Thursday, December 14, 2017

Deer Legislators

If you live in New Jersey you know we have a serious deer population problem. That is, unless you are NJ state Senator Lesniak. The senator introduced S3537, which will replace three representatives on the NJ Fish and Game Council with members of the Animal Protection League, Sierra Club, and Humane Society. The Fish and Game Council sets hunting and fishing seasons, and limits on number and species in NJ. It already has a diverse makeup, including the chair of the endangered species advisory committee and a person knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices. Replacing council members with members of these anti-hunting groups is analogous to putting member of the KKK on the school diversity council - they are there merely to put a stop to hunting and fishing.

The uninformed might see this as a good thing, since hunting is "evil" and kills innocent animals. But that ignores two important facts. First off, every deer that is born will die. That death can either be a quick clean kill by a hunter, providing food for hungry people, or by slow starvation or being hit by a car and suffering on the side of the road for hours or days. I have personally seen both. In NJ deer have almost no predators, since coyotes, wolves, and big cats are scarce (and with good reason - the animals that hunt deer would also hunt our children and pets). The main predator left to keep deer populations from destroying the habitat is hunters.

Secondly, there is misinformation, pushed by organizations like the three above, that hunters are anti-conservation, when in fact the opposite is true. Hunters have every reason to conserve the natural habitat, as that is the only way to ensure that they are getting clean, healthy food. Income from hunting and fishing and the Pittman–Robertson tax produce over two billion dollars a year to support wildlife and habitat conservation. doing far more to help the environment than any anti-hunting group.

Hunting may not be popular in New Jersey, but it provides much needed relief for overpopulated species, like deer, and it provides most of the support for environmental conservation efforts. Don't break what isn't broken now.

Monday, December 11, 2017


I'd like to talk to you about an object. I'm not going to name it now, but you'll be able to figure it out from my description. As a hint, it is a three letter word.

You can find this object in every part of the world, but nowhere as much as in America. Americans have a unique obsession with these objects, owning more of them than any other country in the world. Some Americans feel naked going anywhere without this object. There is a whole culture around this object. There are clubs where people can go to practice, compete, or just show off this object. There are shows where these objects can be admired or traded. There are even national organizations that lobby to fight government regulations for these objects.

And yet they are dangerous. They kill over 30,000 Americans every year. What do you expect when such objects are ubiquitous? And these objects don't discriminate. Often their victims are children. Sometimes they turn children into killers, when owners fail to secure this object at home and a curious child decides to try it out. This is also one way criminals get a hold of these objects. Once they are stolen they are either traded to other criminals or used in crimes themselves.

What do you think we should do with these objects? Should we ban them outright? Should people undergo background checks and mental health checks before being allowed to buy one? Should we have the police do surprise inspections of the owners' homes to see they are properly secured, and lock up people who don't secure them? Should we limit how large or powerful they could be? Impose bans on accessories or ones that are styled in an aggressive manner? Ban accessories that make them faster or more powerful? Maybe restrict ownership to certain places? After all, maybe out in the boonies people need these, but surely we should ban them in cities. What would you do?

Oh, and I am talking about cars, by the way. What did you think it was?

Thursday, December 7, 2017

HR 38

Brian Fletcher and family, from article linked to below
Imagine the following scenarios:
  • You are going to a concert. No video recording is allowed. Earlier that day you were at Chuck e Cheese for your daughter's birthday party, and forgot to take the camera out of your bag. One of the concert personnel catches a glance of the camera as you are getting your money out, and you are successfully sued for five million dollars for intellectual property theft.
  • You are getting gas, and absentmindedly light up a cigarette. You are immediately arrested and after a month in jail and a lengthy and expensive trial are sentenced to prison for arson and attempted manslaughter.
  • There is a pair of nail scissors in your carry-on bag when you check in at the airport. You are arrested, charged with attempted murder and terrorism, and face years in prison with no possibility of parole.
Ridiculous? Of course. In reality the person with the camera is asked to disable it or check the bag. The smoker is told to put out the cigarette (and even if he refuses is fined, not imprisoned). The nail scissors are removed and the owner can either put them back in their car, mail them home, or discard them. You don't prosecute someone for merely being able to commit a crime when they haven't actually committed a crime and they have no intention to ever commit a crime.

But that sort of harassment is exactly what happens to gun owners all the time.
  • Shaneen Allen was a mother of two and a nurse in Philadelphia. She drove into New Jersey to arrange a birthday party for her son, and mistakenly brought her legally owned and carried gun, secured in her purse. At a routine traffic stop she showed the officer her weapons license, and informed the officer that there was s gun in the car, as is the law in most states. She was sentenced to three years in prison without the possibility of parole. After public outcry that was reduced, but she still had a felony charge, which would prevent her from working as a nurse and take away her rights for the rest of her life. Governor Christie was able to pardon her, but not until she had spent months in jail awaiting trial, spent thousands in legal fees, lost her job and lost custody of her children.
  • Brian Fletcher was a lineman from North Carolina, who traveled to New Jersey to help with disaster relief after superstorm Sandy. He had a legally owned gun in his vehicle for protection. He also showed police his weapons license and informed them of the weapon. He was also arrested, convicted and sentenced. He too was eventually pardoned by Governor Christie.
  • Raymond Hughes was a corrections officer in Pennsylvania who took his wife to dinner and a concert in New Jersey. On the way home, they were hit by a drunk driver and had to be hospitalized. He informed police that he was a law officer and he had a gun, and asked them to secure it from the damaged vehicle. Because PA corrections officers do not have "statutory arrest" powers under PA law, New Jersey did not consider him a law enforcement officer and prosecuted him for felony gun possession. After public outcry charges were eventually dropped.
I would like to say that these are the only three cases, but New Jersey has, according to gun rights lawyers, over a thousand people currently serving prison terms for being in the state with a gun that they own legally, and that they had no intention of using for a crime. These cases are significant because of their notoriety. And although in these three cases the citizen was eventually freed, it was not without spending tens of thousands of dollars, losing months or years of their lives, and massive public awareness campaigns, and ultimately depended on Chris Christie being governor. Under our next governor, Phil Murphy, these people would be rotting in jail (not just in my opinion, Murphy has said as much).

Multiple that number by eleven states who have such laws - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington D.C. and you can imagine the magnitude of the problem.

This week the house passed HR 38, the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity" bill, which does three things.
  • It creates a study to address the issue of bump stocks (like the ones used in the recent concert mass shooting in Las Vegas).
  • It removes immunity from legal consequences for states and agencies that do not report violent criminals to the NICS system (the National Instant Criminal Search system is what is used to identify people who should not be allowed to purchase guns).
  • It treats weapons licenses the same way as other state issued legal documents (marriage licenses, birth certificates, drivers licenses) so that states must recognize gun licenses issued by other states. This would address some of the issues above.
It does NOT (as some are claiming)
  • Allow criminals to possess guns.
  • Allow legal gun owners to violate state laws regarding firearms.
  • Allow people to have guns in schools.
  • Allow people to carry a gun who cannot otherwise carry a gun.
  • Create a "public safety crisis." This law does not protect anyone with criminal intent.
Soon the Senate will take up bill S 446, the "Constitutional Concealed Cary Reciprocity Act" which is the corresponding similar bill in the senate. This bill does not address bump stocks or the loopholes in the NICS system fixed by HR 38. Please contact your senators and ask them to support S 446 and adopt the language of HR 38.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Gettysburg... How long, O Lord?

When my older son joined the boy scouts, one of the first camping trips I went on with him was to Gettysburg. We camped on the battlefield, and hiked the "Johnny Reb" and "Billy Yank" trails, following in the footsteps of the soldiers of the Confederate and Union, respectively.

This October, my youngest son arranged that we would camp at the same spot, on one of the last camping trips we would make together. We did some of the same things, but one thing we did differently was a ranger tour of the cemetery and a tour of the town. What an eye opener.

After the battle of Gettysburg the town was in bad shape. The Confederate army fled south after the battle, the the union army pursued them, leaving the town, population 2,400, to deal with the 8,000 bodies left behind, the 3,000 horse carcasses, not to mention 14,000 wounded and 8,000 Confederate prisoners.

People came from all over the country. Many to look among the dead for their loved ones (this is before the age of dog tags, many soldiers were hard to identify), some volunteered to help bury the dead, burn the horses, and tend to the wounded. Many people were sick from the stench. Flies were so numerous they covered entire houses. Every possible building was turned into a field hospital to care for the wounded. One of the churches had to have holes drilled in the floors to drain out the blood because it was getting deep.

For the most part the Union soldiers were buried and the Confederate soldiers were left to rot and be eaten by scavengers, unless their families came and claimed the bodies. The battle happened in July, so it was imperative that things be taken care "quickly".  It wasn't until October, when the weather was cooler, that the bodies of Union soldiers were exhumed and moved to the National Cemetery where they have a place of honor today. The Confederates were still left where they fell.

On our camping trip we visited the national cemetery, where a ranger gave us a tour. It was later, walking through town, that we wound up finding the "colored" cemetery. Even though we like to think of the North as fighting for African Americans, the colored troops were not allowed to be buried in the national cemetery, but buried in a not-so-good part of town, in their own cemetery.

And even today, that cemetery is separate, and is along Cemetery Ally, behind an abandoned auto body shop. Gettysburg is a stark reminder that the desecration/denigration of people we don't consider "worthy" is not a new thing.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

A Clear Case for Carrying

You surely have heard of the latest mass killing, at a Baptist Church in Texas. As of this writing 26 are dead and 20 more wounded. First of all, let's stop and pray for the victims, their families, and all affected by this horrible crime (including the murderer).

What you likely won't see get very much coverage in the mainstream media are the following. Even though it happened in Texas, under law the victims most likely would not have been allowed to be armed, because they were in church. In Texas churches (and businesses) can forbid guns on the premises, and that carries the weight of law. I don't know if this particular church allowed guns on the premises or not, but given that nobody was able to defend themselves or their children, I'm guessing no. I can't imagined an armed person watching children get mowed down and not trying to return fire.

Secondly, the slaughter was stopped by a citizen with a gun, before law enforcement was able to get there. How high would the death toll be if this happened in New Jersey or California, where people can't have guns outside their homes? The killer would have had a much longer time to kill his helpless victims. How much lower would the death toll have been if the victims in the church had been able to return fire?

I already see people calling for more gun control. Truth is there isn't a law that could be passed to stop this. The killer was dishonorably discharged, and so under law was not permitted to own or handle a gun. The church (presumably) forbid guns on the premises, by law, and yet the killer brought a gun into the church. Lastly, murder is illegal, and yet the killer murdered helpless people.

All another anti-gun law could possibly do is prevent the hero of this story from being able to stop the killer and chase him away. Rather than using this as an excuse to weaken the defense of Americans, why not actually address the problem and arm more good people? If there is a better argument for concealed carry reciprocity, I don't know it.

The laws... which forbid to wear arms, disarm those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.
- Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments" [1764]

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Bump Fire Stocks

Everyone has come out with their opinions on bump fire stocks. I guess I am the last (probably not, as people are still arguing over it). Thought I would share mine. For those who don't know, a "bump fire stock" is a device that attaches to an "AR" style rifle - aka "Modern Sporting Rifle." It consists basically of a plastic guard to hold your finger in place and a spring to allow the gun to bounce back from recoil, into your finger. So instead of pulling the trigger, you push the gun forward, and as the gun bounces on the spring your finger activates the trigger multiple times.

A bump fire stock was used by the Las Vegas shooter to increase his rate of fire.

On the one hand...
  • There is no reasonable hunting use for bump fire stock.
  • It is gimmicky.
  • It is inaccurate.
On the other hand...
  • It is not a machine gun (more on that in a minute).
  • You don't need a special stock to bump-fire a gun.
    • It is trivial to rig up a device to bump fire a gun (see image above)
    • You can, with a little practice, do the same thing with no hardware whatsoever.
A number of people/organizations  have come out in favor of banning bump fire stocks (including the NRA), based on the first set of bullet (pun intended) items above. Those people/organizations are wrong. I am dead set (again pun intended) against banning bump fire stocks for the following reasons.
  • It is not a machine gun. Therefore it can't be banned based on the definition of "machine gun" but must be banned based on what it is, but on what it does. That's a very important distinction, because what it does is increases the "normal" rate of fire of a weapon. If you're going to ban anything that can increase the "normal" rate of fire, you have established a principle that will also ban lots of other things. For instance, a semi-auto action increases the rate of fire of a magazine fed gun - let's ban all semi-auto firearms! A heavier recoil spring (or even replacing a worn spring) increases the rate of fire of a firearm - let's regulate recoil spring repairs! Training increases the rate of fire of a firearm (exactly the same way as a bump fire stock, in fact, by enabling your finger to activate the trigger more quickly). Let's ban training!
  • Even if it were, machine guns shouldn't be banned. The ATF has the authority to ban machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1930. That law was and is unconstitutional. It was upheld by the supreme court in 1938 because of a failure of the defendant to appear. I would dearly love to see this challenged in the supreme court today, as the reasoning behind the law is that machine guns (and certain other weapons) are not used by the military (which is clearly false).
Aside from the legal technicalities, the whole thing runs counter to the second amendment. There have been oceans of ink spilled over the whole issue of the second amendment, so my few drops shouldn't bother anyone. The intention of the second amendment is to make sure that private citizens had weapons equal to or superior to their government. Yes, you read that right.

In the Revolutionary War, the colonist prevailed, in part, because they had superior weapons. The British were equipped, for the most part, with smooth bore muskets. The reasoning of the British army was that such weapons were faster to load, and therefore the soldiers would have a higher rate of fire than their enemies. Many of the colonists had rifles. Rifles took 50% longer to load, but they were more accurate. So, in terms of fighting, the colonists could kill British soldiers at distances where the British could not return fire.

The founders who framed the second amendment were well aware of that, and also of what the colonists realized, and which is still true today. The greatest threat of murder comes not from your fellow citizens, but from your government. The greatest mass murders have been perpetrated by government over an unarmed population. Consider Nazi Germany, which disarmed its populace and proceeded to set up death camps. The Soviet Union, and the millions who died there, also unarmed. The Armenian Genocide - I could go on, but you (should) get the point. Yes, there are those who disagree, but there is no counter example to the rule that they can provide, it's all just opinion of what might have happened had things been different. The fact is that technology can make a 90 pound elderly woman able to defend her rights against a 220 pound attacker. To say that that doesn't make any difference is naive at best.

The wording of the second amendment is
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In other words, the stated purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Free citizens must have the ability to defend themselves effectively. Before you get hung up on the words "well regulated" and "militia" let me offer the following. George Mason, one of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, said, in debate "That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided."

You may disagree with his sentiment, but you cannot disagree that the sentiment was one held by many of the founders of our nation. Clearly the second amendment was included to support such a belief. Also, the word "regulated" has been (mis) interpreted to mean "under restrictions from government" but the usage here (which is still a definition today, but was the "main" definition at the time) was "to ensure accuracy of operation" - in other words, that the militia should be well trained.

You may disagree with the Constitution as well, and if so you are welcome to suggest and try to pass an amendment retracting the second amendment. It's been done before, with prohibition. But if you want to pass legislation that ignores the Constitution, you will come up against it at some point.

So, although I don't personally see a "need" for bump-fire stocks, and I agree they are gimmicky, I will not support such a ban, and urge others to examine the issue and make a decision to either amend or support the Constitution, not move towards a dictatorship by subverting the law itself.

The Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America's stated goal is to help boys become men who are of good moral character and good patriotic citizens. For over one hundred years it has long held certain policies to support this goal; policies directly based on those principles of the organization. The Boy Scout oath is:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. 
Because of that the scouts did not accept atheists (since they do not believe in God), presumably they would not accept traitors (duty to country) and those who hold principles contrary to morality. "What morality?" you may ask. It doesn't really matter. Whether you are Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. pretty much every religion held to the same moral principles, since those moral principles were based on natural law.

The Boy Scouts of America has been sued over their membership policies numerous times, until in 2000 things came to a head in the supreme court, with the case "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale". In that case, the court confirmed that any private organization has a constitutional right to "freedom of association". In other words, the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints". In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

Think about that. The Boy Scout's opposition to homosexuality was, according to the supreme court, part of their "message."

Fast forward to 2013. The board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America decides that homosexual boys can be members. This is a fundamental abandonment of the core values of the organization. However, it was couched as "well, these boys are just confused, and cannot be held responsible for their sexuality, and we should help them." A noble goal, but help them to what, exactly? It was pointed out that any Boy Scout who engages in any sexual activity can be expelled form the organization, and that policy wouldn't change and so we're not talking "active" homosexual boys.

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, but ignoring that, it is still a fundamental abandonment of principle in favor of political correctness. At that point, in my opinion, the Boy Scouts ceased to exist.

Two years later, in 2015, the board decides to accept openly homosexual adult leaders. This directly invalidates their supreme court case, which was about not accepting openly homosexual adult leaders. If there is a clearer case of abandoning one's moral principles in favor of political correctness, I don't know what it would be.

Two years later, in 2017, the board announces that transgender "boys " (aka girls) would be accepted, and when that "flew," that all girls would be accepted (but only for Cub Scouts, for now). Two things are of note here, which have kept the organization from disbanding (which I believe it will in the next 20 years or so) and which have kept me from walking away.

First off, all of these decisions have been "optional." Each troop has a "chartering organization" that supports it. It is typically a town, or church, or some other group. All of these changes have been made at the national level, but accepting them has been made subject to the approval of the chartering organization, That means that the local Catholic church that charters the local troop can decide "no homosexuals" while the Episcopal church down the street can decide differently for the troop they charter. Doesn't this create disunity? You betcha! What does this mean, legally, for troops? It probably means that somewhere down the line they will have to go back and re-fight the "freedom of association" case, and since they are small and won't have the financial resources to fight it, they will lose.

Secondly, Boy Scouts exists for boys ages 10.5 to 17. When you turn 18 you are done. Announcing a change every two years is analogous to "boiling a frog." Each scout will only see a few changes, and will be gone. Over the next few years I expect to see even more changes, such as allowing atheists, allowing active sexual behavior, supporting abortion, etc. We've already seen that with the Girl Scouts, so it's not as big of a stretch as you might think.

May God help the Boy Scouts of America.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Fears and Dreams

This morning I saw a post on FB by someone who is a real life friend. Someone I would actually hug if i met them (which, if you know me, is rare). The post decried the fact that illegal immigrants are being used by big business. They are being paid too little and not given benefits or decent working conditions.

I wanted to comment "Amen! This is exactly why we need to end illegal immigration" but then I got to thinking. This person is a self-professed liberal. I know that if I posted such a thing I would be immediately attacked by the person's friends, called names, and the whole thread would go up in flames. Perhaps this person would even unfriend me, and certainly it would make it awkward (at best) when next we met in real life.

So I said nothing and moved on. I have two things to say about that (well, probably more, we'll see).

First off, I am saddened that I can't have a discussion with people, who I am otherwise good friends with,  about basically anything important in life, or in current events. Yes, I know, this was on FB, but I know (or at least I'm pretty sure) in real life the conversation wouldn't go much better. It would certainly be more polite, but the end result would be the same. At best, disappointment. At worst, "unfriending." I have a (short) list of relatives and friends for whom this has happened with me.

Why is it that so many people can't associate with people who have different views from them? Are people so shallow that they say "I love you, but only if you believe 'X' and 'Y' and not 'Z'?" There seems to be mode of though that says if I believe Z or fail to believe X or Y, then I am an 'A' (substitute your favorite bad person word there - bigot, hater, idiot, denier).

Nobody cares enough to find out why I believe 'Z' and don't believe 'X' and 'Y'. Nobody cares enough to say "even though we disagree you are still a good person." How petty! How narrow minded have we as a society become? Free speech, but only for me, because your speech is not "tolerant."

I could rant but onto point number 2. Immigration. I would normally be on the side of the immigrants, except for a few things. One is the way illegals get treated (low wages, poor working conditions, no benefits, etc.). Another is the horror stories coming out all the time. People found dying in Walmart parking lots, mass graves near the border. Stories of robberies and rapes of people trying to cross the border.

By supporting illegal immigration you are saying "I don't want to stop these things from happening." Now I'm not saying that people want these things to happen, or are supporting them, but when you create a "black market" for US residency, you surely can't expect there not to be black marketeers.

"Well, lock up the criminals who are doing this to the illegal immigrants!" you say? Then how would they get here, without the coyotes and human traffickers? The solution we should all agree on is to stop illegal immigration! If there is no illegal immigration, there is no reason to take people's money, kill them, rape them, or lock them in trailer trucks in 100 degree weather. There is no reason to pay them low wages and give them poor working conditions.

"What about the people already here?" you say? Give them a path. I propose we give illegal immigrants some amount of time (6 months, say) to register as illegals. Their cases would be considered and they could be vetted and either made legal immigrants or deported. Anyone who didn't register after the deadline would be deported on sight. But make the laws and let them work. Operating outside the law perpetuates a scenario where justice cannot operate, and the weak will be preyed upon. Surely everyone can see that.

But then again, maybe not. It seems too many people consider their world view more important than the world.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Eclipse Report

Not my picture
Unless you live under a rock you know that 8-21-17 was the "Great American Eclipse." This is my story of the eclipse. It started back in 2007 when I first began planning to see the eclipse. I wasn't sure where it would be visible at that point, but given my age and circumstances, I determined I wanted to see at least one total solar eclipse, and this would be it.

The Best Laid Plans...

Our first plans, once we knew from where totality would be visible, was to go to Jackson, WY. We had been to Grand Teton several years back, and started and ended the trip in Jackson. As you can see, it is comfortably in the zone of totality (between the red lines).

It's also a beautiful place to bee, as is Grand Teton National Park. If you haven't been, highly recommended.

But you can't book a vacation seven years in advance, and so I waited... too long. About a year in advance I went to book a place in/near Jackson, only to find out that you could not rent an outhouse - everything was booked! Perhaps it was for the best, as I'm sure it would have been more crowded than where we ended up.

Where did we end up? I chose two places, Nashville TN, and Salem, OR, and quickly booked hotels in both places. Then booked a third in Albany, OR, thinking it's just as close to totality as Salem, but a shorter drive up from the Bay area, where we could visit my wife's aunt. Also, we could not find a flight into/out of Portland on the days we wanted to travel.

We decided on OR instead of TN based on a web site that had the probability of cloud cover for any day of the year for a given area. Albany, OR had a 25% chance of cloud cover, vs. a 40% chance for TN.

Over the next couple of months we booked the rest of our hotels, flights etc. We spent time in the Bay area, then drove up the coast through redwoods to Albany, OR, then after the eclipse went down through Lassen Volcanic Park and back to catch the flight home. When I canceled our TN reservation, rooms (which were going for $200) were now going for over $1000!


This is what I used to observe the eclipse. I am not saying it was the best, but it served my needs well.

For my eyeballs

I got a 10 pack of eclipse glasses on Amazon. I made sure they were "certified" ISO compliant glasses. No sense in messing with your eyes. Although only four of us were going I wanted 10 in case we lost/damaged some, or to share with other eclipse viewers who didn't have a pair.

As it turned out, the hotel we were staying at, the Comfort Inn and Suites in Albany OR, had a welcome packet with eclipse glasses for their guests. Nice place, and nice people. I would stay there again.


As you may know I am an amateur telescope maker, and so I had grandiose plans of building a small scope for this eclipse, or maybe converting my 6" scope into a collapsible model but of course time and tide... to view the sun you don't need a lot of aperture, and I decided to purchase a Celestron 70mm travelscope. I used camelcamelcamel and waited until it was on sale for about $50.

The scope comes with its own backpack, tripod, finder scope, image erector prism, and 20mm and 10mm eyepieces.

The scope itself is decent. Very good image, with surprisingly little color aberration. Everything is plastic, but decently made. With a 13mm Nagler (I have an older one, and it is HEAVY) you could see the flex in the OTA, but even so the image was good. I like this scope! The backpack was nice, for carrying the scope on the air plane (I would not trust checking it).

The image erector is so-so, but you need it, or an extension tube, to reach focus on the eyepieces I was using. Also, because the sun was at 40 degrees elevation at the tie of the eclipse, it was nice having the prism so the eyepiece was facing up (a 90 degree prism would have been even better).

Speaking of which, the eyepieces were OK, but I decided to use one of my better quality telescope eyepieces. I opted for a no-name 20mm plossl I've had for years, and my 13mm Nagler. Images through the Nagler are as awesome as can be, but there is very little eye relief for people with glasses.

The tripod that comes with the scope is garbage. I opted to use a camera tripod I picked up at Costco for $50 a few years ago, during a photo emergency. That tripod is flimsy as well, but is way more sturdy than the one that came with the scope.

Likewise, the finder scope is garbage. I removed the optics, and put a piece of plastic cut from a Chinese food takeout container (with a dot in the center) in place of the objective, and a sheet of paper with a small circle drawn on it in place of the eyepiece. I adjusted it so that when the scope was pointed at the sun, the dot of light from the objective fell on the paper in the circle. Crude but effective.

Note to Celestron - I would have been willing to pay more for a sturdier scope without the tripod, and with a cheap red dot finder scope in place of the crappy one you provided.

I purchased a commercial solar filter for the scope, since I didn't want to be bothered building my own filter. However, when I tried it out the sun was painfully bright. I stopped the filter down from 70mm to about 25mm, which was better, but I wasn't sure I trusted it.

The filter claimed to be made from Baader planetarium filter material, even had the Baader paperwork in the box. I wondered if they had used the photographic-only version of the film, or if it was counterfeit. Sure enough, about a week before we were to leave, I get an email from Amazon saying that they were unable to verify that the filter was safe, and that they would refund my money.

Fortunately I have made many solar filters over the years, and I had what was left of a roll of Baader filter material. I merely had to make the filter.


I have a Canon T2i camera, with a 55-250mm lens. While I can get good photos of the sun, it's kind of small. At 250mm the sun is roughly 250/120 = 2.1mm on the camera's sensor. The T2i has an APS-C sized sensor, which is 22.2x14.8mm, so the sun fills only 1/7th of the frame. Ideally I'd like the image to be at least 1/3 of the sensor size, or 5mm, which would require a 600mm lens. 600mm lenses, are expensive.

I could mount the camera on the telescope with a T-ring adapter, but that would leave me with no visual scope, and my primary purpose was to SEE the eclipse, not to photograph it.

I though about renting a lens. I know people who did, with great success, but I was leery of having to lug the rented lens all over. I would also have to make a solar filter for a lens that wouldn't be useful afterwards. Additionally, since I would be gone over a week, and I would need to get the lens a week or two early to practice, I would be paying $225, for a one-time use thing.

Instead I picked up a 2x tele-xtender for $99 that makes the 250mm lens into a 500m lens - at the cost of doubling the focal ratio (which I didn't care about) and losing the ability to auto-focus (which I cared about, but not enough to want to shell out $1000 for a dedicated lens). I had good success with it in the backyard, although focusing on the sun was difficult. How I long for the days of split image focusers on cameras!

For the camera, I had to make my own filter. Commercial ones were not only expensive, but impossible to come by. Attaching a homemade filter to the lens was a bit tricky. In the end I bought  a cheap screw on rubber lens hood and made the filter to fit that.

The two solar filters fit in a Chinese food takeout container, which fit in the telescope's backpack, along with the scope, finder, eclipse glasses and tripod. The rest of the optics went in my camera bag.

Needless to say, with a long focal length lens you need a good tripod. Luckily I have an old Slik tripod from my Dad that is very stable. Speaking of which, the tripod was actually broken, and so old I couldn't find any information on it. I took a picture of the damage and model number, which I emailed to Slik, asking how I could get it repaired. In about an hour or two they sent me an email saying I could order the parts from them (the email had a parts list and diagram of the tripod) and a video on how to repair it. The parts cost only $7, and arrived in a few days, and I was up and running! Very good customer service!

The Experience!

Driving up, the weather report looked good but we had heard of wild fires with thick smoke. We heard one place not too far away had to be evacuated! As we went up, at times the sun was barely visible through the smoke! Fortunately, the area where we were going was in between fires.

I had read about what an eclipse is like. I had seen photos. NONE of that prepared me for the real thing. We arrived at the hotel the evening before. One man was standing in the triangle of grass by the road setting up a camera. Turned out he spoke very little English, and didn't know where the eclipse would be in the sky.

Fortunately I had gotten this great app, TPE (The Photographer's Ephemeris) for my phone. It shows all sorts of data bout sun, moon, light and shadow. According to it, First contact would occur at about 105 degrees azimuth and 20 degrees elevation, and totality would be at 120/30. Using the app and the compass and level apps on my phone I was able to walk the property and find the best place to set up the next morning. I was in a spot where everything would be visible, but I could sit in the shade of a tree.

The next morning the hotel was full of people. There were three general categories. A group from France, of mostly older people, Asian tourists, and "crunchy geeks". This last category drove up from California in their Priuses, wore birkenstocks, floppy hats and Tee shirts with slogans like "Surely not EVERYBODY was Kung Fu Fighting" and "It's not rocket science - oh wait, it is!" and other geeky things.

Oddly enough all of those people sat by the road in the hot sun, while a small group of us sat in the back parking lot where it was not crowded at all. The small group consisted of American families, mostly from northern California. There was a young couple who sat with their glasses on and held hands the whole time; parents with their two small children, who played with a "robot dog" the whole time; an older couple who just had sheets of dark plastic they held over their faces... You get the picture. I was the only person who had a scope you could look through, and at times there was a line to look through my scope. I was glad I brought it. Here was my setup.

First contact was cool through the scope but you couldn't tell anything was going on. It wasn't until the sun was about 80% covered that things began to get weird. First off, every little speck of light through the trees turned into an upside down image of the eclipse.

Next, the light began to be...odd. It seemed to me that everything had a greenish tint. I think it's because everything is getting dark, and my brain wants it to be reddish sunset, but in fact the light is daylight colored. It's very hard to explain, and a picture doesn't show anything wrong.

I spoke to some people who viewed the eclipse from a valley and they said they could see the shadow approaching them over the mountains. That must have been cool. A few seconds before totality, there are ripples of light on the ground. My son said he saw them, but I forgot to look - I was too busy watching the sun go dark.

I was able to see "Bailey's Beads" and "The Diamond Ring" for a fraction of a second. Then I was entranced by the sight of a black spot where the sun should be, surrounded by a glowing corona. I unscrewed the filter on the camera and hastily focused, but the results were kind of lackluster...

The sky was dark - not as black as at night, but you could see brighter stars and planets. It was about two minutes long, but it seemed like seconds before it all happened rapidly in reverse and I had to screw the solar filters back on.


After the eclipse we were told there would be horrendous traffic, so we were prepared to stay until the next day. However, that would have meant driving eleven hours to the airport the next day, so we decided, after seeing that Route 5 was moving pretty well, to chance it. It would only be four and a half hours to Redding, and we would get to see Lassen Volcanic National Park, which I really wanted to do.

So we got in the car, and... I will tell you traffic moved pretty well... until there was construction and a lane was gone... and then an accident... and then rubbernecking for another accident... and then...

We got creative with ways to get off the highway and find it again. However, roads were closed or detoured for construction that Google Maps really wanted us to use. Suffice it to say that 9 hours later we rolled into our hotel.


I learned a few lessons from the experience:
  • If you have a chance, go see a total eclipse! I don't think I would go cross country just to see the eclipse, but as part of a vacation it was nice.
  • Book early, and often! Although some of the people we were with had booked the hotel the night before, it is less stressful to book ahead. Do your research on weather and traffic!
  • Ditch the camera! Honestly the pictures I got were not very good, and every second I spent staring through a camera was one I did not spend enjoying the eclipse.
  • Bring a telescope. The travelscope was just the right size,  and the 20mm eyepiece pretty much ideal. I suppose I could have gotten by with the tripod it came with, but the simple modifications I made were useful.
  • Practice. Work out any equipment bugs by viewing the sun at home ahead of time. I had worked out all the settings on my camera, but even for visual observing it is useful to practice. For instance, my wife discovered the glass didn't work well with her prescription glasses - it was easier for her to hold the eclipse glasses in her had an inch in front of her glasses.
  • Stay! In retrospect we should have stayed put until the next day when (hopefully) the traffic was less. In our case, our schedule didn't allow us to add a day to the vacation, but if I could I would have done it differently.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Trumped up BSA News

Picture from FOX
I'm been seeing a lot of these in my news feed:

Trump subjects Boy Scouts to a political rant that demeans the presidency
Trump critics liken Boy Scouts event to a Hitler Youth rally
There’s No Mistaking Trump for a Boy Scout
Trump is unteachable. His Boy Scouts speech proved it
Trump’s Boy Scouts speech broke with 80 years of presidential tradition
Trump's Boy Scout Jamboree speech calls for health care action, 'more loyalty' in DC
From ‘fake media’ to Clinton, Trump brings political attacks to the Scout Jamboree

and my favorite
The Origin of Trump’s Weird Sex Yacht Anecdote in His Boy Scout Speech

Of course the usual people are making the usual comments... how "Trump needs to go" - how "Trump is destroying the world," how he should be prosecuted, and how the Boy Scouts need to denounce him. Apparently this speech was unacceptable in all ways.

But did any of them take the time to watch the speech, or did they just look at the 10 second sound bites fed to them by the media that they trust and believe? Ironic how many stories blast Trump for saying "fake media" in his speech, in a story which is, itself, "fake media" in its portrayal of his speech.

So, out of curiosity I went and watched the whole speech. It is 38 minutes long, but since youtube will play it back at 2x speed I was able to get through it in 20 minutes. Let me say this:
  • It was a "Trump" speech (meaning there was an element of narcissism in it).
  • There was no "sex yacht" - well, there was a yacht, but if there were sex it wasn't mentioned. The story was about losing your focus and commitment in life, and it was actually a good point to make to scouts who will be starting their careers soon.
  • In brief, the subjects covered were
  • Boy Scouts, and scouting in general is great
  • America is great
  • Those who serve others (military, police, firefighters, etc.) are great
  • The scout oath and law are an important part of being a good American
  • The Trump administration has the support of the American people
  • The Trump administration has accomplished great things
  • The Trump administration has undone a lot of bad things done by the previous administration
  • It is important to find something you are passionate about and do it well
  • Service to others is an important part of life
Other than injecting too much about his administration, there's nothing wrong with the speech - but then again Trump is unable to say "hello" without injecting something about his accomplishments, so that's not "news". Yes, I can take blurbs from the speech and come up with something bad, but the sheer variety of things complained about in various news stories supports the fact that the overall speech was not rally about any of those points.

A couple of points need to be addressed.

How does this speech compare to other BSA Jamboree speeches?

I went back and looked at the previous Jamboree speeches on youtube.

At the 2013 Jamboree President Obama did not show up at all, apparently after initially indicating he would come, since the BSA has made up special patches to commemorate his appearance. Instead, Mike Rowe gave a speech. In it he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his organization, which offers scholarships and financial aid to those learning a trade, and which promotes "dirty" jobs growth. Now, I don't mean to compare Mike Rowe with President Trump in terms of the quality of essence of the speech. Mike is an excellent speaker, and eagle scout, and an apparently selfless and egoless guy. The opposite of President Trump in many ways. But my point is the outline of the points hit by the two speeches is similar, except for the fact that the organization that President Trump is promoting is his administration.

For the 2010 BSA Centennial Jamboree President Obama recorded a 90 second video, which was played at the Jamboree. It was a very "generic" speech which said basically "congrats."

At the 2005 Jamboree, President Bush spoke. In his speech he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his administration's initiative to promote volunteerism.

So in terms of overall points, President Trump's speech did not vary from the "standard." In terms of delivery, neither Mike Rowe nor President Bush used a teleprompter. President Bush had note he referred to, and Mike Rowe spoke without any notes. President Trump used a teleprompter, as I presume President Obama did for his brief 2010 video.

Personally I didn't like President Trump's speech as much as the others, perhaps because I find his style narcissistic and triumphal. However, that is his style, not a substantive issue. I did think all three speakers were sincere in their admiration for scouting and their comments.

Boy Scouts an Politics

I've heard a number of people complain that Trump politicized the Boy Scouts, and that Boy Scouts are forbidden from being political or partisan. This is baloney. First off, here is the BSA official policy on Boy Scouts' participation at political events.
Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where television viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.
Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply that the BSA favors one candidate over another. Strict observance of our long-standing policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.
Note, however, that this was not a political event - it was a Jamboree, a scouting event. There was no "candidate" running for an office. The rules above are clearly a nod to the Johnson Amendment (which as you know I think is an unconstitutional infringement on first amendment rights). But regardless, there is no ban on scout participating in politics. In fact, part of the scout oath is to do one's duty to one's country, which explicitly includes participating in the American political system.

If President Trump appeared to have the support of the scouts present it's because he did, and that is to be expected, because the values that he expresses are in consistent with the scout principles of patriotism, good citizenship, religious belief and moral standards. Likewise, Mike Rowe and President Bush had the support of scouts in their respective speeches.

In short, President Trump was President Trump. The Boy Scouts were Boy Scouts. The media was outraged by everything President Trump says or does, and says he is evil. All things that go without saying. About the only thing newsworthy about the whole event was that the president spoke at a Jamboree, which hasn't happened in 12 years.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Shame on Them!

I'm reading a lot of opinions about the Peruta case being denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. For those unfamiliar with the case, Edward Peruta wanted to get a permit for carrying a concealed weapon in San Diego California. California has a law that requires a citizen requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" in order to carry a concealed weapon. And since California does not allow any open carry of weapons at all, that means that the "mainstream" of citizens are forbidden to exercise their second amendment rights. The right is granted only as an exception.

Imagine if only a select few who were out of the mainstream were allowed to vote, or to speak freely, or be allowed to have a trial by jury? And yet, the same rules do not apply to the second amendment. The case should have been open-and-shut, and yet Mr. Peruta was denied his permit because he wasn't special enough.

The decision was appealed, and the case went to the 9th circuit Federal Court, where it was ruled (correctly) that California's "good cause" requirement did, in fact, violate Mr. Peruta's second amendment rights. However, that wasn't good enough for California liberals. The case was re-heard en banc and the 9th circuit court reversed its own decision, based on the reasoning that at least some people were granted permits. Can you imagine a court saying "well, some people get to vote, so we can deny you your right to vote."

Well, the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court, which for months put off making any decision on it, but recently decided not to hear the case, which means the lower court decision holds, and Mr. Peruta (and other Californians) are denied their rights.

Oddly enough, people on both sides of the issue are happy. Notably, the pro-gun people are saying "well, at least they didn't set precedent because they didn't hear the case." The logic is that we should wait until we know we have the "votes" on the Supreme Court to get it passed the right way.

Here's the problem with that logic. The job of the Supreme Court is not to "vote" on issues and we should wait until we have appointees who will "vote" the right way. The job of the Supreme Court is to look at a case and see if it violates what the Constitution says. And, to quote the late Anton Scalia, the Constitution says what it says!

If the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms, then that's the decision you make. If the Constitution says you have to bake a cake then that's the decision you make. The job isn't supposed to be one of "what the justices want" but "what the Constitution says." And if a justice doesn't like what the Constitution says, too bad. That's why we have a legislative branch - to do what the people who elect them want them to do. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on that power, not a pawn to whichever party appointed them. They are unelected and are not supposed to represent themselves or their party or anything - they are supposed to just follow what' on the paper.

Case in point - slavery. It was not the job of the Supreme Court justices to overturn all slavery laws because they decided to reinterpret the Constitution in favor of abolition - it took Congress to pass an amendment. Likewise Prohibition, and the repeal of Prohibition, and women's votes, and income tax... you get the picture?

If you want to do something that's outside what the Constitution says, you make a law. If the law is deemed unconstitutional, you either change the law or change the constitution. You don't lobby for "votes" on the Supreme Court. If you go down that path, then the country is no longer a democratic republic, but an oligarchy.

But that's the path we're happily running down. From abortion to gay marriage to religious liberty to self defense, we are accepting the "rights" of the Supreme Court to decide what they want rather than what the Constitution says. And when we talk about Scalia (and Gorsuch) who hold the opinion that the Constitution says what it says, they are labeled "extreme" and Democrats try to block their appointment because of their "conservative views." News flash - if you appoint a court that reinterprets the Constitution, you are just a couple of appointments away from having everything you worked for reversed. The way to change laws is supposed to be through the legislature, not the courts.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Thoughts on the Republican baseball team shooting

Photo of civilian legal SKS from Wikipedia
The gun banners are already talking about how we need to ban the assault weapon used by the shooter, and institute "universal" background checks. Thought I would put in my two cents. But first, a moment of prayer for those who affected by this tragedy.

First off, the rifle used is reported to be an Chinese SKS. It is nothing like an assault rifle - it has NONE of the features of a so-called assault rifle. It only holds 10 rounds. It does not have a detachable magazine. It does not have a suppressor or flash hider. It does not have a pistol grip. It doesn't have a scope or fancy optics or electronics or anything. It is 70 year old technology. If you would classify this as an "assault rifle" then pretty much anything is. Let's face the fact that rifles can be used to kill. A rifle that can't be used to kill has very little usefulness (for hunting, self defense, target shooting, etc,).

Secondly, regarding universal background checks, there are a bunch of issues that need to be stated. First off, who decides who should be forbidden to own guns? Right now there are cases going through the courts where governments have made rules denying someone a gun because they committed a misdemeanor, because they actually got mental health (as opposed to letting it fester so they could keep their guns), and all other kinds of silly rules. Common sense would say "deny guns to criminals!" but who defines what kinds of crimes count? And even then, does committing a crime take away a natural right (like self defense)? If you look, carefully and honestly, you'll see there is no black and white answer.

But let's say we do manage to define exactly what kinds of crimes/mental issues/etc. take away your right to self defense. Would that stop so-called "gun violence?" Most of the gun crimes committed today are with guns illegally obtained anyway (theft or having a non-prohibited friend or family member get the gun). No background check will stop those people from getting guns, because they didn't go to the gun store and buy them. The (small) remainder of crimes are committed by people who had no prior criminal record, and so passed a background check. Obviously the background check didn't stop them.

Then there is the so-called "gun show loophole" - which doesn't really exist - but what they mean is banning private sales of guns. Again you have the same two issues - the existing criminals don't submit to background checks and the future ones pass them.

So exactly what is the point of background checks? You could say that maybe the criminals find it harder to buy a gun illegally, since the risk and effort involved will make the street guns cost more. However, the opposite is true. Because of the overhead and red tape involved, it is more expensive to buy a gun legally. The criminals have way less overhead.

But that's kind of beside the point, because in the US we don't really have background checks - we have what amounts to registration. Let's go back to first principles and look at how a background check should work. I go to the gun store and say "I'd like to buy a gun." The gun store checks my driver's license or other form of ID, and looks up my name on the list of "bad people." If I'm not on the list they sell me a gun.

Instead what happens is I fill out a form. On that form I have to disclose things like my ethnicity, race, place of birth and fill out a whole bunch of questions about things like whether I belong to a group that advocates the overthrow of the government. None of the questions is optional, and if I fill them out wrong (even by mistake) that is a felony offense. The seller has to fill in the make, model and serial number of the gun involved. But wait, I thought it was me they were checking, not the gun.

Of course all of this paperwork has to be archived forever (literally) and inspected regularly (but not copied - wink wink) by the ATF (which is itself an unconstitutional organization, but I wont' get into that here). The net result is a web of complicated laws and regulations designed to trip people into accidentally becoming a felon, without any proof (or even reasonable hope) that any of this has any positive effect on "gun violence."

At least Maryland, after $5 million, finally scrapped their gun registry after discovering that in the 15 years it had been around it had solved ZERO crimes. How many crimes has the federal gun registry (I mean of course background check system) solved? I think we deserve an answer, but I don't think one will be coming any time soon.

So how do we reduce "gun violence"? Surprisingly gun violence is actually down, despite media claims to the contrary, and despite the number of guns being at a high point (pun intended). Additionally, the three safest states in the US are ones where citizens can carry guns without any paperwork or permission from their government. So maybe the solution isn't more gun control, but less? The definition of insanity is, after all, doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Novas Order

This post is inspired by a couple of discussions with Protestants. Bear with me.

Consider two stars, Castor and Pollux. They are the two brightest stars in the constellation Gemini (image courtesy Wikipedia). They represent the heads of the twins the constellation depicts.

Castor is actually a system of 6 stars, about 51 light years from the earth. Pollux is closer, about 34 light years from earth, and is a simple star.

Let's suppose one of the stars in Castor, and the star Pollux both go nova simultaneously. On earth we would detect Pollux going nova after 34 years, and then we would detect Castor's nova only after another 17 years had passed. That's because of the length of time it takes the light for each event to reach the earth.

But things would get even weirder if we were in a spaceship traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The notion of simultaneity, it turns out, is relative, depending on your frame of reference.

What does this have to do with Protestants? First off, there is the Communion of Saints. According to Catholic belief, the saints in heaven are alive in Christ, enjoying the Beatific Vision, and interceding for us. That is backed up by numerous scripture passages, of which I will only name Revelation 5:8. For more on the topic see "The Intercession of the Saints".

According to many Protestants, those who are dead are asleep, waiting to be woken on the Last Day. They case this on Scripture like Isaiah 38:18 (which refers to hell, not heaven) and Psalm 115:17 (which refers to dead idols), or Psalm 6:5 (which refers to Sheol, not heaven).

But one of the key objections in this conversation was that the saints can't hear the prayers of more than one person at a time because they are not God. I've heard apologists talk about how God can give the saints in heaven the power to hear more than one prayer at a time, but I'd like to suggest an alternative hypothesis. Even in our own galaxy, things that are simultaneous to one observer may not be simultaneous to a different observer. What if our "simultaneous" prayers on earth are not simultaneous in heaven? Why should we think time in heaven works the way it does on earth? Time is a phenomenon of space, and heaven is not in our space-time continuum.

And another thing... the notion of the particular and general judgements. It has always bothered me that we are taught that there are two judgements after death - the particular judgement, where we are judged as individuals and steered to heaven or hell, and the general judgement at the end of the world, when all are judged and we will see God's plan. Both are based on Scripture, but what's the sense of a second judgement when you've already been judged? You know the outcome.

But what if they are describing the same judgement? On earth they would appear to happen at different times, but again, God is not constrained by time. When I die, why can't I be judged on the last day, and be in heaven (hopefully) on the day of my death? If we can do such tricks in our own galaxy with worm holes etc. why should we think God can't accomplish it? I'm not saying that this is what happens, necessarily, but I see no reason why it could not happen that way, either scripturally, theologically, philosophically or scientifically.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Novena to the Holy Spirit

After the Ascension of Our Lord, His disciples and Apostles spent nine days praying for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5, 12-14):
And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Thus the tradition of the novena, nine days of prayer for some intention. But the first, and earliest novena, is the original one, recognized by the church, the novena for the Holy Spirit. I join the church in praying this novena each year on the nine days leading up to Pentecost. Please join me.

There are different prayers for each day, found here

as well as the following, which are repeated each day:

Act of Consecration to the Holy Spirit
On my knees before the great multitude of heavenly witnesses, I offer myself, soul and body to You, Eternal Spirit of God. I adore the brightness of Your purity, the unerring keenness of Your justice, and the might of Your love. You are the Strength and Light of my soul. In You I live and move and am. I desire never to grieve You by unfaithfulness to grace and I pray with all my heart to be kept from the smallest sin against You. Mercifully guard my every thought and grant that I may always watch for Your light, and listen to Your voice, and follow Your gracious inspirations. I cling to You and give myself to You and ask You, by Your compassion to watch over me in my weakness. Holding the pierced Feet of Jesus and looking at His Five Wounds, and trusting in His Precious Blood and adoring His opened Side and stricken Heart, I implore You, Adorable Spirit, Helper of my infirmity, to keep me in Your grace that I may never sin against You. Give me grace, O Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Father and the Son to say to You always and everywhere, "Speak Lord for Your servant heareth."

Prayer for the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit

O Lord Jesus Christ, Who, before ascending into heaven, did promise to send the Holy Spirit to finish Your work in the souls of Your Apostles and Disciples, deign to grant the same Holy Spirit to me that He may perfect in my soul, the work of Your grace and Your love. Grant me the Spirit of Wisdom that I may despise the perishable things of this world and aspire only after the things that are eternal, the Spirit of Understanding to enlighten my mind with the light of Your divine truth, the Spirit of Counsel that I may ever choose the surest way of pleasing God and gaining heaven, the Spirit of Fortitude that I may bear my cross with You and that I may overcome with courage all the obstacles that oppose my salvation, the Spirit of Knowledge that I may know God and know myself and grow perfect in the science of the Saints, the Spirit of Piety that I may find the service of God sweet and amiable, and the Spirit of Fear that I may be filled with a loving reverence towards God and may dread in any way to displease Him. Mark me, dear Lord, with the sign of Your true disciples and animate me in all things with Your Spirit.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

An extra few days

I've been seeing this meme posted for the last couple of days... and even on Catholic Answers last night the host was defending moving Ascension Thursday to Sunday.

The justification, in his case, was that if it were on Thursday, Catholic schools would have off and it would separate families where the parents had to work.

What? How out of touch must the bishops be? First off, I have never heard of a Catholic school closing for this - they simply have mass and celebrate the day at school (and bishops should know this, having at least some sort of oversight into to the workings of the schools in their own diocese). True, the parents will be separated from the kids if they are at work, but they would have been separated anyway if they are at work.

When I was a child (preschool) I still remember enjoying holy days of obligation that were not Sundays. My mother would take us to mass, and we'd always stop for ice cream after. It was just a nice day to spend with family.

Later, in school, I remember sitting in the pews murmuring quietly waiting for mass at school to start. It was a treat and a bonding experience to have mass with all my peers. With geography, and with the 5 different masses each weekend, I didn't often see a lot of my friends at mass. Plus, this was mass just for us, with a homily geared towards our lives.

As an adult, holy days of obligation during the week have become a time of bonding as well. I find out who is Catholic, and we all carpool over to noon mass during lunch. It is also an opportunity for evangelization. "Hey Mike, wanna do lunch Thursday?" "Sorry, I'm going to mass with Ed and Jim and Carolyn." "Why are you going to mass?" Boy, is that an opening or what?

In short, I see a lot of up sides and no down sides to keeping the holy days where they belong. With vigil masses, and masses in the morning, noon and evening, there is really no excuse to miss it, unless you just really can't be bothered. And who knows - being invited to Ascension Thursday mass by your coworkers may be the thing you need to get mack into practicing your faith.

Friday, February 10, 2017

I am pro choice

Let me ask you a seemingly innocent question. Should Christians be excluded from receiving welfare benefits? In other words, if someone is legally entitled to receive government benefits, should that person be excluded if they are Christians? Or Muslims? Or Jews?

No? OK, we agree on that.

Now let me play a bit of devil's advocate here. What it Mary Catholic takes $5 of her welfare check and drops it in the collection basket on Sunday? Shouldn't she be excluded from receiving benefit? After all, doesn't that mean that the State™ is subsidizing her church? Isn't that a violation of Separation of church and State™?

At this point, if you're intellectually honest, you have to admit that the money, once Mary cashes her check, is controlled by Mary, and it isn't the government choosing what to do with it. If you can't follow that, then you must reverse your answer to the first question and say that all people of faith must be excluded from all government programs and entitlements.

So, if Mary "given" a tax break by the state to send her kids to private school, how is the State™ subsidizing a church? Mary can choose to use that money in any school, secular or religious. Once Mary cashes that check, it is controlled by Mary, and it isn't the government choosing what to do with it. The money itself is earmarked for education, and that's what she must spend it on, and she does.

Now, let's look at it from a purely economic perspective. Mary pays $8,000 in taxes, and her local public school costs the taxpayers $23,000 per student per year. If Mary is given an $8,000 tax break to send her kids to a different school, Mary wins, her kids win and the taxpayers win! Mar wins, because she can now afford to send her kids to the school that will educate them best. Her kids win, because they get a better education. The tax payers win, because Mary's three kids are now saving the school system $69,000 per year, for a net savings for $61,000 per year to the tax payers. [N.B. these are not made up numbers, these are actual tax rates and public school costs for a nearby town in NJ - I looked them up.]

It seems to me there is no Constitutional justification for opposing school choice, and every economic incentive to support school choice. Could it be that the real reason for opposing school choice is because legislators are in bed with big business and special interest groups?

Saturday, February 4, 2017

NICS and Johnson

Photo Credit: mensatic on
If there is one thing that strikes me as so blatantly unconstitutional that we shouldn't even find a possibility of disagreement, it's the government coercing people to remove their constitutional rights. One of the biggest ways the government does that today is by taking your money and then requiring you to give up rights to get it back. Bullying? Yes. Clearly illegal and unconstitutional? Yes. And yet, I find myself having discussions with people who think it's OK for the government to take away constitutional rights if it leads to "some good"™. A couple of cases in point.

The Social Security Act has been amended to take away the second amendment rights of social security recipients. People with disabilities have the choice to not receive social security benefits or forfeit their constitutional rights.

A little background. NICS, of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is a service provided by the FBI mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (although NICS applies to all guns in the US, not just handguns). By law all gun dealers must run prospective buyers through the system, which identifies people who are deemed "unfit" to be allowed a gun. That list includes people who [emphasis mine]:
  • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is a fugitive from justice;
  • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
  • Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)
In December the Obama administration promoted a new implementation of an "improvement" to social security. Page 19 of "Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA)" says [again, emphasis mine]:
Under our representative payee policy, unless direct payment is prohibited, we presume that an adult beneficiary is capable of managing or directing the management of benefits. However, if we have information that the beneficiary has a mental or physical impairment that prevents him or her from managing or directing the management of benefits, we will develop the issue of capability. ... It is also important to remember that we can reevaluate a beneficiary’s capability even  though we may have already determined a beneficiary’s capability in the past...

Note that having a third party manage your benefits is cause for losing your second amendment rights. That means, for example, if you are a poor person, perhaps with little education, who has a family member manage their finances, boom! No rights. Or perhaps you are a shut-in, due to a physical disability who has somebody more mobile do all your financial transactions. Again, no rights. The problem is that this system bases your constitutional rights on capability rather than criminal activity or violent behavior.

Let's look at the example from the document. This is how they see it working properly...
For example... a once capable beneficiary who is admitted to a mental hospital may now be incapable.
But the person admitted to a mental hospital is already covered by the NICS rules, without this amendment. Finally, let's look at how someone who is declared unfit can restore their rights.
We propose to provide these individuals with a process by which they can apply for relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions and ... we propose ... to require an applicant for relief to submit written statements and any other evidence regarding the applicant’s reputation.
So, if I am on social security, it is not enough to meet the "normal person" standards for securing my rights, I have to have other people vouch for my reputation?

Let me repeat my principle. If the government restricts the constitutional rights of citizens in order for them to receive government money, that law is illegal and unconstitutional. It is monetary coercion by the government.

Case number two. The Johnson amendment requires charities to give up their first amendment rights (by prohibiting them from endorsing a candidate) or to give up their tax exempt status. And yes, even corporations have first amendment rights.

The justification is that if a tax-exempt organization could say "We're ready for Hillary" or "Make America Great Again" that would effective mean the government was subsidizing candidates' campaigns. But that assumes that the money being donated to these organizations "belongs to" the government somehow, and that the government is giving that money to them, and that simply is not true.

Let's assume I give $100 to my local church, and my tax rate is 30%. According to some, I actually gave $70 to the church, and the government gave $30. In reality, I gave $100 to my local church. The following April I file my taxes and the government gives me, not the church, the $30, with which I can do what I want. So the money has not, in fact, been given to the church, since I could give the $30 to whomever I please (perhaps to a political candidate my church disapproves of). The fact is, at the end of the day, I get the money, and I control where it goes. How is the government subsidizing my local church any more than if, say, I was receiving welfare or social security, and I gave part of that money to my local church? I am the one directing money that I control, not the government.

Ironically, the government's role in this "subsidy" is far more remote than the subsidy of contraceptives and abortifacients by the Little Sisters of the Poor, with which the Obama administration and it's fans saw no problem at all.

No, the real effect of the Johnson amendment is to stifle political speech by churches. Why do I single out churches, specifically? Because big corporations are able to set up 501(c)(4) sister corporations, which can endorse candidates, often with the same employees. So Cecile Richards can go to a Planned Parenthood Awards dinner and freely stump for Hillary, because she is also working for Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In fact, Planned Parenthood can endorse and fund raise for Planned Parenthood Action Fund without losing their tax exempt status.

Remember when Cardinal Dolan was panned for offering to appear at the RNC convention but not the DNC convention? Of course, he had offered to speak at both, but the media said otherwise and the backlash was intense until the truth came out. So we have created a political climate in which certain organizations can, if they have the money and are on the "right side" of things in the media, pay the government to buy back their first amendment rights, and others (primarily religious) cannot.


"But Mike" you say "Do you really want to let dangerous mentally ill people, or perhaps parkinsons patients who have unsteady hands and paranoia, to have guns?" No, of course not. "Do you really want to have less transparency into political candidate financing?" No, of course not. But a bad law is a bad law. Find a different way to achieve the ends, one that does not strip constitutional rights from people.