Mine’s on the smoker!
Author: Sebastian
A Fishy Independence Day
If I had paid for this in a restaurant, I would not have been disappointed. This was our Independence Day dinner, and I will cook this salmon recipe again before too long.
If Only It Were True
I would love this to be the case, but my fear is that Sarah is really finished with politics.  I couldn’t blame her.
The Spectacle Begins
Sitting out in the deck watching the neighbors’ pyrotechnic displays. Fireworks are largely illegal in Pennsylvania, but it doesn’t stop anybody. Considering some of the deep booms I’m hearing, there are folks who have shit that’s not legal in any of the 50 states.
Neighbors across the street are lighting off fireworks in the street. Just saw them go retrieve something they lit because a car was coming. I would think it be less hazardous to just go out and stop the car. Bitter won’t let me bring out my potato cannon. I can make it a pyrotechnic without putting potatoes in it, but I don’t think she’s convinced. Probably best considering my judgment is impaired.
I have enough 1792 bourbon to last more than the night. Happy Independence Day everyone!
UPDATE: From Glenn Reynolds:
FIREWORKS SAFETY. I say, do it yourself if you want, just be smart. “Leave it to the trained professionals†is one of the cancerous mantras of our age, and there’s a big difference between setting off your own fireworks and sitting passively while others do it for you — the difference, if I may say so, between having sex and watching porn. And, in both cases, the presence of a degree of risk is part of the difference . . . . Some related thoughts on this subject are here.
I couldn’t agree more. I only wish I had some of my own pyrotechnics. Maybe next year I should plan ahead.
Not Going to Philly Tea Party
Bitter and I were planning on going to the 4th of July Tea Party at Independence Mall, but I’m not thrilled about the list of invited speakers, among them are 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik, who is billed as a “constitutional expert” (I can assure you he is no such thing), and anti-smoking activist Dr. Robert Skalroff, who held up Pennsylvania’s settlement with the tobacco companies because he believes we ought to be able to keep suing the tobacco companies. Then you have the fact that they have invited “Pro-life Spokeswoman, Katie Fleming” and then you have Herb Dennenberg, who is mostly known for his writings on the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror.
Now, my objection to Badnarik is rooted on my personal disdain for the Libertarian Party, mostly for taking the legitimate idea of a smaller government and turning into a political joke — a three ring circus that’s never done a damned thing to advance the cause of smaller government.  I won’t argue that Badnarik doesn’t belong there. But the other speakers are mixing up issues that I don’t think have any place in a movement that I thought was supposed to be about reducing the government’s footprint in people’s lives, and channel people’s discontent with the current pace at which Government is expanding. How exactly is a physician who wants to ban tobacco even about smaller government at all?
If the Tea Party movement is just going to be some politically amorphous movement that is a conglomeration of right-wing hangers on, I don’t see any reason to waste my time with it.
Happy Independence Day
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
| Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton |
William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn Edward Rutledge |
John Hancock
Samuel Chase George Wythe |
Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross Caesar Rodney |
William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris Richard Stockton |
Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Samuel Adams Stephen Hopkins Roger Sherman Matthew Thornton |
You May Now Panic
I read something about Knob Creek having a shortage of bourbon over at SayUncle’s earlier this week. Now Food & Wine is confirming the rumor. Because of the aging process, distillers have to predict demand out 9 years, and it seems they guessed wrong.
Clearly this all Bush’s fault!
Test Smoke
I’ve got a couple of chicken breasts on the smoker. I mostly just want to see if I can control the temperature of the smoker with the modifications I made. All the symptoms from the ribs last weekend pointed to too high a temperature. I went to Home Depot today, and made some modifications to the firebox to be able to control air intake and to elevate the coals off the bottom of the box to improve airflow around the fire. Bought a grill thermometer that reads something more than “Warm/Ideal/Hot” so I could check actual temperature. Turns out “Ideal” is somewhere around 300 degrees. That’s great for baking, but not for BBQ. Looks like with the air intake mods, I can control temperature, and get the fire down to 225 degrees. This is the Minion Method of BBQ, and I think that’s what I’m stuck using as long as I’m using a bullet type smoker.
Sarah Palin Resigns
I’ve often said in conversations with Bitter than the reason our political system is so hopelessly messed up is because no one in their right mind would subject themselves and their families to what is required to be successful.  With that in mind, Sarah Palin has decided to resign as governor.  More coverage here and here.
I think this means her political career is pretty effectively over. Those who were hoping for Sarah in 2012 I think will be disappointed. I’m disappointed. But I don’t blame Palin. She’s a normal, well adjusted person, which means she does not have what it takes to survive in national politics. When you think of the implications of that, God help us all.
UPDATE: Here’s what disappoints me the most about this:
That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.
It would be wrong to ask anyone to carry the kind of burden the Palin family did. But the snakes which are so predominant in politics won. Big time. That doesn’t give much reason to celebrate this 4th of July.
Criticisms of Eugene Volokh’s Framework, Part I
Eugene Volokh is highlighting his recent law review article detailing a framework in which to think about the Second Amendment in terms of self-defense (he does not go into the resistance to tyrannical government arguments). I read this in draft, and believe it to be a very thorough and coherent conception of the Second Amendment from the perception of self-defense. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it (it’s long). I do, however, have some minor issues with his reasoning as I will lay out over a series of posts. I will begin with assault weapons. Let’s start on page 1484 (or 42 on the PDF) of Prof. Volokh’s review:
This is clearest when we look at bans on so-called “assault weapons.†Such bans have been hotly controversial, but the dispute about them is largely symbolic. The laws generally define assault weapons to be a set of semiautomatic weapons (fully automatic weapons have long been heavily regulated, and lawfully owned fully automatics are very rare and very expensive) that are little different from semiautomatic pistols and rifles that are commonly owned by tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. “Assault weapons†are no more “high power†than many other pistols and rifles that are not covered by the bans. Definitions of assault weapons reflect this functional similarity: They often focus on features that have little relation to dangerousness, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, or (for assault handguns but not assault rifles) magazines that attach outside the pistol grip or barrel shrouds that can be used as hand-holds.
It’s therefore hard to see how assault weapons bans would do much to decrease crime, since even a criminal who complies with the ban could easily find an unbanned gun that is as criminally useful as the unbanned gun, and is as dangerous to victims as is the banned gun. The class of assault weapons is indeed not “typical,†at least in the sense of common use. But there is no reason to think that most assault weapons owners have them for criminal purposes. And assault weapons are not more dangerous than the usual gun, which in my view makes them fit within the category of “arms.â€
Nonetheless, the availability of close substitutes for assault weapons— the very reason why assault weapons bans are unlikely to work—also makes it hard to see how assault weapons bans would materially interfere with self- defense, at least given definitions such as those in the 1994 federal statute. And the reasons the Court gave for why handgun bans are impermissible—that handguns are “easier to hold and control (particularly for persons with physical infirmities), easier to carry, easier to maneuver in enclosed spaces, [or easier to handle while] still hav[ing] a hand free to dial 911â€â€”do not apply to assault weapons bans: Assault weapons are no more useful for self-defense than are many other handguns, rifles, and shotguns that aren’t prohibited by assault weapons bans. Assault weapons bans might well be pointless, and might offend gun owners who want the freedom to choose precisely what sorts of guns they own. But this need not make assault weapons bans unconstitutional, if the courts focus on whether the law substantially burdens self-defense.
I disagree. Prof. Volokh does an excellent job of outlining why so-called assault weapons are neither more dangerous or unusual than other types of firearms, but I think his conclusion that easy substitutes are available overlooks an important factor, and a factor that I do not think should be readily discounted by the courts. The courts ought to categorically reject any substitution arguments, in determining the burden on self-defense, because substitution arguments will invariably overlook the multitude of factors that go into determining which gun is right for someone. It’s a complex equation that the courts ought not intrude themselves into, once the dangerousness argument has been dealt with. Let me tell you a tale of two rifles.
One of the most popular semi-automatic rifles on the market is the SKS. I can hardly think of any of the gun safes I know that doesn’t have at least one, and they are becoming increasingly popular for hunters on a budget in states that allow hunting with semi-autos. While in some states, they are banned in certain configurations, the SKS remains cheap and popular because they are considered “curios” under federal law, they can be imported into the country largely in tact from surplus stocks in Eastern Europe. They require no additional work to comply with federal or most state laws once they are imported. A decent rifle can be had for under 200 US dollars in most gun shops.
In contrast, we can look at the semi-automatic Kalashnikovs. A decade ago, most of these rifles could be had for around 300 dollars. By all rights, the Kalashnikov should be no more expensive than the SKS, but is because manufacturers can’t import them legally, but have to do a great deal of assembly in the United States, with American made parts, to get around the import restrictions.  In fact, due to increasing restrictions by the federal government in importation of receivers, under the still standing importation ban instituted under the first Bush Administration, the price of these has risen to more than 600 dollars, since it’s forced manufacturers to do more of the work here.  They are now, because politicians and bureaucrats have deemed them “assault weapons”, out of the price range for a lot of individuals who lack the means the buy them.
As tempting as it might be to argue, because the SKS is available, and cheap, it’s a reasonable substitute for the Kalashnikov, that overlooks several factors. For one, the Kalashnikov takes a detachable magazine, which has a lot of advantages for self-defense. Chief is that the magazine can be stored already loaded, separate from the firearm, eliminating the need to store the rifle loaded. It also allows for quicker reloading, if necessary, or if a magazine fails. There are conversions for the SKS to give it a detachable magazine, but they make the gun less reliable, and make it illegal in a few states. Second, the Kalashnikov is much shorter than the SKS, which makes it more convenient to store, and makes it easier to maneuver around tight corners. More importantly, perhaps, the shorter rifle makes it harder for an assailant to grab. The pistol grip on a Kalashnikov makes it easier to wield for most people, and particularly easier to wield by someone who has arthritis of the hands, or who perhaps isn’t quite strong enough to get a firm grip on a standard rifle stock. Along that same vein, the Kalashnikov is also lighter, and easier to mount accessories to.
I think it’s also reasonable to argue that the right to keep and bear arms also must include the right to practice with them, and with the Kalashnikov being available in many more calibers than the SKS, it offers advantages in that regard. The firearm I can find the most ammunition for right now is my 5.45x39mm Kalashnikov. It’s one of the few rounds that’s still cheap and relatively available. I don’t shoot my SKS as much because the ammunition it takes is harder to come by right now.
It’s quite easy to suggest that the courts can consider the substitution argument, which from the comfort of the bench, seems to be a tempting game to play. But it’s not so easy if the proffered substitute doesn’t work for a specific individuals needs, limitations, stature, etc. What works best for the individual should be left to the individual. That is, after all, why it’s an individual right, is it not? Once the courts dispose of the “dangerous and unusual” argument when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, that’s where the analysis should end. If semi-automatic rifles are judicially noticed as being useful for self-defense, then the Second Amendment should protect their ownership in any configuration that may suit a specific individual need. To do otherwise would be doing the Second Amendment rights of a great many Americans a grave disservice.
UPDATE: Part II is here.
UPDATE: Part III is here.