Please Do Not Display Weapons: "In consideration of other guests and staff please do not openly display weapons. While in your guest room, all weapons must be concealed." —Hyatt Regency sign at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Burlingame, California.

Steve Goode is the fourth man in the hotel who offers to take me to a gun range. At 63, the mostly deaf National Rifle Association instructor wears high-powered digital hearing aids and owns a low-powered shotgun he uses for trap-shooting. Fortunately, "you don't need to hear to shoot," he tells me at this year's Gun Rights Policy Conference in Burlingame, California. Like the other white, male boomers crammed into a Hyatt ballroom one recent weekend, Goode registered for the two-day-long event (with added poolside reception!) because he's riled by handgun regulations cropping up in states across the US—especially in Illinois, where he lives. The waiting periods to get a gun permit, the training, the registration, the background checks, the restrictions on where, how, and which firearm and ammo he can use—all these not only threaten his hobby but his ability to defend himself, he says—and he's becoming more politically active this fall as a result.

He's one of 760 pro-gun, anti-regulations travelers here to learn about everything from how to win a legislative gun debate—"THEY win if you say 'pro gun.' YOU win if you say 'pro rights,'' instructs "The Politically Corrected Glossary" handout (PDF)—to why he should distrust the United Nations, to the legal strategies he can successfully use to carry concealed handguns in public parks, college campuses, and public housing. Among the 50-plus speakers on the lineup are the lead counsel in the Chicago Supreme Court case, the director of Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership, the heads of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and pro-gun professors, authors, and journalists. On the "Diversity Among Pro-Gunners" panel, Nikki Stallard—the transgender representative of Pink Pistols, an LGBT-led advocacy group for carrying concealed weapons in public places—announces at the podium:"We have an interest in getting the gay community more pro-gun." If LGBTs become the face of concealed weapons rights, Stallard surmises, media attacks on the pro-gun lobby "will come across as attacking the gay community." Her suggestion is met with roaring cheers.

Several speakers encourage recruiting gay people, women, and minorities into the pro-gun, anti-regulations fold. "People who are the most vulnerable in society benefit the most from having the option to be able to protect themselves," John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime, says. He adds that women, the elderly, and "poor blacks who live in high crime areas" are disproportionately deterred from getting firepower when waiting periods are extended and fees rise. I'm not convinced. The crux of the conference remains rolling back gun restrictions. As Bob, a 51-year-old NRA instructor from Redwood City and a gun owner since he was in high school, tells me during our boxed-lunch recess: "There's no such thing as reasonable regulations when it comes to firearms. The less the government's involved in gun control the better I feel."

"The less the government's involved in gun control the better I feel."

After inviting me shooting, Jeff Knox—a gun owner for 25 years and the director of The Firearms Coalition—tells me that to understand the anti-gun regulation crowd, I have to understand gun culture. "Shooting is something that a lot of guys really love, with the same fervor that you find among golfers, fisherman, and football fanatics. Imagine what would happen if somebody wanted to ban football in the United States!"

"There's also that fundamental liberty core of self-defense," Knox adds. "Let's face it, the bumper stickers are true. In a life or death situation, seconds count, and the police are only minutes away. And that's what it boils down to. If I feel that I have a right to protect my family, who has a right to tell me that I don't?"

But defense from what, I ask him? According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crimes in the US are actually declining nationwide—and the offenders are more often friends and acquaintances (PDF), not strangers busting through women's home windows like the A bus stop billboard image for the gun conference.: Second Amendment FoundationShe's the face of the gun rights conference billboards seen around San Francisco.: Second Amendment Foundationbillboard advertisements for the conference inaccurately display. Add that to Department of Justice data (PDF) showing that most violent crime victims are black, males, age 24 years or younger, and the mostly white, suburban men at this particular gun rights conference are probably safer than they feel. No matter, says Knox. "I don't have guns because I'm afraid. I carry a gun so that I don't ever have to be afraid," adding that even a wee possibility of an assault gaurantees his right to carry. Which is true. The Second Amendment grants folks the right to keep and carry arms, but what about regulations?

"Firearms are like golf," Bob from Redwood City, Phil Graf from Sonoma County, and Goode all tell me, as though they're all working from the same talking points. But golf doesn't involve the sporting equipment used in most US murders. Besides, most products that could result in dangerous mishandling or criminal activity are regulated by the government. Why should guns be the exception, I ask? "Well, things that are protected by the Constitution shouldn't be so heavily regulated by the government," says Alan Gottlieb—the head of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the legal piranha which spearheaded this particular gun rights conference 25 years ago. "Cars can be dangerous, but they're not in the Constitution."

Both Knox and Gottlieb accurately point out that most firearm-related crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not law-abiding citizens. And felons are already barred by federal law from receiving gun permits. Murders, as a result, usually involve once-legal handguns acquired in the black market, not guns shot by their permitted user. As a result, Knox contends of the gun regulations in place: "All they're effective at doing is making it more difficult for me to exercise my rights. Gun control is all aimed at law abiding citizens, and it has no effect on the criminal." Because they haven't committed crimes, the speakers posit, they're immune to committing the crimes that gun regulations are positioned to prevent, not to mention inconvenienced. This faulty logic is endemic here at the conference. 

"Rape is illegal, murder is illegal, robbery is illegal. So if you make it illegal for the criminal to get a gun, does he really care?" Gottlieb asks me. "What happens is that gun control spends all of our resources tracking and regulating the 99 percent of people with guns who don't commit a crime, and the 1 percent who commit the crime we don't do anything about."

I factchecked this, and the answer is: Not exactly. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that states with tougher gun laws in fact export the guns used in crimes (PDF) at a much lower rate than states with weak gun laws. That is, those illegal guns handled by criminals and confiscated at crime scenes are most often traced back to states that don't do background checks for all guns purchased at gun shows [CLICK HERE FOR MOJO'S ARTICLE ON GUN SHOWS], that don't require purchase permits, that don't prosecute gun dealers who violate background check laws, and that don't allow local law enforcement to approve or deny conceal carry permits. Findings confirm that regulations do deter criminals from getting guns.

Lax background checks in Texas resulted in 400 convicted felons receiving gun permits.

A decade ago, the Los Angeles Times published an investigative report exposing that lax background checks in Texas had resulted in 400 convicted felons receiving concealed-handgun permits. And more than 3,000 concealed-handgun licensees had been arrested after receiving their permits. The report led Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (Michigan) to issue this response: "Law abiding citizens, armed with concealed weapons, are too often turning what would otherwise be unpleasant but not catastrophic events, such as fender-benders and commuting hassles, into tragedies."

Knox doesn't buy it. He says things like, "I've never used my gun or drawn it in anger," and, "The gun in my house doesn't increase the odds of a firearms crime occuring in my house because I'm not a criminal, my family aren't criminals, and we're not people who commit crimes." [CLICK HERE FOR MOJO'S EXPOSE ON THE NRA'S FAMILY VALUES CAMPAIGN.] 

This thought process has led one of the conference's biggest sponsors, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to successfully lobby against bills requiring all rifles and shotguns to be registered with the state's Department of Justice. The CRPA has also helped defeat a proposed ban on carrying unloaded handguns in public (licensed hunters would have been exempt). And it helped ensure that more misdemeanors won't be added to the list that prohibits firearms possession for ten years. Now the group has its sights on AB 962, which takes effect February of next year. That bill outlaws mail-order ammunition sales and requires that people purchasing ammunition are fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale so that the California Department of Justice can inspect the records for at least five years. The CRPA's dubbed the bill (PDF) an unnecessary burden for ammunition retailers, potential law-abiding buyers, and law enforcement. Knox says "Registration leads to confiscation." If the government knows about his weapons, it can take them away.

I ask Gottlieb if he thinks some middle ground can be achieved in the guns and regulations debate. "If you want to deny or restrict a person's rights or freedom, our people aren't going to be in on that. That's why this issue isn't ever going away."

In the meantime, Knox says: "I just want to have my guns."

U.S. Army soldiers with Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment look for suspicious activity from an observation point during an area reconnaissance mission off Highway 1 in Zabul province, Afghanistan, on Oct. 1, 2010. DoD photo by Spc. Joshua Grenier, U.S. Army.

Dion Nissenbaum of McClatchy reports that although the Pakistanis have blocked U.S. military convoys passing through Torkham to Afghanistan, they're letting everyone else through, including Taliban fighters:

"Every day, 40,000 to 70,000 people pass through the border, we can't handle it," said Gen. Mohammed Zaman Mamozai, the commander of the Afghan Border Police stationed at Torkham gate. "For us it's very difficult, and it's not possible to ask every single person where they are going and if they have a passport."

....For nearly a decade, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to cut off the remote, high altitude mountain trails Taliban forces use to smuggle weapons and fighters into Afghanistan. Now, the U.S. military is turning its attention to the border crossing.

"More and more we've realized that they are not coming through the passes, they're just coming through the . . . gate," said one U.S. government official in Afghanistan who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could candidly discuss the unfolding plan to focus on the border crossing.

Wait a second. After ten years, we're only now realizing that the Taliban might be coming in and out of Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass? That can't possibly be right, can it?

The controversy about the Republicans' ads featuring "hicky" actors in West Virginia, which were pulled this afternoon, has overshadowed the stink of desperation coming from the Manchin campaign this week.

Democratic Senate candidate and current Gov. Joe Manchin announced Wednesday that the state is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over mining rules. The timing is no small coincidence; while he was expected to cruise to an easy victory, Manchin is five points behind Republican John Raese in the most recent polls. In announcing the suit, Manchin accused the EPA of slowing down the permitting of mountaintop removal coal mining sites. "The EPA's illegal actions unfortunately will hurt the West Virginia economy," Manchin said Wednesday. "It's a shame when you have to sue your own government."

Indeed, Obama's EPA has subjected these controversial permits to more scrutiny under the Clean Water Act and granted fewer permits than it did under George W. Bush. But coal companies are still blowing up mountains and dumping the waste in valleys.

Manchin is clearly hoping that distancing himself from President Obama will help him politically—and the EPA lawsuit is just the latest in a series of similar moves, as he accused the administration of trying "to destroy our coal industry and way of life." And while he insists that the suit has been in the works since April, it's hard not to notice the timing of the announcement.

After all, getting elected in West Virginia seems to require keeping the coal industry as happy as possible, and Manchin has never been shy about his support for the industry. On the endorsement front, Manchin already has the backing of the West Virginia Coal Association, which represents 90 percent of the coal producers in the state, as well as the United Mine Workers of America. The head of the association joined him at yesterday's event.

But that hasn't kept Raese from painting his opponent as anti-coal. The Republican's latest campaign ad accuses Manchin of backing the Obama administration's energy and climate policies. "Obama said he wants to tax coal, even to bankruptcy. Cap and trade's carbon taxes would destroy the coal industry," the ad's narrator says. "Manchin's already signed West Virginia's cap and trade into law. It's time we say no to rubber stamp Joe."

It was probably inevitable, of course, that the West Virginia race would become a battle of who can love coal more. Apparently Manchin is still hoping to win it.

Prior to February, Afrikaner "zef" rappers Die Antwoord were virtually unknown outside of South Africa. Then, practically overnight, their video for "Enter the Ninja" became an internet sensation (nearly 8 million YouTube views to date), launching a bidding war by major labels. The most common reaction to the video may well have been, What the fok? (Read my initial reaction here.) Bumping a South African ghetto style known as zef—which is sort of like a downscale version of "bling"—rappers Ninja and Yo-Landi Vi$$er have created an insanely weird, high-energy chemistry. They push the creative envelope with an absurdist gangsta sexuality, laden with heavy doses of profane slang in their native tongue.

Die Antwoord arrives in America next week to tour in support of $O$ (SOS), their new debut CD on Interscope, which, fittingly, is also home to Lady Gaga and Eminem. Just yesterday, Die Antwoord released the video for their song "Evil Boy." Watch it below, but make sure your boss isn't looking, because it may well be one of the most risqué music videos ever recorded. This morning, I spoke with Ninja, who was chilling with Yo-Landi at a friend's place in Johannesburg prior to the tour. In part one, we talk about Die Antwoord's roller-coaster ride, the Interscope deal, and the surprising story behind "Evil Boy." (Click here for part two of the interview.) Watch the video first, and then we'll go speak with Ninja.


Mother Jones: Hey, wat pomp? [Loosely translates as "What's happening?") Did I say that right?

Ninja: Ja, you said it so good! It's the best American pronunciation of it ever!

MJ: I've been checking out the "Evil Boy" video. I mean, man! It makes Lady Gaga look tame. Clearly, nobody's trampling your artistic freedom.

N: Oh, no, no, no. That's why we signed with those guys. They love us.

The Real McCain

Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair:

The prevailing question about John McCain this year is: What happened? What happened to that other John McCain, the refreshingly unpredictable figure who stood apart from his colleagues and seemed to promise something better than politics as usual? The question may miss the point....It’s possible to see McCain’s entire career as the story of a man who has lived in the moment, who has never stood for any overriding philosophy in any consistent way, and who has been willing to do all that it takes to get whatever it is he wants. He himself said, in the thick of his battle with Hayworth, “I’ve always done whatever’s necessary to win.” Maybe the rest of us just misunderstood.

I'm hardly the best judge of character in the world, but I confess that the McCain phenomenon has always baffled me. Even back in the glory days of the Straight Talk Express he seemed like a consummate phony to me, sucking up to reporters not because he was being unusually candid, but because it seemed like a good strategy to beat a well-financed guy who was running ahead of him. He's always been nasty, he's always been hot tempered, he's always looked out for number one, and he's always been willing to take whatever position was convenient at the time. All politicians shade their messages now and again, but on that score McCain has always been a politician's politician.

Or so it seemed to me. I've never understood how he managed to convince so many people otherwise for so long.

A political endorsement is typically meant to draw a line in the sand, making a distinction between candidates as a statement of principle. But down in Florida's hotly contested Senate race, the Sierra Club has taken the unusual step of "co-endorsing" both Democrat Kendrick Meek and Independent Charlie Crist.

It's likely a boon for Crist, the former Republican who's been working hard to bolster his centrist credibility after tacking to the right during his GOP primary against Rubio. But Meek, to say the least, is not at all pleased—and has gone so far as to reject the environmental heavyweight's nod of approval:

Today's Sierra Club co-endorsement is an insult to Florida's environmental community. The Sierra Club has chosen to stand with a governor who stood on stage applauding as Sarah Palin chanted, 'Drill, Baby, Drill,' a governor who signed a law making it easier for big developers to drain the Everglades, a governor who endorsed a bill that would have allowed drilling just three miles away from Florida beaches, and a governor who used polluter talking points to attack climate change legislation...

I cannot in good conscience accept an endorsement from an organization that would stand with a governor who has consistently put developers, oil companies and the special interests first. I choose to stand with the environmental community and everyday Floridians who want clean energy jobs, clean water, and clean beaches. It's an insult to Florida's environmental community and Sierra Club members that the organization would endorse a governor who, in the organization's own words, 'sold out to developers' by 'failing to veto even the worst bills.' While I agree that Marco Rubio is an unacceptable choice for Florida's environment, Charlie Crist is also an unacceptable choice.

Meek goes on to cite various environmental bills that Crist vetoed as governor, prompting criticism from the Sierra Club itself that "our 'environmental' Governor has sold out to developers."

The Sierra Club has defended its decision by explaining that both candidates had gone through "a detailed endorsement process, including questionnaires and interviews with the candidates and careful review of the candidates’ records on environmental issues," as the St. Petersburg Times reports. One Sierra Club official added: "The Sierra Club rarely makes dual endorsements, but in this case it was particularly appropriate. Florida, the public at large, and Sierra Club members who want to see environmental leaders in Washington will all be well served by either Charlie Crist or Kendrick Meek as their representative in the US Senate."

It's an unusual decision, indeed—and gives the impression that the Sierra Club is simply hedging its bets on who will come out on top in November.

 (Phytoplankton. Photo courtesy the NOAA MESA Project.) 

The ocean just got richer than we ever imagined—thanks to a new flow cytometer that measures the size and pigment composition of every phytoplankter present in a sample of seawater at the mind-blowingly fast rate of thousands of cells per second.

With that stream of data, researchers from the University of Washington found that communities of phytoplankton south of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, are big players when it comes to carbon: sequestering up to 50 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the ocean. 


(Phytoplankton bloom off Vancouver Island. NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC.)

Typically biologists with traditional cytometers look for phytoplankton using tablespoon-sized samples of seawater collected 10 to 50 miles or more from each other.  But the new instrument, SeaFlow, samples seawater continuously, making it possible to analyze samples either every three minutes or else two samples per mile traveled. It does this by tapping into the systems aboard most oceanographic research vessels that supply running seawater to the wet labs.


 (François Ribalet prepares the SeaFlow at the start of a recent expedition. Photo courtesy the University of Washington.)

The new technology collects more samples in a day than most scientists normally gather on an entire cruise. It also sorts the phytoplankton into distinct communities, completing work in five minutes that takes two months with traditional cytometers and microscopes.

(Phytoplankton. Photo courtesy the NOAA MESA Project.) 
A prototype of the device revealed a biological hotspot off Vancouver Island andfor the first timea marine ecotone, something oceanographers knew must exist but had no way to locate before now.
Ecotones are areas where different habitats overlap, where a prairie and forest meet, for example, or a river and estuary intersect. Ectones are rich with species because plants and animals from both ecosystems might be found there, along with those adapted specifically to the hybrid environment. The ecotone discovered by François Ribalet and colleagues is a 40-mile-wide region where ocean water rich with nitrates met coastal water rich with iron. 

(Diatoms. Photo by Prof. Gordon T. Taylor, Stony Brook University, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.)

Here, Ribalet et al found not one but five oceanic phytoplankton communities, each taking advantage of the concentrations of carbon and nutrients.

"This was just unexpected diversity," Ribalet says. "It flies in the face of the textbooks." 

(Phytoplankton. Photo courtesy the NOAA MESA Project.) 

The researchers also discovered the phytoplankton hotspot sequesters 50 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced nearby.

"We thought that had to be a mistake at first," says Ribalet. "They are such small cells to do so much."

 Here's the abstract of the paper in PNAS:

In terrestrial ecosystems, transitional areas between different plant communities (ecotones) are formed by steep environmental gradients and are commonly characterized by high species diversity and primary productivity, which in turn influences the foodweb structure of these regions. Whether comparable zones of elevated diversity and productivity characterize ecotones in the oceans remains poorly understood. Here we describe a previously hidden hotspot of phytoplankton diversity and productivity in a narrow but seasonally persistent transition zone at the intersection of iron-poor, nitrate-rich offshore waters and iron-rich, nitrate-poor coastal waters of the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Novel continuous measurements of phytoplankton cell abundance and composition identified a complex succession of blooms of five distinct size classes of phytoplankton populations within a 100-km–wide transition zone. The blooms appear to be fueled by natural iron enrichment of offshore communities as they are transported toward the coast. The observed succession of phytoplankton populations is likely driven by spatial gradients in iron availability or time since iron enrichment. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, the resulting communities have a strong impact on the regional biogeochemistry as evidenced by the low partial pressure of CO2 and the nearly complete depletion of nutrients. Enhanced phytoplankton productivity and diversity associated with steep environmental gradients are expected wherever water masses with complementary nutrient compositions mix to create a region more favorable for phytoplankton growth. The ability to detect and track these important but poorly characterized marine ecotones is critical for understanding their impact on productivity and ecosystem structure in the oceans.
The paper:

Francois Ribalet, et al. Unveiling a phytoplankton hotspot at a narrow boundary between coastal and offshore waters. PNAS.

Hey, guess what? It's fundraising season again! Why now? I guess the thinking is that you've already got your wallets out to support the candidates of your choice right about now, so why not donate to the media of your choice while you're at it? Maybe Mother Jones, for example?

A few dollars helps support this blog, and also helps support reporting like Karen Greenberg's story today that a federal judge has officially decided that, yes, torture is illegal. (There's more to the story than that, though, so go read it. You're paying for it, after all. Aren't you?)

So: please help us out. This blog, along with the rest of the vast Mother Jones empire, only gets part of its funding from advertising and magazine subscriptions. Like every other progressive magazine, we also need reader contributions. Click here for PayPal or here to donate by credit card. Thanks!

In news that should surprise no one, the Department of Health and Human Services has announced a set of temporary waivers for companies that provide mini-med healthcare insurance:

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

....The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver....The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.

In other non-shocking news, HHS also announced a couple of days ago that 3,000 companies so far have signed up to take part in a program that protects early retiree programs until healthcare reform fully kicks in in 2014. There are certain to be unanticipated bumps in the road as healthcare reform unfolds over the next few years, but so far everything that's happened has been pretty much according to plan. Somebody tell the Wall Street Journal.