Wisconsin those who hunt bear, raccoon, bobcat or coyote with dogs and suffer wolf losses are also compensated.  One writer is attempting to arouse some controversy around the issue.

The screed, re-printed by a variety of publishers, is a flimsy attack posing as investigative journalism.

Let's take the main points one at a time.

Point: Wisconsin is the only state with a program that compensates dog owners.

Counter-Point: The rebound of Wisconsin's wolf population has exceeded all expectations and we are now wondering how many wolves the state can sustain.  Perhaps Wisconsin is doing something right?  I don't know and neither does the author.

Point: People who have broken the law in the past have received payments.

Counter-Point: So what?  Does receiving a speeding ticket mean you forfeit your right to other legal protections under the law or restrict them from benefits they'd otherwise be entitled to? 

Point: Many people are repeat claimants to the compensation.

Counter-Point: People like to hunt near where they live and in places that are familiar.  Wolves are not a random event but are more likely to kill dogs in the area that they range.  Sometimes the range of wolves and the range of particular hunters are going to overlap.  It is not surprising that there would be repeated claimants.  Perhaps people are not learning from experience, how exactly should we address that?   

Point: The program rewards people who put their dogs at "extreme risk."

Counter-Point: The program compensates people who work dogs that were bred for work.  Work includes risk.  The presence of wolves is what makes that work an "extreme risk" and the program exists for the very reason of compensating hunters for a risk they did not undertake but was fostered on them through the Wolf re-introduction program.

Point: Some of the attacks happen in the same place and people keep on going back to that area.

That "Probable Range" is conservative to the extreme.

Counter-Point: If one pack is a particular problem, perhaps the DNR should cull that pack?  Otherwise we might just have statistical noise. 

I can speak from my own experience that the official map of the Wisconsin wolf range is conservative to the extreme.  That little circle in Dunn County, I live there and I see wolves annually and stumble upon scat and kills often enough that it is almost not worth mentioning anymore.  Somehow, I doubt that small green oval represents one wolf or one pack in isolation.

Point: Other states report fewer incidents and they do not have a compensation program.

Counter-Point: Hunters are less likely to report a loss when there is no compensation to be had.  It is called incentive.  It was covered in your Freshman year economics course.

A follow-up article attempts to cast the compensation program, not as a legitimate response to legitimate needs, but the fruit of high powered, pro-hunting, lobbying groups who have donated a combined (shudder) $56,000 to the re-election campaigns of Governor Scott Walker and the members of the legislative committees overseeing natural resources.

Source

The real influence of hunter's groups, however, arises not from thousands of dollars of campaign contributions but rather thirty-six million dollars of revenue collected in hunting licenses and permits, all of which support the wild places we all love.  It may drive animal lovers nuts, but animal hunters finance the infrastructure that makes Wisconsin's wild places possible. 

The wolf population was financed by hunters, including those who hunt with dogs. 

I doubt the issue truly the $56,000 dollars were spent to compensate the owners of hunting dogs in 2013.  $56,000 is a lot of money to me but, in terms of the decreased ill-will it purchases, it is the deal of the century.

What really seems to be at work is the continued ideological assault of armchair naturalists who adore the idea of nature to the extent of vilifying hunters who spend time in it, make use of it, and, through purchases of licenses and permits, fund it. 

It is to the Wisconsin DNR's credit, they've done a lot to educate the public on the risks posed by wolves and recognize that total avoidance is not realistic. The DNR is also resisting calls to end the practice of compensating dog owners.

We love the outdoors.  We love our dogs.  We, for the most part, enjoy sighting wolves, bears, and other not always benign wildlife, in the places we live, hunt, and camp.  Money does not replace the loss of a good dog, but it does communicate that the loss is recognized and provides compensation for the some of the time and money invested in a hunting dog. 

It is the feeling of not being heard, that government is unresponsive, combined with financial loss that causes anger at wildlife losses to mount over time.  Eventually "shoot, shovel, and shut up," becomes less an issue of bravado and more standard practice.  And that would be a loss to the state's bio-diversity and the citizenry as a whole.

Well Hot Cow Crap!

We may disagree on a lot of down ticket issues, including the last 1/3 of this commencement speech, but on the issue of free speech I have nothing to say to Micheal Bloomberg but "Amen."

There is an idea floating around college campuses — including here at Harvard — that scholars should be funded only if their work conforms to a particular view of justice. There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism. [...] This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and — to me, shockingly — from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.

"The former Mayor of New York went on to note," according to the American Interest, "that 96% of the Ivy League faculties contributed to Barack Obama in the last elections. When the crowd began to clap, he continued, 'there was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there is among Ivy League donors.'"

UC Santa Barbara Shooter

Captain Politically Incorrect:

So this 22-year old UC Santa Barbara shooter was driving around a $40,000 BMW.

No, I do not think the primary problem is that he was bullied, lack of inclusion, Hollywood, or that the law-abiding public is able to buy a firearm.

I am thinking he was a spoiled little child who never got introduced to life in the real world back when it might have done him some good.

Flight 370

Finally a theory that actually fits the facts and requires neither mental gymnastics nor radical imputation of wrong doing: a fire in the cockpit.

At the first indication of any smoke or fire, the crew should have immediately donned their oxygen masks. If they didn’t, the smoke from any cockpit fire would have quickly overcome them. Seeing smoke, the cabin crew would have attempted to contact the captain. Failing this, they would have donned their smoke hoods and entered the flight deck with fire extinguishers.

However, if the entire flight crew was incapacitated, the airplane would simply have flown on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. And that is what appears to have happened.

What may have caused the fire in the first place? It could be something as simple as undetected damage to the center pedestal wire bundles, caused by rough handling during maintenance or a mouse chewing through the insulation. Once again, we will not know until the aircraft is recovered.

However, it is my professional opinion that, when we finally do unravel this mystery, the pilots and flight attendants of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 will be lauded as heroes.

I instantly thought of the 1999 Learjet that crashed in South Dakota.

Our brains are wired to make connections, even where they are none.  We have an innate desire to create a narrative to explain the universe.  Never account to chance what can be blamed on God's vengeance for our sin, witches in our midst, UFO's, or a government conspiracy.  We want a emotionally satisfying "why" when the most we can hope for is a technically descriptive "how."

Maybe the disaster which befell the airliner is something completely different, yet still, I anticipate the final answer will be mundane and leave many unsatisfied looking for a more complex explanation.

 

Culture, Policy, and Events

Unpersuadable

The two things I find most distasteful in a human being are actually closely related: self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Consequently, whatever the subject of debate is, I find plenty to be uneasy about. Conviction can be a beautiful thing, so long as it does not serve as an excuse to treated one's fellow homo sapiens as so many polluted lepers.

Will Storr investigates the tension between conviction and critical thinking farther than I ever will in his new book The Unpersuadables and runs into the problem that he A) knows he must be wrong about something but B) believes his opinions are right about everything. My answer would be humility, or, at least, the discipline of being polite to everyone. There is a detailed review over at Salon.com.

Such rumination undermines Storr’s faith in his convictions, rooted as they once were in the rather quaint confidence that human beings make up their minds rationally. Instead, exploring recent developments in neuroscience, he learns that we believe first — engaging mental models formed early in life and rarely amenable to change — and come up with the reasons for it afterward. By the now-familiar process of confirmation bias, we ignore what doesn’t support our most favored notions, and shine a brilliant spotlight on the ones that do. Our minds operate unconsciously to a flabbergasting degree, while our consciousness is forced to tag along after, cooking up convincing rationales. “We do not get to choose our most passionately held views, as if we are selecting melons in a supermarket,” is Storr’s provocative conclusion.

The Abusive Self-Appointed Nannies

Among my uncritically held beliefs is that when your absence of humility blinds people, you should be held accountable. Not with jail time, public flogging or judicial maiming but public outing and shaming; and those who have faith-based opposition, including illegal activity, has slowed the development of Golden Rice should be ashamed.

By 2002, Golden Rice was technically ready to go. Animal testing had found no health risks. Syngenta, which had figured out how to insert the Vitamin A-producing gene from carrots into rice, had handed all financial interests over to a non-profit organization, so there would be no resistance to the life-saving technology from GMO opponents who resist genetic modification because big biotech companies profit from it. Except for the regulatory approval process, Golden Rice was ready to start saving millions of lives and preventing tens of millions of cases of blindness in people around the world who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency.
It’s still not in use anywhere, however, because of the opposition to GM technology. Now two agricultural economists, one from the Technical University of Munich, the other from the University of California, Berkeley, have quantified the price of that opposition, in human health, and the numbers are truly frightening.

Everything has Trade-Offs

From War is Boring:

In 1969, the Soviet navy shocked the U.S. and NATO militaries with a new and incredibly capable submarine—one that could swim faster and dive deeper than anything else under the sea.But the seven high-tech-class submarines—able to reach 45 knots and 2,400 feet—were actually inferior where it really mattered. Their speed and depth-resistance came at the cost of noisy internal machinery that made them easy to detect … and destroy.

Libya Continues to Fall Apart

And we continue to try to manage it without risking anything to resolve it.

American Navy Seals have seized a North Korea-flagged tanker which had been loaded with crude oil at a rebel-held port in eastern Libya, the Pentagon said on Monday.

The operation to take control of the Morning Glory came a week after Libya failed to prevent the tanker from leaving the rebel-controlled eastern port of Es Sider loaded with an estimated $20m cargo, in a crisis that has brought the country to the brink of civil war.

"The Morning Glory is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government's National Oil Company," said Pentagon spokesman John Kirby. "The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of Es Sider."

There were no casualties in the operation, which took place in international waters off the coast of Cyprus. The operation to take control of the Morning Glory came a week after Libya failed to prevent the tanker from leaving the rebel-controlled eastern port of Es Sider loaded with an estimated $20m cargo, in a crisis that has brought the country to the brink of civil war.

Live better and live longer: correlation or causation?

Why should I care? Enjoy more muscle in the everyday and enjoy more everydays before that day when you do not.

New UCLA research suggests that the more muscle mass older Americans have, the less likely they are to die prematurely. The findings add to the growing evidence that overall body composition — and not the widely used body mass index, or BMI — is a better predictor of all-cause mortality.
The study, published in the American Journal of Medicine, is the culmination of previous UCLA research led by Dr. Preethi Srikanthan, an assistant clinical professor in the endocrinology division at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, that found that building muscle mass is important in decreasing metabolic risk.

"As there is no gold-standard measure of body composition, several studies have addressed this question using different measurement techniques and have obtained different results," Srikanthan said. "So many studies on the mortality impact of obesity focus on BMI. Our study indicates that clinicians need to be focusing on ways to improve body composition, rather than on BMI alone, when counseling older adults on preventative health behaviors."

Love this part

Today's homeschool lesson:

Geography, demographics, and recent developments of the Ukraine crisis and open question time.

O: Dad, what is same sex marriage?

A: Dad, what is the tea party?