Just Because You Can

I haven’t written to this blog in a long while because I haven’t been angry enough about something in particular to do so. Well today, I have something at which I can direct some energy.

There’s a pernicious cliché I hear almost every time I talk to someone who doesn’t like Open Carry (which is the practice, in those states--free states--where it is legal to openly carry a firearm): Just because you can doesn’t mean you should, or another variation, Just because you can, does not mean you have to. I suppose one can also add, Just because you can doesn’t mean you must.

As with many such clichés, it seems to say something profound but actually doesn’t as I propose to show forthwith. The reason I dislike clichés is that they are a shortcut to critical thinking. In fact, it may be more true to say that clichés are short circuits, an endrun around having to think too deeply about things. By the way, if you want to see a thoroughgoing disassembly of cliché, I suggest you read Jonah Goldberg’s The Tyranny of Clichés.

So let’s make things a bit more concrete, shall we, and rejigger the mental circuitry, take apart this vapid saying, put some meat on them bones. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should … is an incomplete sentence, it’s a phrase. There are things missing, aren’t there? Let’s add stuff:

“Just because you can eat ice cream doesn’t mean you should.” (Noted, and thanks. I’ll go ahead and eat ice cream. I like ice cream.)

“Just because you can kiss your wife goodbye doesn’t mean you should kiss her goodbye.” (Noted, and thanks. I’ll go ahead and kiss my wife goodbye, because it shows I love her and she likes it.)

“Just because you can pet your dog doesn’t mean you should pet your dog.” (Noted, and thanks. I’ll go ahead and pet my dog, because I like doing it and my dogs likes it, too.)

You see what I mean? As you start adding specifics, it starts to approach inanity. It actually doesn’t tell you anything at all. There’s stuff missing, important stuff: the phrase is meaningless because it doesn’t give any reasoning & with that goes meaning, and meaning is vital to reason. In fact, it does mental damage beyond that. Let me illustrate:

“Just because you can exercise your First Amendment right to petition government does not mean you should.”

Woah now, come again? Why not?! It’s my right to petition government, are you saying I should not? Why not? Why don’t you want me to exercise my right to petition government, what's your motive? What do you have against my exercising the right to petition my government?

See the scorpion’s tail in that seemingly innocent cliche? It gets people comfortable with doing nothing. In fact, the counterargument can be more correct: Just because you can means you should! Also in fact, this is the way better phrasing: it is positive, it is a call to action. Of course, it keeps out a bunch of things as well, but I’d much rather defend a positive position than the negative. One’s making an argument, the other is merely making a critique. One is the sun, the other is the eclipse.

In the case of our civil rights, just because you can exercise your civil rights, means you should! A right not regularly exercised atrophies. A right which falls out of common use is a right effectively lost. A right which no one cares to exercise soon becomes easier to forget, and even to legislatively abrogate.

And here’s the reason I wrote this today: I hear this nigh meaningless phrase uttered in reference to Open Carry so here it is, the missing information: “Just because you can Open Carry doesn’t mean you should.” To which I counter, why ever not? It is a valid expression of our right to keep and bear arms! Those who contend that we shouldn’t or mustn’t are trying to sell you on letting go one of your most important civil rights, just as surely as they’re trying to sell you on any of the others you do have.

I have been told that the Supreme Court has decided on a slim margin that there is now a right to same-sex marriage. All well and good, and it is now the law of the land. One of the arguments on the side of the SSM crowd was that it was a civil right, and any attempt to water it down with civil unions or any other facsimile of full on marriage, is oppressive. Do not tell me when, how, and with whom I can exercise my civil rights! If it makes you uncomfortable that I want to exercise my right to same-sex marriage, I suggest you go pound sand (or go to jail in that Kentucky case). You cannot debate my civil rights away! You know what, I agree.

“Just because you can marry a man if you’re a man doesn’t mean you should.” Try telling that to the SSM supporter and be excoriated, and rightly so. We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.

I support Open Carry, it’s part & parcel of the “bear arms” section of the Second Amendment. If it makes you uncomfortable that I am OC, I suggest you go pound sand. I don’t care what you think or, to be precise, what you feel. Your insecurity about when I choose to exercise my civil rights doesn’t matter.

Some people don’t like the light it throws on all gun owners when certain gun owners act up. How they look while OC. It makes society at large think worse of us all gun owners. Some people say Open Carrying at people (whatever the hell that means, I’m guessing posturing aggressively) is wrong--we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it?--and yet others go on about how our rights will be curtailed by voters when people misuse it.

That’s the thing about rights, you see. They can’t be voted on; an opinion about a revoking a natural right is meaningless. I refuse to have the actions of a person who happens to be in the same category as me define who I am. A person who misuses their rights gets individually punished. If it is not against the law to OC then leave the man alone who OCs. He’s no more breaking the law than is the man who is eating breakfast at a cafe. Leave him alone.

That it happens to be a gun and not a breakfast sandwich is meaningless. Stop trying to convince me to stop exercising my civil rights because you don’t like the form in which I’m doing it or what I'm wearing while doing it. We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.

I could add that I usually don't Open Carry often as a choice because of strategic & tactical reasons (I don’t have backup, I don’t have a radio connecting me with a ton of other armed citizens who will arrive to help me if I get in trouble, etc.). But to make a point of it, to exercise a right which needs exercising, to condition the populace to being comfortable with the Second Amendment, to spit in the face of those who wish to make me feel like a dirty, broken person, belonging in the back of a closet: Just because I can, I will.

Open vs. Concealed Carry

A storm in a teacup, so the saying goes, and there's no bigger one than that currently raging between the advocates of so-called Open Carry and Concealed Carry. The carrying is of weapons, by the way.

Begging your pardon, it's not so much a storm as a bleeding hurricane. And it's all for naught. Why must people act as if those two modes of carrying a firearm are somehow mutually exclusive? Let me repeat this question:

Why must people act as if those two modes of carrying a firearm are mutually exclusive?

Because, pssst, they aren't. There's nothing that says that in jurisdictions where the two modes of carry are legal, you must choose one or the other! And once you have chosen to carry in one mode, you can never, ever, ever again carry in any other mode. Nonsense, stuff and double nonsense. Yet, to read the "debates" raging on various Facebook pages, twitter, and blogs, you'd think this was a problem beyond all cognition.

In Idaho, we are able to carry openly without a permit. With a tax permit, we are also able to carry concealed in town (you may carry concealed while outside city limits). We are currently trying to replicate what Vermont--of all states!--has had since 1791, so-called Constitutional Carry. This means that if you're a law-abiding citizen without adjudicated mental infirmities, not prohibited from owning firearms, you ought to be allowed to carry in whatever mode you desire. The Second Amendment describes it as carry but not in what mode.

And this is crux of the issue: in jurisdictions which both modes are legal, carry as you wish! I choose not to carry openly most of the time because concealed carry affords me the element of surprise if, God forbid, I ever have to deploy a firearm to defend against a forcible felony. Open carry is less strategically sound and were I to openly carry, I would very likely be doing so in a group of friends so we can look after each other. Cops who carry openly have backups, partners, access to long arms within reach and a radio for tactical reasons, and so would I want as well.

However, there's no law that forces me to carry one way or the other. And I refuse to impugn my fellow citizens' right to carry as they wish. The two modes of carry are not mutually exclusive. Good people can and do both!

I have more to say about this, but I wanted to keep this post short. However, I am going to take this opportunity now to address the brain-dead who insist in various ways all asinine, that those who carry openly are making it hard to know the difference between good guys with a gun and a bad guy with a gun.

One woman on Facebook put it this way (and by "way," I mean batshit cuckoo):

This is how you argue, folks! pic.twitter.com/HTrkxZytmy
— Salty Codger (@fwoodbridge) March 10, 2015

Ignore for a second her incredible assertion that someone exercising their legal rights necessarily leads to you standing over "your dead child's grave". What I want you to notice is this line:

You people are making it impossible to tell the good guys with guys [she must mean guns] from the bad guys with guns. And just one more thing [as if she's ready to drop some mad knowledge, yo!] ... 100% of all bad guys with guns were good guys with guns before they committed their first crime.

Get that? She is unable to tell, just by looking at someone (who happens to be bearing a pistol in a holster or a rifle slung over the shoulder) whether that person will commit a crime or not. Gosh, wouldn't that be swell? If you could somehow tell, just by looking, whether or not someone will cause harm in the near future? Well, we could start by employing Pre-cogs. That'd be a good first start. Until then, how about you stick to reality?

Let me put it another way to this woman: two men are walking towards you. They are both men, as you can easily ascertain, which means they both have penises. Which means that either man could conceivably (heh) rape you. But, just by looking at these men, how can you tell who's a good man with a penis and who's a bad man with a penis?

And just one more thing, 100% of all bad men with penises were good guys with penises before they raped you.

The Low

I find my blood pressure spikes every time I read stories of people like Shawn Glans, the bully thug in a police uniform who assaulted & battered a citizen unaware he was being recorded.

Official United States Bully, Shawn Glans

You can imagine how I felt reading yet another similar story, this time from Alabama. A Police Department Training officer named Eric Parker and his trainee came across a supposedly suspicious person whose crime started and ended there. I have yet to see where it is a crime to be a suspicious person in any ordinance or edict in any city or state.

"Found guilty of being a suspicious person, Abraham Lincoln of Springfield Illinois was today sentenced to two months' jail time. He was rigorously reprimanded & the accused promised never to be suspicious in the future."

Eric Parker will end up costing the citizens of his city millions of dollars, but worse, he will solidify the visceral hatred of the police that ordinary citizens continue to harbor. The chief of police stated that Parker did not exhibit the "high standards" of that city's police department. Sure, chief, that's why he's a training officer.

How dare you be a suspicious person!

If you don't know, (now ex-) Officer Eric Parker accosted an Indian grandfather who had been reported as suspicious. The law requires that a crime be currently & actively investigated before an officer may detain a citizen and in this case, that crime was being suspicious, you see. Alas, the frail Indian gentleman did not understand he was committing this crime, and after he added on the veritably hateful inability to speak English, paid for it by having his neck broken in a takedown befitting the felony crime of being suspicious.

As bad as that is, there's something far, far worse at play here, and is the reason these two jerks acted the way they did. I've already touched on this topic in my other post, In Mala Fide. It is characterized by the following statement: someone somewhere once did X therefore everyone is guilty of X until they prove otherwise.

These officers are trained to ensure that every interaction with the citizenry holds within the potential for violence. Because of this, it conditions these simpletons--and I use this term advisedly, because for too many police officers it is unfortunately true--to act as if the citizen is already guilty of the crime of executing a police officer and it is their job today, right now, to stop their own murder from commencing.

They deal with citizens in bad faith, assigning the worst intentions to every person until that guilt person has proven otherwise. This is the same thing the TSA does: everyone is guilty of trying to blow up airliners until they've proved they won't. Someone once tried to blow up an airliner by smuggling a bomb in their shoe therefore everyone thenceforth is guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb and must prove they won't by taking off their shoes for inspection.

Once you think of it like that, everything snaps into focus. The Newtown board set up to Do Something about the shooting there just came out with even more restrictions to be placed on the sale & transfer of not only firearms but cartridges as well. None of this would have prevented Newtown from happening, as even a laudatory ("courageous!") newspaper editorial points out. Nevertheless, proceed full speed ahead, guilty citizens one and all.

Seen through the filter of bad faith, it makes sense why these simpletons would call for further restrictions on erstwhile law-abiding citizens. Let's see how it fits into our bad faith template: Adam Lanza committed a crime with guns therefore every citizen in his state is now guilty of committing a crime with guns and must prove they (i) have not (ii) are not now (iii) will never commit a crime with guns. The burden of proof lies with them.

Aside from the fact that it is in a 180-degree direction from how our system was designed to operate--the presumption of innocence, in case you missed it--it is actually a completely worthless approach to law enforcement & safety. This is likely the reason why our Founders designed the system in that way! Who would've thought. While it is straightforward to prove I have not committed a particular crime, it is quite difficult to prove that I am not currently committing said crime and further, just about impossible to prove I will never commit that crime.

We treat each other with the basest of assumptions, assigning the worst possible to our intent, locking us away in virtual jail cells until we have each proven to one another that we are not guilty. If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you are guilty of trying to murder someone. So you must prove you haven't and aren't currently by undergoing a background check. If not that bad, then you are certainly guilty of negligence. You will leave your weapon unattended and someone will get hurt. You will kill your wife and children with that weapon. You will shoot up the local elementary school.

Some other examples, in passing: men who sit with their legs open in subway cars are guilty of patriarchal oppression and must be shamed & punished. A mother brings in a child to the ER who hurt itself falling off a high chair; she's guilty of Munchausen-by-Proxy until she proves she isn't. That guy who made a joke about Asians is guilty of racism and must be prove to our collective sense of justice that he is not a racist; until then he is to be punished. Eric Eich once gave money to a cause therefore he is guilty of hating homosexuals and must prove his innocence; until then he is punished.

Someone suspicious once walked the streets casing houses for later burglary. Therefore the frail Indian gentleman is guilty of both being suspicious and casing houses therefore he must prove to Officer Parker's finely honed sense of justice that he is not guilty of that crime, but in the meantime, will be handled like a guilty criminal until such time as he has proven he's no threat.

Do you see how nefarious this is? Low-trust societies do not survive long yet this is exactly what we're positively encouraging each other to do. It is brutal if you're the person caught in the headlights of the oncoming Guilty Train for the simple reason that it is very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove a negative, to prove something isn't there. Asking me to prove there are no black swans requires an extraordinary amount of work on my part because I must search every corner of the earth for a negative, as you sit there actively punishing me.

Guilty of rara avis!

Bad faith.

In Mala Fide

There are a great many people out there, including police officers unfortunately, who feel (not think) that the mere presence of a gun implies evil. In the case of the police--like this unfortunate meathead Idaho sheriff, who actually shot himself--the presence of a gun screams criminal!

What tosh.

The Idaho Supreme Court, in a case from 1909, includes this diamond of a quote among a long and rather dry analysis of an appeal before it:

A man may need a gun for a great many things other than that of shooting his neighbor. In fact, it should be presumed in the first instance that a man is going to use his gun for a lawful purpose and that he is not out gunning for his neighbor. [Emphasis mine.]

 Well there you go. Our system works on a presumption of innocence; even in the case of a clear-cut case against a violator with many witnesses, the burden of proving guilt lies with the prosecutor only.

It is the same way outside the courtroom as well. More people are pummelled to death by hands and feet than get shot by so-called assault rifles (AKA a black rifle) yet this doesn't make anyone afraid for their safety simply walking by a man equipped with those tools of destruction. One commences in life by placing good faith in their fellow citizen that they will not suffer battery at the hands (and feet) of passersby. In other words, unless and until you have good reason to believe you will be battered, proceed as usual.

Another quick example: chances are, you get into your car everyday and drive wherever you need to go. You do this without living in crippling fear that an oncoming vehicle's driver will swerve into your lane and take you out in a head on collision. Since you have no good reason to believe that the 2000 pound weapon under the control of your fellow citizen will be used with malice against you, you proceed as usual. (Need I point out that more people die in vehicle accidents a year than get shot?)

We presume that everyone around us will act in a lawful and peaceable manner.

Except, of course, if that person were carrying a firearm. In which case, small-minded, scaredy cat, safety-first-last-always folks will assign the worst motives.

Common sense ain't.

Restraint

Watch then think what you'd have done. I'd have lit the fucker up.
Kudos to the kop.

Also, we all need cardiovascular exercise.

Post by Evansville Police Department.

Base Assumptions

Ran into this execrable pile of shit this morning and "felt led" to opine. I'll quote it here and tell you what I think following:

Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield’s HB260 bill permitting concealed guns without a permit is irresponsibly dangerous. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues of arms.”

As a licensed clinical social worker, I counsel men in relational disputes. Jacqueline C. Campbell, Ph.D., an internationally recognized domestic violence expert, has research suggesting the risk of a man killing a woman is highest where he is unemployed and possesses a weapon. Such men would often not be deemed mentally ill at the time of purchase of a weapon prior to relational disputes occurring.

Rep. Oda’s bill is irresponsible and would increase the likelihood that more women will be seriously injured or murdered than save people from criminals. Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives. Our freedoms on[sic] not unlimited, says the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tab L. Uno, LCSW, MPA

The open assertion is interesting, but there it is in all its sordid glory, the theme of his letter. Pity he follows up with a quote from a Supreme Court case that does not contribute in any way to his conclusion that a permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous." Perhaps there's more following.

The second paragraph continues with an appeal to authority that because he's a licensed social worker--leftist alert!--what follows should be accepted without argument. What does he follow up with, a quote from yet another expert that suggests that a "man killing a woman is highest when he is unemployed and possesses a weapon."

Let's look at his base assumptions here: as a licensed clinical (no less) social worker, he's telling you to accept the "research" which "suggests" (though not actually proves) that there is a increase in the risk of men killing women when they're (a) unemployed and (b) in possession of a weapon. Keep it at the front of your mind his thematic conclusion: that permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous" then ask yourself what connection permitless concealed carry has with research from some unknown authority figure named Jackie--whom he asserts is an internationally recognized expert--produced which show unemployed men who own guns are at risk of killing women.

Think of his assumptions here, based even though they are on this purported "research": he's assuming that men will have to be both unemployed and simply own a firearm to raise the risk of them killing women. That alone is debatable but it betrays a vicious mindset, a generalization that slanders men. Though strangely this curtails his argument, such as it is, since all I would have to do to destroy it is to say that employed male gun owners exist in much larger numbers.

Continuing: since the risk is "raised" that unemployed men are at risk of killing women (women in general or just ones they run into on the street?), we should not pass a law permitting concealed carry without a license. Okay, that makes all the sense in the world!

Unemployed male gun owners are at risk of killing women therefore do not pass a bill that would allow permitless concealed weapons carriage. Do you see the meandering illogic of this? The pure emotionality of it all? Women will die! The only thing that would round out this perfect dunghill of an argument is if he can somehow work in minorities, preferably gay minorities--into the whole stewpot.

His final paragraph seals the tomb: this bill will increase the likelihood that women will be murdered. H'm. Doesn't that require his two ingredients of male unemployment and simple gun ownership? Alas, he doesn't say. He just wildly asserts. His premises don't support his conclusions, but I wager he doesn't care, women will die! The fantastic rat's nest of assumptions that draws a connection between unemployed males killing women with their guns is a work of a very disturbed mind. That this person is "counselling men" is only just this side of frightening.

Secure in the fact that he has indeed made the connection between unemployed, gun-owning males, the women they kill, and permitless concealed weapons carry, he proceeds:

Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives.

Does that statement make any sense to you? I've read it a few times and each time, I get more confused. "Now is the time [as opposed to when other time?] when government has a responsibility to protect its people and [here comes the super bizarre part] not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives [Huhhuhwhat? Is there a freedom fit to be promoted by the government to "handle anger"? Seriously, what the fuck does this mean?]

By passing a permitless concealed weapons carry law, this is government "promoting freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives"? How about permitted concealed weapons carry, which is legal now? How is the permitting process supposed to weed out unemployed men who will kill women? What standard ought the government use here? Will there need to be a question in the form for concealed carry that asks whether you're employed if you're male and which will deny you the right to keep and bear arms since it raises the risk of you bad male person you killing women?

Our freedoms are not unlimited, says the Supreme Court. I have so many questions: what does this have to do with permitless concealed weapons carry? Does the Supreme Court get to decide what those limitations on our freedoms are, or just the right to keep and bear arms? What will a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms mean with respect to unemployed male gun owners killing women?

This letter gives you an insight into the disjointed mind of a leftist who speaks only in buzzwords. Men kill women. Buzz! Guns are bad. Buzz! I am a clinical social worker. Buzz! Freedoms are not unlimited. Buzz! Supposition based on emotion riding on the rails of base assumptions with a touch of just pure crazy.

The American Form of Government

The Intelligence of Race

H'm:

It's a biological fact that there are innate differences in IQ among different races. If you can't deal with that, enjoy being a truther.
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) January 30, 2015

Set aside the fact that Charles Johnson is a soulless ginger (heh), let's talk about race and intelligence and this assertion he makes about a fact of biology. But more, let's talk about the consequences of his assertion about that fact of biology.

To start, I will declare outright some biases: (a) I fucking love science (ahem) (b) I am bi-racial; specifically, I'm half white boy, half black girl. That sounds weird, but there you have it. I have some skin (heh) in the game, so to speak. And (c) I am a Christian.

I was born in Cameroon, lived the first half of my life in Nigeria in the west of Africa and then moved around until I settled in Florida, which is as close to a melting pot as you will have anywhere else in the US, both in literal and metaphorical terms. What this means is that, as an average observer of humanity--certainly enough to know I don't like most humans--I can tell you that there are truths to be found in generalities about groups. Where things start to fray is in applying those averages, those generalities to individual members of those groups. It takes a steady mind to avoid bigotry, and we are all of us guilty of it regardless of skin color.

For example, the myriad problems in Nigeria have at their root the deep divides between Nigerian ethnic and attendant religious groups: the eastern Igbos, reputed to be more intelligent than the northern Hausas, don't like the western Yorubas, etc. And they each say things about each other in generalities: "Don't trust an Igbo trader, son. He's out to steal as much as he can. Learn to bargain!" And so on.

We are generalization engines. We categorize. We sort and classify. It's what has made us the dominant species on the planet. But it is also the bane of our existence. The source of much strife, of war, of violence, of evil. With this in mind, let's talk about genetics, of which I know just enough from High School & College biology (I was a Zoology major at a University in Nigeria, intending on going on to Medical School). It is a fact that certain attributes pass genetically from generation to generation. It is, truly, settled science if there ever was such a thing. Among black Americans, a doctor will say, high blood pressure is more common. Sickle Cell Anemia is prevalent among black Africans, etc.

Chances are, you inherited your father's thighs or your mother's breasts--which would really suck for you if you're a man. Chances are, you'll likely die from the same disease that killed one of your grandfathers, if medical science doesn't find a cure. Chances are, people will say you have your mother's green eyes, Chances are, you and your sisters share your grandmother's Roman nose. And the list goes on.

There's no valid reason why genetic inheritance of attributes should stop, by human fiat, at the neck and go no higher. Those calf muscles you got from your father, but no one knows why you both suck at mathematics. No idea. Nonsense. Intelligence and the attendant capability is heritable. I've seen it, you've seen it. I believe, based on the evidence, that this is a fact of life.

Well now, what about groups? Ah now there's where the road is not so easy to walk. The Nazis (you knew it was coming) used the "biological fact" of racial differences to send millions to the gas chambers. Does this, one wonders, therefore invalidate the study of racial differences? Of course not, because to do so is to commit a logical fallacy. Are there racial differences between peoples and are those differences genetic? I say yes. Race, like sex, is most certainly not a social "construct" and it is foolish to think otherwise.

And if by extension, there are biological--including morphology--differences between the races, transferrable through the genes, and if, intelligence is likewise transferrable through the genes, it ought to follow that there are differences in intelligence between the races. As a half-black, half-white man, this makes sense to me; it does not make me uncomfortable in the least.

And this is why: I do not apply what I know to be true about groups to the individual members of that group. For two reasons: first because it's committing a logical fallacy to do otherwise and also because earlier I declared the bias that I am a Christian. What that means is that in the way I live my life and in my interactions with people, there are certain rules and regulations that govern and provide guidance to those interactions. I believe I am made in God's image (Imago Dei) and I also believe every human being on the planet is also made in God's image. This does not nullify the fact of our differences, of which there are many: racial, ideological, political, and so on. What is does do is require that I act accordingly for we are, all of us, God's children, brothers and sisters.

The problem is, we're humans. Fallible and fallen creatures that really suck generally. With evil in the heart, we seize on our differences to rationalize our evil actions against others. It is "harder" to shoot your son in the head than a stranger's. It is "easier" to kick a dog (Canis familiaris) than it is to kick a child (Homo sapiens). People and things that are different from us are easier to act against with malice. It is the stuff of which human history is made and all you have to do to convince yourself of this reality is to read a few history books.

So then, for argument's sake accept the fact of the matter that there are differences between the races. The question now is, so what? From which follows, no what? What are we to do with this information? As with most questions posed to humanity, it comes fraught with advantage and danger.

My doctor asks me for a family history so he can help me avoid "family-related" problems so I can live longer and healthier than my mother who died young. The racist down the street from me assumes because of my mother's skin color that I am unintelligent, if not outright stupid, and because of this, am two steps away from being violent. Well, in a way, he's right: I am steps away from being violent, but that requires he takes the first few steps first. :)

For good and for bad, there are differences between the races. For good, we can tailor health practices to ensure we all live longer. For bad, we can have Auschwitz. Personally, for you, as an individual, what should this bit of information do for you? Information, data, sitting there means nothing. You may as well have never known it--and I believe this is the path many take, to turn a blind eye. Does this mean that you will act in a certain way when you meet a black person? An Arab? A Jew? A Chinese man? Will it change the way you would have acted?

If it is shown that the intelligence of black Africans is lower than that of white Europeans, does this mean you now understand why black African countries are such hell holes? Does this remove the blinders, everything now clear? Does the relatively high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews now mean we should only have those Jews be scientists? Drawing only from that class of persons the doctors, engineers? Are you, as a white man, better than me, as a half-white man who is in turn better than a fully-black man? What does "better" mean in this situation?

As a government, do we start passing legislation barring certain groups from occupying certain posts in society based on genetics? Are we to segregate blacks in certain sections of our cities (which they already do on their own, by choice, it seems)? Japanese? Do we pass laws requiring that blacks cannot intermarry with Asians because the ensuing offspring will be "less capable" for society?

What do we do with this information, considering it's truth? Now, what? Considering how bad we are at statistics, replete through and through with cognitive bias after cognitive bias, now what.

Tears on My Pillow

Ran into this gem published by our newspaper of record (I use that term loosely) here in Idaho, The Statesman. I'm going to quote it and intersperse my thoughts.

When a powerful organization called al-Qaida nurtures the violent fantasies of angry and disaffected men and enables them to obtain weapons and kill innocent civilians, we call that terrorism.
When a profit-driven industry lobby called the NRA makes it easy as pie for any angry or even crazy person to get handguns and assault weapons and act out their own violent fantasies against family and community members, does that count as terrorism, too?

Right off, you get the sense this is going to be a well-reasoned, thoughtful and sober reflection on the issues. "al-Qaida" is compared with the National Rifle Association because they both nurture the violent "fantasies of men" (not women?) by enabling them to "obtain weapons and kill innocent civilians."

Yes, those two organizations are different in name, perhaps, but that's where all difference ends. Must I point out the insanity of conflating these two organizations, really? Must I? Oh alright, I suppose I must. The NRA (I mean 'al-Qaida') enables crazy people to get handguns and assault weapons. I'd like to know how it does that exactly. Does it buy them the handguns? Does it encourage the crazy people to commit these atrocities? Does it put the evil in their minds, maybe using some "Inception"-type brainwashing? Does it make them crazy in the first place? I'm not quite clear what this person means by "enabling" because "easy as pie" isn't exactly a methodology.

To purchase a firearm, the NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida') plays no part in the transaction whatsoever. To purchase a firearm, the person has two choices: buy from a dealer or buy from a private citizen. To purchase from a dealer, they must first have money, which isn't exactly easy to come by. So called "assault weapons" (so called because there's no one legal definition for what an assault weapon is) are expensive and the NRA, if anything, takes money not gives it.

At the dealership, the prospective buyer must pass a background check to ensure he or she is not a "prohibited person." Felons cannot purchase firearms, neither can those adjudicated mentally insane. So far, no 'Easy Pie' but it is simple as a concept: if you're not a felon or otherwise prohibited, nothing should come in the way of your obtaining a firearm, which is a right as recognized by the Second Amendment.

So what about private purchases? The first point to make here is an important and philosophical one: a firearm is not a sentient being, capable of making choices on its own. It is a tool, designed for the specific purpose of throwing a projectile in a certain direction, that direction chosen by the wielder of the firearm. It is a piece of property, no more no less. In many ways, it's like a car or a boat. As a private citizen, I ought to be able to sell my own private property, period. If you don't agree with this simply because it is a firearm, you are a tyrant-in-the-making.

That said, there are laws governing such transactions specifically because it is a firearm: the seller must be reasonably certain that the buyer is not a prohibited person. This means that most purchasers who do not know the buyer beforehand will insist on getting a bill of sale filled out, an ID check, and many insist that the buyer have a Concealed Weapons Permit which shows they've already passed an FBI background check. So far, no pie and the NRA (I mean 'al-Qaida') still hasn't made an appearance.

But, you protest, criminals and other prohibited persons get their guns somewhere! That's right: they buy them from other criminals. They do not go into gun stores. They do not buy them from law-abiding private citizens. Read the FBI reports on this and you'll find that criminals get the majority of their guns from strawman purchases (bad boy thug felon sends his baby momma who has no criminal record to buy him a gun) and of course from the streets.

As for crazy people obtaining firearms, until the day we can merely look at a person who has shown no signs of mental illness beforehand and foresee they are about to become insanely violent, we are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt. Mental illness is a terrible thing, but we all should not be guilty of it before clinical diagnosis. As easily as the mentally ill can use a firearm to cause violence, they can use a knife (as happened in China with those poor children) and they can use a car (too many examples of this abound) or something else, usually benign. It is the responsibility of society at large that before we strip someone of their unalienable rights--which include bearing arms--a sober judicial process must occur. We shouldn't be required to prove our sanity before exercising a basic and natural right. On second thought, maybe we ought to require proof of sanity before voting!

Now for "angry" persons obtaining firearms--what a ludicrous idea! Who hasn't been an "angry" person a few times in life? Prohibiting people from obtaining firearms because they're "angry" is insanity itself and pretty much rules out every man, woman, and child on the planet. Which is perhaps his goal, and if so, why doesn't he just say so?

As with most of the stupidity and irrationality in American public life, our friends, neighbors and family members are being killed on a weekly basis nationwide because this is what we have asked for, either by voting for politicians who are stooges of the NRA, or by not voting at all and thus leaving the decision to zealots.

In one breath you call Americans stupid and irrational but your "friends, neighbors and family members" who are killed on a weekly basis aren't stupid and irrational, they're just dead. Are those people not part of the stupid and irrational American public life? The connection he attempts to show between voting for politicians who are NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida') stooges and his "friends and neighbors" being killed is tenuous, at best.

Let's see here: the politicians in Chicago, Democrats almost all, are hardly NRA stooges. In fact, Chicago and the state of Illinois has some of the most stringent gun regulations on the books. Yet it also has some of the highest murder rate committed with handguns (not "assault weapons," mind you which are statistically insignificant) in the nation. In fact, the areas with politicians who write the most stringent gun control measures into law have the highest rates of "gun violence." Interesting, that, no? So it seems where there's no NRA ('al-Qaida'), there's higher rates of "gun violence" which, alas, doesn't help his points.

So tell me again that a nation flooded with guns and plagued with mass murders is somehow freer and safer than nations such as Australia, Canada or England with vastly lower murder rates.
Somehow, I'm not feeling it.

And that's the key, isn't it? This whole letter is composed of "feels." You're not "feeling" it because basically, that's about all you're doing, is feeling. This is an unsteady appeal to emotion. None of the clear-eyed statistics actually supports your contentions so you blast out in a spittle stream of over-emotionality.

Well, I'm sure sorry to tell you this, but your feelings have no weight in overturning Second Amendment rights. As most Americans now agree, based on polling data, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and gun control is nothing more than people control in hiding. The fact that someone, somewhere, will misuse their right to own firearms is not a reason to strip those rights away from everyone else. The fact that someone, somewhere, is sure to drink and drive is no reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol. Unless and until you commit a crime or are adjudicated mentally unstable, your rights are yours, given by the Constitution's 'Creator' and are not subject to your feelings.

As for the spurious claim about our nation flooded with guns is less "freer and safer" than Australia, Canada, or England, well that just does not hold any water! England and Australia have different populations in both numbers and culture than we do. Not only that, but their violence rates are higher per capita than ours. In fact, the United States is number 111 (One hundred and Eleven) in homicide rates worldwide and, if we take out the Democrat-controlled cities, we would fall even lower. We are freer, yes, and come to find out, we're safer, too.

Watch this, if you dare:


As an aside, it's rather interesting that you're calling out Australia and Canada where in the last few months violence with highly-regulated firearms have exploded into the news. France, with its Draconian firearms laws, just saw Islamic terrorists (NRA members?) murder police and journalists with semi-automatic rifles. How do you explain that away, I wonder?

And yes, I've been a gun owner all my adult life, am pro-hunting and attended the police funeral following the previous Moscow mass murders in 2007. Still not feeling it.
Chris Norden, Moscow

Well, Chris, the fact you're a gun owner "all your life" means nothing. It does not grant your opinion any more weight. That you want to limit firearm ownership, while being a firearm owner yourself, means nothing. It's a cheap rhetorical ploy to cover yourself in a mantle of reasonableness. It's sort of like saying that because you're married to a Jew, you are thereby free to be an anti-Semite.

The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with "hunting." Nice try. Go sell your crazy somewhere else, pal. Like Chicago.

I'm not a member of the NRA but this guy has given me all the reason I need to pull the trigger (no pun). Today, I'm joining the NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida').

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/27/3612814_letter-guns.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Triple Check

So as many of you have seen, this is what your hand would look like if or when a 9mm Speer Golddot +P goes into your palm and out through your wrist. It's not a good feeling at all. Having been shot by one now I know why so many people like them. Even after a couple hours, morphine and an oxycodone I still feel like a tank is sitting on my arm with a fire brand inside. I'll have everyone know I didn't cry at all the while time and no one else was endangered by the gun when it went off. Now for exactly what happened : I had just made it home from work and was gonna oil my gun and put my new grip pin and trigger pins in the gun. It was loaded with gold dot +Ps and I dropped the mag racked the slide and was pulling the trigger to take the slide off and had my palm in front of the muzzle to pull the tabs down like I would with any unloaded glock. I shot through my hand and out my wrist. I did everything right but the bullet didn't eject so there was still a bullet in the chamber. It's been a good learning experience for me, even though it sucks to have to learn the hard way to triple check, it's worth it in the end. Thanks to everyone who has checked on me, sorry I haven't replied go everyone but I wanted to make this post so everyone understood what happened exactly. I appreciate any prayers while I try and rest up and heal. Thank you all my friends!! #glock

A photo posted by Hunter (@hunterrwill) on Jan 25, 2015 at 6:49am PST

How Multiculturalism Caused the Paris Terror Attacks | Afterburner w/Bil...

Ew, Christians

Douthat is right;

Palmer’s secular and scientistic worldview, of course, is not the worldview of the classical world, which was far more inegalitarian and cruel than the still-Christian-influenced secular humanism of our own era.

Read the rest, then with that in mind, read Palmer's loathsome article for Slate.

Kill or Be Killed

Last night, because I wanted to understand the salient points of Idaho's self-defense statutes, I decided to take the course by the Ada County Sheriff's Office. It was three hours long and mostly worth it. However, there were a few glaring errors--maybe it would be better to call it let-downs than errors; I'm going to describe them, for the hell of it. There were two instructors, one behemoth deputy with each arm the size of three baseball bats taped together with bungee cords, Deputy Muscles. This is a guy you wouldn't want to tangle with without the aid of a meth/8-ball cocktail. The other instructor was a typical Idahoan male of a certain persuasion: funny, meek, untraveled, provincial, 6 children, all homeschooled. I liked him immediately. He was a Sergeant, Muscles a Corporal. After a few corny jokes that the universe could have done without, we got into it, wading ankle-deep into what was surely a wide and deep ocean of self-defense law. We were made to understand that our fine state had laws essentially unchanged since the 1800s when they were first drafted. The Deputies tried and laughably failed to show that the laws had been updated to “the present day” through the accumulation of case law. Now, I knew this, but from the vacant looks on the faces of the approximately 30 people in the class, I could tell they didn’t understand the concept. Is it slightly gauche to point out at this point that more than half the class was female? Maybe sexist. Maybe. And I’m not kidding about the Idaho Statutes! There’s mention of a justifiable homicide in defense of the life of one’s wife, husband, etc. and one’s “master or mistress or servant.” Nice. What was missing--but kept getting hinted at--was the fact that it would be necessary, on shooting in self-defense, to articulate the reason. Muscles made it seem as if you would be so doing to the Police. He did, naturally, point out that it was up to you whether or not you chose to speak to the Police and that, of course!, you had a right to shut up and request an attorney. But, it would still be necessary to “articulate” your reasons. Yes, Muscles, I must be able to articulate clearly the reasoning that went into my decision to shoot and possibly kill in self-defense. But it wouldn’t be to you, or any other Law Enforcement official: in the immortal ebonics of Tupac, only God can judge me. Well, Him and a jury of my peers. What they left out was that the articulation would be to that jury. While one’s first contact would certainly be with Law Enforcement, none of those yahoos had the power to pronounce guilt or innocence. With that in mind, Muscles really ought to have instructed class takers that in addition to the archaic-sounding statutes, it was necessary to find and read the Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions. This is really the standard to which one would be held. It should also have been mentioned that the standard for judging an action of self-defense involves what a third person, a so-called “reasonable person,” would have done in the same circumstances. That this wasn’t discussed by Muscles is slightly alarming. The other surprising thing I noticed: Muscles came to a slide in his pitiful Powerpoint deck that he skipped outright, mentioning insouciantly that it dealt only with Law Enforcement. By the way, these atrocious Powerpoint slides featured the usual “presentation sins”: text-heavy, shitty default templates, ponderous animation; in other words, something these cops were probably very proud of creating. Back to the slide in question: it dealt with Idaho’s “fleeing felon” law. 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. I can understand why Deputy Muscles didn’t want to discuss it, because it essentially gives citizens the right to pursue and possibly kill a felon. He preferred to lie instead. For shame. Yes, that Statute gives the everyday man and woman the right to claiming that killing a fleeing felon was a justifiable homicide. I know you don’t like it, Muscles, but that does not mean you get to lie about it. It does not only cover Law Enforcement, it covers everyone. The hint is in the title of the Statute itself: 18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. I’ll save you the time and simply give you the answer: “any person” includes you, me, and yes, Deputy Muscles. Is it a good idea to pursue a fleeing felon and possibly kill him or her? No. The cold and unwavering eyes of the modern Justice system would probably not look with any mercy if you did. But that statute exists and can be claimed by, yes, any person. Another faux pas was his mentioning the fact that, by law, you needed to aid the now-stopped threat/assailant. I don’t see this anywhere in the books. It does indeed look good that you attempted to give aid and succor to the jerkoff you just shot--after all, one is shooting to stop a threat, not to kill but to say it was required by law without reference to any law is, again, a bit disconcerting. In all, I enjoyed the class. It needs a bit of a retouching, some highlighting, a spiff-up here and there and definitely losing a bit of shitty information. In his defense (no pun intended), Deputy Muscles did take the effort to point out that this class was just the beginning. More study was necessary. Roger wilco.

To The Memory of Trim

An ode to a cat, by Matthew Flinders.

To the memory of Trim, the best and most illustrious of his Race,—the most affectionate of friends,—faithful of servants, and best of creatures.

He made the Tour of the Globe, and a voyage to Australia, which he circumnavigated; and was ever the delight and pleasure of his fellow voyagers. Returning to Europe in 1803, he was shipwrecked in the Great Equinoxial Ocean; This danger escaped, he sought refuge and assistance at the Isle of France, where he was made prisoner, contrary to the laws of Justice, of Humanity, and of French National Faith; and where, alas! he terminated his useful career by an untimely death, being devoured by the Catophagi of that island. Many a time have I beheld his little merriments with delight, and his superior intelligence with surprise: Never will his like be seen again!

Trim was born in the Southern Indian Ocean, in the year 1799, and perished as above at the Isle of France in 1804.

Peace be to his shade, and Honour to his memory.

 How lovely. RIP Trim.

 

 

 

 

"Two Chips" / An Animated Short

Calcugirl

Hark! There are not enough women in the sciences! Did you know? Well take it that there aren’t and that’s a problem. Listening to the usual suspects, it’s not just a problem, it’s a big problem.

I’m in science. I was in actual science more when I was in college studying electrical engineering. Now I’m just a systems administrator whose life is a storm-tossed sailboat on the large and angry Microsoft sea, but bear with me. I’m in science.

Once upon a time, your humble correspondent was good enough to be indoctrinated in the engineering honor society, Tau Beta Pi (hi guys!) At the risk of boring you—and it is mighty boring; except that one time when I threatened to kill a fellow “Tau Bate”. That was exciting—let me tell you how I got conferred this high honor: I busted my ass. I became an automaton. For every hour in class (with such scintillating titles as Control Systems 1), I was in the library studying, editing, highlighting, cramming, for 3 sometimes 4 hours. Finals saw me neglecting personal hygiene entirely.

In most of my classes with an average of 25 students, about 10 per cent were female. I’ll just say it’s a sight to behold a half-woman and leave it at that. I am no psychologist, just a patient, but I’ll tell you this: there are very few women who revel in neglecting personal hygiene for hours on end. It’s damned hard work and leaves the worker fried and friendless.

So what do you do to attract the female into such an exciting field as EE?

I read an article some time back that hinted that one perhaps subconscious reason some girls don’t want to enroll in these areas of study is the dearth of … how can I say this without hurting some of my former classmates’ feelings … real men. I cast my aching mind back and look around the classroom. Most of these guys were frumpy, desiccated specimens of manhood. Emaciated and pasty (even the black guys) from staying out of direct sunlight for weeks on end. If that wasn’t enough to deter the average female, the odious lack of hygiene often did the trick. Essentially, they (not me though) were brains dragged around in weak bodies. Not much prospect for a boyfriend much less a husband in that lot. That is, if the girl would like to be defended from actual physical harm anyway.

No sir, the girls were in the Social Sciences, where the Football demigods strutted their stuff. So there you have it, a course of study that didn’t involve killing off whatever social life she deems important (she is a girl) and the prospect of meeting and interacting with hawt boiz. What woman wants a halfling Asperger candidate capable of solving advanced difference calculus when healthy young, good-looking Adonises with all the right words roam the halls of PoliSci?

Game, set and match

Flight Tests–A Review

A review I posted to Amazon.

I knew I was about to read something most definitely not run-of-the-mill when I read the cover that showed the book was endorsed by an organization known as the Live Cowards Club. Since this is a club for which I will handily pass any and all entrance tests, it tickled the old laugh muscles.

Make no assumptions though, this is a very serious book, just written in a humorous manner: that of showing oneself capable of being a good and safe pilot to an examiner. It is mainly written from a South African point of view (so expect to stumble into words spelled weird like ‘manoeuvre’ ;) ) although the laws of physics holds no matter where you fly. As Davis says, this little book “takes you through each flying exercise and tells you what [the examiner] expects of you.”

Each part of the check ride is examined, from pre-flight inspection to steep turns, to cross-country flying. Each section is filled with tips and the strong voice of a very experienced pilot. In essence, this book will help you get mentally prepared for the test. Here's one from near the front of the book:

“Try to do everything smoothly. Imagine that you have your 90-year-old granny in the back, and its[sic] her first flight ever. Do everything smoothly, even small things like applying carb-heat, changing power settings or selecting flap. Passengers should not be able to notice changes of power and speed and attitude.”

With equal parts mindset framing, expounding on the philosophy of good airmanship and practical flying technique information, this is a book that punches above its weight class. Five highly recommended stars.

Merry Christmas

To anyone who’s still reading this blog, bless you and a merry Christmas! I will be writing a lot more in the new year so stay tuned, will you?

To anyone who’s just passing, merry Christmas.

Tilton Against Windmills

Frederick Tilton (he should immediately change his name; he’s no “Fred”!) contacted the AOPA and announced that the FAA, after all that bluster and wind, will not be implementing its new sleep apnea policy.

The policy would have required pilots with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 to be tested, and if needed, treated for obstructive sleep apnea. Instead, in the new year, the agency will open discussions with aviation industry stakeholders to find a way to balance pilots’ and the FAA’s concerns.

Would that this kind of thing occurred more often.

Like Women

I suppose it's inevitable, as the feminine becomes ascendant in American society we all start behaving like teenage girls. The political system has been reduced to playing Mean Girls, each side—the liberal contingent being the worst offenders—vying to paint their opponents in the worst light possible: that of “meanie.”

It's also seeping into everyday life. I recently read that not taking things personally is an essentially masculine trait. If that's true, we're done for. On a discussion board last week, I took a medical doctor to task for holding what is, in my opinion, a rather ridiculous stance—it doesn't matter whether or not I was right or wrong. What matters is his reaction: this man, in his seventh decade of life, a clinical assistant professor, board certified in Internal Medicine, Pain Medicine and Anesthesiology responds with all the drama of a teenage girl on her period:

This hilarious version of a swoon prompts an outpouring from his prom court of men on the board soothing his apparently fragile ego:

“Hang tough. Focus on all the good things in your life.”
“Doc, you are caring respected person. You have your friends and fans. Ignore the rest.”
“The 99% that appreciate and respect you wish you a peaceful mind.
Regroup, Recover, Repost -- We support you !”

If this doesn't sound like a cackling sewing circle validating the shit out of each other, it can't be too far off.

Yes, we're done for.