Dean Cook – Page 2

Transporting A Firearm By Airplane

“The threat of sudden destruction, of unpredictable retaliation for unnamed offenses, is a much more potent means of enslavement than explicit dictatorial laws. It demands more than mere obedience; it leaves men no policy save one: to please the authorities; to please—blindly, uncritically, without standards or principles; to please—in any issue, matter or circumstance, for fear of an unknowable, unprovable vengeance.” (“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason”, Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html)

Introduction and Disclaimer

(This is a fictional story that I 100% made up, and it sooooo DID NOT happen. Any resemblance to any persons, living or dead, specifically, me, is purely coincidental.)

This summer, I took a vacation to Miami, Florida. I was going to drive there, but I got sick the night before I was to leave. I originally planned to depart Thursday morning, but I was in no condition to drive Thursday. I decided to purchase a plane ticket Friday to make up for the lost time.

I would have carried a gun in a car, as I was driving through “gun-friendly” Southern states that all recognize my Texas gun license or that do not require a permit at all. This is common when I travel by car. If I can legally travel with a gun, then it is very likely I will do so. The gun is part of the kit of safety items I like to have in a car. Other items in my car include: (1) small fire extinguisher, (2) road flares, (3) first aid kit, (4) gas can, (5) sleeping bag, (6) candle (in winter time), (7) matches.

Florida recently changed its gun laws to allow for concealed carry without a permit. In fact, the law changed while I was there, on July 1. (https://www.flgov.com/2023/04/03/governor-ron-desantis-signs-hb-543-constitutional-carry/) However, before July 1, I was legal to carry in Florida because the state recognizes my Texas gun license. (https://www.fdacs.gov/Consumer-Resources/Concealed-Weapon-License/Concealed-Weapon-License-Reciprocity)

I believe there is an element of arbitrariness in the rules and regulations regarding transporting a gun on an airplane. Proceed at your own risk, after doing your own research, or consulting with an attorney. (By way of disclaimer: Don’t take anything I say as legal advise, I’m just some dude on the Internet, yada, yada, yada…)

Researching It Ahead of Time

I’ve known for years that you can technically check a firearm as luggage on most airlines, but I was always hesitant to do that because I didn’t want to accidentally run afoul of some random and unknown law or regulation.

Not only do you have to be familiar with the gun laws of the state you are flying from, you also have to know the laws of the state you are flying to. For instance, I would never, under any circumstances, try to check a gun when flying to any of the states in the Northeastern United States or the West Coast. I believe that being in possession of a handgun without proper permitting and licensing in New York is a felony, and although I might be able to legally check it under Federal law, once I land in New York, I am subject to that state’s highly arbitrary, capricious, and draconian gun laws.

I had lived in the State of Florida for several years as a law student, and had actually possessed a Florida concealed carry permit at that time. I was reasonably familiar with the laws, and with my ability to look them up online and confirm what I could and could not do while carrying a gun in Florida.

For this reason, in this situation, the only laws that were a cause for concern for me were the Federal laws regarding the transport of firearms on an airplane. I did some online research, and looked at the Transportation Safety Administration rules. Surprisingly, the TSA has a web page regarding the transport of firearms, and it provides relatively clear guidance. (https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition )

I also looked at my airline’s web site, which, in this case, was Southwest Airlines. (https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment) Southwest provides pretty good guidance on what type of case to put the unloaded firearm in (a hard, locked container that is of sufficient strength to withstand normal handling), as well as how to package your ammo (securely packed in cardboard, wood, or metal boxes designed for carrying small amounts of ammo).

I would recommend flying on Southwest Airlines, or some other airline based in Texas or one of the Southern states, if you plan on transporting a gun by plane. I believe the people working there are more likely to be from Texas or a state with a “gun-culture”, so the employees you deal with will be less likely to be nervous around firearms.

The Gun I Transported To Florida

I decided to take my Smith and Wesson Airweight .38 revolver. (https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-442) It only holds five rounds, and is a relatively small caliber weapon, but it is easily concealable, and comfortable to carry. It also has a nice, heavy trigger pull, which I prefer. It’s a revolver, which I think makes it less “scary” to people. I also think that it is more likely to be a “legal” gun in more jurisdictions. I wouldn’t have to worry about some obscure state law regarding magazine capacity bans, for instance. But, the main reason I went with the revolver is because it’s a fairly inexpensive gun, so if it got lost or stolen, I wouldn’t be that upset about it.

How I Packed My Gun And Ammunition For Transport

I used a small aluminum gun case, about a foot wide by about eight inches tall, with a combination lock built into it. Inside the case was foam to cushion the gun. It was similar to, although not exactly the same as, this.

I was somewhat uncertain on how to pack the ammunition. The rules on the TSA web site were not entirely clear to me. I knew the gun had to be unloaded, but how to store the ammunition? The TSA web site said: “For civil enforcement purposes, TSA also considers a firearm to be loaded when both the firearm and ammunition are accessible to the passenger.” https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition Did this mean that the ammunition needed to be in a separate container entirely from the firearm? Or, was the context TSA was talking about there for whether a firearm was loaded when you tried to go into the secure area of the airport? I thought this is what they meant, but I didn’t want to rely on something so vague. Fortunately, further down, on the same web page, TSA says: “Ammunition may be transported in the same hard-sided, locked case as a firearm if it has been packed as described above.” Southwest also said the same: “The ammunition may be placed in the same container as the firearm…” https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment The TSA web site also referenced actual federal regulations on the matter: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-175#175.10

Additionally, the TSA web site said that: “Small arms ammunition (up to .75 caliber and shotgun shells of any gauge) must be packaged in a fiber (such as cardboard), wood, plastic, or metal box specifically designed to carry ammunition and declared to your airline.” https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition I thought that the cardboard box that you buy ammunition in would qualify, although I was not 100% certain on that. This is what I chose to do. To be really certain, I think I’d get a dedicated plastic box meant for holding ammunition, if doing it again. Something like this.

Flying Out of Dallas Love Field

Love Field is the primarily airport that Southwest Airlines uses out of the Dallas area. Checking the gun here was fairly easy.

Southwest has electronic kiosks that allow you to print out the tags to put on your luggage yourself. I approached one of these, and got the stickers that go around the handle of the suitcase. I got one for my suitcase and one for the gun case.

I had called up a friend who is a shooting instructor that day and asked him if he had flown with a gun checked in luggage before, and he said he had. I said I was planning on checking the gun case as a separate piece of luggage.

Southwest says that you can put the gun case inside your suitcase if you want, but I was nervous about that. The reason being is if the gun case was inside my suitcase, I might forget to declare it. If you do not declare it, I believe this is a criminal offense, although I could not find the specific statute that says this. At any rate, when TSA x-rays the luggage, they will see the gun, and you will not have a good time, regardless of whether you get arrested. (And, I’m sure you’ll get arrested.)

I told my friend about this concern, and he pointed out that having the gun case out on its own was going to make it obvious I was checking a firearm, which might make it more likely to get stolen by someone working at the airport, plus it would make the airport employees more nervous to see the gun case. I thought this was also a valid point, but I decided this was less of a danger than forgetting to declare the gun at the ticket counter.

So, anyway, I got the stickers for the gun case and my suitcase at the electronic kiosk, I then walked up to the line to the ticket counter. There was a Southwest employee standing at the end of the line, and he asked me what was in the gun case. (It was pretty obvious it was a gun case, because it was too small to be anything else.) I said “firearm” in as flat and calm a voice as I could. This was my only problem at Love Field. The Southwest employee said something like: “You were supposed to check that over there,” and he motioned with his hand to someplace non-descript. Then he added: “But, you can do it here, too”. This was a point of confusion for me. Southwest says: “You must declare the gun at the ticket counter…”(https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment ) But, I wasn’t sure what “the ticket counter” was. Is that the electronic kiosks that issues your boarding pass and the stickers for the luggage? I hadn’t seen an option on the computer to declare the firearm. I assumed the “ticket counter” was where you checked your luggage. This Southwest employee seemed to think there was some other place, but he never specified. This is exactly the sort of problem you are likely to encounter when transporting a gun by plane. The employees and law enforcement at the airport don’t seem to know the law or the rules, and there is an element of arbitrariness in them because things like “ticket counter” are not well-defined. You risk arrest and prosecution because words are subject to conflicting interpretations.

I waited my turn in the luggage check-in line, and was initially helped by a younger woman. I held up the gun case and said: “This is a firearm I need to declare.” The younger woman called over an older woman who was presumably her supervisor. The older woman explained to her what she needed to do. The older woman handed me a small slip of paper about the size of an index card that said “Southwest Airlines Firearms Declaration Tag”, and had a spot for my name and address, as well as my airline flight number. On the back was a series of statements that said things like “The firearm chamber is free of ammunition”, with a place to sign at the bottom. I signed the card and handed it back to the older woman. She said: “Do you want to put the gun case inside your suit case?” I said: “I can if you want me to.” She said something like: “It’s better that way because a little case like yours is likely to walk off somewhere.” I unlocked my suit case, and the Southwest employee put the gun in there. She tossed the firearms declaration card on top of the gun case, which surprised me a bit, since it might become separated from the gun case during transit. I told the Southwest employee the lock on the suitcase was TSA-compliant, so they should be able to open it without any problem, then closed and locked my suitcase.

From there, I headed to the security checkpoint, and passed through that, which isn’t too difficult for me, because I have the TSA pre-check ID number.

Flying Out of Miami International Airport

I got so nervous about flying back from Miami International Airport, I considered either shipping the gun back to Texas, or selling it at a pawn shop.

Both of those options would have been difficult, however. My understanding is I cannot ship a gun unless it is done through a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer. I wasn’t even sure that an out of state person in Florida could sell a gun at a pawnshop.

I also thought about buying a screwdriver and taking the gun apart before putting it in the gun case, but I was concerned that might cause me to run afoul of some law. For all I knew, transporting gun parts might have a completely separate set of arbitrary and capricious regulations.

The ammunition was also a concern to me. How sure was I about that box I was transporting it in? Had I actually read on the TSA web site that you could put the ammo box in the same hard, locked case as the gun, or had I just imagined that? I thought about getting rid of the ammo, but how would I do that and not potentially run into legal trouble? Maybe there was some obscure law I didn’t know about for disposing of ammunition?

The reason I was nervous is that although Florida can be considered a Southern State up around the panhandle area, that becomes less and less true the further south you travel. By the time you reach Miami, you are in a Latin American cultural area. I suspected that my time checking a gun at Miami International Airport was going to be more difficult, and that if I made any inadvertent mistakes, it was far more likely that I’d get fully prosecuted by overzealous law enforcement.

I went down to the public computer room at the hotel I was staying at, and reviewed the Southwest Airlines rules and TSA rules on gun and ammunition transport again. I also printed them out so that I could carry them with me when I went to the airport.

After that, I decided I’d just move forward with transporting the gun and ammunition as I had when traveling from Texas. I decided that the mere possibility that some government bureaucrat would try to prosecute me on some non-objective and poorly defined law or regulation was not going stop me from living my life.

Miami International Airport was definitely more nerve-racking. I carried the gun case outside my suitcase as I had before, in order to ensure I would not forget to declare it at the ticket counter.

Something I did differently was to put an Apple AirTag inside the gun case. so that I could potentially track it on my phone, if I needed to. This actually worked, as I could see the AirTag on my phone when I was waiting for my luggage at Love Field, upon my return.

I approached a Southwest employee and asked if the luggage check place was the “ticket counter”. I made sure to use the exact phrase “ticket counter”, since Southwest says “You must declare the gun at the ticket counter…” ( https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment ) The employee confirmed that. There would then be less of a question that I had gone to what a Southwest employee told me was the “ticket counter”. When it was my turn, I approached the Southwest employee behind the counter at the baggage check, held up the gun case, and said, “I’m checking a firearm.”

The lady at the counter didn’t seemed fazed by it. She gave me a firearms declaration card, which was the same as the one at Love Field. I filled it out, and signed the back again. She took some tape, and taped the card to the outside of the gun case, which made a lot more sense to me. I then asked her if she wanted to put the gun case inside my suitcase. She answered in the affirmative. After that, I though I’d be done. At Love Field, they had taken my suitcase with the gun case in it and just tossed it on the baggage carousel. But, a guy approached me, and the woman said I should go with him and take the suitcase with me. I said okay, and followed the guy, who was a TSA employee. We walked to a door, where another TSA employee came out. I handed the suitcase to the other TSA guy, who said “wait here.” I thought he was talking to the first TSA guy, so I said: “Do you need anything else from me?” He said: “I said you need to wait here.” So, I stood there. The first guy who had escorted me went inside the room with the other TSA guy, but then came back out and stood next to me. It definitely felt like I was being investigated or detained by law enforcement. My TSA escort had a fairly heavy Latin American accent of some sort, which made him difficult to understand. I thought he asked me something about whether I had been to Boston or New York. I told him: “No, I flew here from Texas. I was on vacation here, only in Miami.” I suspected he was trying to get me to say that I had been in Boston or New York because of their draconian gun laws, or because the Feds are on the lookout for gun smugglers to those states. About ten minutes later, the TSA agent inside the room came back out, gave me the thumbs up, and said: “You’re good to go.” I said thanks, and the other TSA agent walked me over to the TSA checkpoint for entering the secured area of the airport. I fully expected to get called on the PA system at some point, while I waiting for my flight. I wasn’t really comfortable until I was in the air, on my way back to Texas.

I wonder what the TSA guy inside the room was doing? I’m guessing he opened my suitcase, and examined the gun case. He didn’t have the combination, so he couldn’t have opened the gun case unless he somehow guessed the combination or could somehow pick the lock. I suspect he tossed my suitcase, checking for any loose rounds that I hadn’t properly packed. I am not sure what would have happened if he had found one, since I don’t know what the penalty would be for that. For all I know, it’s a felony to have loose ammunition in your suitcase. Again, it’s the arbitrariness and the plethora of laws that make this whole process unnerving.

Notes To Self, If I Transport a Gun By Plane Again

I am not sure that I’d do this again. I think the risk of arbitrary prosecution under arbitrary and capricious governmental regulations is probably not worth it. (And, of course, this is all just a fictional story I made up, that definitely did not happen.) I didn’t really think there was a need to carry the gun most of the time while in Miami. I certainly didn’t think I needed it inside the hotel I was staying at. But, if I were going to do this in the future, I have created the following “guidelines” for myself:

Fly on an airline based in a gun-friendly state.

Check a gun you don’t mind getting stolen or lost.

Check a revolver because it’s less “scary” to people.

Take a picture of the gun’s serial number on your phone so that you can easily report it as lost or stolen.

Turn on your phone’s video-recorder at the airport, and at least get audio of the whole check-in process. (But, make sure you are not running afoul of any wiretap or other recording statutes doing this.)

Put an Apple AirTag in The Gun Case

Dress business casual, or better, and have a clean-cut appearance.

Check and double-check that the gun is actually unloaded and in the locked gun case before you leave for the airport.

Don’t bring any carryon items on the airplane, so that there is no chance you inadvertently have a gun or ammunition when you go through the TSA security checkpoints.

Make sure there are no loose ammunition rounds in your suitcase or on your person before you go to the airport. Count out how many rounds you take with you, and make sure they are properly stored before going to the airport.

Buy an ammunition container instead of using the container the rounds come in at the store.

Be polite and courteous to the people at the airport, but be firm regarding your legal right to do what you are doing. Do not volunteer any information you are not legally required to give. Assume that law enforcement, TSA personnel, and airline staff are not your friends, and assume they will not cut you a break if you screw up.

Deal with airline personnel as much as possible, and make them your initial point of contact, rather than TSA or law enforcement officers. You are a customer to airline personnel, whereas TSA and law enforcement sees everyone as a potential criminal. For instance, if you are looking for the Southwest ticket counter to declare the firearm, approach a Southwest employee and ask them, not a TSA official or a cop.

Print out the rules from the airline web site and the TSA web site on transporting firearms and ammunition, highlight the relevant language, and carry it with you. If airline personnel or TSA question any of your decisions regarding how to package the firearm or ammunition, show them the rules you followed.

The Fields of Grammar, Logic, and Epistemology: What Are Their Similarities and Differences?

I’ve been studying Spanish with a good bit of dedication lately. I had taken some Spanish courses in college, and I tend to be around a lot of Spanish-speakers in my professional environment. I would like to have the ability to converse with native speakers in another language, and, given my preexisting knowledge base in Spanish, I decided to start with that.

When studying Spanish grammar, I was realizing that my English grammar knowledge was a little rusty. Like most adults, I can implicitly use proper grammar most of the time because saying it a certain way “just feels right”. But, I have difficulty saying why a particular word combination in a sentence is the grammatically correct combination. For instance, saying: “the brown dog ran,” is correct in English, not: “the dog brown ran”. (In Spanish, this is what you would say: “El perro marrón corrió.”)

Thinking about grammar then got me to thinking about what, exactly, is the difference between it and epistemology? It also reignited a question I asked myself years ago, but I don’t think I ever explicitly answered. How is epistemology different from logic? Both grammar and logic seem to be similar to epistemology, but also seem to be different and serving different functions. This is a comparison and contrast of the three with an attempt by me to subsume them under a broader category.

Definition of Epistemology

A standard dictionary definition of epistemology is the following:

“the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology

According to Objectivism, the connection of our concepts to reality is an important aspect of the study of epistemology:

“The issue of concepts (“known as the problem of universals”) is philosophy’s central issue. Since man’s knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of man’s knowledge depends on the validity of concepts. But, concepts are abstractions or universals, and everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to something real, something that exists- or are they merely inventions of man’s mind, arbitrary constructs or loose approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?” (“Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, “Forward”, Ayn Rand)

Everything I know about this field is through my study of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, so I will approach it from that standpoint. If someone has a different viewpoint, or thinks that epistemology represents something else, I am happy to hear what they have to say, however Ayn Rand’s discussion of concept formation in “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” does seem to relate to the mainstream definition of epistemology from the dictionary quoted above. Whether concepts refer to something in reality does seem to have to do with “…grounds of knowledge…” and “…its limits and validity…”.

Epistemology doesn’t seem to relate to any particular knowledge, but to “knowledge” in general or “knowledge” considered as a concept itself. It asks how does any concept that exists in our head come to be in the first place? It presents a particular mental methodology, or “roadmap”, for how to form valid concepts. For instance, we can have a concept of “ghost”, but most people would say that is not a valid concept, while a concept of “atom” is a valid concept. The former refers to nothing real, while the later refers to something that there is good scientific evidence for the existence of. That implies a methodology for validating concepts. Epistemology would be concerned with that mental methodology.

There are other mental methodologies that don’t refer to anything concrete in reality, but seem to serve a similar purpose of validating certain content. Two of these are “logic” and “grammar”.

Definition of Logic

Logic is defined in the dictionary as:

“a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning…” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

Logic concerns a method of dealing with propositions to determine their validity. (Propositions being made up of individual concepts.) For instance: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” That is a particular way of arranging propositions leading to a valid conclusion.

Note that when I discussed the concept of “atom” above, I said that can be shown to be valid using scientific evidence. The existence of atoms was inferred from various scientific experiments and observations. Democritus inferred the existence of atoms through the use of a thought experiment and decided that there had to be a point beyond which you couldn’t divide something, and called that indivisible unit an “atom”. But, he didn’t have any actual experimental observations to verify that. John Dalton noted that chemical compounds, no matter the amount of that particular compound, always had the same ratio of elements in them, which also suggested an indivisible unit for each element contained in a compound. (I’d also note that what would be considered valid scientific evidence seems to be connected more to the field of “logic” than “epistemology”.)

Definition of Grammar

Grammar is defined in the dictionary as:

“…the study of the classes of words, their inflections (see inflection sense 2), and their functions and relations in the sentence…”

“a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection (see inflection sense 2) and syntax (see syntax sense 1)…” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grammar

Grammar deals with the study of the different types of words in language and how words are arranged into sentences and paragraphs to make a coherent writing or speech. For instance, grammar classifies words according to whether they are “verbs”, “nouns” , “adjectives”, or “adverbs”. It also studies how these different categories of words are used in conjunction with each-other to produce a coherent sentence, such as the “subject” and the “predicate” in a sentence.

Grammar would also be connected to logic and epistemology. A series of words could be a valid group of concepts without being grammatically or logically correct. Simply stating a string of valid concepts does not form a grammatical or logical sentence. Randomly saying: “grass, book, runs, red, girl” is not a coherent sentence. If you arrange the words so that they say: “The girl with red hair runs through the grass with a book,” then you’ve said a coherent sentence. You could also state a grammatically correct sentence that would be disconnected from anything in reality: “The ‘slog’ with the ‘tig’ ‘grosh’ ‘blarns’ through the ‘gald’ with a ‘igot’.” Here, I’ve substituted non-sense words with the original sentence. It’s still grammatically correct, but it has no connection to reality, because the words don’t represent valid concepts.

What should we call areas like grammar, logic, and epistemology, that all seem to deal with a set of mental methods for dealing with or arranging certain mental content according to certain rules or standards?

Ayn Rand says these are “concepts of consciousness”. Just as one can form a concept of some external phenomena, like “rock”, “bird”, or “planet”, so too can you form a concept based on certain psychological phenomena. For instance, “love” is a concept formed by isolating two or more instances of the psychological phenomena, that is, instances when you feel some form of “love”, then retaining its distinguishing characteristics, while omitting the object and the measurements of the process’s intensity. So, you might feel some love for your pet, and you might also feel a more intense form of love for your wife. What you feel for the pet is less intense than what you feel for your wife (hopefully), but the feeling is similar. From these two introspectively observed psychological phenomena, you can then retain the distinguishing characteristics, the feeling, but omit the intensity of the feeling, and then define love as something like: “A feeling of positive esteem for someone or something.” (You can also probably just define love ostensively, by demonstration, in terms of the feeling which you feel. This is similar to how you know the feeling of “pain” without needing to give it a verbal definition, or you know the color “blue” just by pointing to examples.)

In her book “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Ayn Rand goes on to say that certain categories of concepts of consciousness “…require special consideration. These are concepts pertaining to the products of psychological processes, such as ‘knowledge’, ‘science’, ‘idea’, etc.” (“Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, “Concepts of Consciousness”, Ayn Rand)

She then says that a sub-category of concepts pertaining to the products of psychological processes can be characterized as “concepts of method”. She seems to distinguish this sub-category by the fact that concepts of method are systematic courses of action devised to achieve certain goals, where the action can be entirely psychological, or it can involve physical action, too. Unlike concepts such as “the science of physics” or “knowledge”, a concept of method is aimed at achieving a particular goal. (Id.) An example of a concept of method would presumably by something like “the scientific method”, which allows for adding content to the concept that is “the science of physics”.

Logic is then a concept of method aimed at achieving knowledge, in any subject, through systematic and non-contradictory identification. Epistemology is a concept of method aimed at showing a connection between the concepts in one’s head and the facts of reality, such as by showing that abstractions are ultimately the product of observed concretes through a process of measurement-omission. Grammar “…is a science dealing with the formulation of the proper methods of verbal expression and communication, i.e., the methods of organizing words (concepts) into sentences.” (Id.)

Hopefully this little foray into the topic of grammar, epistemology, and logic, and how I think they are related to each other, has been useful.

White Collar Crime and Race

On at least two occasions, I’ve heard the following reply to my pointing out that a disproportionate amount of the violent crimes, such as murder, robbery and rape are committed by non-whites in the United States. (In other words, even though blacks make up about 14 percent of the population, in some years, about half of all murder and non-negligent manslaughter is committed by someone categorized racially as black.)

The retort I’ve heard, at least twice, is: “White people commit more white-collar crimes.”

I didn’t consider this to be a particularly great response because: (a) I was only talking about violent crime, so this is dropping the context of the discussion, and (b) I don’t consider “white collar” crime to be a major problem. That’s just money. I do consider people loosing their lives to violence to be a bigger problem.

I had always assumed that this assertion was correct. Now, I am not so sure. Looking at FBI crime statistics broken down by race for 2011, we can see the number of people arrested by race for various crimes. This includes rows for “Forgery and counterfeiting”, “Fraud”, and “Embezzlement”. All three of these I would characterize as “white collar crimes”. For Fraud, the percentage of whites arrested for fraud is 66.5 percent, while the percentage of blacks arrested for fraud is 31.8 percent. The percentage break-downs for forgery and counterfeiting and embezzlement are about the same. Again, since blacks only make up about 14 percent of the population, the percentage of total crime that this racial group “should” be committing is about 14 percent. The fact that it is running around 31 percent, means its about twice as high as what it would be if each racial group was committing the amount of crime “representative” of its portion of the population. (At least, this is how I see it, but I am not great at math.)

Now, maybe there are studies that define “white collar crime” differently, such that it is limited to a particular subset of fraud and embezzlement, where whites do in fact commit more “white collar crime”. I have a hypothesis on this that I’d like to see tested. I suspect this is more about access than inclination of blacks versus whites to commit such crime. When we think “white collar crime”, we think of people who are in positions of financial, legal, or corporate responsibility at a business. White collar criminals are probably more educated and have worked their way up the corporate ladder sufficiently to be in a position to commit a white collar crime. For instance, an accountant at a corporation is in a position to “cook the books” and embezzle money more easily than, say, a janitor. What racial group are most accountants? They are mostly white, with Asians probably in a close second. In fact, according to this article, fewer than one percent of all CPA’s employed by firms are black. If you gave all people, of all races, the same amount of opportunity to commit “white collar crime”, what would the results be?

I also think it’s entirely possible that a black person who has worked hard enough to become sufficiently educated to be a CPA is actually less likely than a white CPA to commit a crime. I could see the black CPA’s reasoning as follows:

“I’ve seen all the criminals and thugs around me as I’ve been growing up. I didn’t work this hard and put up with all those criminals through the inner-city schools to be like them. So, I will always be very honest and law-abiding.”

In other words, the black, educated professional may have more desire to separate himself from the disproportionate levels of violent crime, and, apparently, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement, that are being committed by other black people. This would be an interesting thing to see an honest study about. But, since most academics in the social sciences have a Marxist-mindset, with a left-wing ideological axe to grind, we may never know.

Murder of Tech Company Founder Bob Lee in San Francisco

This is an awful story that is getting almost no coverage. He was stabbed in an apparent robbery, and died after bystanders refused to help him.

A beautiful city has become a playground for criminals and insane people to prey on the law-abiding. San Francisco, until recent court decisions, was a city you could not get a permit to carry a pistol in. Respectable people in the Bay Area should obtain a pistol permit and learn how to use a gun.

“Money Shot: The Pornhub Story” – Review

An interesting look into the modern pornography industry and how the Internet changed how pornography is distributed and monetized.

The documentary also spends time addressing the dangers around modern internet pornography, specifically nonconsensual sexually explicit imagery that is making its way onto sites like porn hub. (When I say ‘nonconsensual’, I mean people under 18, or people being forced to produce such material.)

These issues are looked at in a fair-minded manner. While I am 100% in favor of freedom of speech and the rights of consenting adults to produce and consume sexually explicit material, it is also clear to me that there needs to be policing and enforcement by government to effectively prevent nonconsensual sexual material from being presented for profit on sites such as porn hub.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81406118

Three Different Methods of Presenting Material In An Introductory Biology Textbook

I have been reading portions of the textbook, Campbell Biology, 12^th Edition, Urry, Cain, Wasserman, Minorsky, Orr, as part of the second semester of a Biology for science majors course I have been taking at the local community college. The textbook has different approaches to presenting different concepts. Three of those approaches are discussed here. (These may not be exhaustive of the methods used to convey ideas in the book -they are just ones that I noticed as I’ve been reading it.)

First Method: Abstract

Some of the material is presented in a very abstract way. For instance, Concept 11.4 “Cellular response: Cell signaling leads to regulation of transcription or cytoplasmic activities” is discussed in the following way:

Note how this section used a lot of complicated jargon. It doesn’t explain how the process it describes could be related to any experiment or physical demonstration to show it working. It just abstractly describes how a cell responds to an extracellular signal that causes a particular gene in the cell’s DNA to start encoding for a particular protein. Your only choice here is basically to memorize the process described, learn the jargon, and then repeat it on a test.

Second Method: Experimental

Some other material in the book is more of a description of the experiments that led to a particular scientific concept. For instance, Figure 15.3, “Inquiry” gives the basic outline of an experiment that was performed to determine that a particular gene for a particular characteristic in fruit flies was located on the X chromosome. (A sex chromosome):

If you follow the explanation presented above, it leads to a very elegant, and easy-to-understand explanation of how they arrived at their conclusion, in my opinion.

Another example of the same approach is seen in a section called “Apoptosis in the Soil Worm Caenohabditis elegans”:

The above discusses an experiment biologists performed on a type of worm to study the phenomena of “apoptosis”, that is, when a cell is programed to self-destruct for the overall benefit of the organism. The above explains that scientists noticed that the “suicide” of cells in this species occurred exactly 131 times during the normal development of this worm. From this, they were able to determine which genes were involved in programing the proteins that cause cell death.

It does not give the specific details of how they determined these were the genes, but it has given a sufficient overall outline, that, for me, the concept was clear: There are certain genes that trigger, after a certain amount of time, and cause the production of proteins that tell particular cells to self-destruct.

Third Method: Historical

The third major method of presenting concepts in the book that I noticed could be described as a “historical” approach. For instance, Chapter 22 “Descent with Modification: A Darwinian View of Life” gives a very historical explanation of Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection.

It starts out by describing the history of biology before Darwin. For instance, it discusses Aristotle’s “scala naturae” by saying:

“Aristotle (384-322 BCE), viewed species as fixed (unchanging). Through his observations of nature, Aristotle recognized certain ‘affinities’ among organisms. He concluded that life-forms could be arranged on a ladder, or scale, of increasing complexity, later called the scala naturae (“scale of nature”). Each form of life, perfect and permanent, had its allotted rung on the ladder.”

It then goes on to describe the classification that Carolous Linneas came up with, which used a binomial, two-part system to name species. It then discusses the ideas of Georges Culvier, one of the first paleontologists. He noted that much of the earth was laid out with strata, or layers of rock. He also noted that more dissimilar life forms were located further down, in the older layers of rock. Then geologists started thinking that the Earth was much older than 2,000 years, which suggested there had been enough time for organisms to change from one form to another gradually over time.

The text then discusses a pre-Darwinian concept of evolution based on the idea that organisms that repeatedly use a particular characteristic make it grow stronger, and then that strengthened character gets passed on to their children. (Lamarckian Evolution) This turned out to be largely incorrect, but it was part of the “idea back drop”, or context, from which Darwin was thinking when he came up with his own ideas.

From there, the text discusses Darwin’s voyages on the Beagle, and how that allowed him to confirm the geological ideas of people like James Hutton and Charles Lyell, as well as Georges Culvier. The book then discusses the finches, with different beaks, that Darwin noticed on the Galapagos Islands, and how these birds were similar to a species of finch found on the mainland. This suggested they had come from the mainland, and had changed over time to adapt to the use of different resources. From all of this, Darwin came up with two general observations:

(1) Members of a population often vary in their inherited traits.

(2) All species can produce more offspring than their environment can support, and many of these offspring fail to survive and reproduce.

The book probably could have spent a little bit more time on describing the ideas of Thomas Malthus, which, it is my understanding, is where Darwin got the idea of resources being scarce, and that organisms reproduce past the “carrying capacity” of a particular environment.

The book then went on to say that, based on these observations, Darwin drew two inferences:

(1) Individuals whose inherited characteristics give them a higher probability of surviving and reproducing in a given environment tend to leave more offspring than do other individuals.

(2) This unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will lead to the accumulation of favorable traits in the population over generations.

My point here is not to critique particular sections of the textbook. (Although my particular preferences in terms of how I think scientific material should be presented probably comes through here.) My point is simply to give illustrative examples of what I think are three different ways this particular Biology textbook presents material to the average Biology student. I am not a scientist or a teacher, so I will leave it to others to decide which of these methods of writing a Biology or science textbook is the best. Perhaps all have their place, but the differences in method of presentation should at least be recognized and considered.

My Experience With A Sedation-Free Colonoscopy

At some point I’ve meant to blog about my first colonoscopy in April of 2022, but I haven’t gotten around to it. My general practice doctor told me that they now recommend colonoscopies for anyone over 45 every 10 years, so I decided to bite the bullet and do it.

(If you don’t like discussions of body anatomy, I’d skip reading the rest of this.)

I opted to have it done without anesthesia. In the rest of the world, most people do it without anesthesia, but they mostly do it with sedation in the US. I chose no anesthesia because I think there are long term side effects from it. My understanding is that anesthesia can cause dementia in older people. The connection between anesthesia and dementia is still debated by scientists, but if I can safely have a medical procedure without it, I’d rather err on the side of caution.

Finding a doctor in Dallas that would do it without anesthesia was difficult, but I finally found one. Looking back at my medical records, I believe his name was Dr. Ramakrishna V. Behara in Frisco, Texas. (Funny side note: I once went in to see a doctor, and they asked me who I was there to see. I said: “I don’t remember his name, but it’s the Indian one.” The girl at the front desk looked at me and said: “You’re going to have to be more specific than that.”) Anyway, I’m pretty sure this is the profile of the doctor who did my colonoscopy: https://www.bswhealth.com/physician/ramakrishna-behara He seemed knowledgeable and competent. I asked to meet with him at his office ahead of the procedure, and he agreed to do so. (I just needed to talk to the person who was going to be performing such a delicate procedure ahead of time, and look him in the eye.) I would recommend him if you are in the Dallas area, and are looking to do a sedation-free colonoscopy.

The night before, I had to fast and take a diarrhetic that kept me up all night on the toilet.

I had an early morning schedule at the hospital. I drove there, and they hooked up an IV, although I technically didn’t need one since I wasn’t using anesthetic. (They convinced me to ‘just in case’.)

After that I was wheeled into the room with the doctor and two nurses. I was facing a TV monitor with the camera view on it. I thought I’d watch and enjoy the show.

That changed once they started. I had to close my eyes and focus on my breathing once they stuck the device in. It felt similar to what I think having a vacuum cleaner tube up my rectum would feel like. It wasn’t painful, but it felt like I had to urgently defecate, but could not. The only pain I felt was when the muscles around my anal sphincter started to have cramps. I started saying “Oh god, oh god,” over and over, hoping it would be over soon. (I wasn’t sure how long colonoscopies lasted.) The nurse started patting me on the back, trying to soothe me, saying it was okay. Despite all that, the pain wasn’t bad. Like a session of bad cramps. (I think the nurses were more traumatized by my vocalizing discomfort than I was, lol.)

Afterward, I felt a great sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. I had overcome my fears. I do not like medical procedures, but as someone committed to the virtue of rationality as described by Ayn Rand, I recognize they are important to my long-term health and life, which is why I just did it, even though I had to somewhat ‘psych myself up’ to it. (I delayed several months getting up the nerve.) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

I drove myself to work after the procedure, but I stopped off for some pancakes at IHop. I was starving from my 12-hour fast. They were the best damn pancakes I’ve ever had.

The good news is, I don’t have to do it again for 10 years. I also was glad I opted for no anesthesia, and I plan on opting for no anesthesia next time.

I thought I’d write on this because I saw an article about high profile people dying of colon cancer in 2022. If you’re over 45, seriously consider getting this done, regardless of whether you decide to opt for anesthesia or not. The procedure can drastically reduce your chances of dying from colon cancer.

Stargate SG-1 Espisode: “Ascension” (Plot Spoilers)

Various episodes of “Stargate SG-1” will focus on particular characters for an episode. This episode focuses on Major Samantha Carter. She is a scientist/engineer who is somewhat of a “workaholic” with no social life. Although she and Colonel Jack O’Neil have some “sexual tension”, they cannot act on it because he is her commanding officer. Thus, she has no man in her life.
In “Ascension”, Carter encounters a mysterious man who appears to be following her. She is initially alarmed, but also intrigued by this good-looking stranger. She discovers that he is an alien who has taken human form because he has fallen in love with her. She finds herself slowly drawn to him during the episode because he is also a brilliant scientist, and her intellectual equal. (O’Neil, not so much.)
The military then finds out about him and is trying to capture him. Unbeknownst to any of them, he has been ordering things online on Samantha’s computer, and building something in her basement. When the military sends a special forces team to her house to capture him and extract his knowledge for use by the Pentagon, for possibly nefarious purposes, Samantha discovers that he has built a small Stargate in her basement. He uses it with Samantha to escape back to his home world to stop the military from stealing a weapon he mistakenly built a long time ago.
I thought this was a great episode. Very exciting. I also thought whoever wrote it had definitely read “Atlas Shrugged” recently, and possibly seen the movie “City of Angels“.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0709039/fullcredits/

“Thermae Romae Novae”

In this Japanese animation series, an ancient Roman bathhouse architect is magically transported to a modern-day Japanese bathhouse. When he returns to ancient Rome, an hour or so later, he begins adapting some of the ideas he learned to his own bathhouse designs.

The juxtaposition of time and place between these two cultures is quite interesting and enjoyable to watch. When the Roman first arrives in the modern Japanese bathhouse, he assumes he has somehow been pulled into the bathhouse of the slaves. He refers to the modern Japanese he meets as the “flat-faced slaves”. When he runs outside, he is confronted by modern automobiles. Without fully understanding what has happened, he then gets magically transported back to Ancient Rome, and adopts things he learned from the Japanese bathhouse.

In each episode, he magically and randomly transports to modern, or early-modern, Japan to visit a bathhouse. He then takes ideas back from his short trips. In one episode, he even assists a modern Japanese bathhouse architect who happens to be building a Roman-style bathhouse. (He humorously assumes these “flat-faced people” must have been recently conquered by Rome and are now building in the Roman style, as he never fully comprehends that he is time-traveling.)

This sort of dramatic Japanese animation that doesn’t involve martial arts or giant robots really appeals to me. It’s the sort of serious, adult-oriented animation that only the Japanese seem capable of writing.

“Alice In Borderland”

In “Alice In Borderland”, three friends mysteriously and suddenly find themselves in the same city they live in, but it is now mostly empty. They’re forced to play games of death with other people. Similar to “Squid Game”, but it came out before that. (They’re both similar to “Battle Royale” from the early 2000’s.)

I think the city-wide setting made for more interesting episodes than “Squid Game”. I also found the characters more interesting, with frequent flashbacks to their lives before the game. Season 2 came out on Netflix Dec. 22.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80200575