Not Running Out to Get iPhone 4

I’m not an early adopter, and the problems with the iPhone 4 are part of that reason. I’m sticking with my 3G for now, at least until the revised versions are out. Les Jones points out Apple’s changing positions on the antenna problem, and wonders whether Apple is right that all phones have the problem, after trying the trick with his blackberry and receiving signal degradation.

They are correct, but it depends on a lot of factors. The main problem is that in order to get more bandwidth, cell providers are moving higher and higher into the microwave range to accomplish communication between the cell phone and tower. This also benefits battery life. The problem with microwaves, however, is that the higher you go in frequency, the less they penetrate barriers. The iPhone uses GSM 1900, which operates from 1850 to 1910MHz. Your microwave oven operates at 2450 MHz, so you can see we’re not that far off from the ideal frequency for reheating leftovers. Microwaves are poor penetrators of materials, and they don’t penetrate metals at all, otherwise RADAR would have no theoretical basis. So yes, all phones are subject to signal attenuation depending on how you hold them, where you are, and how strong your signal is.

The problem with the iPhone is that they put the antenna on the outside where it can be touched, which changes the impedance of the antenna, causing more of the energy generated by the iPhone’s radio transceiver to end up in you rather than being radiated off to the local cell tower. This is why adding a bumper fixes the problem. It would seem it should be relatively easy to put a transparent, non-conductive coating on the exterior metal of the phone that would attenuate the problem. That way people’s grubby hands get kept off the antenna, and Steve can still feel good about his slick design. Antenna experts say FCC rules limit where they can locate it, because the FCC limits how much radiation can get pumped into your skull. Apparently bottom antennas are not all that uncommon. But how many vendors have them openly exposed?

Daily News Stuck in the 90s

We’ve been speaking frankly within our community about the fabricated “assault weapon” issue for nearly 10 years now. There’s no excuse for shoddy journalism like this anymore:

After the shooting, police found an arsenal of eight assault weapons – among them an SKS, every one of them legal to be purchased and owned by anyone without a criminal record.

Assault weapons are designed for warfare and, in the United States, that war is against our police. So why do politicians continue to provide material aid to the enemy?

The SKS was never an “assault weapon,” and is not an assault weapon in its standard military configuration even in very restrictive California. In their standard military configuration, they are legal in all 50 states as far as I know. I’m also going to bet that the Daily News reporters can’t tell me what an assault weapon is, other than any firearm used to shoot at a cop. I’m going to bet they can’t explain to me how it’s different than any other legal firearm, or a hunting rifle. I think this is a safe bet because they know nothing about firearms, and it’s obvious from the reporting.

We’re here, Daily News. You can learn from us. You don’t have to agree with us, but you can at least learn and get the fact rights, and have some idea what you’re talking about. But I guess that’s too much to ask.

Defending Civil Rights

Lots of good stuff over at Volokh lately, this one a story of Four Black Men and a Gun.

As an American, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to many, many people who have risked and given their lives to defend our liberty. But as I reflect on the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, I thought I should take a moment to mention four Americans who have made a relatively uncelebrated contribution to the freedom I cherish and enjoy. I owe a special debt to four black men, and one gun.

The most important of these men, to me, was my father. When I was a boy, he and my mother moved our family of six from the Terrace Village public housing projects in Pittsburgh’s Hill District to a predominantly white neighborhood. While many of our neighbors welcomed us, we were not welcomed by all. I recall a brick through the front window, and other incidents. But burned into my memory is the Sunday evening when my father was beaten with a tire iron on the street in front of our home, and in front of us, his four little children. Those three young white men were never caught.

When my father, with his surgically reconstructed eye socket and jaw, was released from the hospital, he did something he never once considered when we lived in the projects. He bought a gun.

Every evening after that, before going to bed, I and my siblings would go out onto the front porch to say goodnight to my father as he sat in his chair, shotgun across his lap, with its black barrel glistening under the porch light. I never once felt unsafe. I never once had trouble sleeping. My sense of security did not come from the Pittsburgh Police, or from the law. My sense of security came from my father, and his gun.

There were no more incidents, at least not any that I can recall, after my father exercised his Second Amendment right. It was his contribution to “non-violence” in our neighborhood.

Read the whole thing. I can’t help but think the Brady folks think we’re full of crap when we try to tell the role that the Second Amendment played in the Civil Rights Movement. On the left they point to the public non-violence face to the movement, which was also very important. But it seems to me, given multiple anecdotes, that it’s hard to deny that the Second Amendment right played an important role.

Short Film Recommendation

What could be cooler than tactical bunnies shooting terrorist camels? Clearly the Japanese don’t have the racial issues we do here. But I just watched this and it looks fun. Blackhawk down with bunnies, basically. It’s called Cat Shit One. Here’s the trailer.

I’m not sure where you can buy this, or even if it’s available in the US, but presumably it will be. Resourceful people can probably find it.

Cops Speak Up

Two police officers, one of them from Chicago, take exception to USA today’s assertion, that I would note has been promoted by the Bradys, that police support the Chicago gun ban. The Brady folks have never had a lock on the rank and file, but they do get the political appointees. It’s good to see cops speaking out against their leadership on these issues.

Wal-Mart Receipt Checkers Come ThisClose to Crossing the Line

If you read Consumerist, you know that Wal-Mart’s receipt checkers are known for getting a little out-of-control to the point of harassing shoppers. Fortunately, that had never been the case for me – at least until today.

Now, before anyone accuses me of getting my Wal-Mart hate on too early, I’m a big fan of the retail giant. I love their low prices and their decent selection. I have family members who have worked for them for decades, so I’m in no way opposed to their business model. At least until it crosses the line of chasing shoppers inappropriately.

I noticed the employee at the door as soon as I walked in. He wasn’t facing me, but he stood out because he’s not the type you normally see handling receipt duties at Wal-Mart. Normally it’s nice older folks who will accept my “no thanks” response when I turn down their request to check my receipt. This guy was older – probably early 50s – but he was reasonably built and even had a tattoo showing on his arm. He was not the usual face of Wal-Mart by any stretch.

When I was leaving, I know I had done nothing suspicious, and he knew it, too. I know he knew since I noticed him watching me as I put my receipt in my wallet before fully departing the register nearest him and the door. I had no purse, just my oversized wallet and a cart with a few cases of soda in it. If I had not been alert, I would have been freaked out when he popped up right beside me demanding my receipt.

In response to his demands, I did my polite smile with the “no, thanks” response. This guy apparently likes to get his way because he kept walking behind me. So, I stopped and turned saying, “Look, I am a member of Sam’s Club where I agree to wait in line to have my receipt checked. I’m not doing that here.” He started in with a rant along the lines of “I don’t care where you’re a member, I want to see your receipt.” But I didn’t let him finish because I told him that unless he planned to get the police involved and could provide hard evidence of suspicious behavior, I was leaving without showing him my receipt that I already put away. That made him back off of the argument, but not the attempt to intimidate. He tried following me, but he decided not to go past the doors.

I called his boss from the parking lot. I stayed out there an extra 10 minutes while they went to find her. She agreed that his behavior of following a 20-something woman in an attempt to intimidate was beyond over the line, especially for a couple of cases of soda. To her credit, she pledged to go have a chat with him immediately. But damn if it doesn’t make me want to avoid Wal-Mart for a while. I haven’t been chased around Target by their staff barking orders at me, and I find I prefer to shop that way.

But upon telling Sebastian the story, he pointed that a better carry form of pepper spray would probably be good for situations like that. If he had tried to grab me or come after me in the parking lot, it would have been a reasonable response. Without the police, they cannot detain you. Even with the police, they are going to have to show some kind of evidence that they believe you committed a crime. Their policy of checking receipts is completely unenforceable. Hopefully the next staffer at the door will accept the polite “no thanks” instead of trying intimidate & harass shoppers, leaving them to wonder if they need to pull out pepper spray.

Kagan Passes Out of Judiciary

Graham gave her the one vote she needed to get out of committee. The rest of the GOP Senators voted no, and she needs at least one vote from the minority to get past the committee. Now the vote goes to the Senate floor, but it’s going to be impossible to stop her there with Graham’s defection. Other GOP votes are sure to defect as well, following Graham’s lead.

Voting against her were Sessions (R-AL), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), Kyl (R-AZ), Cornyn (R-TX), and Coburn (R-OK). They all deserves our thanks for their vote. Graham is showing himself to be an increasingly unreliable conservative vote, and given the state he’s from, I think we ought to expect better.

Judiciary Dems are mostly anti-gun and poorly rated. The only votes up for possible influence by NRA were Leahy and Feingold, and to a lesser degree Specter. But even with those votes, she still would have gotten out. The GOP needed to hold it together, and they failed us because of Graham.

Palm Pistol Prototype

Ed Friedman of NRA’s Shooting Illustrated magazine has the scoop on the prototype Palm Pistol. It’s all black, so clearly it’s evil and must be banned immediately. And it’ll have rail? Seriously?

Health Care Constitutionality

The Obama Administration seems to be intent on arguing the health care mandate is a legitimate exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. But noted over at Volokh:

The tax is not an excise tax, and it could not be a constitutional excise tax because it is not uniform. The tax is not an income tax, and it could not be a constitutional income tax, because it is not a tax on derived income. Accordingly, the tax must be a capitation or direct tax. Article I, section 9 provides: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The tax is not apportioned, and therefore is contrary to Article I, section 9.

I think the strongest argument is that the mandate is necessary and proper in order to carry out Congress’ national regulatory scheme of health insurance under its commerce powers. That’s not to say I think that argument is correct, but it seems to me that the tax argument is an easy loser, while there is at least a plausible argument for the necessary and proper clause supporting Congress’ commerce powers.

But hey, I’m not going to complain about the Administration hanging its hat on the wrong argument.

P.S. – Congratulations to Dave Kopel for his Emmy.