Against abortion, but Pro-Choice???

We've all heard the "I'm personally against abortion, but am pro-choice" argument before, well summarized in this oped. She acknowledges that the baby is a unique life, which makes her argument easy to deconstruct.

Scary Mommy: I personally believe that life begins at conception. I believe that an embryo and a fetus are unique human beings. I believe that choosing to terminate a life because of inconvenient timing is wrong. Those beliefs are all rooted in my religious faith, and are why the idea of abortion generally doesn’t sit well with me.
But I can’t laud the separation of church and state and also want my religious beliefs to be the basis for public policy. That’s hypocrisy.....Outright bans on abortion have not been proven to reduce abortion rates....And if you really want to lower abortion rates, put your weight behind legislation that is most likely to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Start advocating for affordable, accessible birth control, comprehensive sex education, and good health care for everyone. If the goal is to reduce abortion rates — which I assume is the goal of anyone who calls themselves pro-life — that’s the only proven way to do so.

To that I say, “I personally am against children working in coal mines, but don’t think my religious beliefs should be the basis for public policy.”

Sounds pretty silly, right? We all base our views of policy on our own moral beliefs, especially when one party has no voice. Unlike a topic like gay marriage, where it is fair to say “well, I’m against gay marriage personally, but my religious beliefs shouldn’t dictate public policy” – because in that case there are two consenting adults and their marriage does not affect anyone else. The author acknowledges that the embryo is a unique human being, but that unique human being does not have a voice in the abortion decision. That is why it is fair that society steps in. No one, except the suicidal, says “I wish I was aborted.” If anyone would say that, society would get them suicide prevention counseling. So if someone believe that the embryo is a unique human being, you also have to believe that in abortion the unique human being is consenting to suicide.

Laws against abortion would not eliminate murder, just as laws against murder don’t prevent murder. Adoption is the variable that is completely missing from this article. There are many good couples that cannot have children of their own, who are ready and willing to adopt. However, unlike the 1960s, adoption today is extremely expensive and difficult, since many unwanted babies are aborted. Many attempt to go through the process, and reluctantly give up after spending tens of thousands of dollars on failed attempts. If adoption was as easy as it was in the 1960s, you would also see couples with natural children adopt additional children.

How tyrants take control of democracies

Robert Reich via Newsweek (along with some of my comments in Italics)

As tyrants take control of democracies, they typically

1. Exaggerate their mandate to govern—claiming, for example, that they won an election by a  landslide even after losing the popular vote.
2. Repeatedly claim  massive voter fraud in the absence of any evidence, in order to restrict voting in subsequent elections. (or cry interference from a foreign nation)
3. Call anyone who opposes them “enemies.” (or deplorables, but see further commentary below)
4. Turn the public against journalists or media outlets that criticize them, calling them "deceitful” and “scum.” (Or co-opt the media to being your sycophants. If they don't go along, shut out media personalities or outlets that provide any sort of critical view. Just see how Sheryl Attkisson was forced out. )
5. Hold  few if any press conferences, preferring to communicate with the public directly through mass rallies and  unfiltered statements. (Like Hillary not having a press conference for over 300 days. Avoid any hard interviews too. Just go on urban radio stations or the View. I’m not sure who did that. )
6. Tell the public  big lies, causing them to doubt the truth and to believe fictions that support the tyrants’ goals. (Similar to “I will put bills online for 3 days before signing them” or “if you like your doctor you can keep it”.)
7. Blame economic stresses on  immigrants or racial or religious minorities, and foment public bias and even  violence against them.
8. Attribute acts of domestic violence to “enemies within,” and use such events as excuses to beef up internal security and  limit civil liberties.
9. Threaten  mass deportations,  registries of religious minorities and the banning of refugees. (Name a tyrant that had mass deportations? It is conform or be imprisoned. Plenty of non-tyrants have greatly restricted immigration of any type.)
10. Seek to eliminate or reduce the influence of competing centers of power, such as labor  unions and opposition parties.
11. Appoint  family members to high positions of authority. (It's cronies, not just family members. Unqualified people, who’s top quality is loyalty. However, Hitler kept top people in their business roles. In a July 6, 1933 speech to the Nazi State governors, he notes "We must therefore not dismiss a businessman if he is  good businessman, even if he is not yet a National Socialist, and especially not if the National Socialist who is to take his place knows nothing about business. In business, ability will be the only standard)
12. Surround themselves with their  own personal security forces rather than security details accountable to the public.
13. Put  generals into top civilian posts. (It’s not generals, it’s cronies. Plenty of former generals have served with distinction in civilian roles, including George Marshall and Colin Powell. )
14. Make  personal alliances with foreign dictators.(Kim Jong Il has no foreign personal alliances)
15. Draw no distinction between personal property and public property,  profiteering from their public office. (like how the Clintons went from being “dead broke” in 2001 to being worth $110 Million today on the salaries of two government employees.)

Consider yourself warned.

Reich tries to create a list which fits Trump, but some of his statements are really secondary items. When tyrants take control of democracies, they ACTUALLY do the following:

1. Increase executive power, by using executive actions to circumvent the legislature. Exaggerating a mandate can be just bravado ; it’s trying to expand dictatorial (executive) power that is the problem. This also can include ramrodding legislation through the legislature through means outside the traditional process , and not letting the people find out what is in bills before being passed. “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” – Nancy Pelosi
2. Appoint “czars” to lead certain key functions, to circumvent a traditional confirmation process of the legislature.
3. Use the IRS or other government agencies to intimidate the opposition. I’m not sure any form of “punishing the opposition” escape Herr Reich’s list. Calling them “enemies” is not the same as actual persecution and/or retribution. If there is a criticism, retire a low level bureaucrat with full pension. Definitely do NOT appoint a special prosecutor for such a case. Use your Attorney General to cover everything up.
4. Disrupt the function of the opposition parties and rallies, such as paying people like Robert Creamer to plant people to start fights at your opposition’s political rallies. (Robert Creamer visited the White House 342 times, including 47 meetings with the President).
5. Use foment civil unrest by dividing people against each other. Rahm Emanuel said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Sometimes tyrants have to invent that crisis.
6. Sack career non-partisan civil servants and replace them with crony bureaucrats (Travelgate, among others)

Quick Guide to D-Frame Colt Revolvers

This is an incomplete (work-in-progress) list of Colt's postwar D frame revolvers. Colt's D frame revolvers are larger than the Smith & Wesson J-Frame, but smaller than their K Frame. The benefits of this is that it fits a little more security in your hand, and has six rounds. Colt revolvers carry a substaintial premium to their S&W counterparts.

 

• Police Positive Special ($400 -$1,000) - all steel blued version, D frame .38, usually with a 4" barrel. Many pre-war models are on the less expensive end.
• Detective Special ($900 - $1,000) - similar to the Police Postive Special, but  with a  2" barrel
• Colt Diamondback ($2,000 - $2,500) - Same frame as the Police Positive Special, but nice finish. Barrell lengths of 2.5", 4" or 6"
• Colt Cobra -($1,100) Has an aluminum frame, available in 2", 3", or 4" barrel
• Colt Agent - ($900 - $1,000)  a budget version of the Cobra Cobra, featuring a less highly polished blue finish and smaller, simplified grips

Guide to Smith & Wesson Model Numbers

 

 

Smith & Wesson models can be extremely confusing. This is amplified that prior to 1957, the revolvers had names, not numbers. You can break it down by frame and version. Many models are the same weapon with variations in material, sight adjustibility, or caliber . This is an incomplete list, focusing on the more popular variants that are seen.

 

J-Frame (small)

 

Chief's Special

• Model 36: (.38 Special)  aka the Chief Special. Blued subnose
• Model 37: Airweight Chief's Special. An aluminum frame/barrel version of the Model 36. Aluminum barrels were replaced with steel for safety.
• Model 637: A model 37 with a stainless steel body.

  

Model 60: All stainless steel snubnose. Introduced as a .38 special, models starting with the 60-9 in 1996 had .357 magnum versions. Starting with the 60-14, there is the internal lock.

 

Bodyguard

• Model 49: (.38 Special) aka the Bodyguard, is a shrouded hammer snubnose
• Model 38: an aluminum frame, carbon steel cylinder version of the 49
• Model 638: an aluminum frame, stainless steel cylinder version of the 49
• Model 649: all stainless steel version, chambered in either .38 or .357

 

Centennial

• Model 40: (.38 special) concealed hammer snubnose
• Model 42: aluminum frame verson of Model 40
• Model 640: (.357 magnum) Modern aluminum frame, Stainless steel model
• Model 642: .38 Special version of the Model 640
• Model 442: Aluminum frame, carbon steel barrel version of the 640

 

 

K-Frame (medium frame)

 

Military & Police

• Model 10: (.38 special), formerly known as the Military & Police model. Usually 4" barrel. The internal lock started at model 10-14.
• Model 13: (.357 magnum) magnum version of the Model 10
• Model 14: (.38 special) aka K38 target Masterpiece. Has adjustable sights and longer barrels.
• Model 15: (.38 special) Has adjustable sights, but shorter barrels than model 14
• Model 19: (.357 magnum) aka Combat Magnum.   Has adjustable sights
• Model 64: A stainless steel version of the Model 10.
• Model 65: A stainless steel version of the Model 13
• Model 66: A stainless steel version of the Model 19
• Model 67: A stainless steel version of the Model 15

 

L- Frame (medium large) - These utilize the same grip as the K-frame, but the barrel is beefied up and it can hold 7 rounds

 

• Model 581 ·
• Model 586: Blue steel version of the 686 
• Model 619
• Model 620 ·
• Model 646 ·
• Model 681 ·
• Model 686: (.357 magnum) - Can hold 7 rounds

 

N-Frame (large frame)

 

• Model 22 ·
• Model 27: Originally known as the Registered Magnum, this is the original .357
• Model 28: Originally known as the Highway Patrolman, this is a budget version of the Model 27 (has less HQ finish) 
• Model 29 · The Dirty Harry Gun. A .44 Magnum
• Model 57 ·
• Model 610 ·
• Model 625 ·
• Model 629

 

 

Ohio State Knife / Car Attack by Islamic Terrorist

This story is going to get dropped like a hot potato now that the media has found out the guy is Muslim, and he used a knife and a car.

We will be instead deluged with stories about how Muslims Fear Backlash.... because they are always the victim.




In the August 25th issue of the student newspaper Lantern, the same killer was playing the victim card. :
"On Monday afternoon, the Ohio State Department of Public Safety released the name of the suspect involved in the violent incident near Watts Hall — Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a third-year in logistics management. The Lantern had interviewed Artan as part of Humans of Ohio State, a print-only feature in The Lantern’s Arts&Life section. Below, The Lantern has reproduced the same interview that appeared in the Aug. 25 issue of the paper. The text below is a direct quote from Artan.
“I just transferred from Columbus State. We had prayer rooms, like actual rooms where we could go pray because we Muslims have to pray five times a day.
“There’s Fajr, which is early in the morning, at dawn. Then Zuhr during the daytime, then Asr in the evening, like right about now. And then Maghrib, which is like right at sunset and then Isha at night. I wanted to pray Asr. I mean, I’m new here. This is my first day. This place is huge, and I don’t even know where to pray.
“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”




So if people looked at him, and thought "he'd drive his car into a crowd of people and then start knifing them, they would have been spot on.

Thoughts on the Election

• Wow, Trump won. After all the final votes get tallied, it’ll be interesting to do some analysis about how Trump in states compared to both expectations and against previous elections. Trump won in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: pipe dreams in the previous elections, but the margin of victory in previous Republican strongholds was diminished. Ohio went for Trump by 8.6%, but Arizona was only 4.3% (it went for Romney by 9.1%)
• Trump wasn’t my #1 choice for President, but he was still better than Hillary. My primary reason for wanting Trump was for the future of the Supreme Court. Trump has floated potential names for justices and by all account, they are reasonably originalists. Hillary clearly stated she would appoint justices that would ignore the Constitution and decide important issues that should be left to the people via the 10^th amendment. Our country suffers when a democratic debate turns into a mandate from the Supreme Court, no matter how unpopular. Who knows what 7 liberal justices would do to gun rights, perhaps buying into the conventional liberal arguments that the 2^nd amendment is about muskets or only if you are in the National Guard. There is nothing to prevent them from overturning Heller. Concepts like stare decisis (precedence) are often touted by the media if a liberal ruling is in jeopardy, but they wouldn’t bat an eye to overturn Heller and impose strict gun laws.
• Liberals I know on Facebook were gloating so much before the election. If they won, they’d be taking victory laps. Now they are in meltdown mode, cursing all Trump voters. Liberals demonize their opponent and then wrap themselves in a cloak of moral superiority. My reaction is a mix of schaedefruede and annoyance.  Republicans didn’t become unhinged when Obama won.  We were forced to sit silently while everyone did victory laps around “the first black President.”
• A Clinton victory would have been a victory for the media. Almost all of the news and coverage was heavily slated to Clinton. Sure, they were able to push in the inexperienced Obama, but at least they couldn’t push someone under constant FBI investigation.
• When Democrats win, the talk is how Republicans need to change their policies to be more electable. When Republicans win, the media talk is that Republicans are angry, or at worst, a stylistic complaint about their candidate, e.g. People didn't like candidate's clothes. The fault never lies with their policies.
• Trump won’t be as great as his ardent supporters claim, nor will he bring about the calamity that his detractors fear. He is more of an old-school Democrat like Al Smith or Harry Truman. Even if he does just a decent job, he will cruise to re-election (if he chooses)  because the fear-mongering about him “being racist, sexist, xenophobic bigot, who will go house to house to deport anyone who isn’t white” will prove to be grossly false. Then the liberals will be left with nothing.
• The market is up tremendously despite all of the negative stories about how the market would react if Donald won.

Election Eve: RealClearPolitics Historical Accuracy

RCP gives Clinton a 3.2% advantage in the popular vote and a 301-237 edge in the electoral college. 3.2% nationally is a healthy margin, but RCP was only off by that much in 2012, to Obama's favor. If you drill down on a state-by-state level, it is much less clear. Two states, FL and NH,  which would deliver Trump a victory are within 0.2% and 0.6% chance. State polls are routinely off by 2% or more.

The below table is a comparison of final state polls in 2008 & 2012 versus their actual. I only examined polls where the lead was less than 5%, as those states would have more frequent polling. Polling is a lagging indicator.  National polls are more frequent, so state polls can be supplemented with national trends. Both times, national polls showed late momentum for Obama and the results broke for Obama. Last nationals polls have broke slightly for Clinton.

The results are uncertain but I think Trump is in a better spot than Romney was. For Romney to have won in 2012, he would have had to pickup five states, three of which Obama was leading by 2% or more. Trump has to win two states where Clinton is ahead by 0.6% or less.  The outlook is certainly worthy of 31.5% chance of winning that FiveThirtyEight gives Trump.

One misconception is that margin of error is absolute - i.e., if a poll has a 4% margin of error, and the poll shows candidate A down by 3.7%, many pundits will say that is a complete tossup. The 4% likely represents three standard deviations, so a 3.7% deficit really means about a 5% chance of winning, not a 50/50.  Being down by 0.2%, however, is very close to 50/50.

2016 Data

 

For comparison, Electoral-vote.com gives NC and ME#2 to Clinton for a 317-221 edge.

 

2012

Realclearpolitics was the least accurate for the popular vote, being off by 3.2%. For the electoral college, they only called Florida wrong, which they had a 1.5% margin for Romney, but it went for Obama by 0.8%. Virgina was correctly called, though they called a 0.3% margin for Obama when the actual margin was 3.8%.  Electoral-vote.com had the same for Obama (303), but put NC as a tossup.

 

 

 

 

2008

The 2008 race was quite accurate: They were off 0.3% on the popular vote in Obama's favor, and put two states, Indiana and North Carolina, in the McCain column, when they ultimately went to Obama. McCain lead Indiana by 1.4% and went for Obama by 1.1%. McCain lead North Carolina by 0.4% and it went to Obama by 0.3%.

 

 

 

2004

The 2004 race, the popular vote err'd in Kerry's favor by 0.9%. Realclearpolitics didn't have a electoral state map which I was aware of, but I was following electoral-vote.com at the time which gave the edge to Kerry. The err'd on Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and completely missed the mark on New Jersey.

Ithaca Model 37 - 18.5" vs. 28" Barrels

I test fired my Ithaca Model 37 shotgun using Remington reduced recoil 00 buckshot ammo with both my 18.5" barrel and my 28" barrel.

 

I wanted to see what the spread was for the different barrels. When do you start seeing a noticeable spread. I also want to see what the difference in recoil between "reduced recoil" and standard shells were.

 

A little background: I've never owned a shotgun prior to this, and has shot one less than 10 times in my life. This was my first outing with it, and my first usage of a shotgun in 2-3 years. I have substantially more experience with pistols and rifles.

 

The targets largely speak for themselves. My takeaways:

1. Noticeable spread won't happen until starting at 10 yards.
2. If you have home defense shotgun, the myth of pointing anywhere is bunk. There inner cicle was about 5 inches in diameter. Since nowhere in your house will there be anything longer of a shot than 7 yds, there is a small amount of forgiveness for inaccuracy, but that's about it.
3. The forgiveness from a shotgun comes from the fact that if you are off the mark, the force would be so huge, that you have time to follow-up. Take the 18.5" barrel, lower left shot. I was aiming for the center of the circle, but the result would be have hit an intruder's shoulder. It wouldn't likely be a fatal wound, but the stopping power allows you to have a follow-up action.
4. I can say I have poor aim, as I generally shot high. Having only a front sight takes a little getting used to. Practicing is key.
5. I don't like the results of the 15 yard try, and would like to go back with a fresh shoulder and some clean targets. I am a bit surprised the change in spread from 10 to 15 yds, but I think a reshoot is required to make any real conclusions.
6. Reduced recoil is marginal - 1200 fps vs 1275 fps, which is 5% less energy. I shot both, and you could tell that the difference was only marginal). While I likely need a new recoil pad (who knows how old this one is), my shoulder is sore after 9 shots of reduced recoil, and 1 of  standard. I'm also 6'2" and 200 lbs. I