Who am I? And what the hell am I doing here?

My name is Eric Archer, and I'm currently a first year graduate student seeking my Ph.D. in Dallas, Texas. For now, I choose not to be anonymous.

So, first things first... what topics will I be covering here? In short, anything that comes to mind. That being said, I decided to start this blog because I have an itch to write about a few subjects in particular, so the majority of my posts will probably be in these areas. As a scientist and science fiction reader, I love to read about new discoveries from all areas in science. So, part of this blog will be dedicated to advancements in science and how they will make a difference in our lives. The one lesson that sticks out more than any other from my undergraduate research mentor was this:

If you want to call yourself a scientist, you should be able to explain science to your grandmother.

In that spirit, I hope that I'll be able to explain interesting discoveries/inventions without using too much of the "Ivory Tower" language that impedes learning.

The other subjects that pushed me to write (in private, and washing my hands afterwards) are current politics and dishonesty in the media. In the past week, I've written or replied to postings by two syndicated columnists because of their blatant failure to research their topics. While this type of response to the media may be nothing new to many people, for me, this feels like a tipping point. I'm tired and angry of reading articles by well paid journos who can't be bothered to fact check before misleading their audience.

I have no problem with anyone who reviews the facts and forms an opinion that differs from mine. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions and debate that can take place when this is the case. However, I have nothing but disdain for a journalist who shrivels under the responsibility of accurately reporting facts to their audience.

For an example, I'd like to link to an article written by Slate.com's Dahlia Lithwick:

http://www.slate.com/id/2216248/

I posted a response to her piece, which can be found here:

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2679699.aspx?ArticleID=2216248

For archiving purposes, I'll post my response here as well:

Mrs. Lithwick,

Please visit the following site.

www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Near the bottom of the page, you will find the following paragraph.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

This exact stance could be seen on www.change.gov before the move towww.whitehouse.gov. Forgive me Mrs. Lithwick, but you have blatantly failed to do your research. This seems to be an unambiguous explanation of exactly what the Obama Administration's gun policies are, especially in relation to the Assault Weapons Ban.

Dianne Feinstein recently spoke on 60 minutes, and when prompted by Leslie Stahl saying "There's some sense that the president has so many crisis issues on his plate right now that the idea of bringing up guns - which is considered part of the Culture Wars - would be such a diversion", she responded by saying that she and her colleagues are merely biding their time until they can pick the time and place to pass more gun control.

Currently, many political factors contribute to a feeling among conservatives that gun control will coincide with over-reaching socialist economic policies and legislation in the "culture war". Many people are preparing for hard times in the future, hoping that they never come. Some nutjobs/extremists are likely preparing themselves for an all-out shooting war with the American federal government. However, this isn't any different from the norm. We've always had nutjobs and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum (ALF). The vast majority of the gun-owning public rightly looks down on these extremists as fools, and are merely concerned with protecting themselves and loved ones from harm.

It isn't my intention to change your mind. But please, become better informed. A site that may provoke your interest is below.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

Thank you for your time,

Eric Archer

I don't know that she'll read it. I don't know that she'll care. But I do know that I feel better, knowing that I've at least made the effort to bring some more truth into the discussion.

E