2010 – Page 78 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Sea Kittens Are Back

Looks like PETA is trying to convince Hawaiian Airlines to celebrate Sea Kittens, their new name to endear fish to people so we will stop eating them. If God didn’t intend us to eat fish, he wouldn’t have made them taste good. Now it appears PETA thinks Sea Kittens need an official airline. Personally, I’m wondering how soon I can get an Â X-Plane livery for the 737. That’s a pretty good paint job the PETA intern did on that. Maybe they should start a Sea Kitten virtual airline. The problem is then they’ll be complaining that X-PlaneÂ realisticallyÂ simulates bird strikes. Blood on the windshield and all. But maybe PETA doesn’t care about the Air Bunnies that get stucked into turbofans.

Hat Tip to Bitter

Going Nazi

Thanks to Instapundit for this very interesting article from Harpers in August of 1941. The premise of the article is, who might you know that would go Nazi? Very well written, and four months before the US would get involved in World War II.

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of oneâ€™s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many timesâ€“in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

Read the whole thing.

Clearly They Have Not Learned from Stevens Media

SayUncle is reporting that Knox News had some of their content stolen by an Examiner.com writer. I’m sure Righthaven would be happy to sue the writer and Examiner.com if given half the chance, without warning or attempt at resolution. Clearly Knox news has not adopted the new business model of the failing old media. But Jack McElroy notes:

Apparently, search engine optimization is more important than basic beat reporting, these days. That’s not only sad; it’s scary.

Yes. That is the basic truth. Examiner.com’s business model is really based entirely on bringing traffic to their site, regardless of whether that traffic represents people getting value out of the content, or just arriving on a search term. That’s one of the reasons Examiner.com exercises very little editorial oversight over their content producers — if they did it would actually be a detriment to their business model. Their strategy is to put as much content out there as possible related to specific topics, and then dominate the search rankings for those terms. The quality of the writing, or the value of the content have little bearing on bringing search engine traffic.

Google is going to necessarily have a profound impact on reporting and news gathering, and groups like Stevens Media, and the reporter here, obviously don’t get there’s a benefit, search engine wise, to having one of your stories widely linked, even if the linker quotes a little from it. But the legal implications of the Examiner.com model are interesting. The fair use doctrine uses a four factor test in trying to determine whether a use of copyright works is fair. One of those factors includes “whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” Examiner.com directly makes money off advertising, of which it shares a portion of with, on a per-page-view basis, with its content producers. This would be a factor that would weight against a fair use ruling in Court.

But Examiner.com itself would not be an attractive target for a shakedown in the manner of Righthaven’s suits, because they presumably have the money to hire lawyers, and would be more interested in protecting their overall business model than they would be in a quick settlement. It would be very interesting to find out, also, whether Examiner.com would be able to claim immunity under the safe harbor provision of theÂ DigitalÂ Millenium Copyright Act. I would tend to doubt it, but the line between service and content providers is getting increasingly less clear.

Quote of the Day

From SayUncle on the whole Brady and VPC lines regarding the unstable nature of people filing for bankruptcy:

Of course, I guess theyâ€™d both know a bit about the mindset of someone facing bankruptcy.

Is someone keeping an eye on Paul and Josh for signs of depression? Better check their offices for sharp letter openers and heavy blunt objects. Lest they do something rash.

Closing The “Air Gun Loophole”

As other countries go, New Zealand is a relatively easy place to own guns, but they are getting more restrictive all the time. Now it looks like they are moving to close the dreaded Air Gun Loophole:

Police Minister Judith Collins announced this month that the Government planned to change the Arms Order to require anyone who bought or owned a pre-charged pneumatic (PCP) air rifle to hold a firearms licence.

The moves comes after undercover policeman Don Wilkinson and an east Auckland man were killed in separate incidents after being repeatedly shot with a PCP FX Monsoon semi-automatic air rifles.

The United Kingdom regulates air guns according to muzzle energy. Even over here, you’ll often hear the term F.A.C. in regards to air guns. In the UK, any air rifle over 12 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy requires the owner to hold a Fire Arms Certificate, just as they would with an ordinary rifle. I’m not sure whether that’s based on manufacturer specifications, or whether you can go to jail if you modify your rifle and accidentally push it over. I would suspect the latter. You know if they did that here it would be the latter. In fact, if it were here, ATF would fire dozens of different types and weights of pellets through until they got the number they wanted to prosecute you, even if nothing you fired out of it ever exceeded 12 ft. lbs.

Update on Cumberland Public Range Shooting

They’ve performed the autopsy, but aren’t releasing details, except to say he was shot multiple times from a distance. They are still asking people to keep an eye out for his rifle which was taken from him.

DISCLOSE is Almost-But-Not-Quite Dead

From the Center for Competitive Politics, who’s mission it is to fight campaign finance laws that infringe on the First Amendment:

I just wanted to let you know, if you haven’t heard already, that the Senate Republicans held together yesterday to block the DISCLOSE Act from being considered. This is a major win for the First Amendment, and a big setback for the speech regulators.

Unfortunately, that is all it is – a setback. Senator Schumer, who’s been leading the charge for the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate, has vowed to bring it back up as often as it takes to pass it. Needless to say, the Center for Competitive Politics will continue to do everything we can to prevent this speech-killing legislation from being passed. We are already talking with people on Capitol Hill to make sure that all 41 Republicans remain “no” votes on this bill, and also are reaching out to a handful of Democrats that might potentially switch to “no.”

As soon as I’m home from Hawaii, when money will not be as tight, I’m going to kick these guys another donation. I’m glad there’s an organization out there dedicated to battling the quashing of political speech under the guise of campaign finance reform.

Profile of California Sheriff Challenging Ammo Sales Law

Chuckling at the surreal:

Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker didnâ€™t know that he would be named as the lead plaintiff on a suit challenging a new law that would require handgun ammunition buyers to register with the government.

â€œI wasnâ€™t expecting that,â€ he said Tuesday, chuckling as he recounted opening his mail last week and seeing the civil complaint with â€œSheriff Clay Parker v. The State of Californiaâ€ on the cover sheet.

It’s a very friendly piece worth a click.

Gun Controller’s Dream

The Republican candidate is falling all over himself to support as much anti-gun legislation as possible. I feel for the lawful gun owners in the district.

Unintended Consequences in Paradise

The other day, I stumbled across a post at Boots & Sabers that made me laugh about the nature of unintended consequences. It would seem that San Diego voters decided to ban drinking on beaches in 2008. Not surprisingly, the voters who disagreed with the van and visitors simply took to floating their various beach gear out off shore a bit and enjoying a cold one in the water. That was not good enough for local bureaucrats who have now decided to take the ban even further – 3 miles off the shore to be precise. Owen adds:

I see a market for party barges that head a few miles off shore. Of course, they could just allow drinking on the beaches where people who pass out will wake up with a bad sunburn instead of drowning.

Who needs common sense, right?

I was reminded of it last night while reading through the guidebook I bought for our trip, Hawaii: The Big Island Revealed. The specific paragraph:

Sometimes even good intentions can lead to disaster. At one adventure, a trailhead led hikers to the base of a wonderful waterfall. There was only one trail, to the left of the parking lot, that a person could take. Neither we, other guides nor websites ever said, “stay on the trail to the left” because at the time there was only one trail to take. The state (in their zeal to protect themselves from liability at an unmaintained trail) came along and put up a DANGER KEEP OUT sign at the trailhead. Travelers encountering the sign assumed they were on the wrong trail and started to beat a path to the right instead. But that direction started sloping downward and ended abruptly at a 150-foot-high cliff. Hikers retreated and in a short time a previously non-existent trail to the right became as prominent as the correct (and heretofore only) path to the left. Not long after the state’s well-intentioned sign went up, an unwitting pair of hikers took the new, incorrect trail to the right and fell to their deaths. They probably died because they had been dissuaded from taking the correct trail by a state sign theoretically erected to keep people safe.