Six Years

On March 8th last year, Marcos Olguin was driving a van carrying 20 illegal immigrants. The van wasn’t being chased by law enforcement or border control; he was just driving from the mountains to the east toward Oceanside, where he was to deliver the smuggled illegal immigrants.

After driving down Honey Springs Road (familiar to anyone from Jamul), he turned onto State 94 — at 55 MPH, an outrageously and recklessly high speed for that right-angle turn. The predictable result: the van flipped, spewing its human occupants. In the over-stuffed van, the immigrants were mostly sitting on the floor, not wearing seat belts.

One woman — pregnant — was killed at the scene, pinned under the van while badly injured. Another woman died later at the hospital. Everybody in the van was injured; some have permanent brain damage, some are physically disabled, some are blind. “The human toll of the crime is staggering,” the prosecutor (Christopher Ott) said. Indeed.

Yesterday federal judge William Q. Hayes rejected the five year sentence requested jointly by the prosecutor and the defense. Instead, he sentenced Olguin to six years.

Two people killed, over a dozen injured, during the commission of a crime — and the sentence is just six years. Whether the objective of the sentence is to act as a deterrent, or to punish the perpetrator, this is an appallingly lenient (and therefore ineffective) outcome. Listen to the perpetrator himself:

“Sometimes we make wrong choices, not because we don’t know the difference between right and wrong, but because we don’t pay attention to the consequences,” Olguin told a San Diego federal judge.

Will Olguin pay attention to these consequences? Will anyone else?

This is yet another example of a peculiar (to me, anyway) view of accountability we have in our system of justice. We hold criminals less accountable when they cause death and injury as a consequence of intentional recklessness rather than intentional violence. I’ve never been able to understand that distinction myself. We also hold drivers less responsible for the consequences of their recklessness with automobiles than we do with their recklessness with other potentially dangerous behavior. You can bet that if those people had been killed and injured because of any other reckless behavior by Olguin, the outcome would have been different. Again, this is a distinction I’ve never understood. And of course one can’t help but suspect that if the victims had been wealthy, white American citizens that the outcome would also have been different.

As if all the preceding wasn’t bad enough, another twisted bit emerged from this story: Olguin was a meth addict at the time of this crime. He asked the judge to allow him to serve his sentence in a Wisconsin penitentiary — so that he could be with his father, who is serving a 30-year sentence in a methamphetamine conspiracy.

Libertarians (like myself) argue that the restrictions the U.S. has placed on immigration and drugs are (a) contrary to the intent and spirit of our country’s founders, and (b) are the biggest engines of crime in our society. This story amply illustrates those points… If immigration was unrestricted, those people would never have been in the van in the first place. There wouldn’t have been any criminal “underground railroad” to bring them here — they’d have arrived via normal (and safe) transportation systems. If drugs were unrestricted, Olguin wouldn’t be motivated — driven — to high-paying, high-risk criminal behavior to pay for his drug habit. Instead, he’d be in the same boat as alcohol addicts are today — his drug of choice would be inexpensive and legally available, but there would be support mechanisms, help available, as needed, for addicts and abusers. Our society has made an arbitrary and capricious choice to make one drug legal (e.g., alcohol) and another illegal (e.g., meth) — with awful results for our society. And, along the way, restricting an individual freedom…

Unarius Revisited

About a year and a half ago, I wrote about the Unarius organization — our local “space cadets”. The photo at right is of Ruth Norman, aka “Uriel", who led the Unarians for many years. That post prompted quite a few emailed questions, the majority of which asked me if this was a spoof (it is not). At the time I wrote it, there was little information available on the web. Since then, much more information has become available. And in my never-ending quest to satisfy my reader’s curiousity, I give you:

A new Wikipedia article about Unarius, written from a credulous perspective.

Three YouTube videos, here, here, and here. You know you want to hear the Unarian choir singing “Spaceship Earth” — not to mention Uriel, er, explaining, um, stuff.

And these two blog posts (here and here) are chock-a-block full of photos that are well worth perusing…

One of the most frightening things about living in Lawson Valley is that these folks own land here. For their spaceport. I’m not kidding.

Friedman Speaks On

Milton Friedman died late last year (November 16th), at age 94. He was an economist extraordinaire and the “intellectual father” of present-day Estonia’s economic miracle. He was active in his profession right to the very end. In today’s Wall Street Journal, an email interview ($) with Mr. Friedman appears. The entire thing is quite interesting, but this particular question and answer leapt off the page:

WSJ: What is the biggest risk to the world economy: America’s deficits? Energy insecurity? Environment? Terrorism? None of the above?

Friedman: Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon.

Somehow in all the thinking I’ve done about the “Islamofascist” threat, the economic threat never jumped out at me. But it does make sense — look at the incredible economic impact that 9/11 had. And consider the impact of, say, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, or the closing of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, or, for that matter, a dirty bomb in (say) Washington D.C.

There are days when that last thought seems almost attractive, though…

Political Weather

Via Melanie Morgan, an interesting revelation about recent goings-on at the Weather Channel. Here’s an excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

Emotional weather forecasting?

The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called “One Degree” and has a weekly program called “The Climate Code,” devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.

The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)

The chief martyr for the new “emotional” approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network’s cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen’s supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor’s degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.

Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.

Cullen’s diatribe, titled “Junk Controversy Not Junk Science,” called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to toe the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization’s certification.

George Orwell’s 1984 couldn’t have concocted a better form of thought control.

This situation at the Weather Channel is a lovely example of the challenges that face ordinary people who would like to get objective information about a controversial topic.

It’s perfectly reasonable, I think, for people to have a default expectation that a television channel called “The Weather Channel” would supply objective information about weather. Reasonable, but (as Melanie’s story shows) completely erroneous. So a credulous viewer of the Weather Channel can be forgiven for making the assumption that what’s being presented there is either factual, or is the current consensus of meteorology.

But that assumption is wrong.

Like any other commercial broadcaster whose revenues are derived from advertising, the Weather Channel chooses its programming in the manner it believes will maximize the number of viewers (because advertising rates, and therefore revenue, are determined by audience size). What view of global warming would attract the most viewers: (a) global warming is caused by mankind’s activities and disasters are imminent, or (b) we’re not sure if there even is global warming, much less what caused it or what the consequences might be. I’m pretty sure that the answer is (a) — even though that is not the consensus of meteorologists.

The Weather Channel’s best interests are not served by accurately portraying the science of meteorology. Understand that, and it’s easy to be skeptical of anything they tell you.

But it gets worse, as I’ve blogged about before. Meteorology is in a curious state at the moment; a state that is guaranteed to warp the scientific results. The problem is that the majority of funding for meteorologists is going to those who are studying global warming. Especially large amounts are going to those who are building models that can help predict future climate trends and weather events. The scientists who receive these funds are human, and they have a vested interest in having those funds continue to pour into their efforts. Any hint that global warming is a less dramatic process, or that it is caused more by Mother Nature than mankind, is a direct threat to their funding. How do you think they react to that? Of course they are defensive, and of course they will loudly proclaim the value of what they do.

So the science gets warped; always in such situations there is a bias towards that science result that generates the most funding. Right now, in meteorology, that’s global warming caused by (and fixable by) mankind.

You won’t hear that on the Weather Channel, because that doesn’t help them get more viewers.

What’s an average Joe to do? How can any observer hope to sort all this stuff out, and figure out what to believe and how to assess the relative risks? To even more specific, how’s an American citizen supposed to figure out whether it’s more important to spend tax dollars on (say) fixing the Social Security structural problems, or on addressing global warming?

I’ve only found one answer to this: to actively practice skepticism. This implies all sorts of things, but perhaps more than anything it implies a lack of credulity (i.e., don’t just believe what you’re told), an active search for opposing views, and a reliance on evidence and successful prediction.

With respect to global warming, a skeptic will find that the evidence is beyond skimpy. When you read the global warming proponents, you’ll find lots and lots of future projections and darned little solid evidence — and there are plenty of different opinions amongst scientists on the interpretation of what little evidence there is. A little searching on the web will also yield (as I have blogged about before) well-credentialed and respected meteorologists who are skeptical of the validity of the models that support global warming.

In fact, those models suffered a rather spectacular failure this year — and of course this failure was not widely reported in the mainstream media (that’s not the sort of thing that attracts new viewers). Those models predicted a terrible hurricane season this year; as bad or even worse than last year’s. Instead we had a very mild hurricane season. So, in plain English, the models that global warming advocates are relying on to support their case for the disasters that will be visited on us in the coming decades — those models failed miserably to predict something happening six months in the future. Why should we believe those models are correct?

From a skeptic’s perspective, the notion that global warming is caused by mankind’s activities is simply not a proven case. We can’t say with certainty that it’s wrong, mind you — but we for darned sure can’t say that it’s right, either. And I, for one, would like to know that the vast sums of money and resources our government proposes to spend on mitigating global warming would actually have some positive effect before we start spending it. And I’d also like to have a rational public discourse on the relative priorities of the various things the government could spend money on.

There I go, fantasizing again…

Ellison and the Quran

Here’s an interesting look at some history most Americans have forgotten. We’ve been facing a threat from some Muslims for a very long time:

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers” — an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea."

It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a “visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Tip o’the hat to Dick F…

Saying Goodbye

How a Marine says goodbye.

What could I possibly add to this?

Indian Eviction

Our local Indian tribe is trying to build a casino that will occupy their entire six-acre reservation. Two members — a significant percentage of this tiny little tribe — disagree with the tribe’s majority, and have refused to move off the reservation. So the tribe’s leadership is having them evicted.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

The Jamul Indian band Wednesday moved to evict the last remaining occupants of this tiny reservation – two dissidents who oppose the tribe and its casino plans.

Going through a regional intertribal court, the East County tribe issued eviction notices to Walter Rosales, 59, and Karen Toggery, 51, who have longtime ties to the tribe but are not officially enrolled.

The tribe wants them off the land so it can start building a $200 million casino that is fiercely opposed by most neighboring residents.

You can read the rest of the article at the link above.

Just over a year ago, I met and spoke with Walter Rosales (and posted about it here). He’s a quiet and soft-spoken man, and seemed confident at the time that he would prevail and the casino would not be built. Their fight is not over, and (the Indian’s propaganda machine notwithstanding) the casino is still not a “sure thing”. But I can’t imagine that being evicted from his home is a pleasant — or hopeful — even for Walter and Karen. It seems so un-American for anyone to have eminent domain used to toss them out of their houses purely for someone’s monetary gain — though in this post-Kelo world, that’s exactly what all homeowners are now at risk of (though Kelo, of course, has nothing to do with Walter’s situation). The salt in this already awful wound is that the money-maker is a casino, and that the evictors are Walter and Karen’s fellow tribe members — people they all know well, for their community is tiny.

At this point I suspect this matter has gone so far that the Jamul Indian Tribe is never going to be able to heal some of these wounds. If the casino is built as the majority plan, they will, I’m sure, lose Walter and Karen — and they’ll be in for a long-term adversarial relationship with the rest of the community in the town of Jamul (where the vast majority of the residents vehemently oppose the casino). If the casino is stopped, for whatever reason, I’d imagine the Indian community will have a hard time reconciling their differences. If nothing else, being evicted from their homes will be a hard thing for Walter and Karen to forget. And I’d imagine the tribal casino proponents will have a hard time forgiving those who killed their dream of casino wealth. Even if it isn’t one of Walter and Karen’s actions that eventually stops the casino, those two will be associated with the effort.

It’s very sad, isn’t it, to see a community torn apart by undiluted greed? Tribal propaganda aside, clearly the only reason to bring a casino to Jamul is to make money. Equally clearly the tribe hopes to make their share of the profits — why else would most of them agree to abandon their own homes? One could make the argument — as the tribe does — that they’re just pursuing the American dream. But one could also make the observation that usually the American dream is pursued by means that don’t require evictions and the alienation of an entire town.

Of course, I’m writing that as though Kelo didn’t exist. But Kelo does exist. And if Hilton decided that my property was the ideal place to build their East County resort, and could persuade the county government of the tax benefits to them doing so — I could find myself on the wrong side of an eviction notice, thanks to Kelo. Because I live so far out in the boonies, I think — I hope — such an event is exceedingly unlikely. But any of you living closer to civilization are much more at risk…

Close The Blinds

Some years ago (more than I want to think about at the moment) I read a book about the propaganda used to influence public opinion. The book covered the period of World War II through Vietnam. One of the examples cited in that book was a piece of American propaganda circulated in the year or so prior to our entry into World War II. The context of the times is largely forgotten by all except students of history. The majority of the American public were opposed to involvement in “Europe’s war", and the Japanese menace seemed isolated to exotic and far away places that didn’t seem important to the average Joe. America’s political leadership had a decidedly more mixed mindset, with a great many American leaders believing it was essential for America to join the fight — essential for our security, as these leaders saw Germany and Japan as looming threats. You may recall that FDR famously (or notoriously) stretched the limits of his authority to the very edge, and pulled all sorts of political shenanigans, to muster support for the Allies in Europe, most especially the Lend-Lease program that proved so vital for England and the Soviet Union.

In that context, a piece of very effective propaganda was circulated in the United States by proponents of America’s entry into the war. I don’t recall whether this was an “official” piece of propaganda, or even if it was of government origin — it may well have been the product of private groups with similar beliefs. The general story line was this: a father stood at a window of his home with his young son, using the neighborhood visible in front of them to explain why it was essential for America to take action sooner rather than later. Hitler, Chamberlain, and the consequences of appeasement were all major parts of the father’s parable.

This morning, my mother sent me an email that’s circulating on the Internet, with a parable that appears to be the direct descendant of that piece of World War II propaganda. Like its ancestor, it features a father and his son, standing at their window, talking about the necessity of active intervention to deal with bad actors on the world’s stage. But this newer version is cast in the present, with Saddam playing the role that Hitler did in the earlier piece, and with the consequences of appeasement and passivity featuring prominently.

Here it is:

The other day, my nine-year-old son wanted to know why we were at war…

My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window.

He said, “Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbors' houses,” he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said, “OK."

"Now, son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country,” my husband said.

"OK Dad, I’m pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are a fraid of their father. You see all of this, son.... what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do, son?"

"I’d call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then, son?"

"Dad....... but the police are supposed to help!” My son starts to whine.

"They don’t want to, son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it,” my husband says.

"But, Dad… he killed her!!” My son exclaims.

"I know he did… but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you’re pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy… he kills them?"

"Yes, son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don’t want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him,” our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him,” my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can’t stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO, SON?” Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next, son?"

"What, Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old lady’s house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then… he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy...."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?” Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, “I’d close the blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him. “Why?"

"Because, Daddy… the police are suppo sed to help people who need them…and they won’t help… You always said neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won’t help either… they won’t help me stop him…I’m afraid.... I can’t do it by myself, Daddy . I can’t look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and do nothing … so ..... I’m just going to close the blinds … so I can’t see what he’s doing . And I’m going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine-year-old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband’s questions. He says....

"Son....."

"Yes, Daddy?"

"Open the blinds, because that man...... he’s at your front door… “WHAT DO YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, and without hesitation he says, “I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!!! I’M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I’M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I’M GONNA FIGHT HIIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband’s cheek and he grabs our son to his chest and hugs him tight, and says.... “It’s too late to fight him, he’s too strong, and he’s already at YOUR front door, son… you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children, and the old lady across the way. You have to do what’s right, even if you have to do it alone, before it’s too late,” my husband whispers. “THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen, son, THAT is the greatest mistake, believing that the atrocities in the world won’t affect them. “YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE! BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS…"

In these days of the Internet and “personal publishing", anyone at all could have created this piece of propaganda, and the email list forwarders will do the rest for free. This could be acted, videotaped, and posted on YouTube. It can be repeated on blogs (like this one!). All sides of an issue have equal access. One can easily imagine a similar propaganda parable being constructed from the perspective of someone opposed to interventionism — and that parable, in whatever form, could be distributed equally effectively, for free.

This got me to pondering… What happens to the effectiveness of propaganda when all sides of the issue being propagandized have equal access? In Nazi Germany, the government’s propaganda had nearly exclusive access to the media; the vast majority of the population heard only their propaganda. In the U.S. the access wasn’t nearly as one-sided, but still it was true that pro-government propaganda dominated. Surely in both cases it must be true that the effectiveness of the propaganda was amplified by the homogeneity of the position presented…

Whereas on the Internet one thing you can say with certainty is that the political viewpoints expressed are not homogeneous. I am exposed regularly to leftish propaganda, rightish propaganda (like this one), wacko propaganda … just about any flavor of propaganda imaginable. Surely it must be true that all of the propaganda is less effective in this environment…

I think this is a good thing. This propaganda piece, shorn of its emotional jabs, would simply be a parable explaining the case for interventionism in terms everybody can understand — a good communications tool. With all its propagandistic accouterments, it’s one of the zillions of such pieces “out there” on all sides of just about any issue imaginable — and nowhere near as effective as its ancestral piece was in its own context…

Modern Begging

I’m up in San Francisco at the moment for some business meetings. I stayed at a hotel on Geary Street last night, near the train station at Market and Powell streets. Early this morning I walked down from the hotel to the train station to catch a ride to the office.

Just outside the train station a man in a business suit approached me. He was clean-cut, carrying a briefcase, and at first glance looked like exactly what he claimed to be — a businessman whose wallet was stolen and who desperately needed fare to either get home or get to work. He asked me for $4.25 to get him to work, which was cheaper.

Call me cynical, but something just didn’t seem right about this scenario. In particular, I had a hard time imagining that any mature professional businessman would ever behave the way this guy was behaving. So I took a closer look and noticed that his hands were quite dirty. Then I looked at the police report he’d been waving to validate his assertion about a stolen wallet — and I saw that it was dated in 2004, and was for a vagrancy offense.

So I asked this fellow to show me what was in his briefcase, and that earned me a dirty look. But unknown to this guy, a cop had walked up behind him, and just then he said “Go ahead, Chucky — show him what you’ve got.” Chucky opened his briefcase, and what was inside isn’t what you’d expect from a businessman. Not quite. There were some filthy clothes all wadded up; a bottle of some cheap booze, half gone; a couple of crumpled black plastic bags; and what looked like $20 or so in coin. Chucky left, indignant; I talked to the cop for a moment. He told me that the beggars were getting more and more inventive with both their stories and their props, and Chucky was a completely typical example of this. Chucky has been in this businessman-in-distress role for several months, and apparently it was working fairly well for him. His big error, according to the cop, is it ran his routine at the same train station day after day, so all the commuters using that station knew all about Chucky.

There are no Chuckies in Jamul that I am aware of…

Strange Phenomena

Last night it was unusually cold — about 26 or 27 Fahrenheit at ground level, and this cold was sustained for several hours. The produced a couple of phenomena that we’re just plain not used to out here in Jamul!

One phenomenon was that our bird waterer froze solid. The tray is about an inch and a half deep. The dripper (which runs day and night) creates an almost perfect situation for icicle formation — a steady supply of liquid water dripping onto a surface that’s below freezing temperature. You can see the result — nice, big, long icicles. In Jamul! The birds appeared to be a bit puzzled by the ice — they’re very used to the waterer, and this morning they’re there trying to drink, as usual. They look quite surprised when they can’t drink the ice!

The other phenomenon was orange tap water — bright rust color. Debbie spotted it first, at our kitchen tap; she called out “Tom, something is really wrong here!” After a little investigation, I discovered that it was both the hot and cold water, and after a while it ran clear again. I speculate that the cold temperatures either partially froze our pipes (a short length copper and PVC pipes are exposed to the air outside, and we have 50' or so of copper pipe in the unheated attic), or caused an unusually large shrinkage — and in either case broke loose some of the mineral deposits on the inside of the pipe. But that’s just speculation — for all I know, some plumbing disaster awaits us!

It’s supposed to be just as cold tonight…

Scrap Thieves

A fellow Jamulian wrote me last night with some interesting information. It seems that there has been a rash of thefts of two sorts in the area…

One sort is thefts of metal scrap (primarily copper, I think). In the recent case of Bob Orlosky and the murder of Charles Crow, one of the possibilities raised is that Charles Crow and the other two people in their vehicle were raiding Bob Orlosky’s scrap yard — or that Bob believed they were doing so, accurately or not. Several of my readers commented that there had been other thefts of scrap, including just a few days before the murder on Bob Orlosky’s property.
Now I’ve learned that Robby Ivy (a long-time resident of Lawson Valley, and the fellow who provided the land for the Lawson Valley fire station) was robbed of some scrap metal (copper wire) just this week. Sheriff’s Deputy Brown handled the case, and told Robby that such thefts have been occurring recently all over the Jamul area.
The other sort is thefts of oak wood (for firewood). This happens every winter as the demand for firewood increases; the prices of $200 or more for a cord of wood attracts a certain low class of people with a chain saw and a truck — apparently whether or not they have any rights to the wood. Recently the gate at the base of Hilary Road (a road on private land in Lawson Valley) was torn up so that a truck could get through. The oak thieves didn’t even take the down, dead wood — instead, they cut down some of our beautiful (and threatened) live oaks. These scum make my blood boil…and bring to mind a refrain from a fellow blogger, appropriately modified:

Oak tree. Rope. Oak thief.
Some assembly required.

The floor is open (in the comments) for good ideas about how to address this plague. Meanwhile, I’m cleaning and maintaining my weapons, making certain I have plenty of ammunition on hand, and thinking about how to turn our field spaniels into vicious thief-biters!

Politics

A couple of my loyal readers (in other words, about three quarters of them) have written to ask why my political blogging has virtually stopped, and how I’m feeling about recent political events. I’ll answer with these words of wisdom…

Mark Twain: Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.

Winston Churchill: I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

George Bernard Shaw: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

James Bovard: Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Douglas Casey: Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

P. J. O’Rourke: Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Frederic Bastiat: Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Ronald Reagan: Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Will Rogers: I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

P. J. O’Rourke: If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.

Voltaire: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

Pericles (in 430 B.C.!): Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.

Mark Twain: No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

Anonymous: Talk is cheap . .. except when Congress does it.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

Cuyamaca Hike

Yesterday four of us (Debbie, myself, Jim Barnick, and his girlfriend Michelle) took a short hike up the maintenance road from Paso Picacho campground toward Cuyamaca Peak. We didn’t make it all the way up — this was our first hike of the season, and we weren’t quite up to an 1,700 foot elevation change. Also, as we got closer to the top the conditions got icier and snowier (although the air temperature was quite pleasant); we met people coming down bundled up like Arctic explorers, using ski poles to help them stay upright. And we could see footprints of people wearing ice cleats — not a good sign.

We also had Miki the wonder-puppy along for the hike, and he had a wonderful time. He especially enjoyed the snow and ice along the road. There was a puppy “ah ha!” moment along the trail when he figured out that he could eat snow; after that he was happily munching snow and licking the ice all along the trail. And at one point he was carrying around a small snowball on his back. My theory is that the squirrels threw a snowball at him, but I don’t think anyone else was buying that… We saw deer prints in the snow, and we saw deer several places around the mountain — the very first time since the Cedar Fire in October 2003. We’re hoping that this portends a return of the wildlife to Cuyamaca, especially the mountain lions and bobcats (we still haven’t seen any of them since the fire). This past year, and on this trip, we have seen many very healthy-looking hawks — so the rodents must be back in force. It looks like the wildlife is returning…

So we made it up almost to the “saddle", just below the final 500' or so push to the peak, just at the edge of the area where most of the trees were saved from the Cedar Fire (just over three years ago now). The area we walked through was nearly devoid of living trees — it had been an almost pure conifer forest, and except for a few cedars whose tops have survived, they are all burned. On this walk, you’re in a tree graveyard, with skeletons of dead trees still poking into the sky all around. A few seem to have fallen on their own as they decompose; many more have been cut down. The cut trees are being chipped, or harvested for fencing or firewood. If you like forests and trees, it’s a very somber and sad sight…

Jim and Michelle have been “an item” for just a few months now, but they act like they’ve been together for a hundred years. It’s very nice to see our old friend so happy in a relationship, and nicer yet for being so completely unexpected. Michelle basically dropped into his life from outer space; the apparently committed bachelor Jim suddenly has a “serious” girlfriend. They were very cute on the trail, holding hands and smooching…

Miki Report

Miki is almost a year old — still very much a puppy, but also starting to mature into a “real” dog. He’s developing a very sweet personality, too.

Yesterday we took him along on a hike we took (more on that in a subsequent post). He had a wonderful time with all the new smells, and playing in the snow and ice. Whenever there was an icy patch in the road we were walking on (a frequent occurrence!), he’d head for it — apparently to delight in the sensation of slipping and sliding. Something we’ve noticed about Miki is that he seems to really, really hate losing his balance or being flipped over. Our other dogs all treat this as part of playing, but not Miki — he’ll resist any attempt to knock him over, and very effectively, too. This makes his delight in the ice all the more mysterious.

As you can see in the photos, he is developing into a very nice specimen of a field spaniel. About the only “ding” we can see is that his ears are shorter than most field spaniels (a breed noted for its long, droopy ears, accentuated by long, curly hair on them). Other than that, he’s just about perfect…

Ice in Jamul

Debbie came running into my office at daybreak yesterday, telling me that I absolutely had to come see something. I went into the living room and she just pointed outside. A small Italian Stone Pine (pinus pinea) in our yard was covered with ice!

This isn’t quite as crazy as it might appear at first blush. First, what I didn’t show you in the photos is that the ice is very localized to just the bottom branches. Second, what you most likely don’t know is that I have a sprinkler set up to put water on this plant every morning at 4 am. In our hot, dry summer heat, the early morning hours are the best time to sprinkle water. In the winter, however, on those rare mornings when we have a below-freezing temperature, it’s not such a smart thing!

I’ve turned the sprinklers off for the winter…

CFL Rant

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) have been much in the news lately, especially with Wal-Mart’s decision to promote them. Many environmentalists would like to see incandescent light bulbs (the old-fashioned kind of light bulb with the glowing filament) banned outright, because they are quite inefficient — most of the electricity they consume produces heat, not light.

Occasionally mentioned, but mostly in a dismissive way, is that CFLs (or any fluorescent lamp, for that matter) produce light that is quite visibly different than that produced by incandescent bulbs, or by the sun. Personally, I find the light from most fluorescent bulbs to be unpleasant — harsh and color-distorting — though I have seen some fluorescent lighting whose light is less awful than most. What exactly is the difference in the light the various kinds of bulbs put out?

The difference is in the spectrum of light that the bulbs emit. The sun and incandescent bulbs both produce what scientists call “warm-body” light, by which they mean the light emitted when something gets really, really hot. Cooler warm-body light is reddish to our eye, such as the light emitted by a red-hot piece of metal. Hotter warm-body light is bluer to our eye, such as the light emitted by the sun. But in all cases, warm-body light emitters put out some light of every possible color — the difference in their apparent color is caused by the relative intensity of the various colors. So the red-hot piece of metal puts out a lot of red light, some orange light, a bit of yellow light, a small amount of green light, and very little blue or violet light. The sun, on the other hand, puts out a lot of every color — which is why it’s light appears white to our eyes.

CFLs (and all fluorescent light bulbs) work by a completely different phenomenon: fluorescent emission, which of course is how they get their name. The inside walls of CFLs are coated with phosphors — substances which emit light in the visible range of colors when they are illuminated by ultraviolet light. Unlike incandescent light bulbs, the inside of a CFL is not a vacuum — instead it contains (usually) mercury vapor at a very low pressure. There is so little mercury required for this that the bulbs are not dangerous individually. When CFLs are turned on, an arc of electricity flows through the mercury vapor, which then produces high intensity ultraviolet light (which we cannot see). This light strikes the phosphors, which then emit visible light.

But here’s the catch: phosphors emit light of a distinct color. Any given phosphor will emit light of a specific color — green, red, blue, etc. This is very, very different than warm-body light emission. Of course none of us want to light our homes with some pure colored light — so the CFL manufacturers combine multiple phosphors in every bulb to simulate whiter light. It is exactly what happens with stage lighting when spot lights of multiple colors are aimed at the same point, and the colors mix. For example, if a blue spot and a yellow spot are aimed at the same point, we perceive green lighting. With three colored spots (red, green, and blue, for example), we can simulate white light. However, our eyes are being “tricked", and this simulated white light is not the same as the white light from a warm-body emitter. The “harsh” look of such simulated white light comes from the fact that the individual colors have to be much brighter than that same color would be in white light from a warm-body emitter. The color distortion is caused by objects that reflect colors that are different than the colors actually in the simulated white light. With the simulated white light, such objects appear much darker and less colorful than they would under light from a warm-body emitter.

Scientists use an instrument called a spectrograph to measure the spectrum of light. Most of us don’t have access to a “real” spectrograph — but I’ll bet you’ve got many of them lying about your home. These are what I call “dual-purpose” spectrographs: not only can they be used as a spectrograph, but they will also play music or video. I’m talking about CDs or DVDs — the side with the music or video makes a very nice diffraction grating, which is the heart of a real spectrograph. I’m sure you’ve noticed the rainbow effect they produce — that’s the diffraction grating at work.

Grab a CD or DVD, and take it to a lamp that uses an incandescent light bulb (this includes halogen lamps, if you have them). Hold the CD or DVD about chest-height, while you’re standing, and experiment with different orientations until you see a strong rainbow of light. You won’t have much trouble doing this, I’m sure. Now note the nature of that rainbow — because you’re reflecting light from a warm-body emitter (that incandescent light bulb), you’ll see a broad rainbow with every possible color in it — very pretty, isn’t it?

Now take that CD or DVD over to a CFL lamp, and do the same thing. Whoa! Not the same thing at all! What you see now is bright reflected images of the lamp in each of the colors emitted by the phosphors it contains. Most CFLs use three phosphors: red, green, and violet. Better (whiter, “full spectrum") CFLs will use four, five, or even more phosphors. But in all cases, you will see something very different than you see with a warm-body emitter.

Here’s the bottom line: it is not possible to make a CFL that accurately simulates natural lighting from a warm-body emitter. Our eyes evolved to use natural lighting, so lighting from CFLs (or any fluorescent lamp) looks unnatural. The harshness and color distortion can be improved — by using more phosphors — but it cannot be made perfect.

So… If you like the energy savings of a CFL (and who wouldn’t?), and you’re willing to trade off lighting quality to get the savings, by all means go for the CFL. But I’m going for the halogen (a very hot, very white, warm-body emitter)…

Totally Plausible

Tip of the hat to reader RickP:

Three Explorers Are Captured…

A Frenchman, an Englishman and a New Yorker were exploring the jungle and were captured by a fierce tribe. As they sit in a hut, awaiting their fate, the chief comes to them and says, “The bad news is that now that we’ve caught you, we’re going to kill you, and then use your skins to build a canoe. The good news is that you get to choose how you die."

The Frenchman says, “I take ze poison.” The chief gives him some poison, the Frenchman says, “Vive la France!” and drinks it down.

The Englishman says, “A pistol for me, please.” The chief gives him a pistol, he points it at his head, says, “God save the queen!” and blows his brains out.

The New Yorker says, “Gimme a fork.” The chief is puzzled, but he shrugs and gives him a fork. The New Yorker takes the fork and starts jabbing himself all over — the stomach, the sides, the chest, everywhere.

There’s blood gushing out all over, it’s horrible. The chief is appalled, and screams, “What are you doing???"

The New Yorker looks at the chief and says, “So much for your canoe, asshole!"

That is so New Yorker!

Adding Fractions

A teacher’s union president can’t add simple fractions (from the New York Daily News):

The radio audience was live and the question for teachers union president Randi Weingarten involved sixth-grade math: “What’s 1/3rd plus 1/4th?"

Weingarten, however, is a not a sixth-grader or a math teacher. She’s a lawyer and a union boss who once taught high school social studies - and no one told her there was going to be a quiz.

"I would actually have to do it on paper,” she said when asked yesterday to complete the math problem on WNYC’s “Brian Lehrer Show” where she was a guest.

Mike Pesca, who was filling in for Lehrer, introduced the show’s education topic by saying American college grads can’t do basic math while high school grads in Canada and middle-schoolers in India have no trouble.

After Weingarten stumbled, another guest quickly produced the correct answer: 7/12ths, leaving Weingarten to explain herself.

I’m not surprised by this in the slightest, but it’s still very disappointing. As the story goes on to report, many people would not only be unsurprised, they’d be uncritical.

Not me.

This very American attitude about education makes me fear for our country’s future. Adding fractions is a terrific example of a very basic mathematics skill. One could also find many examples of basic science and technology skills where sampling a broad population — including professionals and college graduates — would reveal similar general ignorance amongst Americans. In many parts of the world, such a result would be almost unimaginable, and … shameful. But not here, for some reason I simply cannot fathom.

I fear that in 10, 20, or 30 years, the pool of talent that drives our math, science, and technology will have shifted so that it lies largely outside the U.S. — and that we will suffer the severe economic consequences (and derived political consequences) of that shift.

I’d sure like to be wrong on this one, but I don’t think I am…

Best Astronomy Images

Phil Plait blogs at Bad Astronomy, always an interesting spot to visit in the blogosphere. He’s got a particularly interesting post up right now, wherein he makes his “top ten” picks of astronomy images for the year. This has been a particularly good year for amazing astronomy images, and I was expecting to see ten familiar ones on his list. Instead, I found eight stunning images that I had never seen — much to my loss. Go take a look!

Dallo Pleads Guilty

Almost six months ago, Jodi Burnett — delivering newspapers on her regular pre-dawn route — was killed by a recklessly speeding teenager, Jonny Dallo of Jamul. I’ve posted about this case several times (in chronological order): here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This tragic case generated a huge amount of local interest and emotional heat, with a couple of general perspectives emerging. One perspective, which I share, is that Jonny Dallo’s choice to recklessly speed was the proximate cause of Jodi Burnett’s death, and he should be held accountable for having made that choice. The other perspective holds that Jodi’s death was a tragic accident, and that we should mourn both Jodi’s death and the pain the accident caused Jonny Dallo and his family. Another couple of factors also contributed to the furor: Jonny Dallo’s father happens to be a very successful businessman, and the Dallo family happens to be Chaldean. As feelings ran high immediately following Jodi’s death, some quite ugly prejudice against both successful businessmen and against Chaldeans emerged.

Jonny Dallo (after being pulled from his car at the scene with no major injuries) was brought before the court, where he pled “not guilty.” The community wondered what would happen in the following trial, with a well-funded defense fighting the charges. This Thursday events took another turn, as Jonny Dallo entered a guilty plea (from the San Diego Union-Tribune):

A 19-year-old Jamul man pleaded guilty in Superior Court yesterday to vehicular manslaughter charges in connection with a June crash that killed a newspaper carrier.

Jonathan Dallo faces up to six years in prison at a Feb. 8 sentencing hearing set by Judge Herbert J. Exarhos, prosecutor Terrie Roberts said in an interview.

Dallo was charged with causing a June 29 car crash on state Route 94 at Rancho Miguel Road that killed 40-year-old Jodi Burnett of Spring Valley, a carrier for The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The prosecutor said Dallo was going more than 90 mph in the left-turn lane around 4 a.m. when he slammed into the rear of the Ford F-150 truck Burnett was driving.

Burnett was waiting to turn left from eastbound state Route 94 onto Rancho Miguel Road, police said. The impact threw the truck onto its side on the westbound side of Route 94, police said. Burnett, who was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown from the cab.

Judge Exarhos is a locally well-known judge who’s been involved in quite a few high profile cases over the years, including the Andy Williams high school shooting case, the de Santiago Lakeside postal hostage case, and former San Diego mayor Roger Hedgecock’s conspiracy case. Like most judges these days, he will allow plea bargains that short-circuit the trial process by the defendant negotiating a sentence agreement with the prosecutor, generally in return for reduced charges or sentences, or both.

The unexpected change of plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” — especially in the presence of a high-powered defense — strongly suggests to me that a plea bargain has been reached. I’ve not been able to find any public disclosure of such an arrangement, so probably we won’t know for certain until February 8th. But it’s hard to imagine what other reason there might be for Jonny changing his plea to “guilty"…

Plea bargains are, in general, a very controversial tool of the prosecutor (who has complete discretion about whether to entertain them). Their acceptance by judges is also controverial. But the notion is very well established in our system of jurisprudence at this point. Prosecutors often seek plea bargains, both to ensure some punishment on a weak case and to relieve their workload. I have some sympathy for the former reason, but none for the latter — the prosecutors represent the public, and the public’s interest is arguaby shortchanged by many plea bargains. Defendants often seek plea bargains as well, but their motivation is distinctly contrary to the public interest: they are seeking less punishment for their crime than the law dictates.

So in the case of Jonny Dallo, I worry that the high-power defense managed to convince the prosecutor that they had a weak case — and that they negotiated a light sentence agreement in return for the guilty plea.

We’ll see on February 8th.

I hope I’m wrong, as I believe it’s important for our community that Jonny Dallo be held accountable, under the law, for Jodi Burnett’s tragic and untimely death…

Self-Defense?

Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune has an article about the first hearing in the Charles Crow murder case. In this hearing, Orlosky’s attorney (Paul Pfingst — a former District Attorney himself) presented some elements of Orlosky’s side of the story, including a rough outline of his version of events. There were also some interesting comments by Orlosky’s friends and neighbors. The lead:

A Jamul electrical contractor charged with murder was defending himself against potential thieves who tried to run him down when he caught them, his lawyer told a judge yesterday.
Joseph “Bob” Orlosky “was being ripped off” when he fired on three men he found driving a Jeep on a dirt road that cuts through his rural East County property about 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 1, Orlosky’s lawyer, former District Attorney Paul Pfingst, told Superior Court Judge Charles W. Ervin.
“The victims tried to kill Mr. Orlosky and Mr. Orlosky defended himself,” Pfingst said.

This is pretty close to one of the scenarios that I and several commenters have speculated about in past posts on this event. It makes a lot more sense than the idea that Orlosky just randomly started shooting at the vehicle Crow was in, for no good reason.
Another excerpt:

Pfingst told the judge Orlosky never left Jamul during the time police were looking for him and was continuing his business and consulting with Pfingst about surrendering.

Several commentors on previous posts speculated that Orlosky was hiding out here in Jamul. It appears they were right. If it’s true that he was continuing his business affair, that seems pretty brazen — and I’m amazed that his contacts with other people didn’t lead to him being caught…
The police outlined their version of events:

Police in court documents said Crow, 23, and his two companions were traveling in a Jeep Cherokee north on Wisecarver Truck Trail in Jamul when they passed a white Ford truck.
After coming upon a locked gate across the road, they returned south on Wisecarver Truck Trail. Orlosky ran from behind his parked truck, stood in the road and fired a rifle at them, police said.
Orlosky again fired at the Jeep after it passed him, hitting Crow in the head and Monge in the elbow, police said. They said the Jeep stalled after turning onto Skyline Truck Trail, and Crow’s companions jumped out to hide in bushes, making several calls to 911. They remained hidden until sheriff’s deputies arrived.

This is more-or-less what we heard in the earliest reports. There’s no statement in here about Orlosky’s motivation for shooting. I infer from the absence of an expressed motive that the police (and the District Attorney) are uncertain of a motive, or that they believe a motive will detract from their murder charge. Or it could be that they just don’t want to make their theory about the motive public at this point.
Here’s Orlosky’s version of events:

Pfingst said Orlosky had been watching television in his living room when sensors he had installed along the road warned that intruders were on his property.
Fearing he was about to be robbed, Pfingst said, Orlosky went to investigate and was nearly run down. “The people who were on that property had no legitimate reason to be there at that time of night,” Pfingst said.

This jibes with some of the things asserted by commentors on earlier posts; things I had not been able to find any public information on. And in its rough outline, it matches one of the scenarios we have discussed in previous posts: that Orlosky’s motive for the shooting was to defend himself or his property, or both. This makes much more sense than a random, unmotivated shooting. It doesn’t necessarily justify Orlosky’s actions; we’d have to know a lot more about what happened to be able to determine that. One possible scenario is that the boys were on Orlosky’s property, Orlosky got angry — but wasn’t actually directly threatened in any way — and started shooting. That would be, in my opinion at least, an unjustified act. However, another possible scenario is that the boys were on Orlosky’s property, saw him on the road, interpreted his presence as a threat, and tried to run him down — at which point Orlosky started shooting. In that scenario, Orlosky’s actions might be justified.
Note to friends and family of Charles Crow: I am not asserting that either of the above scenarios is what actually occurred. I am simply outlining the range of possibilities I see in a case that this concerned Jamul citizen would like to understand. As a local resident, I have a vested interest in understanding why this murder occurred a mile or so from my home. I’d like to know whether we had a lunatic shooting people at random, or we had a homeowner defending himself and his property. Those are two very different versions of events…
The UT reporter managed to get some additional information that didn’t come from a press release or a transcript, the first time that’s occurred in their reporting on this story:

Outside the courtroom, Orlosky’s sister, Dana Ross of San Carlos, said that her brother had lost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in copper wiring and equipment to thieves.
Pfingst said that just two weeks before the shooting, Orlosky had made a citizen’s arrest on three men he said he had caught stealing copper wiring on his property.
A former neighbor, Maggie Schweitzer, said Orlosky often came to her aid when trespassers approached her home. “He is a good man,” she said, “and we knew from the beginning he was protecting his family and his property.”

Again, this jibes with some of the information posted by commentors on previous posts; information that I could not corroborate at all. The statements paint a sketchy picture of a man who perhaps isn’t either a lunatic or the human manifestation of evil, as well as some context to understand how Orlosky was feeling on the night of the shooting.
This is more than I expected to have made public at this stage of affairs. It will be interesting — and comforting — to see the story unfold in more detail as the case progresses…

Orlosky Pleads Not Guilty

This is being reported on 10News.com:

A man suspected of killing a 23-year-old Jamul resident along a back-country road in East County earlier this month pleaded not guilty Monday to murder, attempted murder and firearms charges.

Joseph “Bob” Orlosky, 55, was ordered held on $2 million bail.

Orlosky turned himself in to authorities Friday in connection with a Dec. 1 shooting that left construction worker Charles Crow dead.

Orlosky was charged with one count of murder, two counts of premeditated attempted murder and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle, Deputy District Attorney Kristian Trocha said.

There’s no indication when the trial might be held. I’m not expecting much more information until the trial begins…

A Lot Smarter!

From reader Jack:

Recently I decided to take up again that brutal game of golf. I went to the Sycuan Golf Course practice area and started chipping and putting. As I came off the green there was a little girl standing there … perhaps 6 years old at the most. Here is the ensuing dialogue between us:

Girl: Excuse me. Have you seen my Grandpa?

Concerned this girl was left alone I replied:

Me: No honey. What does he look like?"

Girl (without missing a beat): Oh, he has gray hair like you but he’s a lot smarter!"

Authors note: LUCKY GUESS ON HER PART! I thought, to myself, he couldn’t be that smart to leave his Granddaughter alone…and I don’t think he was pleased with me telling him so? But who cares what he thought?!

Slide Rule Lessons

Two of my readers (independently, so far as I know) actually asked me to publish lessons on how to use a slide rule. I published one last week, and this morning I was working on a second lesson. Then it occurred to me that someone else might have done this already, so I Googled a bit and found that my friend Mike Konshak, of the International Slide Rule Museum, already had an excellent slide rule course up on the web!

I don’t see much point in duplicating what he’s done, and I don’t see much opportunity to do it better. So at the risk of alienating a significant fraction of my readers, I hereby declare my slide rule lessons have been adjourned. Go look at Mike’s course!

Orlosky Surrenders

From this morning’s San Diego Union-Tribune:

Suspect in rifle slaying of Jamul man surrenders

By Pauline Repard
December 16, 2006
A fugitive suspected of fatally shooting a passenger in a Jeep in Jamul two weeks ago turned himself in yesterday, sheriff’s officials said.
Joseph “Bob” Orlosky, 55, of Jamul surrendered at the Central Jail in downtown San Diego about 4:30 p.m. in the company of his attorney, sheriff’s Lt. Dennis Brugos said.
Orlosky was booked on suspicion of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder. Bail was set at $2 million.
Last week, homicide investigators identified Orlosky as the suspect in the attack. Charles Crow, 23, of Jamul was shot and killed Dec. 1, and one of his two companions was wounded.
The three men were in a Jeep, driving along Wisecarver Truck Trail near Skyline Truck Trail about 8:30 p.m., when they passed a white pickup. They reportedly turned around and passed the truck again.
On the second pass, a man in camouflage pants and jacket allegedly climbed out of the pickup and opened fire on the Jeep with a high-powered rifle. Rounds hit Crow and the second passenger, who was slightly wounded. The driver was unhurt.
Public records showed that Orlosky lives on Wisecarver Truck Trail.
Brugos said Orlosky’s attorney called a homicide detective yesterday and arranged to meet a detective with the San Diego Regional Fugitive Task Force at the jail to surrender.

Well, that’s a big relief to know that Bob Orlosky is now behind bars, and not wandering around our hills with a rifle. I’d imagine that it’s some comfort to Chuck Crow’s family and friends as well, from a different perspective…
The news coverage of this tragedy has been very disappointing, and the story above continues that record of shallow coverage. Commenters on the several posts about this story have brought up far more details (which, I should note, I have no way to verify) than all the local media combined. I’ve searched extensively using Google, Google Images, and Google News, and have been unable to find references to several of the more interesting things that commenters have mentioned: photos of the jeep after the shooting on Wisecarver Truck Trail, copper scraps found in the jeep, or the glass and bullet casings allegedly found along Wisecarver. If these elements of the story are indeed true, and the media hasn’t dug deep enough to uncover things ordinary citizens know, then it’s one more piece of evidence about the ineffectiveness of our mainstream media.
As if we needed more evidence.
Bob Orlosky is behind bars. I look forward to more details of this story emerging, though I suspect that won’t happen until the trial…

Slide Rule Collection

Thanks to a very generous fellow — Mike Konshak, of the International Slide Rule Museum — I now have access to a “real” server to host the web site for my slide rule collection. If you’d like to see the beginnings of it, you can find it here. Right at the moment there are only a dozen or so items on line, but I’ll be posting more on a regular basis, hopefully a few each evening I can spare some time.

I’d love to hear what you think of it — leave comments here, or drop me a line…

Emotions Running High

I received this email this morning (I am not including the name, since I do not have the permission of the writer to use it):

Wow!! who are you to write a story defending a KILLER??? Why??? This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means. I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him, something that he should be doing if he had probable reasoning for fireing a rifle in the middle of the street. Mind you not on HIS property. Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around? And if innocent why is he running? This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too? Do you think like a killer? Chuck was a very nice young man with NO enemies and never would he have had a confrontation that led to murder or any violent crime like has happened. He did not deserve this nor do we deserve to read some non sense story you have written defending the man that killed our loved one.

Several people, including (obviously) this writer, have read my posts and somehow concluded that I am defending Bob Orlosky.
So, for the record, let me make the following points:
1. I do not know Bob Orlosky; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
2. I do not hold any belief that Bob Orlosky is innocent. To the contrary, as I have pointed out several times in posts and comments, his behavior argues for his guilt.
3. I did not know Charles (Chuck) Crow; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
4. I do not hold any belief that Charles Crow is guilty of anything that could have justified his murder.
All four points above are true — but I (and anyone else who is thinking instead of feeling) can observe (not accuse) that the story as presented in the news doesn’t add up; it simply doesn’t make any sense. I and others on these posts have observed this fact, and speculated on what the facts might actually be. Amongst those speculations: (a) Bob Orlosky is a completely crazy homicidal maniac, (b) Charles Crow and his buddies did something to anger or otherwise provoke Bob Orlosky — and those actions might or might not have been enough to justify the shooting.
The writer above clearly is leaning towards (a). Personally, I find (b) more plausible. The only information I have of this incident is that which has been published in the news; my opinion is formed from that information and a general knowledge of human nature gained in over 50 years of experience. The writer above implies that he or she has personal knowledge of Charles Crow. Other commenters claim or imply personal knowledge of Charles Crow, Bob Orlosky, or others less directly involved. Their opinions obviously reflect that knowledge, and to some extent (as with the writer above) the bias such knowledge produces.
There’s nothing at all wrong with any of this.
It’s human nature. It’s human nature to wonder what the hell actually happened on that Friday night. It’s human nature to worry about the possible variations that represent more risk to ourselves and those we love. It’s human nature to doubt the purity of anyone’s motivations or actions, for such purity is rarely seen.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, the above writer’s complaints notwithstanding.
There’s also nothing at all wrong with the above writer’s complaint. The writer’s pain is obvious, and one can’t help but sympathize with that. Equally obvious is the writer’s knowledge of, and admiration for, Charles Crow. This writer knew Charles Crow, and is angered by even speculation that he did anything at all to provoke this crime. I can (and do) sympathize with this, even while disagreeing — for it’s exactly the behavior that I would hope my friends would exhibit, should anyone ever speculate about my involvement in something like this. But while my friends were shocked and offended at the speculations (because they feel that they know me), I would still acknowledge that others who don’t know me might have different perspectives — and those perspectives would be less biased than those of my friends…
But to answer the writer’s specific questions, and to rebut some of his or her points:
1. “This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means": What is “obvious” to the writer is not at all obvious to me. I don’t know what happened that Friday night, and therefore I don’t know whether Bob Orlowsky was justified in his actions. For that matter, I don’t know that Bob Orlowsky even took any actions. His behavior — running away, going into hiding — certainly isn’t what we all expect of an innocent man. However, there are plenty of well-documented cases where innocent men or women fled, usually because they were afraid of being accused of (and convicted and sentenced for) some crime they were innocent of. I can hear people getting all twitchy on me just at that statement, so let me be clear: I am not saying that I believe Bob Orlosky is innocent. In fact, I think his behavior argues against his innocence. But I also do not believe his guilt is “obvious” — for the possibility exists that there were mitigating circumstances, or even that Bob Orlosky didn’t commit this crime at all. I simply don’t know enough facts to reach a judgment — I wasn’t there on that Friday night, I don’t know any of the parties involved, and I am not privy to the results of the Sheriff’s investigation.
2. “I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him": Sorry, but I disagree with that on two levels. First, I did not make a “defensive story", I simply speculated on what the possible scenarios would be. Second, I have every right to do so — this is America, and we have this thing called “freedom of speech” here.
3. “not on HIS property": The rifle wasn’t fired on his own property? How do you know that? I have not seen any information in the news or on the Sheriff’s site about exactly where the shooting took place. If that is accurate information, then it is a damning piece of information with respect to Bob Orlosky. I would like to know this information for certain.
4. “Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around?” If someone were invading my property, and I felt threatened, then I would for darned certain get out my gun and defend myself. As with my earlier statement, I am not claiming that this is what happened, simply noting the possibility — something this writer is dismissing.
5. “And if innocent why is he running?” Actually, as I mentioned earlier, innocent people do sometimes run. Certainly in the majority of cases, runners are guilty. But innocent runners are more common than most people imagine — which is why running from a crime is not considered evidence by the justice system. It’s an indication, to be sure, and it’s often a correct indication — but not always.
6. “This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too?” I’m sorry if you’re upset by my story; that reaction was not my intention. But…you own that reaction, not me — it was your choice to be upset. And you don’t have to read my blog — if you don’t like what I have to say, you’re free to go elsewhere. And I have the right to “think out loud” here, just as you have the right to send me that email. We have a right in America to freedom of speech — but there is no right to be free from being offended. Now as to whether or not I’m crazy — well, I think you’d get different answers to that from different folks. More than a few would say that I was, in fact, a few beers short of a six-pack…

A Suspect!

The San Diego Sheriff’s Department has identified a suspect in the murder of Charles Crow — a local man named Joseph “Bob” Orlosky (mug shot at right), who owns or has an interest in property on Wisecarver Truck Trail, near where the crime occurred.

The press reports about this murder have been skimpy and inconsistent, as have the comments on this blog (see my earlier posts here and here). Of all the various speculations I’ve run across, the one that seems most plausible to me is that the three men in the truck were out “four wheeling", just for fun, on what they believed was a road they had a right to be on. In this hypothetical scenario, Bob Orlosky got angry about these four wheelers because (rightly or wrongly, as the case may be) he believed they didn’t have a right to be there.
The complete special bulletin is at right. Click on the picture to get a full-sized view, or click here to see the original.
The above scenario seems most plausible to me because I witnessed something very much like this (without, of course, the violent ending) on my neighbor’s property, just a few feet from my own property. What I saw was a couple of slightly-drunk guys (neither of whom was Charles Crow) in a four-wheel drive pickup driving off-road to get around a gate on my neighbor’s private road. In doing so, they caused considerable damage to my neighbor’s property — scarring a hillside, destroying several trees, and leaving the area just generally ugly. Furthermore, once they got around the gate, they were trespassing on my neighbor’s property. Now my neighbor didn’t react at all like (in the hypothetical scenario above) we’re speculating that Bob Orlosky did. Instead, he called in the Sheriff’s Department (who responded very quickly) and engaged in a little creative barrier-building to keep these jerks from violating his property again. The two jerks in question, by the way, insisted that they had every right to be on that road, because the road was public, not private. They were just plain wrong about that, but that didn’t keep them from asserting it.
The point of the preceding story is that there may be more to the Charles Crow/Bob Orlosky story that we haven’t heard yet. For instance, perhaps there were words exchanged, and perhaps the boys in the truck were on private land (I don’t know whether this is the case), and perhaps they refused to leave — and Bob Orlosky got angry. That certainly wouldn’t justify a murder, but at least it would make the incident easier to understand. Or (this is pure speculation, folks) perhaps Bob Orlosky was threatened by the truck in some way, and was defending himself — in which case his actions might be justifiable (though going into hiding afterwards certainly wouldn’t be, and by doing so he casts much doubt on that scenario). Just to continue my point that we don’t know everything yet, consider this: suppose Bob Orlosky shot at the truck because it was headed straight for him, at high speed, on a road that he owned? Wouldn’t that put a different color on things?
At least one commenter has interpreted my reaction as support for Bob Orlosky (whom I have never met, or even heard of, until this crime occurred). This same commenter even implied that I might be actively helping Bob Orlosky avoid capture. So, just to make things clear (if the above discussion didn’t): I want Bob Orlosky captured as badly as anyone does. I live a mile from the murder scene; if (as some commenters have speculated) Bob Orlosky is some kind of nutcase who perpetrated this crime for no good reason, then I want him locked up where he won’t hurt anyone else — like me or the people I care about! But at the same time, I note that there are many facts not yet in public evidence. The scenario that seems most unlikely to me is that Bob Orlosky murdered Charles Crow for absolutely no reason, with absolutely no provocation. If the full facts ever become public, my guess is that the crime will become more understandable, because we will then learn what the provocation was. And we can then make a judgment about whether the provocation justified the crime. Acknowledging that there was likely some kind of provocation is not the same thing as saying the crime was justified (because that depends entirely on the specifics of the provocation). I’m not saying that the murder was justified, or even that it was likely justified — simply that the possibility exists that it was, because of facts that we don’t know.