What We’re Up Against Regarding Guns

The governor of Arizona has signed a law that requires guns acquired in gun buy-back programs to be sold. If a police department in Arizona buys your gun in order to reduce the likelihood that it will be used to commit a crime (such as shooting a police officer), they can’t destroy it. They have to sell it to a gun dealer, who can then resell it and return it to its rightful place in the community.

Police had argued that they were allowed to destroy guns acquired in such programs, even though an earlier Arizona law required that they sell any guns seized during crimes. The NRA and gun fanatics argued that destroying valuable weaponry is wasteful.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ariz-bill-requiring-resale-buyback-guns-signed

George Eliot and Gary Larson Knew Something About Life

From The Far Side, by the consistently brilliant Gary Larson:

From Daniel Deronda, by the often brilliant George Eliot:

[Note: Daniel is now immersed in the the question whether a Jewish state should be established (the novel is set around 1875). Gwendolen has married a controlling, unlovable aristocrat.] 

“And Gwendolen? She was thinking of Deronda much more than he was thinking of her — often wondering what were his ideas ‘about things’, and how his life was occupied.

But … it was as far from Gwendolen’s conception that Deronda’s life could be determined by the historical destiny of the Jews, as that he could rise into the air on a brazen horse, and so vanish from her horizon in the form of a twinkling star.

With all the sense of inferiority that had been forced upon her, it was inevitable that she should imagine a larger place for herself in his thoughts than she actually possessed. They must be rather old and wise persons who are not apt to see their own anxiety or elation about themselves reflected in other minds.”

How often are relationships symmetrical? Is it even a goal worth seeking? Maybe it’s a cosmic joke.

Is it too cynical to believe that we only become old and wise after it hardly matters?

One Plain Hot Dog and a Medium Coke, Part 2

Two weeks ago, I had an interesting experience with a cashier after handing him a $20 bill to pay for one plain hot dog and a medium coke.

It’s possible it was the longest, most complex act of “giving change” ever performed by a cashier anywhere, anytime, putting aside incidents involving heart attacks, power failures, armed robbery, tornadoes, and other intervening events of similar proportions.

It was such an interesting experience that I wrote about it here:

https://whereofonecanspeak.com/2013/04/15/one-plain-hot-dog-and-a-medium-coke/

This past Monday, one week after Part 1 occurred, I went back to this snack bar, wondering how my purchase of one plain hot dog and a medium coke would go this time.

The guy who is usually at the cash register — I think he’s the assistant manager — was sitting at a table in the corner talking with someone — I think she’s the manager. He looked up when I approached the counter — the place was almost empty at the time — and called out to one of the cooks, who immediately walked toward the register.

Of course, it was the same cook who had so much trouble making change the week before. I think he recognized me — he gave me a slight smile. I certainly recognized him.

I admit I had a quick thought — maybe I should use a credit card this time.

But then I had another quick thought — no, that would be condescending.

I didn’t really speak the word “condescending” to myself, but that was the thought I had. It was more of a feeling than a thought — I should give this young man, who is apparently new to our country, a chance to do his job correctly. I shouldn’t assume that he’s still very bad at giving change. And it’s only by meeting challenges that we grow as human beings. (I take my actions rather seriously at times (no!) and tend toward self-analysis (yes, it’s true!).)

Anyway, I placed my order — again with the same slight difficulty understanding the question about french fries — and handed him a $10 bill (actually wondering to myself whether changing the denomination from a $20 would throw him a curve).

I know you’re on the edge of your seat, whether you’re sitting down or not, so I won’t drag this out any further (by the way, they make really good hot dogs at Five Guys):

His fingers (or finger) flew over the cash register — he glanced at the amount of change required — and with barely a hint of hesitation pulled out three dollar bills, three quarters, a nickel and a penny. $3.81, perfectly done! (Their hot dogs are kind of expensive.)

I know you’re relieved. I was and still am.

It’s Nice When the World Makes Sense

Even if the underlying facts aren’t so great at all.

Case 1: Paul Krugman ties together two recent stories: how the economic evidence for cutting government spending during a recession is non-existent, and how cutting spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security is the preferred strategy of the rich. It probably won’t make any difference that the scientific support for government austerity during an economic downturn has been demolished, since facts don’t necessarily trump ideology. For the most part, the political class is subservient to the upper class. Marx, who helped generate a vast number of ideologists himself, wasn’t wrong about everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/krugman-the-one-percents-solution.html?ref=paulkrugman

Krugman cites the study I wrote about under the title “What the 1% Want from Washington”:

https://whereofonecanspeak.com/2013/04/07/what-the-1-want-from-washington/

Case 2:  According to the New York Times, the Boston police commissioner admitted this week that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-KHAHR’ tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) and the boat in which he hid were both in the 20-block search perimeter all along. It’s not clear why Tsarnaev wasn’t found during the manhunt, but it wasn’t because the boat was 1 block outside the search perimeter, as the Watertown police chief claimed. (See the post below, which includes a transcript of the police discussing where to search.)

In this case, it didn’t make sense that a small army of police failed to search an area 2 or 3 blocks from where the guy dumped his getaway car. What didn’t make any sense now makes some sense. People make mistakes and then make excuses. No shock there. 

Stop Me Before I Write About the Boston Manhunt Again!

(See postscript below — The Boston police commissioner has admitted that Tsarnaev was in the perimeter all along. That’s good enough for me. I can go back to more productive activities, like sleeping and mowing the lawn.)

Ok, I’m going to stop writing about this until someone in the media or someone writing a book explains exactly where the police searched for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after the gun battle in Watertown. Then I can write that someone has finally offered a better explanation of why they didn’t find him during the manhunt.

But first —

I still think the guy was inside the famous 20-block perimeter all the time (not that it matters, of course, in the grand scheme of things).

Here is a map of Watertown that shows the streets discussed in this post. Point A is near where Tsarnaev abandoned his getaway car. Point B is where he was captured:

The NY Times has published a long article that begins with the murder of the M.I.T. officer and concludes with the capture at 67 Franklin Street. Here’s what they say about the search in the “20-block perimeter”:

“I yelled to the cops, ‘Watch out!’ ” Mr. Doucette said in an interview. But the car hit the wounded brother, he said, and “his body was tumbling underneath.”

As Friday dawned, state officials urged people in the Boston area to stay behind locked doors, and all transit service was shut down — paralyzing the metropolitan area as officials searched for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That evening they lifted the order, fearing he had escaped.

That’s not terribly informative (maybe the editors cut something), but next to the article, the Times has provided excerpts picked up by police scanners. One selection, labeled “Hunting for the Suspects” is 1 minute and 59 seconds long:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/officers-killing-spurred-pursuit-in-boston-attack.html?pagewanted=1&hp

These excerpts confirm that the abandoned getaway car (the hijacked SUV) was found at the corner of Lincoln and Spruce. (Lincoln and Spruce is between points A and B on the map above.)

An officer then refers to someone (possibly himself) being on foot near Dexter and Laurel, where the gun battle occurred earlier that night.

Next, someone advises officers not to investigate around Lincoln Street (in the vicinity of the SUV) without a partner.

Then someone relays an order to set up a perimeter between Mount Auburn and Arsenal Streets, an area that includes 67 Franklin Street (where Tsarnaev was captured) and the SUV, but also extends eastward past Dexter and Laurel (scene of the gun battle) all the way to Arlington Street (at the eastern edge of the map above).

A senior officer then states that he is at 98 Spruce Street, a few houses south of the abandoned SUV. He says that the search perimeter needs to be expanded in 4 directions, centered around 98 Spruce. He wants a perimeter in a 3-block radius from that location (this is a relatively small area within the larger Mount Auburn-Arsenal-Arlington perimeter).

Depending on how you count the blocks, which aren’t consistently shaped, it looks as if a 3-block radius from 98 Spruce would include 67 Franklin Street at its western edge.

This is a map showing the distance between 98 Spruce and 67 Franklin (according to Google, it’s 0.3 miles and a 6-minute walk — less if you cut through people’s backyards).

The same officer then says the perimeter should be “at least 2-blocks deep for now”, which might leave 67 Franklin out of the immediate search, “and then expand it”, presumably putting 67 Franklin back in.

Another officer relays an order to maintain the perimeter at the Mount Auburn and Arsenal boundaries, but to move the boundary on the east side to School Street (which runs parallel to Arlington). This eliminates the area around the gun battle, which happened east of School Street, and tightens the perimeter around the the SUV and Franklin Street.

This officer then goes on to say “2 blocks away [from 98 Spruce] is also Walnut Street, which runs from School to Mount Auburn”. This indicates that the 2-block radius mentioned above (which was supposed to be expanded to 3-blocks later on) was bounded by Walnut Street and did not include Franklin Street.

The senior officer who spoke before then says “O.k. Once we have officers complete that, expand it 2 more blocks [i.e. from 2 to 4] from those areas [meaning 4 blocks from 98 Spruce]… We have plenty of police officers here. Let’s start utilizing them. From 98 Spruce, 2 blocks and then 4 blocks”.

That’s where the audio ends. A 4-block perimeter centered on 98 Spruce Street would have included 67 Franklin Street, which is just 1 block from Walnut Street, and 3 blocks from 98 Spruce.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any timestamps on this recording, so it’s not clear when all this happened. In one press conference, the Watertown police chief said that blood was found at a house after the SUV was abandoned (maybe this was 98 Spruce Street). He also says that Tsarnaev didn’t go directly to 67 Franklin, suggesting that, at some point, the suspect may have crossed one of the smaller perimeters on foot without being detected.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-bomb-suspect-captured-alive-backyard-boat/story?id=18994511#.UXiGx7XCaSp

So it still isn’t clear whether the police searched around 67 Franklin, before or after Tsarnaev found his way there.

The police chief  has explained that Tsarnaev wasn’t found earlier because he was hiding 1 block outside the search perimeter. If that’s true, the search never went beyond Walnut Street, 2 blocks from 98 Spruce.

Yet there was an order to search 4 blocks away from that address.  67 Franklin is clearly within that 4-block radius.

And, of course, Franklin Street is well-within the larger Mount Auburn-Arsenal-School Street perimeter. That larger perimeter roughly corresponds to a 20-block area of Watertown, and it’s been stated many times that the search in Watertown involved 20 square blocks.

POSTSCRIPT —

I’m surprised and embarrassed (and pleased) to see that this information is on the last page of the Times article cited above:

“Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.

‘It was an area that should have been checked,’ he said. ‘We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat.’

I confess that I didn’t read the last page of the article, since the reporters skipped over the manhunt so quickly, I assumed they didn’t have anything more to say on the matter.

It’s also kind of interesting that the Times article may have been the first place this news was printed. A Google search just showed that the quote from the police commissioner has only been printed on 4 other sites, all in the past 14 hours.

This, therefore, is another change that should be added to this article from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/the_changing_facts_in_the_boston_investigation/