# Tuesday, August 11, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:11:41 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

A report on guns on campus after one year.

What? No professors shot for not giving someone the grade they thought they deserved? No shooting demonstrations at the keggers?

Nope. Everything is pretty much the same, including the gun-grabbers still refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution to, and contributing cause of, school shootings:

One year ago, David Thweatt made a decision so controversial and groundbreaking the story about it sped around the world.

The superintendent of the isolated Harrold Independent School District, about 30 miles northwest of here, made history last August when he and his school board decided to allow select teachers and staff members at the 110-student school to carry guns on campus — a first for Texas and the nation.

...

“Would you stick a sign at a school that says, ‘No guns on this property’? Why wouldn’t you? It invites nasty people to come,” he said. “That’s what you’ve done to every public school in the nation. That’s why there were no shootings until Columbine. It’s turned into a dad-gum shoot fest.”

...

When a London reporter asked Thweatt to explain why so many kooks go into schools looking for a body count, Thweatt said he couldn’t explain such a devolution of society, but he did know a simple way to stop it — the same solution he chose for Harrold ISD.

“Good guys with guns — good,” he said. “Bad guys with guns — bad.”

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:22:10 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening -- and even if it does, they're not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid ...

...

No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn't mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won't lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn't think about that one, did ya?

...

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Sinfonian
August 10, 2009
Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia
[My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, "Does he think women have infinitely sized guns?" Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

  1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called "assault weapon" that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does "immunize" said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
  2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won't or can't happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
  3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
  4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us "barrel-strokers with small penises" have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

 What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.--Joe]

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:03:14 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

Daughter Xenia has posted some videos from her wedding.

They brought tears to my eyes.

# Monday, August 10, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 10, 2009 10:58:09 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

If I were 30 years younger and in the market for a mate she sounds very nice:

She likes long walks on the beach, men who aren't afraid to cry, and puppies.

Her dislikes include feed tray stoppages, tracer flareout of her NVGs and premature fixed-wing strikes scattering her high-value targets.

(Via email from Carl, my first formal firearms instructor).

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 10, 2009 10:52:39 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day )

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
[I was reminded of this by what our Speaker of the House recently said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints. 

--Joe]

# Sunday, August 09, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 8:15:44 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Home Life )

I delivered over 1700 cardboard boxes and other supplies to the Boomershoot site today. I folded a couple hundred of the boxes and stored them away in crates. Then I visited my parents who live a couple miles away.

They asked how everyone was doing, did son Jamie (he used to be called Jamie rather than James and his grandparents still use that name) like his job okay? How long has he worked at Microsoft now? I told him everything was going fine, Xenia was a little depressed because her new husband is leaving for Iraq very soon. James, Kim, and Lisa (another grandchild) had housewarming party at James' new home near Seattle. Blah, blah, blah...

As it got late I told them I really had to leave so I could be home in time to eat dinner with Barb who would be getting off work soon. I had stood up, put my hat on and took a step or two toward the door when Dad told me to sit down because he had another story to tell. The following are his exact words as best I can remember them:

I got a call the other day. He said, "Hi Grandpa, this is Jamie. How are you doing?" I said I was doing okay and asked how he was doing.

He asked me if I could keep a secret. I told him I thought I probably could because I had keep a secret or two in my life. He said that he wasn't doing so well. He was in jail in Ottawa. I asked how that happened. He said that he and a friend had gone to a concert and when they came back over the border they were stopped, searched, and his friend had some marijuana in his backpack. They were both arrested and he needed $2800 to get out of jail.

He asked if I could help him out and I said I thought we probably could. He wanted the money sent via Western Union and he needed it right away. So your mom and I drove to Orofino went to the bank and got the money. But we started thinking that we should have asked a few more questions. "Why didn't he call you?", for example. But we went to the Western Union office at the IGA and told them what we wanted to do with the money and told them the story.

The woman there said to be really careful because there are a lot of people trying to commit fraud with Western Union. But we went ahead and sent the money but told them not to give it to anyone at the other end until we did some more checking. They gave us a toll-free number to call to okay the final delivery of the money.

We came back to the house and called the guy in Ottawa that was supposed to pick up the money for Jamie and I asked him, "How tall is Jamie?" He didn't answer. I asked him some other questions too but he didn't answer those questions either. He then got upset and asked, "Why are you asking me all these questions? Did you send the money or not?" I told him we didn't and he hung up the phone.

I called the Western Union number and they sent the money back. I called the Orofino office but they wouldn't do anything further until we came in and showed them picture ID. We didn't get back into town until yesterday and they wrote us three checks. The biggest check they can write is $1000 so they wrote us two checks for $1000 and another check for most of the remainder. It still cost us $139 but that wasn't too bad. It would have been a lot worse if it had been the whole $2800.

You, know if the police had been able to get together on that they could have caught them when they went to pick up the Western Union money. But he said he needed the money within two hours. I told him there wasn't any way I could get the money that fast. But he wanted it right away.

I asked if they had reported it to the police. He said no. And I said the FBI, if no one else, would be interested because it was Interstate wire fraud. Dad said he would let my brother Doug tell them. I asked if he had told Doug. He said no. Brother Gary was there and he piped up that this was the first time he had heard the story too. He had seen Mom and Dad leave for Orofino the other day but they told him they were going to the Builder's Supply. They did go there, but that wasn't the primary reason for the trip into town. They were trying to keep the secret for James.

I think Dad and Mom are a little embarrassed. They are 86 and 84 years old and not thinking quite as quick as they used to. We discussed lots of ways it could have been prevented from going as far as it did. I made sure they had the cell phone numbers for everyone in our family so they could call us directly to check things out. And I told them I didn't think James had ever been to a concert other than little things in the park and that he had never been to Canada let alone a part of Canada 2000+ miles away.

I'm writing this down so brother Doug can get the story as I heard it as well as getting the details from Dad again. Plus I'm sure my parents aren't the first people these criminals have tried to scam and if they aren't stopped and other people get some warning there will be others they are successfully with. This is to help warn others about the scam.

I expect there will be more to the story. There certainly still are a number of questions. Like how did they find out how my parents had a grandson by the name of Jamie? Facebook maybe? Probably something to do with the Internet. Perhaps even my blog (if you guys are reading this you should know I keep all my blog log files and will cooperate fully with law enforcement).

If anything further comes out that I can talk about I'll let you know.

Update: Mike sent me an email with this link to news that this scam is reasonably well known.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:43:46 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Home Life )

Yesterday afternoon I spent some time cleaning up the garage (not that anyone other than family could tell if they were to take a look at it even now). I sorted all the mixed caliber brass and put a batch of .40 S&W in the case cleaner. I figured I would take it out after supper. I forgot about it and instead of the usual two hours in the Dillion CV-750 it spent about 12 hours.

I now have some very shiny brass.

Update: Kris (in comments) wanted pictures.

See also the .300 Winchester Magnum brass I put in Sunday Morning:

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:38:22 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Home Life | Quote of the Day )

In the United States, the agricultural system is heavily industrialized, and relies on inputs such as diesel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and, perhaps most importantly, financing. In the current financial climate, the farmers’ access to financing is not at all assured. This agricultural system is efficient, but only if you regard fossil fuel energy as free. In fact, it is a way to transform fossil fuel energy into food with a bit of help from sunlight, to the tune of 10 calories of fossil fuel energy being embodied in each calorie that is consumed as food. The food distribution system makes heavy use of refrigerated diesel trucks, transporting food over hundreds of miles to resupply supermarkets. The food pipeline is long and thin, and it takes only a couple of days of interruptions for supermarket shelves to be stripped bare. Many people live in places that are not within walking distance of stores, not served by public transportation, and will be cut off from food sources once they are no longer able to drive.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[It's harvest time on the farm. I'm going to visit and drive combine for a while. It's been a couple years since I did that and it's time to satisfy that urge again.

The farm visit reminded me of the above quote. We do burn lots of fuel on the farm and of course the fuel consumption is far from over by the time the crop is delivered to the grain elevator in town.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 08, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:22:18 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

I was giving considerable thought to posting something about niece Lisa sharing some genes with me when she made this post. Then today she described attending her first professional baseball game.

That's pretty much how I feel about them too--only I didn't think of writing an equation for the amount of fun people are having at a baseball game. But now that she has done it I think it's a great idea.

I only went to one game which was back in 1972. It was the San Diego Padres against the Saint Louis Cardinal or Boston Red Sox or some such thing. We left after the 13th inning when the score was still 0-0.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:16:47 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The last place you want to conceal is in the District, with all of these federal buildings. It makes the job of law enforcement damned difficult.

This is a frontal assault on the District's regulations under the Second Amendment. I don't think that's what Justice Scalia had in mind when he talked about self-defense.

Peter Nickles
August 8, 2009
D.C. Attorney General
Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District
[Does this guy think the only place you should be allowed to defend yourself is in your home? If you leave your home you leave the Second Amendment right to self-defense behind?

Sure, it makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest anyone with a gun in public. Just as it makes it easier for them if they arrest any black/white/yellow/red skinned person, Jew (wearing their yellow star), or homosexual (wearing their mandated pink triangle) in public after dark. But that wouldn't be justice nor should it be tolerated in a free society. But the actions and statements of D.C. politicians make that abundantly clear they aren't interested in a free society. And that means they need to be slapped down by the courts again.--Joe]

# Friday, August 07, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 07, 2009 9:00:21 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers.

Scott Bach
President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs
August 7, 2009
Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases
[H/T to Jeff.

Straight thinking has never been a strong point of the anti-gun people. This case is just another in a long crooked line of abuses against gun owners.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 06, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:09:58 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Freedom | Politics )

Via Dave Hardy.

The government is not allowed to:

5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency

"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"

This wouldn't protect some blogger making viable threats against a politician (and rightly so). But it could be used to punish someone in the Federal Government (and rightly so) for keeping records of your peaceful opposition to proposed legislation (if that link goes dead here is a saved version of the page from Whitehouse.gov as of August 8, 2009 at 2315 PDT).

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:50:41 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

My old link to this was broken so I had to go looking for it and thought I would share.

It's a Classifer Calculator for USPSA stages. If you know your hit factor [(Points - Penalities)/Time] for shooting a stage then it will compute what percentage of the best shooters in the world your score represents. This percentage is used to calculate your classification. I'm considered a B-class shooter. The percentage ranges and classifications are:

Grand Master 95 to 100%
Master 85 to 94.9%
A  75 to 84.9%
B  60 to 74.9%
C  40 to 59.9%
D  2 to 40%

The USPSA will compute your percentage and post it on their website a week or two after your club sends in the results but if you want to know sooner you can use the Classifier Calculator to get the answer immediately.

Using Caleb's recent practice result I compute his hit factor at 7.8717 which yields 72.878% in the Limited Division. If he can do this consistently on a number of different stages in competition he is an upper B-class shooter.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:40:00 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

Reputo demonstrates that if someone claims the firearm homicide reductions in the late 90s were influenced by the anti-gun laws passed in '93 and '94 then those same laws can be claimed to have reduced the homicides by sharp objects and suffocation.

Nice job!

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:21:25 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Alan Gura with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation just filed suit against Washington D.C. again:

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Update: More stories are coming out:

It's good to know the money Microsoft (matching my gifts dollar for dollar) and I are donating to SAF are being put to work for a good cause--making Sad Pandas in the gun control community.

Graphic by Robb Allen.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:07:13 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Politics )

Apparently Paul Hemke is saying the defeat of the Thune Amendment helped prevent the Pittsburg shooting from being even worse:

Two weeks ago, gun violence prevention organizations helped defeat a bill in Congress that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapon almost anywhere in the country.

Sooo... this killer was prevented from carrying his loaded weapon in other states because concealed carry license aren't universally recognized, but he wasn't prevented from murdering and wounding the women in Pittsburg by the laws against murder and assault?

Got it. I'm so glad Helmke told us that because I would have never been able to come to that conclusion on my own.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:54:54 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Politics )

Washington Ceasefire is endorsing Dow Constantine for King County Executive (Seattle area). This means you should vote for anyone but Constantine.

Constantine doesn't have Washington Ceasefire on the list of organizations endorsing him. This could be because the endorsement is new and/or he doesn't know about the endorsement. Or it could be that he doesn't want to advertise that fact. I can't find any mention of firearms on his website so it could be he realizes the KC Executive doesn't really have any authority to do anything regarding guns with the state Preemption and he will say whatever he thinks will get votes knowing he can't really be held responsible if he doesn't accomplish anything. Sort of like getting an endorsement from the KKK--the politician is probably happy to have the votes but doesn't really want get caught wearing a pillow case on his head.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:46:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Politics )

...in mixed company.  So here goes.  If you value your faith, please do not read any of this.  Say Uncle mentions some atheist ceremony (ehem).

Some say that atheism is a religion because, like any other religion it requires faith in something that cannot be proven-- the non-existence of god.  I don't know if I have that much faith.

Then there are those who have faith in something that has been proven wrong over and over-- socialism.

In my observation, most organized religions are control cults.  Many are death cults, socialism included.  It seems that humans have a built-in want or need for religion.

Homo Sapiens is an interesting species, to be sure.  Our innate creativity and our tendency to form paranoia cults would appear to go hand-in-hand.  Darwin wrote about such things in his famous book that no one ever read before condemning it, and that only a handful of people have ever read.  They don't have to read it, I guess, because they've already been told what's in it.  By people who never read it.  He called it something like "correlation", but I forget the actual term.  It refers to features that come in seemingly inseparable pairs.  Black skin and a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia in humans for example.  He points to many others in different species.  I make the correlation between creativity and paranoia through my own observations.

If God gave his only son to save us from our sins, and yet we're all the children of God and we all die from this Earth...  What?

If God gave his only son in the ultimate sacrifice, and they're now together in heaven forever, where's the sacrifice?  If the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and yet we are to regard our life on Earth as a petty thing compared to eternity, how is the crucifixion any sacrifice at all?

Why didn't Jesus ask Mary, or one of his diciples, to nail him to the cross?  Hey; it's for the good of Mankind.  Why wait for a trial and all the hoopla?

If Jesus gave his life for us, then Pontius Pilot and the others did a service to all of Mankind, no?

Many other people suffered, and do suffer, as much or more than Jesus did, but they have the added disadvantage of not knowing for sure their place in the afterlife, or even whether there is an afterlife.  What about them?  Seems to me, practically speaking, that Jesus had it easier than a whole lot of other people.

If God created everything, including Satan, then God created hell, and he surely must still love his son-- Satan.  I wonder of Satan ever writes, or if this father/son relationship has any hope for reconciliation. (I dreamed I met Satan and his chief minion a couple months ago.  They looked a little silly and seemed a but surprised.  I told them; "I was just checking in to see how you were getting along.")

If God and Satan ever make up, who will be charged with torturing us for all of eternity for not embracing Jesus as our savior?

If everyone who accepts Jesus as their savior will go to heaven, no matter what, and even the best people who don't, won't, that seems rather unfair, doesn't it?

If the reason we believe that Jesus is the son of God (and again; aren't we all?) is that he performed magic tricks, and if faith is everything, why did Jesus have to perform magic tricks to prove himself?  I mean, couldn't his message have stood on its own merits?  And if the magic tricks are our proof, why not give us one that would last through the millennia, like, say, hand over the periodic table of the elements, or the universal law of gravity, or something equally awesome?  As it is, all we have is the second and third hand hearsay of a few individuals, who ostensibly got their proof and yet demand pure faith from us.  Seems rather unfair, no?

If Jesus had the Most Important Message Of All Time, the message that alone could lead us to eternal life, then why does he seem to have never put any of it into writing in his own hand?  Seems a cruel trick to send your one and only son (but aren't we all the sons and daughters of God?) to deliver The Most Important Message Ever and never teach the kid to write, or have him travel the world, or set up a radio station or something.

I think these are all perfectly reasonable, fair questions and observations.  Anyone trying to sell me religion (and there have been many) will have to answer them.  I've asked them before and gotten the response; "This proves the folly of casting pearls before swine"  which, I must say, just happens to be the same sort of response (though in more eloquent form) that I get when I ask socialists to demonstrate the validity of their assertions.  I add that in both cases I am being asked to deny that one that makes us human-- the thinking, reasoning ability of our brains.  Some people really, really hate that, believing that we should live much more like the other animals.  'Cause we deserve to suffer.  Because we suck.

I'm all for freedom of religion, certainly.  As I said; I believe it is inherent in the species, but since the Constitution proscribes the formation of a religious government, or much more accurately, a government religion, how is it that we have anything resembling socialism in our government?

Update: The science fiction (Arthur C. Clarke being a good example) dealing with alien races who either placed humans on Earth or gave us our intelligence, seems to be an alternate form of religion.  While it doesn't directly assert the existence of a God, it does the same thing.  It asserts a Higher Power far beyond our ability to understand, it denies, discredits or downplays the Long March of the development of our species, and shows disbelief (a lack of faith?) that something as complex as a human (or do we merely flatter ourselves?) could arise all on its own with nothing but the seemingly mundane forces of nature.  One thing the alien super race genesis theory does that religions typically don't do is; it leaves open the possibility that we may, millions of years down the road, at some point reach that intergalactic traveling, intelligence giving, god-like state ourselves.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:25:17 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

This is actually rather old news but I haven't seen it mentioned on any of the blogs I frequent. KnifeRights.org reports that Customs has backed off on expanding the definition of switchblades:

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs has officially backed off their proposed revocations in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate (see below), at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here, but the key paragraph reads "The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP's proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn't have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don't mess with our pocket knives!

Of course Liberty is always unfinished business so don't expect this will be the end of it but it's good enough for now.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:10:51 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

...a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles...is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.

Ben Franklin
[It seems to me that the frequency of recurrence has been more than a little bit low. Even if we went to our fundamental principles right now it would be approximately 140 pico-Hertz and I'm thinking it should be more on the order of 12 micro-Hertz.--Joe]

# Wednesday, August 05, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:02:18 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Freedom | Gun Fun | Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.

George Bernard Shaw
See also here, for further background on this phrase. The original was not "The road to hell is paved..." but Hell itself that was paved.
[I'm thinking gun control, TSA, socialized medicine, "affordable housing", "hate speech" laws, rent control, the list is, for all practical purposes endless. See also New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

I just bought Bat Out Of Hell so I could play it while posting this and doing my dry-fire practice.--Joe]

# Tuesday, August 04, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:41:57 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Via email from Bill Waites:

I usually avoid the Health Care discussions, mostly because it takes so long to explain the answers because it takes so long to explain the causes. I realize that I don't have the entire answer, and that some of the causes are more complex than I delineate, but I can give a good basis for the problems. This is long, so stop now if you get bored easily!

First, a little background. I began my professional life as a Special Agent for Nationwide Insurance. Most of us in the West see Nationwide advertisements and say, "who are they?" Nationwide is one of largest property casualty insurers in the world, at one point I think they were the largest fire insurance company provider in the world. When I worked for them, there were only about 12 other employees with my position, while Nationwide had 18-20,000 employees, a large percentage of them in Columbus, Ohio. We sold to a very targeted audience, farmers and very small business, where the owner and his family were the only employees. We had a joint marketing agreement with Cenex, and with most of the wheat, potato, and apple Co-Ops in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

I basically sold health insurance for them, as a company employee. When I left, I started my own agency, continuing to sell health insurance, but also selling “special risk” insurance, (an industry category for things like adult football games, sports camps, and activities like Boomershoot, that didn’t fit into the “normal” categories). I continued to sell Nationwide, but also Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and others.

When I left the business, I went into health care, first running the insurance computer system for a small hospital, then returned to school. After graduating, I initially worked as an RN, working med-surg units, ER's, public health clinics, and nursing homes. Finally, I returned to school once again, became a Physician Assistant, and after 12 years in a busy Internal Medicine office, I now run a small rural clinic, where I am the only provider 4 1/2 days a week. We accept all insurance plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

The short version of the health insurance crisis starts here. The first modern plans began in the 1920's, with Blue Cross covering hospital visits and Blue Shield covering Physician costs. Eventually, most large employers offered insurance, but Bell Telephone is often used as a prototype of how those plans developed. Their initial plan had a $200 deductible, when the average lineman made about $200/month. Over the years, that $200 deductible became locked in stone, and it really is only in the last couple years that deductibles have changed much at all. I think someone told me the current wages for an AT&T lineman are in the $4-5000/month range to start.

Anyone see any problems with that?

As the years passed, more and more people had coverage, and fewer and fewer were willing to take any responsibility for their own care, but they still used those health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, now that the costs were such a small percentage of their income, they used them more and more.

When I was growing up, I, just like all my friends, went to the doctor when something was broken, or when I needed vaccinations. I honestly don't remember a visit because I was sick. My sister had a few visits because of fainting spells, and my brother had chronic ear infections and ended up having multiple ear surgeries, but for colds, coughs, nausea, and vomiting, my parents, and the parents of all my friends, believed in the "3 day rule". In other words, wait 3 days, and if you aren't getting better, then we'll talk about going to the doctor. I never could manage to stay sick that long!

About half the patients I see now have been sick for less than 24 hours, and most of those have nothing that 3 days won't fix.

Of the remaining 50%, most have self induced illnesses, like lung disease from smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

AT LEAST 50% of all primary care doctors visits are just like my office, where education, and patient compliance, would solve most problems.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for education, and there is no way to fund it under the current policies.

In the early 1980’s, in an effort to curb the ever increasing costs of Medicare, the Federal government created  DRG’s, (Diagnostic Related Groups). These new laws forced medical providers, (initially only hospitals were affected), to accept flat fees for services that were all part of any particular group. If you refused to do so, you couldn’t be a Medicare provider, and few, if any, hospitals could see themselves surviving without those Medicare patients. Since that time, at least 7 different DRG programs have evolved to cover all the different problems faced by anyone having to bill for medical services.

Anyone see any problems with that?

Insurance companies didn’t waste much time adopting the DRG model, and soon hospitals and doctors were faced with new contracts demanding discounts on virtually every procedure.

Doctors and hospitals soon realized that they had problems, but no way to resolve it. If you refused the discounts, they simply decertified you as a provider. Watching 50% of your patients walk away because you are not accepted as a provider by their insurance company has a sobering effect upon even the most independent of doctors.

During this entire time, though, medical technology was growing at a pace unheard of previously. As computer power became cheaper, all kinds of digital image devices became more and more common, but they were all incredibly expensive. First ultrasound, then CT, then MRI, then MRA, then PET scans became the rage. It wasn’t just patients or doctors that demanded them, it was the insurance companies, trying to avoid the expensive hospital stay. Where before a surgeon might do an exploratory surgery to take out an appendix that was acting up, now a CT showed if it was actually inflamed before surgery was considered. Where virtually any orthopedic surgeon could correctly diagnose a torn ACL, now an MRI was required before surgery to make sure that was the cause.

More and more expensive tests were available, and if they are available, why not use them? Doctors rapidly grew tired of being sued, and if one of those new tests might lower that risk, you can be sure they would order it!

So we had 3 huge contributing factors contributing to the rising cost:

1) Poor education and compliance, leading people to seek medical care when it wasn’t necessary.
2) Increasingly stringent billing requirements which required larger and larger staffs to ensure compliance.
3) Increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) testing.

Factor 1 is exacerbated by those who have no idea what health care costs actually are. As an example, along with my regular job, I occasionally work in an Urgent Care owned and operated by a community hospital.  I recently saw a carpenter injured on the job. He had a fairly complex laceration that needed to be repaired, as well as a severe contusion and muscle strain. He liked his job and his employer (a small businessman), and he initially refused to complete an accident form to be filed with Labor and Industries. When I and the nurse both tried to get him to understand that if his injury caused him to lose work time his only income would come from the L&I claim, he still refused. His injury was significant, but wouldn’t probably cause long term disability. However, he said, “I’ll just pay it myself, the basic visit is only about $30 or so, right?” Both the nurse and I burst out laughing. This was a hard working guy, who probably hasn’t seen a doctor in 20 years. He had no idea that the cost of the visit would probably be closer to $400 than $40.

Another group who has no idea about costs are those insured by the government on Medicaid. They never see a bill, so why should they? I honestly believe that most of them are good people caught in tough situations, like young married students, or single moms whose spouses have disappeared, but I recognize that some of them are permanent scammers. They are the ones with Medicaid and the Cadillac Escalade in the parking lot! 

I have deliberately left out Malpractice Insurance as a contributing factor, but it does play a part also. I have also left out the impact of an aging population, because we can’t change that, (unless we decide it is patriotic to actually encourage early end of life options, a morally repugnant idea to me!)

All of these problems were exacerbated by increasingly large groups of people receiving health care from State and Federal funded programming. Why does that make it worse? Because those agencies only pay 20-60% of the actual charges. If they didn’t cover it, who did?

Well, that happened courtesy of a little ploy called “cost shifting”.

Cost shifting occurs when one or more of your insured groups doesn’t pay the entire amount due. At that point, you raise the cost of that particular issue to everyone else paying for it. So if my appendix removal cost $1000, and my State coverage paid $200, the hospital would raise the cost of my neighbors appendectomy to $1800 to cover the difference. But since my neighbors insurance only paid $1500, (because of his insurance companies demanded discount, remember?) then that $300 was tacked onto the $1800 the next guy paid. Since he didn’t have the discounted insurance plan, his entire bill of $2100 was due. He either paid it, or hoped that his insurance company would. So that initial $1000 procedure costs someone else $2100 for the same procedure!

Now, some of you are statisticians and actuaries, and I’ll readily admit that this was a gross simplification, but it is what happened and continues to happen.

Those same 3 factors continue to cause today’s problems.

The system is undoubtedly broken, and it is broken because we don’t have the guts to fix it.

So I’ve made all these simplifications and pointed out the problems, what are the solutions?

Well, there isn’t one, but there may be several things that will help to allow necessary changes that will allow access to more people, and especially to allow critical access. The fact is that each of the problems is on its face simple, but the solutions are incredibly complex, because we as country refuse to acknowledge that there will always be some rationing of care. Too many of us seem to think that if there were enough money we could fix the problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough money in the world to provide the very best care to everyone in the United States. Currently the care is rationed by the simple expedient of cost. If you are wealthy enough, or if you have employer provided health insurance, you have access to the most advanced medical system in the world. (Ignore ANYONE who says otherwise. Americas system is the best, bar none. Why does anyone who examines the system think otherwise? If it wasn’t the best in the world, all those wealthy Saudis, Indonesians, Kuwaitis, etc. would be going elsewhere. They aren’t!)

At this juncture someone will point out that if we have the best care, we should have the best infant mortality rates, and we should live longer than anyone else. The problem is that ACCESS does not equal results. Americans are, by nature, individualists. We don’t always want to be told what to do. Thus, our vaccination rates aren’t as high as some Third World countries because some of us CHOOSE to not vaccinate our kids. We COULD, but we don’t! The same is true for all kinds of other issues regarding health care. We COULD improve, be we are too busy, or something else has a higher priority, or there is some other problem that we deem more important, and we don’t get the care that is available.

Now back to access for a minute. You also have access to the system if you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Yep, that’s right, the poorest of the poor, and virtually every child has access to the system because of Medicaid. The only children that fall through the cracks are the ones with lazy, drunk, or drug addicted parents. They fall through not because coverage isn’t available, but because the adults they should be able to depend on are irresponsible. The most vulnerable of our society, it’s children and its very old, are invariably covered by some type of plan.

Let’s look at the 3 problems and see what we CAN do for them.

1) Education is critical. However, education is not covered to any extent by any plan. Getting education for diabetes, congestive heart failure, Emphysema, or any other medical condition is almost impossible on any plan. There is a reason for that. It is impossible to actually get statistical data that verifies that it improves outcomes! The system isn’t currently designed to follow up with people who receive education and see if their outcomes are better than those of people who don’t receive the counseling and education. (Dirty secret number one: Contrary to what they say, no insurance company really cares what the outcomes are! The reason is simple. You aren’t going to statistically affect their bottom line! You are going to have your greatest expenses in the last couple years of your life, and that won’t happen on their plan. It will happen on Medicare’s dime! This is how insurance companies work, they analyze the risk, determine the actuarial costs, and then charge the premiums required to cover the costs. They are VERY good at it! They got burned in the 80’s and early 90’s because the rapid advance and cost of technology screwed the tables, but they have it figured out now.) Here is an example of how good they are: I prescribed a once daily medicine for a patient. It was less expensive than most similar medicines, and in a rare twist, it was actually cheaper than the twice daily version of the same medicine. From my view that is a win/win/win. It has been proven that patients are more compliant with once daily medicines, so I win. The patient wins because he feels better and has only one pill and the insurance company wins because it is cheaper, right? Wrong! The insurance company approved only the twice daily version. I finally got an honest answer from a pharmacist I had known for years at the company. The company had examined their refill data. On the once daily medicine, refills happened every 33 days on average. On the twice daily medicine, refills happened every 46 days. The insurance company benefitted because people forgot to take their medicine! So, any plan that actually will improve long term outcomes must provide for education AND a way to track outcomes after that education.

2) In the last 30 years the number of claims people, analysts, customer service reps, management for those people, and management for the managers at insurance companies have skyrocketed. All those people have to justify their jobs. How do they do it? Just like all good bureaucrats! They request more and more paperwork. Most offices have a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of employees to Doctor or provider. One of those is the nurse, all the rest are paper pushers. If there are two or more providers in an office, you can bet that there will be at least one nurse whose job is making sure that all the requested tests, Xrays, referrals and other paperwork is completed so that all the insurance companies are happy. On average, every insurance company has twice the number of staff that the office has. All those people provide absolutely NOTHING to the care of the patient, but they all have to be paid! If we are to have any hope of improving the system, we have to cut out all the middlemen and women who just handle paper.

3) This one is tough! All those tests do have their place, but they must be used wisely. Unfortunately, they aren’t. They are used as “shark repellant”. Medical providers no longer order them because they will actually help us, (though sometimes they do), they are ordered because it keeps the lawyers at bay. “See, I ordered all the appropriate tests and they were all negative. I had nothing to go on that might have indicated that Mr. Smith had appendicitis.” Unfortunately, what Mr. Smith had was a gall bladder attack, and none of the tests actually showed that! Of course a good exam might have triggered that as the cause for his complaint, but since insurance companies demand tests, sometimes the exam is underappreciated. Doctors, PA’s, and NP’s, are trained to do good exams and to ask questions, but that information doesn’t always fit into what insurance companies want. Providers are paid for their judgment, why not actually listen to it? We don’t treat tests, we treat patients!! In all my time in practice, I have yet to run across an appendicitis that I didn’t diagnose BEFORE the CT was done, but we added that $1000 cost just to be sure, for the insurance company. In all my time in practice, I’ve never found an ACL tear on MRI that I wasn’t sure was an ACL tear before the MRI, but we added $1500 to the bill to prove it. IF a PA like myself can do it, it is a certainty that surgeons and orthopedics specialists will be even better!

So my solutions:

1) Make education a requirement for patients, and then pay for it. No education, no medicine, no treatment. Make patients responsible for their care.
2) Make paperwork less burdensome. The vast majority of paper pushing employees can be done away with.
3) Make all these high tech tests less important and rely on judgment more. That’s why we spent all those years in school. Those tests help a lot when we are unsure, but doing them for everyone isn’t the best way to solve the problem, trained judgment is!

The final answer is this: Patients MUST be made accountable for their own care. Financial responsibility is the first leg of that table. Quit allowing people to get care with no out of pocket cost. EVERY adult should have to pay something for every visit. Children are more vulnerable, so that rule can’t apply to them. NO adult should be insulated from the costs of healthcare. Not knowing the costs leads to abuse. People that abuse the system should be punished in some way. The biggest fraud being perpetrated is by people with government benefits who use the system inappropriately. As I stated earlier, most of them need the care. However, far too many simply abuse the access given to them by the government.

Ok, this got much longer than intended, I told you it was tough to summarize!!

It appears we are in a bad situation because we have a very strong tendency to apply small tweaks to the system rather than do a complete rewrite.

I keep thinking, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and we are on the fraking Freeway of the Reich to hell with the pedal to the metal, no speed limit, and the exits require you slow down to 10 MPH in order to even see them.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:29:01 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

Your source for information on states giving "a symbolic middle finger to Washington" is the Firearms Freedom Act website.

Via David.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:46:51 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Quote of the Day )

This makes sense. I mean, email is kind of like the blogosphere in much the same way that the U.S. Mail is like The American Spectator. After all, they're both full of words printed on paper, right?

Tamara K.
August 4, 2009
Just not getting it.
[Someone should print out a copy of the Internet for this "Jim" guy and let him read the whole thing. Then maybe he would understand the difference--or at least he wouldn't annoy anyone (see also here) for a while.--Joe]

# Monday, August 03, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 9:23:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

Orwell was right:

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes.

...

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

And remember, this is the left-wing government. The Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, batting for the conservatives, thinks these plans are “too little, and too late,” implying that even more obtrusive work needs to be done. Rumors that a new detention center, named Room 101, is being constructed inside the Ministry of Love are unconfirmed.

He was off by a few years, but hey, he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. I have trouble predicting technology or politics even five years in advance.

Update: Phil has more and this link to another article. For some reason I find it amusing and appropriate the government bureaucrat doing this is "Children's Secretary Ed Balls".

However, in the comments there appears to be some question about the truthfulness of the report:

IS THE DAILY EXPRESS MAKING THIS UP?

04.08.09, 4:04pm

This announcement has been reported elsewhere (eg see Daily Mail, The Times) but no-one else has mentioned anything about CCTV being involved. Especially not in people's own homes.

For instance, check the offical government announcement here:
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8846

Apparently, in very extreme cases familes may be moved from estates to 'core residential units' for 24 hour support and supervision, but this is very different from the alarmist report of the government planning to put "20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision"

So, to cut a long story short, the Daily Express seems to have misunderstood this initiative somewhat. Which is a shame because this report has been picked up and discussed all over the internet over the last few days.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 9:05:45 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( PNNL )

Phil Pulver has been involved in a lawsuit against Battelle since 1995. Phil contacted me when I was doing battle against Battelle/PNNL and we talk on the phone every once in a while. Here are some of the more interesting points:

Via a DOE grant for $42,128 some software was developed and Pulver given exclusive rights to it. Battelle then delivered a non-working version to Pulver (Battelle disputes this point). Battelle then continued to work on it and used the software for a project for Homeland Security. They then applied for a patent on software that looks nearly identical and claim it was something completely unrelated to Pulvers.

Pulver has spent ~$300K on legal fees. The DOE pays Battelle's legal fees but Battelle gets to call the shots in the legal case. So far Battelle has spent nearly $750K in taxpayer money.

Your government in action.

See Pulvers website for more details than you probably want to know.

The other guy? John Trumbo is the reporter at the paper who wrote the article. I had lunch with him once and he wrote an couple articles on my battle with Battelle as well. I referred Pulver to Trumbo.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, August 03, 2009 3:09:23 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Technology | Work )

Why is it that every printer ever made has User Frustrator Tabs (UFTs) built into the paper tray?  Their only function is to prevent the user from sliding a new stack of paper into the paper tray.  They're there to catch the corners of the paper as you're trying to get it into the machine, thus causing one or more sheets to bunch or shift inside the tray.  Often it's the bottom sheet that gets hung up, and of course it's impossible to slide the bottom sheet forward under the stack, even without UTFs, unless you remove the whole stack and try again.  UFTs work especially well when you have an important customer on the phone and you're in a hurry to print something.  Of course the printer never knows that you've just installed a new, crumpled stack of paper in it, so while you're on the phone you have to find the right button to push, telling the printer it is now time to jam and wad a new sheet in its mechanism.

I can just see Butters, in his aluminum foil Professor Chaos uniform, evil grin on his face, as he builds the CAD file for the new HP paper tray; "He he he heeee.  Now the world will know the pain and frustration...."

Hey guys; ever though of having, you know, flat, smooth surfaces inside the paper tray?

#876,394.2;

Why is it that the printer and camera manufacturers actually hire (and presumably pay) extra people to write software, and then actually include it in their product packaging, just to take over my computer, turning it into an All-HP Fun House, or the Wonderful, Lollipop World of Cannon, instead of the computer I actually liked and paid for?  It's like putting dog turds in your product packaging.  You hire people to search for dog turds, you hire people to wrap those dog turds, and then you pay to ship those dog turds with each camera or each printer, so that I'll stick one in my optical drive and ruin everything, permeating my whole computer.  Gee, thanks.  All I wanted to do was print stuff, OK?  How hard is that to understand?  All I want to do is take pictures and put them on my computer.  Why does that require special dog turd software?  You know what I do?  I pull the card from the camera and use a damned card reader, 'cause that way I know I'm not sticking yet another dog turd in my optical drive.

(go ahead-- ask me how I feel about it)

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:38:20 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics )

Via an email from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

For more info go to TriggerTheVote.org.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:12:40 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

My lawyer friends tell me it's going to be good for a laugh to see the Feds twist and turn a little bit but not much more. I hope they are wrong but I do enjoy laughing. Have your popcorn and soft drinks ready by October:

The man who helped write the bill that exempts federal regulation of Montana made firearms says that the idea is gaining support around the country.

The state legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Ac during its last session and now the Montana Shooting Sports Association plans to file a lawsuit on October 1st.

The suit will challenge the authority of Congress to regulate Montana manufactured guns, accessories and ammunition that stays in the state according to Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut.

Last month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent out a letter stating that the federal law still applies in Montana.

Marbut says that ATF acknowledgment will help the Montana Shooting Sports Association gain standing in its lawsuit.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:04:31 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Sex )

From The Scotsman:

HAVING sex without a condom is good for your mental health, according to controversial research conducted by a leading Scottish psychologist. Professor Stuart Brody concludes that unprotected heterosexual sex can significantly boost men and women's mental wellbeing.

Conversely, Mr Brody claims that heterosexual sex with a condom is associated with poorer mental health, problems with dealing with stress and even conditions such as depression.

...

Mr Brody said: "Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental."

I hope he took the basic precaution of trying to compensate for things such as marital status, economic situation, education, drug (including alcohol) use, etc. If he did then his finding are very interesting. If he did not then his "study" is complete crap.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 7:35:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side--Gail Collins gets it right
["No sense"? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can't remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I'd love to see the research showing violence (not just "gun violence") is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn't mention it. I don't think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, "In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem."

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 02, 2009
By: Barbara Sunday, August 02, 2009 7:21:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

There are multiple reasons that I fear the thought of government controlled health care.

  1. Your choices will be taken away from you. The government programs does not take into consideration individual needs, they make decisions only as a general rules that apply to each person despite what is best for the specific person--except for themselves. I am sure they will always be able to get around the rules they make for other people. They are already making decisions for you, not the health care person who knows what the situation is.
  2. I have worked with nurses and doctors from Canada. Each nurse at our hospital takes care of 4-5 people at a time plus they have aides. Nurses are your first line of defense in the hospital, they are the ones that are there to make important decisions for you--call the MD, send you to the critical care unit, etc. The Canadian nurses said that they may have more than 10 patients and not enough aides. One nurse said that she is sure that people died because they didn't have time to assess the situation for the patients in critical need. Plus the ER was flooded with patients with sore throats and ear aches so that the ER Staff didn't have time to assess who had the critical needs. After all, health care is free so why not just go to ER and not wait until the next day?
  3. It appears to me that people who have free health care take advantage of it. The big example is welfare/Medicaid patients. They have poor health habits, little carry through on instructions. In home health we disliked getting Medicaid patients, not because they were poor, but because of their "give me attitude". Give me the best of care because "I" am just as good as you and I want everything but I don't want to take care of myself. These patients are often "frequent fliers" who come in to get their COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), diabetes or drug and alcohol dependencies under control. We clean them up, "save" them, send them home, and they are back in a few months. These people burn up so much money for health care but, hey, its "free" so no problem for them. In contrast, people on Medicare, they earned it by working all their lives--no it's not a great system either but people did earn it--just want to get better and get out of the hospital or out of home health because they have a life they want to go back to. They generally follow instructions better and don't return to the hospital over and over again. In general they are a pleasure to care for because they appreciate their health care.
  4. The government screws up so many things. They hire more and more layers of administration and they still can't get it right. Plus there will always be people who learn how take advantage of the system so they will have to hire more and more non-medical people to police the system but they usually only hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. You can't imagine how much paperwork we have to fill out to see Medicare and Medicaid patients plus the charting that is required on all patients.
  5. Good MDs and health care workers are the frogs that are starting to boil. You don't know the early and late hours these rural MDs are working or the piles of paperwork sitting on their desks. They are not making big money but they work the "big" hours. Government will not run this system efficiently. There will not be incentives for the really bright people to go into medicine--nope they are not that stupid. Seriously I think that will we will have an even greater shortage of MDs and other medical staff. But don't worry they are accepting people--minorities--into medical programs who actually need remedial help passing tests. Now that makes me feel better about our health care.

When the government takes over we can look forward to poor health care for everyone.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:41:24 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics )

Part I was here. You really should read all the comments if this topic interests you even a little bit.

I got a response back from Benjamin who gave me permission to use his name:

I think I'm picking up what you're putting down, and it all makes sense. I do have some counter questions though.

First question.
If the cost of healthcare is too high to provide adequate healthcare to all through a government run system, is there a way to encourage healthcare to cost less?

When I got what was left of my appendix out, it cost me roughly $12,000 (This was 1999 and so I just don't remember exactly) but included an overnight stay, and extensive surgery to get the poison out of my belly. Five years later I broke my arm and had outpatient surgery to have two screws put in my elbow so I would regain full range of movement, which I never got back. That surgery cost me $6,000, and both times the anesthesiologist cost around 60% of the total cost.

While I understand that medical costs are high because the penalty for failure is high. If I lose and arm because it gets infected, the surgeon doesn't get all the poison out of my belly and I die, or the anesthesia isn't administered properly I might die. But it seems like the amount that it costs to get basic or complex medical procedures done is disproportionate to their difficulty or cost in materials. My $12k and $3k bills, as well as lesser bills over the years have made me believe there is a lot of waste involved purely by the number of people I have to pay. Burning through 14 checks to pay for a single outpatient surgery is not reasonable.

Second question.
You state that immortality or close to it will be achievable soon.
First by the rich and then later by the middle class. But what mechanism (Similar to supply and demand or some-such) is in place to drive the prices down and make it achievable?

It seems to me that in the small window of time I have been an alert adult, medical costs have only seemed to go up and not down. I've been paying for my own medical care for 11 years. The cost of stitches, X-rays, and CT scans has gone up, and not down. While I know that the medical field stretches far beyond emergency and trauma related care, my view point is not showing a drop in cost.

Discrimination
I want to try and say that race, socioeconomic status, what gender you choose to love, how much of an asshole you are, or church you attend (or don't), won't have any impact on the quality or duration of healthcare you receive. But it really hurts me to say that I know that I would be full of shit and wrong with every single syllable I strung together, no matter how beautifully I managed to do so. America rocks. I fucking love this place. But americans are ignorant, self centered, asshole cowards, on the whole. Fearful of what they don't or choose not to understand.

Benjamin

P.S. Thanks for being informed and opinionated. I really like knowing that there are people out there who have an opinion for a reason, know how to share it, and do. I spend some time nearly every day listening to the two local conservative and an one liberal AM radio talk stations. Glenn Beck, Rush Vicodin, Randi Rhodes, Lars Larson, and whoever else sort of scare me.

My response:

Barb says she will write up something for me to post on my blog soon as well. She has a lot of experience with government run health care.

First Answer:
Basically, I don't have any knock-out good answers.

Getting the government out of the health care business will help some. The price of drugs is probably 20 to 100 X what it would be without the FDA being involved. Just like anti-gun people only citing the costs of guns in society and not mentioning the benefits the FDA costs are seldom mentioned. Not only in the incredible expense to get a new drug to market but the number of lives lost because of the delays.

Requiring hospitals to give free health care to those that can't pay raises the prices for everyone. All the paperwork required raises the price a bunch as well. This isn't just the governments though. Insurance fraud has contributed a great deal as well. Insurance also raises the cost not just because of the extra documentation required but because they put a lot of pressure on providers to reduce the price and providers give them discounts of something like 40% over what an individual would pay.

A looser pays court system would help but I'm not entirely comfortable with that concept either.

Another thing that makes the comparison from 10 or 20 years ago to now difficult is that the quality isn't the same. MRI's weren't available. Many of the drugs available now did not exist then. Lots of people that would have died or been permanently disabled a decade or two ago now go home and have many more healthful years left.

Second answer:

There will be lots of research, engineering, and failures going into the first efforts. Think of Microsoft Office--the first copy costs many millions, the second copy costs pennies. It won't be that dramatic but drugs really aren't that much different. The costs are weighted very, very heavily on the front end.

I hope Barb will be able contribute more.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:12:17 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It's the county's position that the panel did not need to reach the issue of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. It's the county's hope that that's what attracted the court's attention.

T. Peter Pierce
Of Richards, Watson & Gershon
July 30, 2009
9th Circuit Giving Gun Case Another Look
[In other words, "We hope the Second Amendment only applies to people residing in Washington D.C." If he had said a similar sort of thing about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth or 13th Amendments he would have been, and justifiably so, told he needed to find new employement as a janitor, santitation engineer, or Chinese target stand. But he didn't. He was talking about the Second Amendment which is somehow "different". I wonder why...

There are people on our side of the issue that are quite anxious about what this might mean as well. David HardySebastian, and Eugene Volokh have a few words to say about it. Oral arguments will occur the week of September 21st and we might get a clue as to the outcome.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 01, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:34:49 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot )

I just ordered 1750 cardboard boxes for Boomershoot targets. Combined with what we already have that is over 2400 boxes. That includes a few extras but still... I'm planning on a LOT of targets for next year.

Including miscellaneous other supplies that one order was nearly $760. That doesn't include the ton (literally) of chemicals, wooden stakes, and numerous other things. But do you know what?

It will be so awesome it will be worth it!

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:18:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Technology )

I occasionally post about the adverse results of socialized medicine but probably haven't said much about what I think about it. A friend asked the following via email:

I have been meaning to ask you for a more detailed explaination of your stance on universal government run health care as it is being proposed right now. I understand you oppose it, but as someone who is poor and hasn't had healthcare for 11 years and has used the emergency room for most of my healthcare needs, why it is bad.

I know there is no free lunch.
I know that someone is paying for it.
I want to know why YOU are opposed to it and why.

My response (except for a few personal things that were deleted to protect privacy):

Health care... Big, big topic.

I understand the no insurance situation. [details deleted]

I have tried to express this in a "Just One Question" format but haven't quite been able to do it. Here's my best attempt:

If it were possible to keep someone alive and robust essentially forever (baring catastrophic injury) but it cost $1M/year per person should the "government" supply it for everyone?

Of course the answer is "we can't afford that".

The thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where immortality may be achievable for some people. I suspect age-wise I am just above the cutoff line where it will be technically feasible. My kids (and probably you) have a good chance at that.

All government health care plans equalize (for the most part--people in power typically are more equal than others even if the law says otherwise) the care. There simply isn't budget for everyone to get "the best". Care will be rationed or it will be substandard. Look into what happened in the UK. The waiting lists cause people to die. Too old, too fat, or smoke? You don't get the knee replacement or other care because that money would be "better spent" on someone younger or healthier.

Government bureaucrats will make the rules and/or review cases deciding who gets care and who dies. It WILL be abused. It might be on racial or religious lines or it might be on the basis of who you know. Whatever the case it won't be on the basis of what you and/or friends and family think you are worth or can afford. When someone pulls the plug on me I want it to be because I and/or my family decided it was time or couldn't afford the cost rather than some government official that decided they didn't like my skin color or I had been just a little too uppity with some of my blog postings.

If Bill Gates and other extremely wealthy people are allowed to pay for whatever the free market can come up with immortality will probably be achieved soon. It will be extremely expensive and only a few will be able to afford it. But the price will come down and someday it will be affordable by the middle class. If equality of care is enforced we may never have that available to us.

See also what Alan Korwin has to say about it:

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2009/07/dangerous-health-care-insanity-spreads.html

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:14:53 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Gun Rights )

After the flap about PayPal being anti-gun I decided to put renewed effort into dumping them for doing Boomershoot and Modern Ballistics credit card transactions then tell them why. The problem was finding a good alternative.

I can't find the email or comment that recommended them but someone suggested I try a particular bank. It didn't work out. Here is what their policy says:

NO ADULT SITES OR MATERIAL

The Merchant agrees that CartSquare's services will only be used for lawful purposes. Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

...

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party's rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

That's right. I wouldn't be able to even link to a site that marketed or sold firearms, explosives, or ammunition. In their minds that is in the same as category as "controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party rights".

What about the people that want to exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms?

I wrote them an email asking abou their policy:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:25 AM
To: 'support@nmbancard.com'
Subject: Question about agreement terms.

In the terms of agreement (https://www.cartsquare.net/administration/uplinks.php3 ) I found the following:

Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party's rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

My business is a long range precision rifle event with explosives as the targets (http://www.boomershoot.org/). I have an ATF license to manufacture high explosives. I could, but do not, legally sell explosives. I sell people the opportunity to shoot at the explosives I make. I do link to firearms, ammunition, and explosives vendors who legally sell their products. Do you consider this a violation of your agreement?

If so then I will have to find a different bankcard vendor who is more tolerant of people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Please let me know.


Joe Huffman
208-301-4254
-----
http://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

Their reply:

From: Merchant Support
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:28 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: Your Merchant Account Application


Hello Joe Huffman,

According to Visa/MasterCard, your business is considered a High Risk Business  After reviewing your application we can not continue processing your application through Cardservice International.   However, we have found you another company that can approve your application.  Please click on this link below or copy and paste the link into your browser exactly how you see it to qualify for our special offer.
http://www.durangomerchantservices.com/Applications/apply_for_free.php?agentid=rwolf@ecommercemg.com
The rates are slightly different, however this could be the solution that you are looking for.

Thank you,

Merchant Account Support
support@merchantlane.com
Phone: 1-866-295-5264

Merchant accounts have fees that typically are on the order of $50/month whether you have any business or not. Boomershoot has essentially zero sales 11 months out of the year and Modern Ballistics is shareware and only gets a donation about once every couple of months. Plus the contract terms typically demand third party audits and intrusions rivaling that of a colonoscopy (been there, done that, don't want to do it again).

Chet, a friend from work, suggested I look at Amazon's Simple Pay.

It looks as if my businesses just skate by their acceptable use policies but not my friends selling ammunition or a gun raffle for charity (although this might work for charities):

Prohibited Items and Activities:

...

  • Firearms and Weapons - includes ammunition, guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, other firearms, knives (automatic, spring-loaded knives, throwing, etc.), brass knuckles, or other weapons.
  • Gambling Businesses - includes online gambling (including poker), lotteries (including sale of lottery tickets), games of chance (including sweepstakes and raffles), sports forecasting, or odds-making.

Chet also suggested Yahoo! but from what I could tell they require PayPal, a Merchant account, or $40/month whether you have any sales or not.

I'm going to spend some more time on the Amazon site and maybe convert over to them from PayPal.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 5:06:19 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I think that's a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.

thinkagain2
July 31, 2009
Comment to Taking Gun Laws Seriously.
[I'm of the opinion "thinkagain2" is unable of thinking or making a good argument.

His, or her, thesis overlooks the possibility that some people need to be killed. Those men herding the naked women and children to the trenches prior to being shot... they needed to be killed. Right then and there. Keeping guns away from the people that needed them enabled evil.

It also overlooks that guns are used to stop violent attacks on innocent people--most of the time without anyone getting killed.

And just who is going to keep people away from guns? I'm betting it will be other people with guns.

No thanks. In addition to having a serious logic flaw that would violate my Jews in the Attic Test.--Joe]

# Friday, July 31, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, July 31, 2009 8:29:38 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

Linoge put a lot of work into showing the data with a pretty picture. I would like to think our opposition is able to read and understand raw numbers but time has shown even though I think they are mentally ill bigots with crap for brains I have far too high of an opinion of their skill set. So if your opposition needs to see a picture to understand what you are saying Linoge has it.

Data is always a good thing. Presenting it so it is understandable on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it is even better.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, July 31, 2009 8:14:49 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

[I]f you're in favor of welfare programs, for example (allowing some people to live at the expense of others, by threat of force, i.e. to acquire value without having earned it) then what moral or intellectual tenet is going to stop you from saying those same people should never be arrested? If they can receive goods and services they didn't earn by work or productivity, why then, exactly, shouldn't they have freedom they didn't earn through respecting other people's rights? If you favor forced redistribution, you've thrown out the concept of rights at that point, so what basis do you have for punishing property crimes that would be intellectually or morally consistent with forced redistribution? Is there some huge difference between the government robbing you to support a layabout, and said layabout robbing you directly? Seems to me the latter would accomplish the same thing far more efficiently, leaving out the middle man as it does.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
July 31, 2009
Comment to Fearsome firearms or crap for brains?
[But the "man in the middle" is the main beneficiary and may, in fact, be the entire point of the theft.--Joe]