The Ukes of Summer

If you’re a musician, or wish you were, you can’t help but notice the resurgence of interest in ukuleles: they’re everywhere. While ukes, as they are affectionately referred to, have been around a long time, until recently they have been relegated to the children’s section of the music store, wedged in between the kazoos and ocarinas. But all that has changed. Many stores now dedicate entire sections to the humble uke. They don’t sit around for long either. Music stores can’t keep them in stock. Once again ukuleles, with their legions of devoted players, are in demand. So, what’s the big deal? Let’s take a look at the instrument, its history and a few notable players. In the end, you may decide that this summer, it’s time for you to join them.

The ukulele got its start in the 1880s when Portuguese emigrants from Madeira moved to the Hawaiian Islands. With them came a great love of music and—a small, four-string fretted instrument known as the machete. The diminutive instrument entranced the Hawaiians. Such was the impression the machete made that, after several incarnations, the ukulele evolved. The rest is history.

The first great wave of American popularity for the uke came in the late teens through the 1920s, when no self-respecting flapper or college boy would be caught without a uke. The uke’s popularity was such that musical publishers clamored for more sheet music to feed the craze. Composers, of varying abilities, answered the call. The result? A deluge of new songs [many featuring indifferent melodies and banal lyrics] flooded the market in such quantities that they are still commonly encountered in antique stores. In spite of this, the era also produced a great number of songs that are enjoyed by ukulele players to this day. For a time, all was well. But as the Roaring Twenties waned, the mania wore off. Finally, the Great Depression seemed to seal the uke’s fate. As the depression deepened, the uke faded from the scene. But it would be back….

The last time the uke was hot was in the 1950s when Arthur Godfrey broadcast his hugely popular variety show. Each week, Godfrey provided his audience with a ukulele lesson. The result—millions of ukuleles were purchased by would-be virtuosi. Before the craze died out, everyone from the Beatles to Elvis had used them. Though the uke’s popularity never matched that of the 1920s, it was a harbinger of things to come.  It looked like the uke just wouldn’t die. But by the 1960s, the electric guitar had captured the fickle public’s imagination. Once again, the ukulele faded from the scene; this time ushered out by the falsetto strains of Tiny Tim.

After that, the ukulele was ancient history as far as the mainland was concerned. Of course, it still maintained its popularity in Hawaii. And there matters stood until a few years ago, when a number of players [most notably Jake Shimabukuro] introduced a new generation to the ukulele’s charms. As more players took up the uke, enthusiasm built. But this time, thanks to the Internet, the craze was not to be restricted to the United States—it became a global phenomena.

Despite the instruments resurrection, there are still people who look down at the ukulele as a toy, unsuited for serious musical endeavors. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the six-string guitar is justly popular, it’s not the only instrument capable of making music. The ukulele is a versatile instrument in its own right, capable of handling a multitude of genres from classical to jazz, country and bluegrass.

To get some idea of the ukulele’s versatility, we need only examine the work of a few stellar players. In the classical realm, the late John King should be your first stop. King, who taught classical guitar, pioneered the campanella [“little bells”] style of playing in which—ideally—no string is struck twice in succession. This results in the strings vibrating simultaneously while creating an exquisite, bell-like tone, hence the name. King primarily played soprano ukuleles with the reentrant tuning in which the g string is one octave above the other strings. This gives the soprano ukulele its characteristic tone. During the Baroque period, guitars were also tuned in this fashion. Realizing this, King adapted the music of that era for ukulele, resulting in some of the most memorable performances of all time. Try the campanella style if you dare, but be warned: it’s unbelievably difficult, especially if you have to write the arrangement yourself.

Jazz is another genre that has benefited from the uke’s renewed popularity. Of course, this is nothing new. Noted jazz bassist Lyle Ritz [also a uke player] released two albums of jazz ukulele way back in the 60s. Today, among a plethora of outstanding players, the Canadian James Hill stands out for his virtuoso playing. Although it’s not jazz, his rendition of Flight of the Bumble Bee is unbelievable. Once you hear it, you’ll never doubt the uke’s potential again.

So, how can you join the ukulele renaissance this summer? While acquiring a ukulele is not a problem, deciding which one to get is another question. Prices range from $30 to $30,000. The good news is, because of the low string tension on ukuleles, and the consequent lack of bracing required for the bridge and soundboard, even modestly priced ukuleles can be quite serviceable—and a lot of fun too. So, cost should not be an issue for most people. Beyond financial concerns, prospective players are faced with choosing from four basic sizes of ukuleles: soprano, concert, tenor, and baritone [in ascending order].  In addition some luthiers make their own sizes, such as the sopranino: smaller even than the soprano. So, let’s take a look and see what might be right for you.

The soprano, smallest of the four standard sizes, is what most people think of when they hear the word ukulele. Its strings are normally tuned gcea, as in: “My dog has fleas.” With its compact size [about 20” long] and twelve to fifteen frets, it not only provides that characteristic ukulele sound, but it’s ideal for camping and travel. That’s the beauty of the uke; you can always find room for it. Try wedging your cello in the back of your Volkswagen with the camping gear sometime and you’ll see what I mean. In most people’s minds, the soprano is the ukulele.

Next up in size, the concert ukulele normally comes with a somewhat larger body and an extended fret board that increases the chromatic possibilities of the instrument. And so, rather than the 12-15 usable frets available to most soprano players, the concert uke will enable them to play up to the 20th fret or so. While this sounds great in theory, and is frequently useful, it comes at a cost. As you increase the length of an instrument’s fret board [and its strings] the frets become farther apart. This results in the player having to spread his or her fingers out further in order to make a chord. Increased string length also results in increased string tension; you have to press down on the strings harder. For persons with short fingers, this may be a consideration. Before purchasing, it’s best to try different sizes and types of ukes to find what’s right for you.

Larger still are the tenor ukuleles that, because of their greatly expanded fret board, are excellent for jazz and other genres that may place a premium on chromatic range. For individuals with large hands, the wider spacing of tenors might come as a welcome relief, after attempting to maneuver their fingers within the confines of a soprano fret board.  On the other hand, if you gave up trying to play the guitar because you couldn’t reach the chords, you might not like the tenor uke either. For those players that do enjoy the tenor, several custom luthiers make arch top tenor jazz ukuleles that cost thousands of dollars and involve extensive waiting periods. For impatient [and impecunious] types like myself, makers such as Kala offer an electro-acoustic arch top that, for a few hundred dollars, sounds great and is ready to ship. You can plug it straight into your computer to record too.

The baritone ukulele is the largest of the traditional sizes. So large, in fact, that it resembles a parlor guitar. That’s appropriate because, in essence, it’s exactly that—a tenor guitar with nylon strings. The baritone ukulele also has a very guitar-like tone due to the tuning of its strings: dgbe. If that sounds familiar, it should. That is the same tuning as the “top” four strings of the six-string guitar. So, the baritone is tuned differently than the other ukes and, although the same chord patterns are used, they do not correspond to the same chords as played on the smaller ukes. When playing the baritone, the player is essentially using what guitarists refer to as “inside” chord forms that are frequently used in jazz. For these reasons, guitar players may find the transition to baritone ukulele particularly easy.

Beyond mere size, there are other considerations the prospective ukulele player need consider. Part of the fascination surrounding ukuleles comes from the diversity of forms they take. In addition to normal ukuleles, some are constructed as resonators, like slide guitars used by blues players. Banjo ukuleles, or banjoleles, are offered as well and have the characteristic twang of their larger brethren. At least one company is now making the ukulele equivalent of a bass for those with low-frequency aspirations.

Between the various price ranges, sizes, and types, aspiring ukulele players have a lot to consider when choosing their first instrument. Consideration should be given to the type of music one wishes to play. While the arch top is great for jazz, it won’t do so well for bluegrass. Likewise, the banjo ukulele may not be your top pick for playing Bach. It all depends on what you want to do. In the beginning, it’s best to try out every uke you encounter. You’re sure to find something you like.

After gaining some experience, you’ll realize that ukuleles are not toys. Rather, they are highly versatile instruments capable of creating sublime music. With a uke in hand, you’re ready to tackle everything from folk songs around the campfire to classical music in a chamber orchestra. And their small size ensures they’ll always be with you. This summer, pack a uke on your next outing—you won’t want to put it down.

Idaho Drivers: A Cautionary Tale

[First Published in The Basic Alternative Newspaper, June 2013]

How many times have you narrowly averted disaster at the hands of some clueless driver while on the road? It happens all the time—bad driving is pandemic. While we might speculate on the causes, it’s more interesting to consider the results, and the people who cause them. So, who are these people, and where do they come from? The answers may surprise you.

When I moved to Idaho, I was warned to watch out for bad drivers: Idaho is the worst! People always complain about the terrible drivers in their own state, nothing new there. So, I paid no attention. I mean, how bad could they be? Turns out, Idaho drivers aren’t that hot. In a country full of underperforming drivers, why should we be different? As in other fields of human endeavor, not all drivers are created equally. Some of us are just awful. Then there are the truly bad drivers….

Of course, anyone can make a mistake—and most have. Once, during a rainstorm, I pulled out of a town in Oregon headed north. Visibility wasn’t too bad; I could almost see the end of my hood. Traffic was light, the smart drivers having elected to call it a day. Not me, I had a schedule to keep. And so I found myself northbound on the highway… and confused. The few southbound vehicles I met seemed to veer dangerously close to me while laying on the horn. Oregon drivers are weird that way. I verified my headlights were working. Hard to say what their problem was. Maybe they’d been in Oregon so long the humidity had caused their synapses to get mushy. Water on the brain, it happens.

Anyway, I continued on for another half mile or so when I detected a set of headlights dead ahead and closing. As I mentally prepared for a collision, my thoughts were a swirl of four-letter words. Oregon drivers are the worst! At the last possible moment, the other vehicle swerved to his right and disappeared into the void. Man, I thought. That was close… These guys could really use some driver’s ed. Visibility was still so poor all I had been able to make out were headlights. Call it extrasensory perception—or maybe the sort of insight that only comes from being a highly experienced driver. Whatever; I knew something wasn’t right.

Slowing, I pulled over to assess the situation. By this time, visibility had increased dramatically—maybe twenty feet. Rolling down my window for a better view, I discovered I had been traveling northbound in the southbound lane. Fortunately, the weather was so poor no one else had ventured past. Slightly embarrassed, and with a newfound empathy for Oregon drivers, I made a quick U-turn and nonchalantly retraced my path—this time in the proper direction. So it can happen to anybody.

Some drivers do have a tough time telling their left from their right. The other day I watched a driver in a pickup truck turn on to a side street, where he blithely proceeded with the solid yellow line to the right of his vehicle. It was a sunny day, so he couldn’t even use my weather alibi. To be fair, he was headed for Wal-Mart. And since they always place their entrances on the left, he might have just been trying to get into the spirit of the thing.

Sometimes it isn’t left and right that’s the problem, but backward and forward. During my stint at a police department, I once took a complaint from an outraged woman who claimed to have been rear ended on the highway. After twenty minutes of attempting to interview her while scribbling diagrams on the accident form, I determined that she really had been struck from behind—while backing up on the highway. I tried to explain that she had been in the wrong, but she wasn’t buying it. Finally, in an exasperated voice, she said: If the other car didn’t rear end me, what do you call it? Good question. Pausing, I replied: Well… I guess you front ended them. Who says that police aren’t helpful?

When I first mentioned to a friend that I was writing this article, his response was reflexive: Utah drivers are the worst! No doubt that opinion is shared by a lot of people in Idaho. Anyone who has had the misfortune to drive between Ogden and Salt Lake City would have to agree. Because many people move to Idaho from Utah, it might help explain our driving deficit. Of course, if you ask someone from Utah about this, they’ll deny everything and blame it on them durn Californicators and their bad driving.

It is possible Californians are unprepared for the wide-open spaces out this way. After all, how much trouble can they get into back in the Golden State where most of their day is spent stuck in traffic? Nothing beats watching some yuppie impatiently racing the engine of his German sports car while contemplating ten miles of traffic backed up ahead of him. So, when turned loose with generous speed limits and uncluttered freeways, some Californians tend to run amuck—who can blame them? Despite this, it’s doubtful if they are the only ones creating problems.

So, Idanistas blame Utahans, who in turn probably blame it on some liberal, non-driving conspiracy spearheaded by the United Nations.  Lest we feel too sorry for the scapegoats from California, it should be noted that they—in turn—attribute all the poor driving in their state to an influx of non-driving Asian immigrants. It’s a vicious circle of ineptitude.

Speaking of vicious circles, who’s the genius that decided to use traffic roundabouts in Idaho? Seriously, if you’ve ever seen the traffic lights go out at a four-way stop, you know what I mean. It’s painful to watch; particularly when someone runs into you because they couldn’t figure out whose turn it was to go. Despite this, engineers tasked with keeping traffic moving efficiently have opted to inject a bit of old-world charm into the system. That’s great. We can all sit around and play bocce ball while waiting for the tow trucks to arrive.

When using roundabouts, it’s best to watch out for them good ol’ boys in pickups swerving randomly between the inner and outer lanes. Like electrons in an unstable orbit, they occasionally shoot out, only to skid to a halt in a cloud of dust—sideways—in the back of a parking lot. If we’re going to have roundabouts in Idaho, the public should be warned of the dangers. The least DOT could do is put up signs notifying motorists that a demolition derby is in progress. No sense candy-coating it.

As bad as some drivers are, you’d think they wouldn’t try to complicate matters further. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2009 [the last year for which statistics are available] distracted drivers accounted for 20% of the injuries resulting from vehicular mishaps. Eating, texting, phoning: the sky’s the limit. Sometimes, one distraction just isn’t challenging enough for these juggernauts.  My all-time favorite was a guy I watched maneuvering through rush hour while reading a newspaper, drinking a cup of coffee, and watching the news on a flat screen. As he finished each section of the paper, he’d throw it out the window—dispose of properly! As an afterthought, he’d occasionally glance up at the road ahead. Strictly pro forma, you understand.

Distracted driving is nothing new. My uncle Ray; a traveling salesman who looked like a movie star, used to drive his convertible while steering with his knees as he combed his hair in the rear-view mirror. Once his coiffure was perfected, he’d favor his passengers with an evil grin before once again grabbing the wheel.

The problem with bad drivers is that normally, you can’t spot them until they’re double parked on the hood of your car. Not too many people want to admit to poor driving. But there are exceptions. Take my friend Stephanie for instance. Stephanie, as we’ll call her, freely admits to some issues in the driving department. “Oh yeah, I’m the worst!” she says. When asked about what she does to earn this distinction, she pauses… “When I catch a yellow light, I always speed up to get through it… Is that bad?” Well, I think, that all depends on whether I’m at the intersection with her or not. Of course, being a bad driver doesn’t preclude one from complaining about other drivers. “I can’t stand it when people don’t use their turn signals,” Stephanie says—she has her limits.

Not everyone is as honest as Stephanie. In many accidents, the drivers are barely out of their cars before the guilty party commences making excuses. These take many forms and range from the ingenious to the idiotic: weather, mechanical failure, my dog did it —even an unfavorable astrological sign might work in a pinch. Sports fans, adhering to the “best defense is a good offense” paradigm, will immediately blame the other driver. This happened to me when a speeder blew through a four-way stop and T-boned my car. As she explained to the cop, it was clearly my fault. I didn’t have my lights on, so she couldn’t see me. Squinting up into the bright noonday sun, I vowed to be more careful in the future.

So, who is to blame for poor driving in Idaho? Is our problem foreign or domestic? Enquiring minds want to know. Naturally, the bean counters in the audience demand hard numbers.  According to the 2009 NHTSA statistics, the national fatality rate was 1.1 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. Meanwhile, the busy bees down in Utah had a rate of 0.9. Likewise, those city slickers from California came in under the national average at 1.0. As to Idaho… well, we scored a 1.5. Tied with Alaska, only seven states scored worse than us—with Montana having the distinction of being the most dangerous state for drivers with 2.0 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles.

Given these figures, I guess in the future we should be more circumspect in our criticism of out-of-state drivers. After all, safe driving is everyone’s responsibility. In the meantime, don’t let your guard down just because the car tailgating you has Idaho plates. Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s almost time for the monster truck rally to begin down at the local roundabout….

           

BREAKING NEWS: As this story went to press, confidential sources within the automotive industry confirmed that all vehicles manufactured in the United States—even those intended for use in Idaho and Utah—really do come equipped with turn signals. Next time, why don’t you try using them?

This Spring Try Macro Photography

[First Published in the May 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

Photographers know they can get great photos any time of year. But there’s just something about spring that makes us want to get out there and start taking photos. It’s the time of year when insects and other small creatures first appear and life begins anew. It’s also the time when some shutterbugs wish they knew how to take close-ups and macro photographs. Unfortunately, many of them won’t get the opportunity because they believe it’s just too difficult or expensive. And so they miss out on another great spring. Yes, it’s true. Macro photography can get very technical. And yes, some of the equipment can be quite specialized and expensive. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Chances are, you can get started in macro photography with your existing gear—and a little ingenuity.

So, what is close-up, or macro photography? That’s simple: it’s making the small large. The less demanding area of close-ups generally involves reproduction ratios from 1:20 on up to life size, or 1:1. Likely natural subjects include plants and mushrooms. True macro photography begins at life size and goes up from there. But what does life size mean? Back in the days of 35mm film cameras [anyone remember those?] if you shot an ant that was 5mm long, and the ant’s image on the negative was 5mm, then it was shot life size [1:1]—got it? It’s all about subject size compared to image size. Let’s say we photograph that same 5mm ant again and, this time, its image size is 10mm. Now, we’re shooting at 2X life size or 2:1. Confused? Don’t worry, that’s about as mathematical as we’re going to get. We’re almost ready to talk hardware. But before we do, there’s a critical concept we need to cover—depth of field (DOF).

In macro photography, depth of field is key. Simply put, DOF concerns itself with how much of your subject is in focus. Unfortunately, the more you magnify an image, the less the DOF. If your ant’s antennae are in focus, its body probably isn’t. Depth of field is the greatest limiting factor in macro photography. Within limits, you can control it by adjusting your f-stop. Your f-stop [or aperture] refers to the diameter of the aperture formed by the lens’ shutter blades. The smaller the diameter of the aperture, the larger the numerical value of the f-stop. For example, an aperture of f16 is far smaller than f4. More importantly, the smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. Because of this, you’ll rarely shoot a macro subject at less than f8, and a smaller aperture would be even better. Avoid stopping the lens down all the way. That will cause excessive diffraction and degrade your image too much.

Now that we’ve covered the basic concepts, how to begin? That depends on what you have to work with. At this point, owners of fixed-lens point and shoots might look askance at their rudimentary cameras, but they’d be mistaken. Not only do most point and shoots have a “macro” mode, by their very design these modest cameras have a built in advantage. That’s because aperture isn’t the only factor that determines depth of field. The area of the negative [film] or sensor [digital] in a camera also helps determine depth of field. The sensors in digital cameras come in a variety of sizes. Don’t worry about what they’re called. What’s important to know is this: if everything else is equal, the smaller the sensor area, the greater the depth of field. So, the person armed with a digital point and shoot and its small sensor will enjoy an advantage in depth of field as compared to someone with a fancier camera with a larger sensor. If they are using lenses of equivalent focal length, the photographer with the point and shoot will have more of his ant in focus. So, if you’ve got a simple camera don’t despair, just go for it.

Even if they do have a camera with interchangeable lens, some photographers don’t own a macro lens. What to do? There are several ways to solve this problem. The simplest approach involves the use of what are called diopters, or supplementary lens. These may be thought of as magnifying glasses that screw on the front of your lens just like a filter. They come singly or in a set. This is a very inexpensive means of gaining magnification but remember, anything you place in front of your lens will degrade the image to some extent. It’s just a matter of striking a balance between magnification and image quality. Try different combinations on your lens and study the results. You’ll soon find what works best for you in any given situation. Diopters also work with point and shoots provided they are available in the correct size.

So, diopters don’t do anything for you? Or maybe you want more magnification? What else can be done with the gear at hand? Another trick that surprises those new to macro photography is the idea of reversing your lens on the camera body with an inexpensive “reversing” ring. That’s right; take the photo with the lens on backwards! Be forewarned, the zoom kit lens so common today rarely work well due to their indifferent optical quality. Fortunately, an inexpensive alternative is probably sitting in your camera bag: the standard 50mm lens. Back in the days of film [around the last ice age], most new cameras sold came equipped with a 50mm, and nothing else. Because of its ubiquity, the 50mm lens is generally not only inexpensive but optically superb as well. Turn it around and you’re instantly shooting at life size (1:1).

You’ll lose auto focus, but don’t worry. Because of depth of field issues, macro is a manual focus game. The DOF is just too shallow to rely upon auto focus. That brings up another point. To use the reverse lens technique, you’ll need a camera that allows you to select a “shoot without lens” option. Otherwise, the camera won’t function. Once “shoot without lens” is selected, just set the camera on aperture priority and it will select the appropriate shutter speed.

Because we’re using manual focus, it might be time to dust off those old lens you [or your parents] have gathering dust because you don’t shoot film anymore. If you use a Canon or one of the micro four-thirds digital cameras, inexpensive adapters can be purchased that allow you to use practically any legacy lens. Even old enlarger lens can be used and are superb for macro due to their optical quality. Because of the flange distance—the distance from the back of the lens element to the sensor plane—Nikons aren’t quite as flexible in this regard.

Besides these techniques, there are a host of other options. It just depends on how elaborate you want to get. For instance, you could try lens stacking, by connecting a shorter focal length lens backwards in front of another lens with an inexpensive “macro coupling” ring. Or you might experiment with extension tubes or teleconverters. That’s the beauty of macrophotography; it’s limited only by your imagination. But remember, for the most part, these more involved techniques are used to obtain higher magnification.

Sounds great, right? The whole idea behind shooting macro is enlarging the subject, so the more the merrier. Unfortunately, you’ll soon find that there are definite limits to what can be accomplished with a hand-held camera. Because of the extremely limited depth of field, 2X is probably the upper limit, even for experienced macro photographers. You could use a tripod—and you should whenever possible—but have you ever tried chasing a butterfly across a field while dragging a camera on a tripod?

Once you start taking macro photographs, you’ll soon find that trying to hold still and keep the subject in focus is enough to drive you crazy. As in target shooting, you have to learn to control your breathing and squeeze off the shot. Whatever you do, don’t rack the focus in and out. Focus the lens at the closest distance [or desired image magnification] and then lean your body in or out to achieve focus. As in photographing big game, you must get the eyes in focus. If they aren’t sharp, it’s a deal breaker. Don’t be surprised if you don’t have too much luck initially. In fact, it’s not uncommon to spend an afternoon shooting only to discover you have little to show for your efforts. If you get a couple of keepers, you’ve had a good day.

Because of the small apertures used for these shots, there never seems to be enough light. This can be a real problem with insects on the move. The quivering of a moth’s antennae or the buzzing of a bee are enough to blur the shot. That’s why it’s good to use a flash when available to stop the motion. Although highly specialized macro flashes are available, they can be quite expensive and are often unnecessary. Instead, why not try the flash you already have? If your flash has a cord, try rigging it out at the end of your lens and off to one side. This will create a modeling effect and emphasize the depth and texture of your subject. Even if you don’t own a flash, an inexpensive LED light carefully positioned can assist you in focusing.

Macro photography doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. With a little know-how, you can make the gear you already own work for you. The important thing is to refine your technique while gaining experience in the field. Study your subjects and the images you take will improve exponentially. Once you learn how to use your equipment to its full potential you can think about upgrades. In the meantime, it’s spring—what are you waiting for? 

Gun Control: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

[First Published in the April 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has renewed the debate over gun control in the United States. Predictably, both sides are up to their old tricks. The same people that have hijacked the discussion in the past are at it again. To make good decisions, we need to discern truth from the lies and disinformation that some gun control advocates use to obscure it. The intent here is not to argue for or against gun control, but rather to identify some of the falsehoods that are presented as fact. So—time to check the spin factor on the antigun crowd.

Journalists are suspicious by nature. We’re trained to be. In fact, the only thing I remember from journalism school is this useful aphorism: If your mother says she loves you—check it out. Check it out… that’s good advice. Let’s apply that to the antigun argument and see what happens.

The first thing you’re likely to hear from those opposed to firearms ownership is that the Second Amendment only applies to militias formed for national defense. That’s not their call to make. In District of Columbia v. Heller [554 US 570 (2008)], the court stated: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Don’t like the decision? That’s tough. I’m not too fond of Citizen’s United myself.

Undeterred, opponents will argue that the Second Amendment is antiquated and should be eliminated. A bold position to take, especially when the Supreme Court feels such action is above their pay grade. In the Heller decision, they make this clear: “It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Despite this, some activists would happily eliminate the amendment. Fortunately, our system of government makes this a difficult thing to do.

Those calling for the demise of the Second Amendment should pause and consider that they might be setting a dangerous precedent. If the Second Amendment can be eliminated so easily, what about the other amendments? In a country devolving into an oligarchy, free speech and right of assembly might prove a nuisance at best. Of course, it’s a lot safer to implement such changes on an unarmed population.

How many times have you heard someone say that, if you keep a gun at home, you’re far more likely to accidentally shoot yourself than you are to use it for self-defense? Those who own firearms have heard this one ad nauseam. It’s particularly grating coming from those whose personal expertise in firearms is derived solely from playing Call of Duty in their mother’s basement for twelve hours a day. When asked, these know-it-alls can’t even cite the study they are quoting. It’s just something they heard somewhere.

What they are referencing is a study that was conducted at the Center for Injury Control at Emory University in the late 1990s. The study’s conclusions were based on police, EMS and hospital records in just three U.S. cities over an 18-month interval. In all, the data consists of only 626 firearms-related incidents. To extrapolate findings for the entire country from such limited data strikes one as a major sampling error.

Equally disserving is the notion that you don’t need guns to protect yourself anyway because that’s what the police are for. Those who subscribe to this theory are just as uninformed as their statistically challenged colleagues. Since some opposed to firearms have a regrettable tendency to skip their homework, it’s not surprising this turns out to be incorrect too. In a landmark legal case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services [109 S. Ct. 998 (1989)], the court found that: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause [14^th Amendment] itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors…even where such aid may be necessary….”

Translation: You’re on your own. Even the notoriously antigun International Association of Chief’s of Police [IACP] has acknowledged as much. In a May 2006 brief in their publication, The Police Chief, the readership is reminded that they are under no legal obligation to protect individuals in the community—none. This from the same organization that has consistently objected to efforts at federal standardization of concealed weapons licensing.

Speaking of police departments, several big city chiefs have been clear in their support for gun control of all types. If many had their way, all guns would be banned. These individuals always make a big deal out of the European approach to firearms. However, they’ve failed to consider the implications. In Great Britain, most police officers do not carry firearms, a fact they were brutally reminded of in Sept. 2012 when a criminal in Manchester killed two unarmed officers after luring them into a trap.

If we’d really all be better off without firearms, perhaps police in the U.S. should lead by example. Just imagine what shift change would look like at some tough precinct in Detroit or Philly when the officers were told to surrender their weapons in exchange for a nice, shiny new… whistle. If fewer guns equal less gun-related violence, then it doesn’t make sense to arm police officers either.

At it’s core, much of the impetus for gun control springs from elitists that presume to know what’s best for the unwashed masses—even if they don’t know themselves. Worse still [and here’s the elitist part] what’s good for the general population doesn’t necessarily go for everyone. Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City fame. A billionaire with national aspirations, he’s not shy about sharing his worldview with us less-enlightened folks. Whether it’s banning guns or big gulps, Bloomberg is there. When problems are just too “complex”[his term] for us simpletons, he doesn’t hesitate to act unilaterally for the public good. I don’t know about you, but I’m relieved to know there really is an old, omniscient honky up there looking out for us!

Trouble is, Bloomberg’s distaste for guns does not extend to his personal security retinue. When approached by a journalist on this issue, his response was to ignore the man as his armed security team ran interference. So, that’s the way it’s going to be. One set of rules for the serfs, and another for the lord of the manor. And we wonder why those who oppose gun control are so suspicious.

Those who would eliminate firearms are fond of quoting statistics from other countries that have embraced the draconian measures so appealing to gun grabbers in the U.S. These armchair bean counters are especially fond of trotting out Australia as an example of the paradise that awaits us once good ultimately triumphs over evil and private ownership of firearms is outlawed. But just as in Great Britain, things in Australia aren’t as great as some would have us believe….

Mark Twain, that master fabricator, once observed, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” A prescient observation—especially when applied to the gun control debate. Twain would certainly forgive us for appropriating his maxim, particularly had he read a recent New York Times op-ed by the former prime minister of Australia, John Howard.

In the January 16, 2013 piece titled “I Went After Guns, Obama Can Too,” Howard touts the actions taken by the Australian government in the wake of a 1996 shooting incident that left 35 people dead in Port Arthur, Tasmania. As a result, Australia greatly curtailed firearms ownership. This move was undoubtedly made easier by the fact that, as Howard smugly observes: “Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights.” That darn Bill of Rights can really be annoying sometimes. Howard goes on to cite the Australian Institute of Criminology, noting that, as a result of his actions, firearms-related homicides have been cut in half. While this sounds good, Mark Twain might have disagreed. Much like the aforementioned Emory University study, the numbers coming out of Australia just don’t add up.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has a great website, bursting with statistical data—Howard was smart to quote them. Unfortunately, his quantitative skills appear a bit rusty. While it’s true that homicide by gun in Australia has decreased dramatically, the overall homicide rate has scarcely changed at all. As the institute blandly observes: “There has been an upward trend in use of knives and sharp instruments which in 2006-2007 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.” So, if you kill someone in Australia, the government would really appreciate it if you used a butter knife, spoon, golf club or umbrella… anything but a gun. Not only is it bad for the stats, it’s downright uncivilized as well.

Since Australia disarmed its citizenry, crime rates have soared. Assaults in The Land Down Under have, on average, increased at four times the rate of annual population growth, up 55% between 1996 and 2007, the last year for which statistics are available. By contrast, the U.S. has experienced a -22% rate of change in assaults. Likewise, sexual assaults in Australia have climbed 51% since 1995. Meanwhile, back in the uncouth States, our rate of sexual victimization for females alone declined 58% during roughly the same period. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, since 1993 the rate of violent crime in the United States has declined by a whopping 72%.  These statistics are even more impressive when one considers that the population of the United States is approximately fifteen times larger than that of Australia. Given these facts it’s not surprising that, barbarians that we are, we are less than impressed by Prime Minister Howard’s argument. And so, we’re obliged to wish Mr. Howard a safe trip back to Australia—watch out for those salad forks!

In the end, what we decide to do about guns must be based on facts and reason, not on lies, distortion and fuzzy thinking. You can’t have an honest debate predicated on dishonesty. While it’s true some gun owners fall prey to jingoism and emotional appeals, their counterparts in the gun control camp consistently play loose with the facts. Neither do a service to their cause. If we are to have a rational debate, let’s begin by filtering out all the nonsense and see what’s left because ultimately, the future of our country is too important to entrust to the hands of elitists, propagandists, or—innumerate Australians. 

A Farewell to Arms: How Some Gun Owners Are Shooting Themselves In The Foot

[First Published in the March 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

I’m not a pacifist. At age eight, I received my first shooting lesson from a one-armed mechanic who was the finest marksman I’ve ever met. I’ve been shooting ever since. As I type, night has fallen. I live in a low-crime neighborhood, and I personally intend to keep it that way. That’s why a Glock 45 ACP pistol sits on my desk. As someone once said: “I believe in my fellow man, I also believe in firepower.” At this point anti-gunners and those indifferent to the gun control debate, sensing another pro-gun love fest, might choose to tune out. But I’d suggest you stick around a while. You might be surprised….

As a gun owner, it pains me to report that the antigun crowd does not have a monopoly on mendacity or extremism. Far from it, many who support gun ownership seem to expend considerable energy in wrecking their own cause through just such tactics. Their antics of late are enough to make any reasonable gun owner cringe at the prospect of guilt by association. The idea of any gun legislation drives these extremists to fits of histrionics reminiscent of two-year olds throwing a tantrum. At the same time, their juvenile rhetoric is laughable. Well, it would be if my right to possess a firearm were not jeopardized by their actions.  So, let’s take a look at some of the ways the gun debate has been co-opted. Where to begin with such an embarrassment of riches?

Let’s start with the idea that gun control is an either/or proposition. Either you’re for guns or you’re against them. Although this is the most basic of logical fallacies, some don’t see it that way. No, either you’re with us or against us. It’s all black and white: Us versus Them, Red v. Blue, Conservative v. Liberal…Republican v. Democrat. Never mind the fact that this infantile view can be refuted with a simple bumper sticker that I saw the other day. It read: PROUD GUNTOT’N IDAHO DEMOCRAT. Any questions? This absolutism, so prevalent in political discourse today, is the reason nothing gets accomplished in Washington. We have allowed the extremists to define reality as they see it.

In large part, their reality comes straight from the top: the National Rifle Association (NRA). There’s no sense recounting the NRA’s long history. Anyone curious can look it up. But what I [as a former NRA member] do find curious, is the NRA’s insistence that they represent the members, rather than industry. Let’s consider Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President and CEO. LaPierre got his start at the NRA in 1978. By 1991, he’d clawed his way to the top. Now, he is the public face of the NRA and, with a total yearly compensation around a million bucks, it appears he’ll make it through the recession. LaPierre is noted for his intransigence where gun control issues are concerned. I guess if I were paid a million dollars a year, I’d be gung-ho too. But the question remains. Who, exactly, does he represent?

Not widely reported is the fact that merchants within the firearms industry created a program known as the NRA Round-Up Program. How does it work? When you make a purchase, you’ll be offered the opportunity to round up to the nearest whole dollar amount, with the difference going to the NRA. The result: total contributions from this program alone exceed $9 million. One vendor, extolling the virtues of the “Endowment,” as it is referred to, suggests that, “If you’re feeling especially patriotic...give a little extra!” Well heck, all I can say is God Bless America! Instead of watering my Liberty Tree, I’ll just cough up a few extra bucks so LaPierre can get his office redecorated. After all, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

Like Joan of Arc, LaPierre is divinely inspired. A zealot who, along with many of his fellow right-wing chicken hawks, avoided service in Vietnam, he has belatedly transformed himself into a fearless patriot leading an army of freedom while boldly declaiming: We Will Stand And Fight! Accompanying this newfound militancy, of course, is the de rigueur demand for more money, and participation.

Should fealty alone prove insufficient, LaPierre hedges his bet by generously sharing his apocalyptic vision of a world rife with hurricanes, tornadoes, riots, terrorists, gangs and lone criminals all gunning for us. The only thing missing are ravenous hordes of zombies —perhaps he’s holding them in reserve. For an organization that describes itself as the largest civil rights organization in the world, the NRA sounds more like a cult. Come to think of it, LaPierre does resemble Jim Jones a bit—especially when he’s engaged in one of his narcissistic rants against those who dare oppose him. If you’re attending the next NRA convention, you might want to skip the refreshments.

Since we’re discussing patriotism, let’s turn our attention to some others who’ve been busy, as they describe it, exercising their Second Amendment rights. (What’s up with this amendment anyway? Why does it have to be constantly exercised? Is it flabby? Does it suffer from bloating? Perhaps having a Second Amendment right is like having a Doberman—you need to let him loose on the neighbor’s lawn just to show who’s calling the shots.) With the renewed call for gun-control measures, the patriots have been coming out of the woodwork. Patriots, that’s what they call themselves. Why? It’s simple. If they’re patriots, anyone who disagrees with them must be a traitor. If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same approach McCarthy used in the 1950s. Neither has much to recommend it. Note to Patriots: You can wrap a dead skunk in an American flag—but it’s still going to smell like a dead skunk.

So, how have these patriots gone about exercising their rights? Lately they’ve been concentrating on public spectacles to get the word out. This can take many forms. For instance, National Gun Appreciation Day, held on Jan. 19, was trumpeted as an opportunity for red-blooded Americans to come out of the closet and show the nation who they really are. Many gun shows were scheduled for that day in order to sell—uh, support the cause. Unfortunately, all did not go as planned. In their rush to show what repressed girly-men gun control advocates really are, several patriots at these shows were accidentally shot, thus providing support for their opponents. Ironically, a website related to the event heralded it as a great success and a reminder to the gun grabbers that “They’d better keep [their] hands off our firearms.” Sounds like a good idea, especially if the owners aren’t smart enough to know if their guns are loaded….

Speaking of repression, some online pro-gun commentators have taken to quoting Sigmund Freud, of all people, on the subject of guns. The purported quote goes something like this:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity—Sigmund Freud

If it’s on the net, it must be true, right? I mean, it’s signed and everything. Unsurprisingly, this lame attempt at intellectual legitimacy falls flat. Are we to believe that these people who, based on their incoherent online babblings have a tough time deciphering a comic book, are suddenly delving into the mysteries of psychiatry with Freud? Not likely.

Back at the ranch, the latest pro-gun gambit has resulted in rallies being held in various states, including Idaho. These Second Amendment rallies involve groups marching with signs and brandishing firearms in very public settings as orators harangue the crowd with patriotic speeches. You can even buy T-shirts commemorating the event [and, if you’re feeling especially patriotic, buy two]. In Idaho, at least, open carry laws enable their guns to be loaded.

Unsurprisingly, other states are less enlightened in this regard. In California, those choosing to exercise their rights may openly carry firearms, but they must be unloaded. And so, Californians have been treated to the spectacle of frustrated, impotent gun owners neurotically obsessing over their empty guns—shooting blanks as it were. I wonder what Freud would have to say about that?

I don’t know about you, but when I see groups of armed people strutting around town, the first term that comes to mind is not Patriot. No, more like: gun-shop commando, mall ninja, Rambo wannabe…cowboy. By the way, cowboys may “do it better,” but not when it comes to supporting my Second Amendment rights. If it’s all the same to you yahoos, I’ll speak for myself.

In January, a man in Utah achieved brief notoriety after showing up at a JC Penny store sporting an AR-15 rifle and a pistol. Why didn’t I think of that? It could be a godsend when dealing with the return desk. Seriously, though some took exception to his hardware, I don’t agree. When I go shopping, I always take a couple of claymore mines along just in case I need to establish a defensive perimeter around the men’s room. You can’t be too careful.

Not to be outdone by their big-city, antigun brethren, some in the law enforcement community have taken it upon themselves to publicly state that they will not enforce federal laws pertaining to firearms. Let’s be clear: Any sworn law enforcement officer who decides that they will pick and choose which laws to enforce has missed their calling. They should resign and hit the campaign trail. Politicians make laws, police enforce them—only police states combine these two functions.

Despite the bold stance taken by some pro-gun officers, you just can’t please everyone. Take this anonymous screed that appeared on the Eastern Idaho Tea Party’s Facebook page. Dated January 16, it states [in part]:

The Bonneville sheriff’s office says it won’t enforce federal law in regards to gun control. Not good enough…you are required to protect county citizens from Constitutional [sic] violations committed by the federal government. The fact that your agency won’t enforce federal law isn’t good enough!

What can I say? I’ll have whatever they’re having! Not only is it not sufficient to refuse to enforce the LAW, it sounds like up in Bonneville county, the sheriff’s office is also expected to go mano y mano with the Feds. Let’s see, Bonneville Sheriff’s Office versus the ATF, DEA, DHS, FBI, U.S. Marshals, etc. Are they still carrying flintlocks up there? I know I should root for the hometown team, but can we take a reality break?

We could continue in this vein, but it’s too painful. After all, these are my fellow gun owners who, through diligent application of ignorance, are slowly eroding my right to own a firearm. Once again the extremists are attempting to hijack the debate. Nothing has changed except the names of the victims. What of those in the middle, We the People? What should we do? This time around, we might consider exercising our right to a little critical thinking in order to cut through the crap these groups have served up for years. It’s important for the public to understand that those who choose to own firearms come from all walks of life and that the antics of some minority fringe elements should not be misconstrued as representative of the majority of gun owners. 

So, is this a farewell to arms? Hardly. All sides can rest easy knowing that nothing will get accomplished. The legislative inertia that characterizes our country will continue as long as politicians are only concerned with maintaining power. Meanwhile, special interest groups on both sides will leverage the controversy to their benefit as ambitious politicians, sensing an opportunity, cynically exploit the situation. It looks like the good old boys will have plenty of time to hang curtains in their new bunker before the black helicopters arrive. The stalemate will continue, and those who have benefited from it in the past will continue to do so: It’s the rest of us who will lose.

The Spirit of '76

[First Published in the Feb. 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

Far from acting as a referendum, the recent presidential election has highlighted discord within the United States. As a result, conservatives are making their feelings known. You’ve seen them on the evening news, wearing their continental militia uniforms and waving revolutionary flags. Channeling the spirit of 1776, they’ve called for the nuclear option. That’s right. They want to secede from the United States and form their own country. Petitions have been presented by all fifty states—including Idaho, where 6,458 residents signed it. Of course, over 15,000 people signed another petition to strip the citizenship from anyone petitioning for secession. Never mind, the patriots know what to do. They’ll take their ball—and state— and go home. While unlikely, it is interesting to consider the possibilities. What if the secessionists had their way? What if Idaho became the Democratic [oops, there’s that word!] Republic of Idaho?

…Well, the first thing you’d notice is that Idaho [the republic] just got a lot smaller. Why the shrinkage? Over 60 percent of the state consists of federal acreage. That land is the property of the citizens of the United States and, as foreigners; we have no claim on it. In fact, we won’t even be able to step foot in it without acquiring a passport and visa courtesy of the good old USA—something that might be difficult to obtain considering the rhetoric spewing from the mouths of liberty-loving patriots here. Yes, the United States might decide to designate our new republic as a state sponsor of terrorism. The result: Idanistas could find themselves celebrating Christmas with Iran and North Korea.

Once federal lands are no longer accessible to our new founding fathers, another issue will arise. What to do with all the livestock? It seems that some of our oppressed yeomen have been grazing their animals on the cheap using land that belongs to the US of A. In 2011, there were almost 1,300 grazing authorizations on public lands within Idaho. The U.S. doesn’t let Mexican cattle roam around on American soil, why should they make an exception for the republic? As a stopgap, ranchers might consider hitting the trail for one last roundup, then driving their livestock over to Boise to forage on the grounds of the new nation’s capitol until other arrangements can be made. Speaking of other arrangements, mining on public lands in Idaho will also be ancient history. Ever heard of the General Mining Act of 1872? Foreigners need not apply.  On a related note, the thousands of civilian employees and retirees in the Mountain Home AFB area will have to decide what country they wish to live in. For those flying a Don’t Tread On Me flag, the choice will be obvious: start packing.

The architects of our brave new republic will face a number of economic hurdles. For instance, what are they going to do for money? A new country needs its own monetary system. What’s it going to be? Here, visionaries will demand a system in which currency stands for something real—like the gold standard. Trouble is, there isn’t enough gold in Idaho to make that work. But the principle is sound. All we need is something tangible to base our currency on. What about potatoes? The pride of Idaho, they’re famous. Like a certain well-known credit card, they’re accepted everywhere. The Americans can keep their lousy Dollar. Who needs it? After all, we’ll have… the Tater.

Where will we keep our newly minted Taters? After the republic is established, American banks, yearning with homesickness and aghast at their third-world surroundings, will surely leave. When was the last time you saw a Bank of America in South Sudan? In response, enterprising Idanistas might open their own banks, but who’ll ensure them? In the U.S., the FDIC protects bank accounts with typical American boorishness. Not our republic. No, if our bank gets robbed, we’ll have to grab a potato rake and join the posse.

Speaking of taters, who’s going to buy the new republic’s agricultural exports? Not the United States. Under the terms of NAFTA, Mexico and Canada get preference. Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of Idaho, basking in a newfound sense of national identity, will wither beneath a barrage of restrictive tariffs. The republic could turn to other venues. What about other newly formed countries, the Republic of Texas for instance? It might work. We could export our potatoes and sugar beets to Texas in exchange for their chief export—more Texans.

On the bright side, our lack of a market might work in our favor. We might need those potatoes to feed our own people. According to official Idaho [State not Republic] statistics, over 14 percent of the populace received food stamps as of October 2012. Secessionists will argue this proves their point. The system is failing. Why, under the republic, we’ll be back on top in no time with everyone driving brand new caddies [presumably imported from the States]. But suppose the new republic’s economy, by some perversion of manifest destiny, looks more like North Korea than Shangri La, what then?

To be fair, the founding of the new republic will bring about some of the secessionists’ goals. Take the prickly topic of regulation. ATF, EPA, FDA—give us a break. The founding fathers didn’t need someone riding herd on them, and neither do we. Anyone who isn’t wearing their liberty cap on backwards will breathe easier once these oppressive chains are cast off. Of course, our expectations must be lowered. All in the name of freedom, you understand. Consider this scenario:

It’s late. You’re on the way home from work. Poor little Jenny has a cold, and so you stop to get some medicine. The parking lot is dark as you grope your way inside the pharmacy. In the dim light, long rows of empty shelves remind you of cold-war Russia. The republic has some supply side issues, but nothing it can’t handle. In the back... a wan light beckons. You’re relieved to find a pharmacist on duty. At least, you hope he’s a pharmacist. There’s really no way to tell since regulatory agencies don’t exist. Anyway, you explain the situation to Earl—that’s his name—and he produces a bottle from beneath the counter.

This here’s what you want…imported all the way from the Republic of Utah. That’ll be thirty taters, he says.

Payment complete, Earl hands you the bottle. You’re concerned. After all, it has a cork in it. Squinting, you attempt to read the label through the duct tape holding it on:

Col. Mittens Ol’ Tyme Antiseptic Snake Oil

Unequaled for the treatment of rheumatism,

neuraligia, lumbago & all other known

ailments. Accept no substitute!

Beside this declaration the likeness of a man—Col. Mittens?—smirks in the half-light. He reminds you of a used car salesman you knew back in Encino.

            What’s in this, you ask.

            Well, I ain’t exactly sure, Earl says, frowning.

In the States, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 protect consumers. But our republic has dispensed with such amenities—bad for business, you know?  Little Jenny might be in for a rough night….

The republic will be presented with a host of governance issues: Separation of church and state? Not likely. If you had doubts about the State of Idaho’s commitment to this principle, wait till you catch the republic’s act. They’ll make the Vatican look like an atheists’ retreat. See, part of America’s problem is that they’re too liberal. In the new republic, we’re going to get our minds right. And what better way to begin than by clarifying the republic’s stance on birth control? There won’t be any.  It’s unnecessary, and immoral. If the ladies don’t want to get pregnant, that’s their problem. One thing’s for sure, the demand for aspirin is going to skyrocket, particularly if we listen to a certain fellow patriot from the People’s Republic of Wyoming.

Out of necessity, the republic will have to institute an immediate draft. It’s imperative that we protect our borders from foreign intrusion. What if those warlike, and possibly cannibalistic, hordes from the Republic of Nevada decide to invade? How about those skulking Oregonians? We’ll all be marching around in concentration camps wearing Birkenstocks with our sweaters tied around our necks.

While the Democratic Republic of Idaho will have problems, they won’t be alone. Indeed, Idanistas might be forgiven their Schaden-freude as they contemplate the trouble they’ve caused for the United States. For those U.S. citizens living in proximity to the border, life will never be the same. Lowered property values; crime; complaints of illegal spudbacks taking jobs away from Americans. Inevitably, they’ll demand a fence to keep us out.

In the end, the Democratic Republic of Idaho, founded on a platform of small government and limited taxation, will succumb to the realities of 21st century life and find itself receiving humanitarian assistance from the U.S. or Mexico. They’ll have to, in order to stave off the poverty resulting from their dysfunctional governance. Still, it’s important to keep up appearances. So, in order to remind visitors that we’re channeling a whole new kind of time zone here, let’s have a big sign at the international border to greet them:

WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRATIC

REPUBLIC OF IDAHO…

Please set clocks back 200 years.

—

New Book!

My good friend Will Peterson is out with a new novel titled: 

Crawl On Your Belly Like a Man.

It's a very personal tale of the New West with a cast of characters not soon forgotten. Will, local bon vivant, can be found most days holding court at his shop, Walrus and Carpenter Books in Old Town Pocatello, Idaho. Stop in and check out his new work, or any of the thousands of other books he offers. Don't miss out, there aren't many bookstores like his left!