Quote of the day—C.S. Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C.S. Lewis
1948
God in the Dock
[See also this more recent and on topic interpretation.

This is the essence of most of those who demands we give up our guns. Don’t ever forget they think of us as infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals and they demand to control us. For our own good.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BLoving

I’m reminded of a discussion I once read from a fiction writer regarding the concept of Evil when portraying an antagonist in a story: historically, very few verifiable evil people have considered themselves to be evil. In their minds, they are simply Right; and anyone who disagrees with them is Wrong. This is why we have never seen any actual group identifying themselves as The League of Villainy or the Brotherhood of Evil or some other such nonsense. No – really evil people are the ones who cloak their intentions behind a veil of righteousness and seek to use the law, legal force, or legal authority to force others to do things or live their lives as the Evil Ones see fit.
We must all remember that Law is never about asking nicely, Law is about force – passing a Law means legally depriving individuals of their right to make a choice. And that, at its heart, is what the
Gun Bigots want: to use the force of Law to deprive others of the right to live their lives differently. There is no “Gun Control”, only “Gun Owner Control”. What the leaders of the Gun Bigots want does not fit the definition of insanity, but it does cross the line over the definition of Evil.

BLoving
December 10, 2017
Comment to Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Insane?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

A look into the mind of the other side

Reading this article is like stepping into an alternate reality:

While the Fort Worth Police Department was making a show of getting guns off the streets, it also was quietly supplying the public with guns.

Over the previous 10 years, the department has sold more than 1,100 of its used weapons to licensed gun dealers, which turn around and sell them to the public, according to department records. It isn’t alone.

An investigation by Texas Standard and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found that 21 of Texas’ 50 largest law enforcement agencies sell their used weapons to the public, effectively creating a pipeline of guns flowing right back into communities.

Jay Wachtel, a former ATF agent and lecturer at California State University, Fullerton, says departments that sell weapons are playing with fire.

“It’s bullshit. You know instinctively when you put guns out there that they are going to get misused,” Wachtel said. “Nobody that’s gone through a police academy would not consider that possibility.”

Jay Wachtel, the former ATF agent, says he doesn’t know how much of an impact these sales would make on gun crime. “Every schmuck who wants a gun, a lethal gun, can probably get one already,” he said, adding that the real issue is deeper than any statistic.

“It’s a moral issues,” he said. “If (police) are OK with a few crimes and few people being killed because they’re making all this money, then they’re OK with it.”

They want the police to destroy their old guns when they replace them. It’s as if they believe there are a fixed number of guns in their reality. And the “logic” of Wachtel in those last two paragraphs is jaw dropping. He admits “every schmuck” who wants a gun can probably get one but in the next sentence claims crimes are committed and people killed because the police are making money. And, as is frequently true, the logic twists are like fractals, they extend as deep as you can dig into it. Look at this sentence:

Every schmuck who wants a gun, a lethal gun, can probably get one…

He appears to distinguish police guns from guns in general as “a lethal gun”. Have these guns been endowed with special powers because they have been touched by the hands of police officers? Or that the police have approved these particular models for use in their departments it means they are more dangerous in the hands of the general public?

One has to wonder what color the sky is in their universe.

These people are nuts. You cannot talk sense into them. You cannot and should not try to accommodate them in any way. It only encourages them. I spent many years (my counselor told me, “Mere mortals would have left years ago.”) trying to live in peace with someone whos brain was apparently wired such that their reality only partially intersected with mine. The way to deal with them is to set firm limits on the behavior you will tolerate, tell them the consequences if they violate those limits, and then do what you said you would do if they step over the line. The result will be unpleasant. But the result will be far better than if you attempt to accommodate them.

Quote of the day—Alcibiades Anon

Sociopaths will inherit the earth.  We are built for the chaos to come.  We are built to benefit and thrive in this new land of opportunity.  We must begin to raise our brothers and sisters through the ranks and teach them to function.  The Trickster’s Path can help those that need to find their way.  There are other sources, other ways.  We must find the way forward.  We must be placed to take the power that is ours by right.  The flies have ruined our world, ruined our societies.  It is time a new people take dominance.

We must be the guiding light, and iron rod.  Many of us are in positions of power already, we must unite under our own flag.  Emotions and fear have ruled this world for too long already.  It is time for the hyper-rational to take their turn.  In the chaos that will come we must lead.  We must be the spiders placing ourselves in the darkness for our prey.  We must spin our webs, and make our plans.  If we wish to truly dance in the ashes of “civilization” we must be ready.

Alcibiades Anon
July 5, 2017
We Must Prepare for the Chaos and Violence to come
[Be careful what you wish for. This applies to empaths, sociopaths, conservatives, progressives, libertarians, everyone. There are many political factions and none appear to have a majority of power. If the rule of law breaks down too far then who and what emerges from the ashes may be something quite different than you imagined, or even could have, imagined.—Joe]

Lunacy

The political left tends to call anyone who disagrees with them lunatics. As Lyle points out, in some cases it’s about perception. When I’m in a mellow mood I give them a pass on being stupid, ignorant and/or evil. Maybe they just can’t see things from my point of view.

Then there cases like this (via a Tweet from Michael Z Williamson) regarding protestors who are blocking railroad tracks in Olympia Washington:

“There is reason to suspect that the blockade protesters are neither interested in negotiating nor in an amicable resolution that would result in removing the blockade without force.”

A protester who signed in with the name Franz spoke during the meeting’s public comment period, and read the protesters’ list of demands.

The demands, also sent to The Olympian in a press release, are for:

▪ The Port of Olympia to cease all fossil fuel and military infrastructure shipments.

▪ Democratic control of the Port of Olympia by the community as a whole.

▪ A just transition for port and rail workers to good, green jobs, and for the economy of Thurston County as a whole to transition to a cooperative, fair and sustainable economy.

Franz asked the City Council not to order another violent attack on protesters, referencing police involvement in removing last year’s blockade.

Reed Wing also spoke during public comment. He pulled a fluorescent green hat over his face and identified himself as a Martian sent to Earth to speak out in favor of the blockade.

“I come from the representative of the United Federation of Mars, an ecological and utopian society where we have abolished fossil fuels, police, and the exploitation of one Martian by another,” Wing said.

I think “Reed Wing” is deliberately misdirecting people from his actual origin. The available evidence indicates he is actually from Luna.

When the political left calls their opponents lunatics it’s a textbook case of projection.

Quote of the day—David Ropeik

Fighting for the right to own a gun is a way of asserting control against a society that many feel is encroaching on their values and freedoms. Millions of people with such feelings want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to protect themselves from the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives. That deeper loss of control fuels the disproportionately intense passion of gun rights advocates and explains what The New Yorker calls the ”conspicuous asymmetry of fervor” that energizes 4 million members of the National Rifle Association to effectively determine gun control policy for a country of 310 million.

People with these concerns have been identified by research into the Theory of Cultural Cognition as Individualists, people who prefer a society that grants the individual more freedom and independence and leaves them more personally in control of their individual choices and values. Contrast that with the sort of society preferred by Communitarians, who feel most comfortable, and safest, in a “We’re all in it together” world of shared control and communal power, a society that sacrifices some individual freedoms in the name of the greater common good. These deeply conflicting worldviews drive the central conflict in the fight over gun control.

David Ropeik
2016
The Gun Control Battle Isn’t About Guns As Weapons. It’s About Guns as Symbols.
[Via an email from Paul Koning.

Ropeik, while obviously anti-gun, does give almost fair respect for our philosophical viewpoint. It’s nice to see the debate framed with something approaching reality as opposed to straw men.—Joe]

Shoot/don’t shoot

I woke up, not knowing the time. It was dark. I heard faint sounds, like distant, blood-curdling screams. No.., uh…I determined I was not dreaming. There it is again. Is it cats? I got up and went to the tiny, upstairs bathroom window. I see the cats hanging out on the garage steps. That’s odd for the middle of a freezing cold night. There’s the sound again!

Continue reading

Lack of real men = violence

The on-going “pussification” of America is leading to more violence, this time in schools.

There was a time when this would not have been possible. That was when the principle and superintendent were both World War II veterans. When I was in elementary school, the principal and sup. were nice guys. They liked kids. They looked out for things. They never had to prove it, physically, and that is critically important, but it was universally understood that they were in charge and could handle anything.

The very idea of having any kind of violence perpetrated by students against a teacher would have laughable. Utterly impossible, in fact. Sure, two boys might get into a scrap during recess, but it would soon be over. Even the old lady teachers could handle them. It was understood that there were men in charge, just within shouting distance, if they should be required. Thus a frail old woman could take a scrapping, healthy boy by the ear and set him down, and give him a talking-to about playground etiquette, and he’d never fight back. He’d sit and pay attention.

In our litigious, pussified, Progressive society however, in which the term “strong man” either means “tyrant” or it has given way to the term “strong woman”, there’s no one left to prevent the violence. Not in some of the more leftist, public schools anyway.

It’s a Lord of the Flies situation we’re building.

I’m not saying women can’t maintain order, just that it’s far less likely, the farther away the men get. Put women in charge, AND give them a Progressive, passive, left-wing “non-violent” mentality, and all hell’s going break loose. Fatherless boys in woman-run public schools are being raised for a life of violence and crime.

The government then becomes the “father”, but a loveless and tyrannical one. That, I believe, is the plan. We can therefore refer to that Harrisburg, PA school as a success.

‘Twas a fine day

There are “new shooters”, many of whom, long ago, had their fathers show them how to shoot a 22 or such, and then haven’t touched a gun for 20 years. Stuff like that, and then there are those who’ve never touched, much less fired, any kind of firearm. Last weekend I had the privilege of introducing one of the latter to the fine art of pistolcraft.

(Long, wordy, self-aggrandizing post, with something of a review of the Walther PK, 380 Auto pistol, and detours into cider-making and “gun psychology”, ensues. You have been warned)

Continue reading

Those we pay to preach to us

I won’t call it “irony”, exactly, for that would be unfair. AHA speaker has heart attack.

Heart disease is real. People die from it. I get it. It’s just that I’m remembering a lifetime of being preached to, agitated, made to fuss over our food, told we shouldn’t eat salt, we shouldn’t eat fat, then told that, never mind, fat and salt are necessary, then we’re told this, told that, do this, don’t do that, or OMG! we’re going drop dead any second! “Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!!!

“Are you having a heart attack right now? Are you sure? Maybe you are having a heart attack! Do you know the signs? We think you’re having a heart attack right now…” I’ve heard the radio ads to that effect, from those rat bastards.

I believe that worry, fear, obsession over your food (or anything else) is more likely to cause health problems than any of the foods (or most any actual dangers) themselves. Trouble is, the fear, agitation and obsession have been the main product, packaged and promoted by the media and the AHA.

So if all you heart experts are so knowledgeable that you could presume to tell the rest of us how to live, would you be having heart attacks yourselves? What is the rate, or incidence, of heart problems among heart specialists, compared to the population at large? Is there any difference? That’s a question. I don’t know.

And if you’re having heart attacks yourselves, maybe go ahead and study the phenomenon but stop with the preaching? When you have proven answers, then come out and calmly declare them. I just don’t want to hear another ad, sponsored by the Ad Counsel, subsidized with my tax dollars, telling me how I should live, assuming that I have the maturity, experience and intellect of a three-year-old.

Just stop with the nanny-nag, nanny state shenanigans. Then I might could take you seriously. Maybe.

I know people who can’t get through half a day without worrying about their food, or their environment, killing them, and that right there is a potentially deadly psychological disease, promoted and spread by the nanny state “experts”.

In any case, if I’m going to die of a heart attack this very day, at least I will have spent some time living without fear, and living without fear is a good thing.

Quote of the day—Saurus

STOP THE SHOOTINGS. STOP REPUBLICANS

Saurus
November 5, 2017
Comment to At least 26 dead in South Texas church shooting, officials say
[One has to wonder what color the sky is in this person’s universe. Nearly all mass shooters are either Democrats or have no known political affiliation.

The most likely explanation for the comment is psychological projection.—Joe]

The latest interrogation technique

Fascinating stuff. The scientists persuading terrorists to spill their secrets:

Each interview had to be minutely analysed according to an intricate taxonomy of interrogation behaviours, developed by the Alisons. Every aspect of the interaction between interviewee and interviewer (or interviewers – sometimes there are two) was classified and scored. They included the counter-interrogation tactics employed by the suspects (complete silence? humming?), the manner in which the interviewer asked questions (confrontational? authoritative? passive?), the demeanour of the interviewee (dominating? disengaged?), and the amount and quality of information yielded. Data was gathered on 150 different variables in all.

Watching and coding all the interviews took eight months. When the process was complete, Laurence passed on the data to Paul Christiansen, a colleague at Liverpool University, who performed a statistical analysis of the results. The most important relationship he measured was between “yield” – information elicited from the suspect – and “rapport” – the quality of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee. For the first time, a secure, empirical basis was established for what had, until then, been something between a hypothesis and an insider secret: rapport is the closest thing interrogators have to a truth serum.

The psychologists observed and coded the actions of the “interviewer” (interrogators) in thousands of hours of interviews from hundreds of real-world interviews with terrorists suspected of serious crimes. From this they distilled a process which appears to work better than any other interrogation technique.

I’m reminded of other things I have read such as Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Also books on the Crusades (from both sides of the conflicts), the Soviet Union, criminals, and terrorists. People who do things far out of social norms need to justify their actions and thoughts to themselves. They almost never think of themselves as evil. And when outside of the bubble of their peers (if any) they feel a need to proselytize and convert the non-believers and make people understand why they were justified in their actions. If the interviewer gives the suspect a “safe place” to tell their story to an apparently receptive audience they are likely to do so.

This has application to other situations as well. From the same article:

Miller argued that counsellors were having precisely the wrong kind of conversation with their clients. Addicts were caught between a desire to change and a desire to maintain their habit. As soon as they felt themselves being judged or instructed, they produced all the reasons they did not want to change. That isn’t a pathology, Miller argued, it’s human nature: the more we feel someone trying to persuade us to do something, the more we dwell on the reasons we should not. By insisting on change, the counsellor was making himself feel better, while reinforcing the addict’s determination to carry on.

Miller argued that rather than instigating confrontation, counsellors should focus on building a relationship of trust and mutual understanding, enabling the patient to talk through his experiences without feeling the need to defend himself. Eventually, and with the counsellor gently shaping the dialogue, the part of the patient that wanted to get better would overcome the part that did not, and he would make the arguments for change himself. Having done so, he would be motivated to follow through on them. Miller called this approach “motivational interviewing” (MI).

I’m wondering if “interviewing” an anti-gun person in a similar manner might yield results as well. The bottom line is that both (honest) sides of the gun debate want to increase public safety. Interview the anti-gun person in a nonconfrontational manner and “let” them explain the details of how things will work. Let them realize, for themselves, their solutions cannot possibly achieve their desired goals. In essence, The Socratic Method. Might they, in the end, realize they were advocating for that which cannot deliver the desired results and instead results in a decrease in public safety?

And:

The premise of interpersonal psychology is that in any conversation, the participants are asking for status – to feel respected and listened to – and communion – to feel liked and understood. “Power, love,” says Laurence. “The fundamental elements of all human behaviour.” Conversations only go well when both parties feel they are getting their fair share of each.

A father who opens the door to his daughter when she comes home late might adopt a confrontational style, implicitly inviting a contrite response. But his daughter, feeling her agency being denied, pushes back, which provokes her father’s anger. A power struggle ensues, until the conversation terminates with one or both stomping off to their bedroom. If the father had emphasised his love for his daughter, a conversation about acceptable norms might have developed. But doing so isn’t easy, partly because children know exactly which buttons to press. “I tell (the police), if you can deal with teenagers you can deal with terrorists,” says Laurence.

I saw evidence supporting this when dealing with my teenage daughters.

Good stuff.

What is AgitProp?

It’s short for “agitation propaganda”, sure, but what does that mean?

For a good definition, this should be in textbooks.

All such assertions (in this case the assertion is “We’re jittery and dysfunctional, so we need more gun restrictions”) depend on one false premise, which says, in effect;

Human rights are subject to revision based on circumstance.

If that premise is true, then we should yield to the moment, we appease and give in. “There there, you can have what you want if you’ll only STOP CRYING…”

If the premise is false then we STAND for what we know is right, not for the moment but for all time. We prevent the emotion-driven from making mistakes harmful to themselves and others. We do them the favor of correcting them. It’s what adults do when confronted with irrational behavior.

You all know, even you leftists know, that the premise is a false one. Human rights are not altered by circumstance, statistics, emotions of the moment, nor by the way, are right affected by weather.

Rather than argue circumstances then, we must learn to reject the premise that rights are subject to circumstances, bring some very needed reason into play, assert rights, name their origin and stand up, faithfully and consistently to defend rights for all time. Do it for the children (to play on an authoritarian mind trick*).

Do it for future generations. Otherwise we fall down that rat hole wherein someone’s implanted, overwhelming emotions have the power, all by themselves, to force you to relinquish your rights and appease the sleaze. (Hey, that’s a slogan; “Relinquish Your Rights and Appease the Sleaze….”)

That’s the end game for the Dark Side, and it almost always works.

Will it work this time? How many of you, within a matter of hours or days, started, in your minds, bargaining away bump stocks, for example? Then one after another, like robots…”Bargain away bump stocks, bargain away bump stocks…” It was like a plague that spread via the airwaves, from coast to coast, in a matter of hours.

Who really needs a bump stock, after all, right? Not me, but that’s not the point.

At all.

Don’t participate in the insanity of the appeasement of the insane. That’s how they get you, and you even end up thinking yourself smarter for it. How deliciously evil is that? You’re smarter than those confounded “extremists”;
“Why, if it weren’t for them, this thing could be handled delicately and properly, and we could deal, and everyone would win…”
You’ve heard it all before. Eventually you’ll be saying it more and more.

Here’s an idea; the crazy people, no matter how frightened or offended they on the left act, no matter how they kick and scream and hold their collective breath until they turn blue, and no matter how they threaten or accuse, they aren’t your masters. They’re just sad, angry, confused people with nothing else to offer but more sadness, anger and confusion. Don’t feed the trolls.

Offer reason to the irrational. It’s the only possible way to help them. Don’t be that parent at the supermarket who’s giving in to the three-year-old just to make him SHUT UP. You idiots.

Who’s in control, the parent or the three-year-old? It can go either way, and you’ve all seen it.

Don’t pretend like their crazy assertions (“I’m so scared…we need a gun law to make me feel better– You bastards!”) have any validity, or guess what? You just put the crazy people in control, and you’d have to be crazy to do that. But you do it anyway, then you bitch and carry on about how the inmates are running the asylum. Well no shit Sherlock; you put them in charge.

It happens in your personal life. That’s where it starts. You start out walking on eggshells at home, or at school, and you end up walking on eggshells politically, then before you know it you’re trying to make other people walk on eggshells. Same causes, same effects. The Progressives know when they’ve got to you, just like a shark smells the chum-of-appeasement you’re throwing in the water, just like a dog knows when he has you upset.

AgitProp. That’s what it means. That which arouses emotion in you owns you.

*“Nothing is too good for the children”, we are told. Like most everything the left touches however, the definition of that phrase, when uttered by a leftist, is its own opposite. It means;

“Nothing is too bad for the children.”

For the left, rights deprivation isn’t too bad for the children. Abortion isn’t too bad for the children (except in the sense, “Too bad, children!”), nor is grabbing power from the People, nor graft, nor violating the constitution, nor are coercion and wholesale confiscation too bad for the children. None of the horrible things done by communist regimes, past or present, have been too bad for the children, and if that’s the case (and the left has always had love affairs with communist regimes), then truly, nothing is too bad for the children.

I thought you should know that. Carry on.

Quote of the day—David Frum

“After Newtown, nothing changed, so don’t expect anything to change after Las Vegas.” 

How often have you heard that said? Yet it’s not true. The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.

David Frum
October 3, 2017
Mass Shootings Don’t Lead to Inaction—They Lead to Loosening Gun Restrictions
[Gee… I wonder why that is? Could it be that people realized that having the ability to protect yourself is a good idea?

One would think this is the obvious answer. But Frum is apparently immune to such thoughts:

This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.

The mind of an anti-gun person is broken. Some can be repaired but for the most part we need to point them out to those who haven’t yet drank the Kool-Aid and let reality sink it. It’s generally a better use of our time.

But if you look at the psychology of the these type of people there is a way to win them over. You remove social support for their position and/or you give them unequivocal disconfirmation of their beliefs.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Clooney

Don’t you think the next Democrat who runs should just run with a blue hat that says, ‘Make America Great Again?’

George Clooney
September 24, 2017
Hillary Clinton blames many things for her loss. George Clooney blames her ‘frustrating’ speeches.
[The political left just doesn’t get it. Perhaps they can’t.

Read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. This book was recommended to me by Mike B. (Idaho friend, firearms instructor, and lobbyist for gun owner rights). I was impressed with the book as was daughter Jaime. It explains a great deal of the frustration on every side of political and religious debates.—Joe]

Revolver re-build, Field Carry system, and deer hunt

Deer season is upon us (Joe; no Hunting category?) so I thought this a good time to post it.

Following is a very long, detailed account of customizing a reproduction Colt 1847 Walker percussion revolver and using it in a deer hunt in the 2016 muzzleloader season. It assumes the reader has some understanding of the Colt open top revolver design and its inherent problems, and contains lots of technical photos and jargon. I also introduce a paper cartridge “Field Carry” system which I’ve developed for percussion revolvers, making things simpler and easier for the shooter while in the field on the move. There are bloody butchering (necropsy) photos cataloging the terminal performance of the gun and ammunition. You have been warned– If you read on you may be extremely bored, fascinated, or shocked or disgusted, or all of the above.
Continue reading

Quote of the day—Caity

I’m the village extravert.

Caity
September 12, 2017
Overheard at work.
[I’m on the Threat Intelligence team at work. Caity is one of the analysts. Everyone on the team has a few “quirks”. So Josh, also on the team, decided we should take an Asperger test. Josh scored a 14, Jodie scored a 12, Devin scored a 24, Greg refused to take the test, and Caity had a 17. But Caity said if she wasn’t so social it would have been much higher. She then came up with the QOTD which caused Josh and I to burst into laughter. If you knew Caity you would not be surprised that a few weeks ago Caity was voted the social replacement for Brett on our team.

I stomped the competition within our team on the Asperger test with a 32.—Joe]

Update: Greg finally succumbed to peer pressure (but we aren’t sure if he answered the questions honestly) and scored a 15.

Quote of the day—Defens

If DOAbayman and his ilk really think that us gun folk sit around and dream about shooting people, what must be going through his head? Does he dream of boxcars, re-education camps, and gibbets? Or just more mundane things like beatings and stonings?

Defens
September 8, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—DOAbayman
[Good question.

But, from long experience dealing with people with mental health issues, it’s not a productive use of your time to try and understand the chaos inside their minds. Just avoid them as best you can and have simple and effective plans for your encounters with them.—Joe]

It’s the radiation, Stupid

They started with weightlessness as the reason, they did drop the R-word in the middle (can’t throw out all credibility), but only in passing, then reinforced the weightlessness meme again at the end.

I see it like this (because this is how it is); you can’t get the money if you aren’t offering the hope of something exciting (like a Mars colony) or something excitingly catastrophic (like the end of the world unless government has total control). Therefore you can’t come out and say that a Mars colony is a stupid idea because then you lose your funding.

In fact you’d have to live underground on Mars, or die of radiation. If you’re going to live underground, well, you can do that here on Earth much more easily and cheaply. AND…you don’t want to do that anyway, because living underground forever is boring, so forget the whole thing.

On second thought, no; I’m wrong about all of that so give me a hundred billion dollars and I’ll get you’re dumb ass to Mars. You’ll need to pay in advance.