Guess who's invited to dinner?

If you can't beat 'em, dine 'em.

That seems to be the philosophy of our nation's lobbyists, and it seems to be working. Even though poll after poll shows consistant majority support for higher marginal tax rates, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and yes, a ban on semi-automatic rifles with at least one military feature, these issues are unlikely to get out of committee.

What if I were to lobby the lobbyists? Maybe take one of them out to dinner. And guess who I've invited? That's right, Wayne LaPierre. This is a personal invite from me to Mr LaPierre.

Sir, Arthur Avenue has some of the finest restaurants in the world. Please take a break from K Street, just for one day, and I will take you to any Arthur Avenue restaurant of your choosing. 

C'mon, Wayne, what have you got to lose?

Seriously, take me up on it.

David Frum calls BS on John Lott

Okay, so this took some research on my part, but not much. I happened to catch sight of a blogpost from GOP strategist-turned CNN pundit David Frum. In his post that you can read here, Frum implores President Obama to use the power of the Presidency to tackle the gun industry with Surgeon General Reports and Senate Panels on gun violence. Weak tea? Perhaps, but Frum points to similar success in tackling the tobacco industry in years passed. Remember, doctors used to to recommend cigarettes as a means to prevent coughing.

Former Bush-advisor turned sensible person, David Frum.

But more importantly, Frum refutes Lott's oft-repeated and bogus statistic that individual gun ownership prevents 2.5 million crimes per year, which translates to one crime deterred every 13 seconds. Frum provides a link to an earlier blogpost, written in the wake of the Aurora move theater massacre, which you can read here.

Basically, Frum cuts right to the core of Lott's sloppy research. Frum lays out five obvious flaws. Some of them are as follows:

1. Lott published his 2.5 million prevented crimes statistic in 1995. In the last 18 years, crime has decreased by one third, yet Lott and his supporters maintain that the number of crimes prevented by "good guys with guns" has remained constant. How can this be?

2. Lott did conduct a singular study from the year preceding 1995 to produce his result. Instead, his statistic is culled from 13 polls of gun users who said they used a gun to prevent a crime. And by "used" they meant owner of said gun heard a rustle in the bushes, walked outside with a gun, only to find nothing. Maybe the shotgun scared away a burglar, or maybe the wind picked up and died down. Hardly definitive methodology.

 3. The FBI counted an average of 213 justifiable homicides in the United States from 2005 through 2010. If Lott's 2.5 million number is anywhere near accurate, that would mean that defensive gun use would only result in a fatality 0.0052 percent of the time.

Which leads to Frum's final point. When one combines the actual statistics on crime with Lott's 2.5 million number, we see merely the illusion of the gun enthusiast crowd. To them, a bad guy has a gun, a good guy pulls out his gun, and problem solved. In reality, most crimes are committed among acquaintances, not strangers. Sometimes one person has a gun, sometimes both parties a gun. In either case, the likelihood of a fatality is higher than if no person had a gun, period.

Nancy Lanza thought her guns would protect her. They didn't.

His final thoughts are telling, and cut to the core of the gun culture. I will reprint, rather than paraphrase:

. . . Most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety.

Tragedy indeed. CNN published Frum's wise words on July 30th, 2012, five and half months before yet another "law-abiding citizen," Nancy Lanza, was shot and killed with a gun she purchased for self-protection.

The case of the New York Times and the too-hot-to-trot Tesla.

It's fast. It's beautiful. It's Motor Trend's 2013 Car of the Year.

The Model S: Fast, fun, and I'm willing to bet, reliable.

Stylish. Sexy. Pretty. And Practical. 265 Miles on a single charge. Seats Five, emits zero. If I ever feel so inclined as to buy a car again, it may be a Tesla. Nearly every person privileged to get behind the wheel of one these things is blown away by its power, it's finesse, and its practicality.

Until last week's "review" about the Tesla Model S in the New York Times. In case you missed it, in"Stalled on the E.V. Highway," John Broder writes about freezing temperatures, misleading battery information, and a car that just doesn't wan't to drive very far or very long.

In less time than it takes a Tesla Roadster to go from zero to sixty miles an hour, Tesla CEO Elon Musk cried foul. Unbeknowst to Times reporter Broder, Tesla has a little black box that records the drivers every action. Needless to say, what Broder said didn't match up with the details on the black box.

So who are we left to believe in this fiasco? Is the New York Times, a publication not known for its automotive reporting, making a fair call here? Or is Elon Musk fabricating information to save his image before his public persona bursts into flames like rear-ended Ford Pinto?

As someone who has lived along the "Electric Highway" for the better part of three decades, I feel uniquely suited to offer my own analysis into the situation.

During Broder's odyssey, he writes that he is stranded with virtually zero battery power in Groton, Connecticut. He says he had intended to drive to New York City, with a stop in Milford, Connecticut to recharge.  What was Broder to do?"

Finally! A car faster than Wayne LaPierre's mouth!

"The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public Utilities had recently installed," wrote Broder. "Norwich . . . was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction from Milford."

Stop right there. I know my cardinal directions, and I know my Connecticut towns. Norwich is north of Groton; Milford, to Groton's west. North and west are not opposites. That should be obvious.

And Norwich isn't exactly an inconvenient detour from Groton. Norwich is a railroad and highway hub for Southeastern Connecticut, which is probably why Tesla chose to put a charging station in that town. Once the car was recharged, I-395 conveniently allows any driver from all points south and east to "backtrack," as I-395 forms the hypotenuse of a high-speed roadway right tringle. Instead of heading south back towards Groton, the driver is headed Southwest towards Milford, linking up with I-95 in East Lyme.

Dude, why do you have so much trouble driving your car?

I can understand being confused about adapting to a car with an all-electric fuel source and drivetrain, but confusing basic directions like east and west? 

But that's just me talking. Perhaps the best question comes from another New York Times reader, who wonders why Broder didn't have any problems with the Model S after re-charging in Milford.

Broder doesn't answer, but it appears that one of three responses could accurately describe the situation:

a) The Model S got better . . . by magic!
b) Broder learned how to better drive the Model S.
c) Broder had made his a point about his preconceived distaste for the Model S, and wanted to get home as quickly as possible. 

I'm guessing C. I'm going with countless reviews from other automotive sources, Elon Musk's previous success in the electronic industry, and my own, Connecticut born-and-raised common sense. It's a great car.

What do you think?

Mr. LaPierre, Please Leave Crazy Wayne's World.

Mr. LaPierre,

I couldn't help but notice your recent plea that all citizens must arm themselves due the the post-apocalyptic wrath incurred in New York City.

New York City. My home. The place where I work and live.

A place where I have never, ever, needed a gun.

Only someone who is jaded by urban legends would actually believe that the streets of New York are unsafe. And only somebody who has never visited Grand Central in the last ten years would be dumb enough to suggest that Mayor Bloomberg has kept National Guard out of the city because of a "gun prohibition." Maybe you should do yourself, and quite frankly, everybody a favor, leave K Street for a little while, and visit my neighborhood. The Park, the Zoo, Arthur Avenue. It's lovely here. I'll show what New York is really like. My treat. I'm usually free on evenings and weekends.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

~Kevin Miner