I've seen this type of thing before; this type of "empowered attitude" with nothing to back it up.
Publicola on the reaction of the Unprotected class to the capture of an alleged serial rapist.
20050225
Quote for the day
Pithy, and served cold:
Publicola on the reaction of the Unprotected class to the capture of an alleged serial rapist.
Publicola on the reaction of the Unprotected class to the capture of an alleged serial rapist.
20050222
20050220
Old graphite mare ain't what she used to be
The current mission-critical computer at chez Fûz is now 5 years old, a Sawtooth Mac G4 that originally shipped with OS 9.0.
We've added memory, installed a second hard drive and loaded OS 10.2/ 9.2, upgraded to 10.2.8, repaired a noisy fan on the video card, upgraded the CPU from 350MHz to 1GHz.
But I think that's all I'm going to do to prolong this machine's service life---and normally I'm willing to do a lot incrementally rather than all at once. The Mac prior to this one? a Umax clone running a 603 at 180. Before that, a Performa 475.
I've read up on upgrading video cards, and I don't like the idea of either paying Apple prices for a new card on the one hand, or having to flash the ROM of an OEM card on the other. The original ATI Rage Pro 128 will have to carry us a bit further, and America's Army will have to be played on a different box and OS.
I'm not even sure I want to go to 10.3 either. What else has to get upgraded to come along with Panther? Quicken? Nutscrape? Do I need 10.3 to run iWork?
I'm open to subjective advice. Moratorium on any more Mac goodies for 18-24 months and bring home a G6?
We've added memory, installed a second hard drive and loaded OS 10.2/ 9.2, upgraded to 10.2.8, repaired a noisy fan on the video card, upgraded the CPU from 350MHz to 1GHz.
But I think that's all I'm going to do to prolong this machine's service life---and normally I'm willing to do a lot incrementally rather than all at once. The Mac prior to this one? a Umax clone running a 603 at 180. Before that, a Performa 475.
I've read up on upgrading video cards, and I don't like the idea of either paying Apple prices for a new card on the one hand, or having to flash the ROM of an OEM card on the other. The original ATI Rage Pro 128 will have to carry us a bit further, and America's Army will have to be played on a different box and OS.
I'm not even sure I want to go to 10.3 either. What else has to get upgraded to come along with Panther? Quicken? Nutscrape? Do I need 10.3 to run iWork?
I'm open to subjective advice. Moratorium on any more Mac goodies for 18-24 months and bring home a G6?
It's not the fifties they're after
Brother gunblogger Triggerfinger (HT: FreedomSight) brings us news of CNN running a story that demonstrates how easy it is to buy a fifty-cal rifle and move it across State lines. To make the story, they had to break a Federal law.
My first impression is that no news organization should be breaking laws just to show how easy lawbreaking can be. Publicola and I agree that the law in question should not be a law in the first place, and that fifty-caliber rifles in private hands are no threat to public order. A first-and-a-half-th impression is that such laws serve only to make everyone just a little guilty, so anyone can have his arm twisted just a little bit by the Man. It's a Randian "consent of the victim" thing.
My second impression is that CNN and its reporters stand absolutely zero chance of having to defend themselves against charges of violating that law. Laws are for the little people.
My third impression is that CNN's reporters and/or producers and/or editors know, subconsciously perhaps, that fifty-caliber rifles are not the real story. The real story, and the activism motivating the fifty-caliber story, is terror and anguish over the fact that a seller of a gun and a buyer of a gun can find each other and arrange to meet face-to-face and make their transaction without the engagement of a licensed dealer. Sensationalize this, spice it up by adding today's Most Dreaded type of gun, and cue the anti-gun lobbyists.
Compared to the fifty-caliber, the antis would get more traction over the SKS (more bodies) except it has one letter or syllable too many. Ayyy-Kayy. Uuuu-zi. Fiff-tee. Mack-tenn. Ess-kay-ess takes just too long to say in a sound bite.
They're not after fifties, they are after private sales.
My first impression is that no news organization should be breaking laws just to show how easy lawbreaking can be. Publicola and I agree that the law in question should not be a law in the first place, and that fifty-caliber rifles in private hands are no threat to public order. A first-and-a-half-th impression is that such laws serve only to make everyone just a little guilty, so anyone can have his arm twisted just a little bit by the Man. It's a Randian "consent of the victim" thing.
My second impression is that CNN and its reporters stand absolutely zero chance of having to defend themselves against charges of violating that law. Laws are for the little people.
My third impression is that CNN's reporters and/or producers and/or editors know, subconsciously perhaps, that fifty-caliber rifles are not the real story. The real story, and the activism motivating the fifty-caliber story, is terror and anguish over the fact that a seller of a gun and a buyer of a gun can find each other and arrange to meet face-to-face and make their transaction without the engagement of a licensed dealer. Sensationalize this, spice it up by adding today's Most Dreaded type of gun, and cue the anti-gun lobbyists.
Compared to the fifty-caliber, the antis would get more traction over the SKS (more bodies) except it has one letter or syllable too many. Ayyy-Kayy. Uuuu-zi. Fiff-tee. Mack-tenn. Ess-kay-ess takes just too long to say in a sound bite.
They're not after fifties, they are after private sales.
20050219
No Sosh Scurty crisis? (updated)
The chief counterargument to privatization of the Social Security system seems to be that "there is no crisis."
All well and good, one might conclude, funds are forecast to be plentiful in that lockbox-thingy until, uh, about the year that I might be retiring. Until then, there is no crisis, no reason to be discomfited, no reason to act. Heck, I even think the GOP is floating this idea not to save Sosh Scurty, but to shut it down.
OK, well how about this scenario?
A dummy corporation, in fact a network of dummy corporations, obtains credentials to do business with a major credit reporting agency (HT, Rick Stanley), thus getting access to the vast databases maintained on every person who has or at one time had a loan, credit card, bankruptcy, judgment, or bank account anywhere in the United States in the last 50 years or served in her armed forces since the 1970s. This much has happened.
This part has not happened, for all I know: the dummy corporations meticulously sift through these dossiers and then use dummy individuals to file false unemployment and disability claims against the Social Security "accounts" it has siphoned away numbers for, then wrecking their credit ratings. A company could sell stolen SSN's to third-parties willing to drift from place to place filing claims under multiple identities; the company could make its buck and disappear fast while the marketed identities are bled dry.
The amount of money to be stolen is far less than what could be scored by opening fraudulent credit cards or draining real bank accounts, but this lesser booty is easier to get away with. For anyone looking for it, fraudulent credit activity is easy to spot, by contacting the same credit bureaus in the first place. But how would you find out that someone has filed an unemployment claim as you? How would you know that this "account" you've created for yourself is being depleted, and when? And if you do find out, can you challenge the Social Security Administration so your own legitimate unemployment or disability claim will be honored? What will stop a third-party from holding on to a stolen identity for re-use a few years down the road?
Can't happen, right?
Then convince me there will be no crisis---that millions of retirees-to-be won't insist that Social Security accounts be privatized, one way or another, so an accountable private firm will be responsible for paying out, with stronger protections against fraud than what Social Security provides today. The crisis could be big enough to crater Social Security, if one out of, say, four people expecting SS benefits loses even a part of them because of fraud. That's probably enough for the House to draw the line, deny responsibility, and refuse to appropriate funds to repair the mess. Now who has reduced Grandma to eating dog food and living in a fridge box?
As far as I know, SS isn't even obligated to give you a new account number after an identity theft. Only if you are a victim of domestic abuse and you need to change numbers to hide from your ex. Hey, wait a minute . . . If the Social Security Administration admits that you might need to change your SSAN the better to hide yourself and kids from an abusive domestic partner, aren't they admitting that minor criminals commonly misuse the SSAN? Not to say that domestic abuse is a minor crime, but that it doesn't take Dr Evil's or the Russian mafia's vast worldwide criminal enterprises to exploit the weaknesses of the SSAN; all one needs is a bad temper and a private investigator.
All well and good, one might conclude, funds are forecast to be plentiful in that lockbox-thingy until, uh, about the year that I might be retiring. Until then, there is no crisis, no reason to be discomfited, no reason to act. Heck, I even think the GOP is floating this idea not to save Sosh Scurty, but to shut it down.
OK, well how about this scenario?
A dummy corporation, in fact a network of dummy corporations, obtains credentials to do business with a major credit reporting agency (HT, Rick Stanley), thus getting access to the vast databases maintained on every person who has or at one time had a loan, credit card, bankruptcy, judgment, or bank account anywhere in the United States in the last 50 years or served in her armed forces since the 1970s. This much has happened.
This part has not happened, for all I know: the dummy corporations meticulously sift through these dossiers and then use dummy individuals to file false unemployment and disability claims against the Social Security "accounts" it has siphoned away numbers for, then wrecking their credit ratings. A company could sell stolen SSN's to third-parties willing to drift from place to place filing claims under multiple identities; the company could make its buck and disappear fast while the marketed identities are bled dry.
The amount of money to be stolen is far less than what could be scored by opening fraudulent credit cards or draining real bank accounts, but this lesser booty is easier to get away with. For anyone looking for it, fraudulent credit activity is easy to spot, by contacting the same credit bureaus in the first place. But how would you find out that someone has filed an unemployment claim as you? How would you know that this "account" you've created for yourself is being depleted, and when? And if you do find out, can you challenge the Social Security Administration so your own legitimate unemployment or disability claim will be honored? What will stop a third-party from holding on to a stolen identity for re-use a few years down the road?
Can't happen, right?
Then convince me there will be no crisis---that millions of retirees-to-be won't insist that Social Security accounts be privatized, one way or another, so an accountable private firm will be responsible for paying out, with stronger protections against fraud than what Social Security provides today. The crisis could be big enough to crater Social Security, if one out of, say, four people expecting SS benefits loses even a part of them because of fraud. That's probably enough for the House to draw the line, deny responsibility, and refuse to appropriate funds to repair the mess. Now who has reduced Grandma to eating dog food and living in a fridge box?
As far as I know, SS isn't even obligated to give you a new account number after an identity theft. Only if you are a victim of domestic abuse and you need to change numbers to hide from your ex. Hey, wait a minute . . . If the Social Security Administration admits that you might need to change your SSAN the better to hide yourself and kids from an abusive domestic partner, aren't they admitting that minor criminals commonly misuse the SSAN? Not to say that domestic abuse is a minor crime, but that it doesn't take Dr Evil's or the Russian mafia's vast worldwide criminal enterprises to exploit the weaknesses of the SSAN; all one needs is a bad temper and a private investigator.
20050214
But would he accept? (updated)
I recently posted on the topic of nominating somebody to the National Rifle Association Board of Directors who has his head on straight about gun rights and political strategies the NRA should pursue to secure them. The idea was floated of drafting someone from among the gun bloggers.
While reviewing the NRA BOD candidates' nominations, it occurs to me that I missed mentioning one candidate who carries respectable credentials.
Well, nobody else from our crowd is bowling the rest of us over to seek the nomination (are they?). And my offer to serve as Director of TSA on the Lucas ticket just didn't garner enough enthusiasm for me to pursue it any further.
Fer Chrissakes, if bloggers can take down a CNN executive (actually, he took himself down but bloggers held the knife steady for him) or depose a Senator from a key leadership position (he took himself down too, but you get what I mean by now), can't we put a fin on the NRA BOD?
Update: It only took two comments equating me with the fraudulent Libertarian Girl for me to realize that I can't have both pseudonymity as a blogger, and public responsibility as either a United States Senator, or as a Director on the NRA Board. I'm staying pseudonymous for reasons I've made clear elsewhere, and those reasons are incompatible with either of those lofty public goals. I'm not abandoning those goals, merely deferring them until the day I become Fuz N. Pundit, USAF Retired and hang up the uniform for the last time.
Until then, I will ruminate on these pages about what I'd do in that hazy scotch-soaked future, but will not tease or coyly suggest my candidacy. That doesn't stop me from suggesting a draft of blogger or bloggers who proudly go public.
While reviewing the NRA BOD candidates' nominations, it occurs to me that I missed mentioning one candidate who carries respectable credentials.
NRA Life Member. Citizen-soldier for 24 years, Operation Enduring Freedom veteran, currently serving the US Air Force in active reserve capacity as an emergency preparedness specialist. Shooting enthusiast, web logger, commentator about the Right to be Left Alone. Second-degree black belt in Taekwon Do. Father of four, homebrewer, reloader, hunter, avid owner and defender of several evil-looking black guns that are not for hunting at all but were purchased expressly to practice shooting bipeds.
Well, nobody else from our crowd is bowling the rest of us over to seek the nomination (are they?). And my offer to serve as Director of TSA on the Lucas ticket just didn't garner enough enthusiasm for me to pursue it any further.
Fer Chrissakes, if bloggers can take down a CNN executive (actually, he took himself down but bloggers held the knife steady for him) or depose a Senator from a key leadership position (he took himself down too, but you get what I mean by now), can't we put a fin on the NRA BOD?
Update: It only took two comments equating me with the fraudulent Libertarian Girl for me to realize that I can't have both pseudonymity as a blogger, and public responsibility as either a United States Senator, or as a Director on the NRA Board. I'm staying pseudonymous for reasons I've made clear elsewhere, and those reasons are incompatible with either of those lofty public goals. I'm not abandoning those goals, merely deferring them until the day I become Fuz N. Pundit, USAF Retired and hang up the uniform for the last time.
Until then, I will ruminate on these pages about what I'd do in that hazy scotch-soaked future, but will not tease or coyly suggest my candidacy. That doesn't stop me from suggesting a draft of blogger or bloggers who proudly go public.
20050212
Giving Uncle 3 more years
I reupped some time ago, neglected to post anything about it, until Barbaloot discovered the photo, taken before the memorial wall at our Wing.
20050210
If only the Donks would . . .
Bill Bennett mentioned yesterday that he would try his hand at a Twenty-First Century manifesto for the Democrat party. I think Hugh Hewitt would try the same. Doubtless other bloggers and commentators have suggested it too.
"The Democrats could be a resurgent political force in the United States if only they would," [fill in the blank with your favorite killer policy prescription].
If only the Donkeys would embrace genuine tax reform and win back the small businessmen and the widows'n'orphans and the IRS victims. If only they'd pick up and run with Second Amendment rights, and recover their union rank-and-file base. If only they'd drop the pretense at Drug Warrior and stop incarcerating whole generations of black males. If only they'd give up their current infatuation with coastal elites and academics, and return to their roots among blue-collars and farmers.
If only. If only.
Every WUTT! reader has his favorite, the one sure thing that would turn the Donks' fortunes around. And I have mine.
It's not much.
Eminent domain abuse.
How better to reach out to Maw and Paw Heartland than to say "We Donkeys are really really upset, deeply livid in fact, that Big Corporations are suborning local governments into kicking ordinary people out of their houses to make way for condos, shopping malls, parking garages, and so forth. It's nothing but Corporate Welfare, and we Donks don't stand for it."
SayUncle is all over this, and so is the Institute for Justice.
None of the if-only policy proposals I've heard so far is utterly impossible for the Democrats, even an eminent-domain reform platform that runs afoul of the enviros, or a pro-gun platform that would hospitalize Chuck Schumer. Some Party leaders would be alienated, of course, but they'd come around, as they just might in '06 when Tom Daschle makes the rounds like a macabre breathing Marley's ghost and gets them thinking right about the fundamental problem, the only problem really, that of Staying In Office.
My greatest concern from all of this is that with such an opposition, the GOP can make a serious mistake and fail to realize it until it's too late. Like in the Colorado legislature this year, for example. From the point of view of individual rights and the free market, the GOP may be second-rate firemen, but the Donks are first-rate arsonists.
How about a little fire, Scarecrow?
"The Democrats could be a resurgent political force in the United States if only they would," [fill in the blank with your favorite killer policy prescription].
If only the Donkeys would embrace genuine tax reform and win back the small businessmen and the widows'n'orphans and the IRS victims. If only they'd pick up and run with Second Amendment rights, and recover their union rank-and-file base. If only they'd drop the pretense at Drug Warrior and stop incarcerating whole generations of black males. If only they'd give up their current infatuation with coastal elites and academics, and return to their roots among blue-collars and farmers.
If only. If only.
Every WUTT! reader has his favorite, the one sure thing that would turn the Donks' fortunes around. And I have mine.
It's not much.
Eminent domain abuse.
How better to reach out to Maw and Paw Heartland than to say "We Donkeys are really really upset, deeply livid in fact, that Big Corporations are suborning local governments into kicking ordinary people out of their houses to make way for condos, shopping malls, parking garages, and so forth. It's nothing but Corporate Welfare, and we Donks don't stand for it."
SayUncle is all over this, and so is the Institute for Justice.
None of the if-only policy proposals I've heard so far is utterly impossible for the Democrats, even an eminent-domain reform platform that runs afoul of the enviros, or a pro-gun platform that would hospitalize Chuck Schumer. Some Party leaders would be alienated, of course, but they'd come around, as they just might in '06 when Tom Daschle makes the rounds like a macabre breathing Marley's ghost and gets them thinking right about the fundamental problem, the only problem really, that of Staying In Office.
My greatest concern from all of this is that with such an opposition, the GOP can make a serious mistake and fail to realize it until it's too late. Like in the Colorado legislature this year, for example. From the point of view of individual rights and the free market, the GOP may be second-rate firemen, but the Donks are first-rate arsonists.
How about a little fire, Scarecrow?
So how come . . .
Bifocal spectacles have the lower portion of the lenses cut to a higher magnification, so someone with weaker muscles in the eye can focus more easily on fine print that is close to the eyes.
All well and good, I suppose, as long as the reader holds his head upright and trains himself to look downward. Then a good portion of his visual field is magnified, even though only the reading material that needs magnification is only a small sub-portion of that portion of the visual field. For other visual tasks at greater distances, the added magnification is useless and even gets in the way.
Bifocals could be made less awkward by limiting them to the field of view that a reader is likely to need. To wit, if the magnification is needed only for materials that are closer, then put the magnification in the area of the lenses that both eyes will be looking through when they are focused on closer objects. Eyes converge---point inward---on nearer material. So move the magnification areas closer to the nose, a little higher, and a lot smaller. They'll be where the eyes need them when reading, and out of the way for distant vision or for tracking moving objects.
If I get time I'll sketch what I mean.
All well and good, I suppose, as long as the reader holds his head upright and trains himself to look downward. Then a good portion of his visual field is magnified, even though only the reading material that needs magnification is only a small sub-portion of that portion of the visual field. For other visual tasks at greater distances, the added magnification is useless and even gets in the way.
Bifocals could be made less awkward by limiting them to the field of view that a reader is likely to need. To wit, if the magnification is needed only for materials that are closer, then put the magnification in the area of the lenses that both eyes will be looking through when they are focused on closer objects. Eyes converge---point inward---on nearer material. So move the magnification areas closer to the nose, a little higher, and a lot smaller. They'll be where the eyes need them when reading, and out of the way for distant vision or for tracking moving objects.
If I get time I'll sketch what I mean.
Dr Freud, your slip is showing
A colleague snorted after a news story about another wedding for the British Royals, "I wonder what color of dress she'll wear."
I blurted out off-white colors that indicate less than the expected premarital purity, "Cream? Bone?"
I blurted out off-white colors that indicate less than the expected premarital purity, "Cream? Bone?"
This is virtually a concession
Also seen at VC:
I see this as a major concession of legitimacy by the antigun crowd, tantamount to "You might have a point there." It's that niggling word "arguable" that Eugene used. English 1 students will recognize that adjective. Up to this point, antigunners would not allow that term to be used, meaning that a literal understanding of the Second Amendment would not be allowed on the table.
From here it's a matter of continued pressure. Be of good cheer and unrelenting energy.
Both opinions [in the DC handgun ban case] acknowledge that the Second Amendment challenge raises an arguable constitutional question
I see this as a major concession of legitimacy by the antigun crowd, tantamount to "You might have a point there." It's that niggling word "arguable" that Eugene used. English 1 students will recognize that adjective. Up to this point, antigunners would not allow that term to be used, meaning that a literal understanding of the Second Amendment would not be allowed on the table.
From here it's a matter of continued pressure. Be of good cheer and unrelenting energy.
Whew
From Volokh Conspiracy:
This doesn't mean anything for me directly, but it should spare other blogs of any trouble from comments I might post there. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
The New Jersey Appellate Division has just held ... that a federal statute - 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 - makes Web site operators immune from defamation liability based on items posted by users, even when the operator keeps some messages and deletes others, changes some messages, sets ground rules for the discussion, and so on. This would also mean that bloggers are immune from liability based on comments posted by others on their blogs.
This doesn't mean anything for me directly, but it should spare other blogs of any trouble from comments I might post there. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
20050209
It's gonna be a good season, Mama. Look at the whiskers on them cats
At my age, and in my current occupation, one quickly understands that one's wisdom is grounded in knowing what one does not know.
By that standard, today is a good day, because not only do I know what I don't know, but I seem to not know less that I thought I didn't.
Should I let anyone else know this?
By that standard, today is a good day, because not only do I know what I don't know, but I seem to not know less that I thought I didn't.
Should I let anyone else know this?
20050204
A new favorite
I'm sure that President Bush would not nominate him, but Andrew Napolitano deserves an appointment to the Federal bench somewhere.
Read his interview in Reason's February issue (not yet online).
Read his interview in Reason's February issue (not yet online).
20050123
So how come . . .
. . . anthropomorphised female dog characters in Disney animations (well, just about anybody's animations, but Disney is in the sights at the moment) don't have six teats?
I'd image a still here but something tells me that would elicit threats of lawsuits.
I'd image a still here but something tells me that would elicit threats of lawsuits.
20050122
I've ignored this beast for too long
It's well reviewed by anyone who picks one up or fires it, in spite of its looks and its all-plastic construction.
It's damned light, a minimalist approach to a utility carbine.
It's got the wrong caliber but maybe that can be corrected. Either Grendelization or conversion to a TCU caliber could get me interested.
It's no service rifle but wasn't meant to be. In the Charlie model, the SU-16 looks like a contender.
It's damned light, a minimalist approach to a utility carbine.
It's got the wrong caliber but maybe that can be corrected. Either Grendelization or conversion to a TCU caliber could get me interested.
It's no service rifle but wasn't meant to be. In the Charlie model, the SU-16 looks like a contender.
Alternatives to PayPal?
Who's using what? Who's got critical mass? Is critical mass even necessary for web-transacted minipayments? Is it safe to keep accounts at more than one of them? What features are better than others? I'm leery about having one directly access my bank account, less leery about credit card access. I guess it's a discussion of what I want it for, isn't it? Ease, anonymity, disconnection from credit card, disconnection from social security number, disconnection spender from earner?
Kurt's Kustom Firearms is using YowCow. Never heard of them until looking up alternatives to the AR-15's direct-impingement gas system---Kurt offers one, BTW.
And this, in a nutshell, is why I want something other than PayPal---it's none of their business what I buy using their service. If they want to restrict what I can buy, I won't use them. I still get their emails, and my emailed complaints about that policy go unanswered.
BitPass looks good, eGold looks even better but it's not really meant for micropayments. For cryptanarcholibertarians, eGold must be the shizzle.
Kurt's Kustom Firearms is using YowCow. Never heard of them until looking up alternatives to the AR-15's direct-impingement gas system---Kurt offers one, BTW.
And this, in a nutshell, is why I want something other than PayPal---it's none of their business what I buy using their service. If they want to restrict what I can buy, I won't use them. I still get their emails, and my emailed complaints about that policy go unanswered.
BitPass looks good, eGold looks even better but it's not really meant for micropayments. For cryptanarcholibertarians, eGold must be the shizzle.
Time again for BOD ballots
The ballots arrived again this year for NRA Board of Directors, and this year because of Neal Knox's untimely passing away, we have to evaluate the nominees without his advice.
So I'd like your help in setting criteria for who should receive gunbloggers' votes for the NRA BOD. This is especially so for fellow gunbloggers who have been disappointed (outraged?) with the NRA lately. They aren't the only game in town or even the best, but they still have pull and it's worth it to try to influence them in this new bloggy era of openness and instant communication.
Though it's way too late to seriously consider it for this year, it might be time to write-in nominate an überblogger or two to the BOD. I'd be really cool with Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh. Not so cool with Hugh Hewitt.
Update: After some consideration, I think I want Glenn and Eugene right where they are, free to reason and to blog without any appearance of influence over them. Besides, we'd need different skillsets in an NRA director. What are those skillsets?
So I'd like your help in setting criteria for who should receive gunbloggers' votes for the NRA BOD. This is especially so for fellow gunbloggers who have been disappointed (outraged?) with the NRA lately. They aren't the only game in town or even the best, but they still have pull and it's worth it to try to influence them in this new bloggy era of openness and instant communication.
- Should we eschew police officers as members, and support elected sheriffs?
- Should current or past elected office matter?
- Should Hollywood celebrity matter? John Milius and Tom Selleck are both nominees.
- Should nomination by NRA's nominating committee be a plus, a minus, or irrelevant?
- I'm embarrassed to even ask this one: do we know or can we get access to the past voting records of existing Directors up for reelection? I don't know that answer and I ought to. No finding it on NRA's website, I can't even find the friggin' bylaws there. So much for blognost.
- Should political party matter? Would you rather have a blue-dog Democrat trying to soften the irrational Dem gun control stance, or a lukewarm GOPer? That's an entire other policy debate but its ripples propagate to this issue.
Though it's way too late to seriously consider it for this year, it might be time to write-in nominate an überblogger or two to the BOD. I'd be really cool with Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh. Not so cool with Hugh Hewitt.
Update: After some consideration, I think I want Glenn and Eugene right where they are, free to reason and to blog without any appearance of influence over them. Besides, we'd need different skillsets in an NRA director. What are those skillsets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
