Years 2009-2012 Breningstall.com

The gun industry knows no limits

As the whole country learned this week, 21 states now have laws allowing people to shoot anyone they feel is putting them in imminent physical danger, whether they’re at home, in a bar or on the street being hassled by an irritating panhandler. It was thanks to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that a crime-watch volunteer was not arrested after he fatally shot an African-American teenager with no criminal record — and, as far as we can tell so far, no intent to do anything more dangerous than carrying home a bag of Skittles...

But guns-on-campus bills are perhaps the best proof that success is driving the N.R.A. to levels of craziness it never would have contemplated in the past. Arizona, which has already passed absolutely every other law the anti-gun-violence crowd opposes, is currently considering a bill making it legal to carry guns on the campuses of public colleges and universities. The State Board of Regents estimates that administering it would cost the equivalent of 25 full-time faculty positions a year.

-Gail Collins, read full story www.nytimes.com

paul westerberg - make your own kind of music

paul westerberg - make your own kind of music

Scam of the day: San Francisco apartment hunting

My wife and I are looking for an apartment in San Francisco and I received this email from one "Jodie Foster" (jodiefoster84@yahoo.com). "Jodie" has apparently been making the rounds and has apartments all over California. +234 is of course the country code for Nigeria. Count the number of ways that this letter looks like a scam:

John le Carré on the Iraq War: The United States of America has gone mad

While doing some background reading online about Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (a movie I found aesthetically pleasing but dramatically unsatisfying), I came across this Jan. 2003 article John le Carré wrote for The Times of London at the dawn of the Iraq War, entitled (appropriately enough), "The United States of America Has Gone Mad."

The spy novelist wrote, " How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election. Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. "

Fast forward nine years later.

Iowa seeks to criminalize investigative journalism on farms

A proposed law HR 589 in Iowa is the latest effort by a state legislature aimed at preventing investigative journalists from reporting on farm practices. As Cody Carlson explains in The Atlantic, "HF 589 (PDF), better known as the "Ag Gag" law, criminalizes investigative journalists and animal protection advocates who take entry-level jobs at factory farms in order to document the rampant food safety and animal welfare abuses within. In recent years, these undercover videos have spurred changes in our food system by showing consumers the disturbing truth about where most of today's meat, eggs, and dairy is produced. Undercover investigations have directly led to America's largest meat recalls, as well as to the closure of several slaughterhouses that had egregiously cruel animal handling practices. Iowa's Ag Gag law -- along with similar bills pending in other states -- illustrates just how desperate these industries are to keep this information from getting out."

As a work-around to the obvious freedom of speech problems caused by censuring public scrutiny over agriculture, safety, and public health, this latest version of the legislation would make it illegal to make a false statement on a job application in the agricultural sector. Thus, if asked the question, "Are you a journalist?", undercover reporters would be legally obliged to say yes.

Does Florida law let killers go free? | CNN

The legal question at the heart of the case involves Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which the legislature passed, at the behest of the National Rifle Association, in 2005. Before that time, Florida law resembled that of most other states; during confrontations, individuals had a duty to retreat rather than to respond to provocations. Under the new law, a person is allowed to use deadly force if he is in a place he has a right to be and feels reasonably threatened with serious harm... The Florida legislators who voted for the "stand your ground" law -- and Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed it -- have something to answer for as well.

from www.cnn.com

NYTimes.com wants you to pay your $120 contribution to Janet Robinson's $24Mil severance package

In an effort to coax occasional readers into contributing dollars, the New York Times announced today that it will now only be offering ten free articles a month instead of 20. The cheapest annual digital subscription is $120/year (iPad app not included).

I don't have a problem with the New York Times paying its hard-working journalists but I have a feeling that 200,000 of those digital subscriptions will be going to pay outgoing CEO Janet Robinson, who just left with a $24 million severance package. And that's a lot of subscribers to tack on! No wonder they're pulling in the guard gates. Considering that the New York Times had 406,000 digital subscribers at the end of 2011, I suspect they're going to have a tough time pulling in another 200,000, 10-article limit or no. Good luck to them.

Battle of the Cameras: Thom Hogan calls the Olympus E-M5 over the Fuji X-Pro1

On his new mirrorless camera blog sansmirror.com, Thom Hogan posted an extended series of camera faceoffs this week between close competitors in the mirrorless realm. Many of the conclusions are obvious but one that might take a few people by surprise is Hogan's preliminary preference for the Olympus E-M5 over the Fuji X-Pro1. Hogan writes:

"Still a little early to call, but initial impressions say E-M5 hands down. The X-Pro1 is a big camera, as big as a Leica M9. It has a limited (and expensive) lens set. It has poor autofocus performance. It has a large, eccentric sensor (APS, non-Bayer). It has a retro design with a hybrid optical/EVF viewfinder. The E-M5 is a smaller camera than it looks in photos. It has an extensive lens set. It has faster focus performance. It has the best of the m4/3 sensors so far. It has a very usable EVF. The problem I have with the Fujifilm is that it is really only great for one (slow) style of shooting, and it's doesn't take advantage of the size benefit that removing the mirror gives you. The hybrid viewfinder is fine, but it's a bit of a gimmick. A good EVF is enough, which is exactly what the E-M5 has."