Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Growing the Arsenal

Posted

Back in June, Melissa and I made our first firearm purchase when we picked up a Smith & Wesson ‘Model 620’ .357/.38Spc. 7-shot revolver. The main reason we went for a revolver over a semi-automatic handgun was that Melissa was more comfortable with revolvers, and we wanted a home defense weapon that both of us were equally comfortable with. Also, revolvers require less maintenance. Woefully neglected revolvers that have sat in drawers unused and uncleaned for years-upon-years generally still go ‘bang’ when you pick them up and pull the trigger, and even if they don’t fire the first time clearing a misfire in an emergency is as easy as pulling the trigger again.

I, however, was more interested in a semi-automatic. Yes, they need a bit more care. Yes, clearing a misfire in an emergency requires a bit more effort (forcefully pulling back the slide and releasing it, basically). But in return you get a firearm that, in roughly the same sized package, can pack 12-17 rounds as opposed to a revolver’s 5-7 and can fire those rounds quicker. The difference is most pronounced when you look at compact weapons for concealed-carry, where the semi-automatics are narrower (easier to conceal) AND pack at least twice the ammo capacity (5 for compact revolvers vs. 10+ for compact semi-autos). This will be more important to me later, after I get a concealed carry permit.

Anyway, for my upcoming birthday Melissa took me to Virginia Arms in Manassas and we picked up a Smith & Wesson M&P 9. This will allow me to get real good and familiar with semi-automatics before eventually getting a compact, concealed carry weapon. Plus, now we can both be armed if necessary.

The gun (which comes with two 17-round magazines) was designed by Smith & Wesson to compete with Glock for the police market. Most of the specs between the M&P and the Glock 17 (my second-choice) are nearly identical, but the made-in-America M&P won on ‘creature comforts’. It comes with three different-sized back-straps which allow you to easily resize the grip to fit your hand. Most importantly for me, it is equipped with an ambidextrous slide lock and reversible magazine release. If you’re right-handed these things don’t matter—all guns are made for you in their default configuration. If you’re a lefty, this means you can lock the slide back and release the magazine just like everybody else without performing impressive arm/finger contortions. It’s a miracle.

I’m hoping to take it to the range and break it in tomorrow or, worst case, some time this coming week.

How To Alienate Your Customers

Posted

I’ve always known that Apple was a philosophically ‘liberal’ organization. Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO, is decidedly left-wing in his political views, as are many of the other company leaders. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I have no qualms about buying a product from a company or person with whom I have moral or political disagreements.

Steve Jobs, as an individual, can do whatever he wants with all the money he has made at the helms of Apple and Pixar. But I have an objection to the company putting its money toward political or moral causes—whether I agree or disagree with those causes—except when the company’s core business is directly impacted by government policy. In other words, I’m fine with Chrysler lobbying for or against vehicular safety laws. I’m fine with Google supporting or opposing Net Neutrality legislation. I’m not fine with Apple actively opposing California’s Proposition 8, which would prohibit gay marriage in the state.

I oppose the redefinition of marriage, and I especially oppose it when (like in California) the right to gay marriage is unconstitutionally fabricated by the courts rather than legally redefined by the legislature. But whether I agree or, as in this case, disagree with the political stance taken by a business, I find the idea of businesses engaging in public advocacy on controversial social issues distasteful on either side.

I’m not one to pronounce that I will ‘never buy Apple products again,’ but this is certainly an issue I will have to keep in mind when I consider my next computer purchase. I don’t want my computer purchase money going to political causes, especially ones with which I disagree, and I will have to consider whether Apple’s compelling products are worth more to me than the risk of my dollars potentially working against my beliefs.

Update 10/27/2008: It is worth noting that another major tech firm, Google, also publicly opposes California’s Prop. 8. I am less concerned in Google’s case, since very few individuals ever actually pay Google for anything (they get their money from businesses) and it is a less ‘personal’ affront. I am not directly giving money to a cause I disagree with by using Google services; I am when I buy Apple products.

Understanding Polling

Posted

The Associated Press has put out a very interesting piece explaining (in limited detail) how political polls are done and why they can produce wildly differing results. In this election, the variation is pretty impressive. In the last week, a Pew Research poll showed Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) ahead of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by 14 points. An AP poll showed the two candidates tied—a statistically insignificant 1 point lead for Obama.

The article, however, misses some important bits. For a long time pollsters did not call cell phones, which excluded those of us (like me) who don’t have land-lines entirely. Some polling organizations have begun including cellular customers, but there are still classes of people—introverts (like me) who don’t answer calls from numbers we don’t recognize, for example—that get excluded. Do these kinds of oversights affect the outcomes of the polls? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s hard to say whether introverts tend toward a particular candidate or not, especially since we don’t have much poll data on that ;-).

A million things can affect these polls. What time of day did they call people? People of different financial means tend to work different hours. Calls at dinner time might be ignored by families who eat dinner together. How were questions worded? They also (as the article explains) have to perform statistical adjustments for who is ‘likely’ to vote, but that can shift every year. For example, some pollsters are skewing the weighting for the African American vote higher this year on expectations that black turnout will be higher than in past years. In reality, these weightings are an educated guess that could easily be either right-on, underestimated, or overestimated.

All-in-all, one poll matters: the vote in November. These other ones are interesting, but they can be wrong. Don’t forget, everybody thought Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) would win the Democratic nomination in 2004 based on polls, but Senator John Kerry (D-MA) trounced him.

The Media’s Obama Love Affair

Posted

If you haven’t noticed what a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism report found, you haven’t been paying attention. Over the last six weeks or so, media coverage of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has been 36 percent positive, 35 percent neutral/mixed, and 29 percent negative. During the same period, media coverage of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was 15 percent positive, 28 percent neutral/mixed, and an incredible 57 percent negative.

I have no problem with people in the media liking Obama, nor do I have any problem with inevitable media bias, but I wish the ‘MSM’ would at least try to have a semblance of journalistic integrity and balance. Their love affair with Obama would be comical in a vacuum, but the media plays a big part of forming many peoples’ opinions of these candidates. Thus, the media has a responsibility—morally, not legally—to portray both candidates dispassionately and as fairly as possible.

“It’s the Economy, Stupid”

Posted

It is these words, according to many pundits, that won the election for President Bill Clinton (D) over incumbent President George Bush [Sr.] (R) in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid“. Bush enjoyed very high approval ratings during the first Gulf War, but as the war came to a close and the economy entered a recession the voters turned toward the candidate of ‘change’.

Bill Clinton, all-in-all, didn’t change much with the economy. The economy usually does its own thing and the government is best-advised to butt-out, which it has generally done through the last several Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, by most independent analysis, federal economic policy hasn’t changed very much since President Ronald Reagan (R) took office in 1981. But the erroneous perception that Clinton would ‘fix’ the country’s economic woes turned the tide in his favor, and the perception that Bush would leave things ‘broken’ doomed his campaign.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is now running the risk of following in Bush [Sr.]’s footsteps. As the representative of the incumbent party, McCain has an uphill climb in a time of economic weakness. He accurately paints Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) as a tax-and-spend liberal, but ultimately McCain has not differentiated his economic plan from Obama’s. In fact, when they squabble over the nuances of each-others’ plans, I’m struck by how similar they are. Yes, I believe McCain presents a better plan. Yes, given Obama’s inclination toward tax increases and big government, I doubt his promised tax cuts will ever actually be implemented (or, if they are, I doubt they will last very long).

But when both candidates voted a resounding ‘yes’ on an ill-advised 700 billion dollar bailout, I have a hard time identifying which candidate is the fiscal conservative. When both present new big-ticket bailout and government expansion plans for mortgages or health insurance or whatever else, I have a hard time figuring out which one is opposed to socialism.

I’m convinced that most Americans want a smaller government that interferes less with our economy and our lives. This is a classical conservative value that the Republican Party has abandoned under President George W. Bush (R) and the Democratic Party never believed in in the first place. McCain needs to champion these values to excite his own party’s ‘base’ and win the support of moderates who are frustrated with Washington’s fiscal policy. But time is running out, and fiscal conservative voters are rightly suspicious of McCain in light of his very public support for economic interventionism. Put us at ease, Senator McCain, and do it fast. If you don’t, you are very likely to lose this election.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.