Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Quote of the day—Justice Stephen Breyer

Posted on by

Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well then get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem!

Justice Stephen Breyer
December 13, 2010
Via John Richardson.
[See also the posts by Sebastian, Alan, Weerd Beard, and Say Uncle.

At what point does this right becomes infringed in Breyer opinion? What if there was only one city in the country that allowed the possession and use of a pistol in public. Suppose that one city was Barrow Alaska (300 miles NORTH of the artic circle) and that was only when there was a polar bear watch in effect (yes, they have polar bears roaming the streets sometimes). Is there still “no problem”?

As pointed out in comments to the above posts (note that Snowflakes in Hell is down and will be for at least a few more hours) this statement by Breyer can be shown to be irrational and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights by transforming the restricted object to be something other than a gun such as:

  • So if we in Texas decide to ban Islam, and you want to practice that particular religion, then you should just go somewhere else to do it? (StanInTexas)
  • Let’s make a law that all political speech by a Democrat is illegal in Texas. If a Democrat wants to make a political statement, they needs to go to New York or Oklahoma. (StanInTexas)
  • If blacks wish to be served at the lunch counter, they simply must take the blacks-Only Bus to New York where they allow such things. (Weer’d Beard)
  • Can’t get an abortion in Texas? Well just get on an airplane and fly to Maryland! No problem there right? (pete)

Here are some of my contributions to that meme:

  • Are you in an interracial marriage? Do you like to live together? Well then get on the bus and go to San Francisco. There is no problem!
  • Do you want a trial by jury? Then don’t commit a crime unless you live in Washington State. There is no problem!
  • Do you want due process? Then move to Idaho. There is no problem!
  • Do you want representation by a competent attorney? No problem—Just make sure his name isn’t Stephen Breyer.

—Joe]

Quote of the day–Karen Arntzen

Posted on by

They say that they are law abiding citizens but there’s no way of knowing that. There’s no accountability for this group.

Karen Arntzen
Of the California Brady Campaign.
November 27, 2010
Restaurant Is Stage For Debate Over Open Carry Law
[Via The Madman Raves.

I really don’t get her point.

Accountability? The open carry people she is talking about is just as accountable as she is. And just like with her when someone meets her on the street there is no way of knowing if she is law abiding.

Does she think that if the people open carrying were wearing a uniform and a badge that would make them more law abiding or accountable?

It’s as if I understand all the words she is using but I can’t make sense of her sentence.

The Madman Raves interprets it as “I believe she just called all open carry practitioners ‘criminals’.” —Joe]

Disconnect from reality

Posted on by

I’m not sure if this is a disconnect from reality or just yet another example of a process failure:

What I think we should do is regulate the price of bullets.  I can see some CEO of a munitions company calculating his performance bonus right now.  Let’s try $75 dollars per bullet for a .22 caliber bullet.  $15 dollars more for each caliber higher.  You want a .38?  No problem!  Only $315 dollar each.  Want a .357 magnum?  Only $5100 dollars each.  Want six?  Cool!   A mere $30,600 will get you six.  Want a 50 round clip of 9mm bullets.  All you have to do is pony up a cool $15,700.  This, of course, does not include the cost of the clip.  How about a recyclable clip for $250 plus a $50 recycling deposit?  At last, an eco-friendly way to kill each other.   I can see Michael F. Golden (Smith and Wesson’s CEO) having multiple orgasms dreaming of his bonus based on the potential profits his company could make.

How disconnected is this? Let me count a few of the ways:

  1. The instant creation of a black market.
  2. The infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
  3. What is or would be a recyclable “clip”?
  4. S&W does not sell ammunition.
  5. With such a high price on something more cheaply available on the black market ammunition manufacturing companies would have near zero sales.
  6. Reading literally “$15 dollars” is “15 dollars dollars”. The same goes for “$75 dollars”, “$315 dollar” (well almost, it is “315 dollars dollar”), and “$5100 dollars”. It isn’t even consistent because many instances of “$” are correct.
  7. .357 magnum is $5100/round but .38 (Special, I presume) and 9mm are only $315 each? How can one derive that from “15 dollars more for each caliber higher”?

Even though I have decades worth of examples of stupid stuff the anti-gunners say I am sometimes still amazed at the depths of stupid they are capable of reaching.

Quote of the day—Christopher Burg

Posted on by

I guess when your cause has no roots in reality it makes it easier to change your mind ever thirty seconds.

Christopher Burg
November 30, 2010
Guns on Trains
[He is referring to Brady Campaign spokesmen changing their story to fit whatever they hope might get some traction with the public. The problem for them is none of their predictions of the streets running red with blood have come true. Virtually anything they say will be either immediately demonstrated to be false or suspect. How many members do they have? They said they had “about half a million”. The true numbers are about 50,000 if you count everyone who has ever donated to them. They say gun control laws increase public safety yet they also say, “I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime.”

If they were to say the sky was blue people know it probably is completely overcast or when pressed on the issue the Brady Campaign will claim they meant that it was blue someplace else.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jack E. Dunning

Posted on by

There are only two other states requiring the sale of confiscated weapons, Kentucky and Tennessee, both of which must have state governments almost as brainsick as Arizona’s. The NRA says why not sell these weapons to an authorized agent, and therein lies the problem. Gun show participants are authorized agents, and carry a loophole that would allow individual to individual weapons sales without background checks.

Jack E. Dunning
November 29, 2010
Arizona continues to lead the nation in putting more guns in the public’s hands
[This appears to be another case of someone lacking a thinking process. Not only does he have an error in his facts about gun shows but if you read the rest of his post you will discover he apparently believes there is a fixed supply of guns in the universe—he wants the police to destroy all confiscated firearms.

The only people that gain from destroying confiscated firearms are the people employed to do that and the gun manufactures. Yes, this anti-gun advocate is proposing a policy that benefits the gun manufactures by decreasing the supply of firearms in the marketplace. A decreased supply means more sales at a higher price for suppliers.

Sometimes I suspect they really are stupid. But if they were as stupid as they appear they couldn’t manage to string together the words into complete sentences. Nope, I think it has to be a mental defect.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Posted on by

I find these handguns unaesthetic. They’re ugly. They’re in-between things of no particular utility — but if we banned things on the basis of ugliness and relative uselessness, there’s a whole lot of people who’d never be allowed out of the house.

Roberta X
November 21, 2010
Pretzel Helmke Logic
[Agreed. And if such bans were legal and ethical the first useless thing I wouldn’t allow out of the house would be Paul Helmke. But that isn’t the way this part of world works and it shouldn’t work that way. So we need to continue shaming and pointing out his lies and mental defects.

Roberta did a good job but I kept thinking that in the next sentence she was going to point out that the Columbine killers used an ordinary shotgun (which they had sawed off the buttstock) for most of the murders. But that wouldn’t have fit Helmke’s narrative of an “assault weapon” being the real criminal.

Do you think I’m exaggerating? If so then why did Helmke use these exact words, “The TEC-9 assault pistol used by the Columbine killers murdered 12 of their classmates and a teacher.”?—Joe]

Random rant of the day

Posted on by

I don’t expect but maybe one person out of a 1000 to remember the Quadratic Equation—even though my algebra teacher wrote in my yearbook that if I forgot everything else she wanted me to remember that one thing. I don’t expect but maybe one person out of ten to be able count change without a computer someplace in the process. But there is one “math thing” that is starting to annoy me. I’ve heard this one claim for decades and I have never heard anyone else point out the obvious fallacy. It’s like an urban myth that everyone believes even though nearly everyone with a room temperature I.Q. could demonstrate it is false.

What finally tweaked me enough to do something about it was listening to a podcast by someone who claims to be smart enough that he should know better. I’m withholding the name to protect the guilty, but what was said was something like, “80% of the population thinks they are better than average drivers. That’s mathematically impossible!” Grrr…

Try proving that without resorting to a far less common definition of “average”.

A year or two ago in a much different forum someone else made a similar statement about penis sizes. I politely explained they were full of it and it hasn’t come up again (pun intended).

Now, with a much larger audience, I will now explain the issue using different example  to (mostly) save you from thoughts about penis dimensions. I hope I don’t have to be subjected to this myth again, and if I am I will be able to just glare at them and send them a link to this post.

Imagine we have a sample of 50 male/female couples. All the people, except one, had their spouse as their one and only sex partner (I told you to imagine, remember?). It turns out that before the age of government education loans and grants Trixie earned her way through medical school the old fashion way—in bed. She had 1000 sexual partners prior to her spouse.

Lets compute the average (usually understood to be the arithmetic mean) number of sexual partners in this sample.

MeanSexualPartners = TotalSexualPartners/NumberOfPeople
MeanSexualPartners = ((99 x 1) + (1 x 1001))/100
MeanSexualPartners = 1100/100
MeanSexualPartners = 11

In this case 99% had 1 sexual partner and can truthfully and correctly state they have had fewer than the average number of sexual partners. Furthermore, 99% can correctly state they have had less than 10% of the average number of sexual partners.

I will leave the drivers and penis dimension examples as exercises for the reader.

The Science is Settled

Posted on by

As we all now know, if you want to answer a question scientifically, you take a poll.  That’s the New Scientific Method.  Scientific American magazine took such a poll regarding anthropogenic Gluball Worming (that’s Kim Du Toit’s term, IIRC) and since they didn’t like the results, it would seem Reasoned DiscourseTM has kicked in.  I suppose the New Scientific Method will have to be amended – you take a poll of Open Society socialists only.  Then you’ll get the right results.

This from Hockey Schtick, which has ostensibly maintained a link to the unwanted results.  Take it for what you will.  Do your own investigation.  Myself, I find it hard to believe even though I know the left like the back of my hand and therefore such things should come as no surprise.  I heard of this poll on the Dennis Prager show last week, and figured I should share.

I used to subscribe to Scientific American, until I received the impression that desperate academics were using it merely as a vehicle for getting published.  I got tired of wading through so much evidence of non-inspiration, just to find the few interesting tidbits.  Still I’ll give them credit for being the only place I’d heard of superfluids, pre internet.

To me it’s not terribly important one way or the other.  The left has been crying “Wolf!” for generations now and it has worn thin, and worn out, for me decades ago.  The planet Earth was supposed to run out of oil in the 1980s, and so we were supposed to adopt more socialism.  The “Population Time Bomb” was going to get us by then too, we were told as elementary school students, and so we were supposed to adopt more socialism including forced population controls.  The planet was going to freeze up in a new ice age, we were told back in the 1960s, and then it became Glueball Worming, and now it’s “Climate Change”.  Those are just a few highlights, but this crap has been non-stop for what – about 150 years?  They’ve lost control of the narrative now.  What will happen as a result?

I figure it’ll have to get more down to the point – It’ll have to be plain old threats from the left at some point.  When the spoiled child’s attempts at lying and manipulation fall flat, the all-out tantrums come next.  The best we can do I suppose is ignore them, but when they start breaking things it gets difficult.

Security Theater gets attention

Posted on by

Via email from Kris comes this link and an image from Gizmodo which I continued following to find the artist here. This is the image:

http://assets.arlosites.com/stills/17587011/2a87999b00.jpg

Also from Kris is this collection of TSA bumper stickers:

On the more serious side is Bruce Schneier (via Chet) with my favorite section being:

There’s talk about the health risks of the machines, but I can’t believe you won’t get more radiation on the flight. Here’s some data:

A typical dental X-ray exposes the patient to about 2 millirems of radiation. According to one widely cited estimate, exposing each of 10,000 people to one rem (that is, 1,000 millirems) of radiation will likely lead to 8 excess cancer deaths. Using our assumption of linearity, that means that exposure to the 2 millirems of a typical dental X-ray would lead an individual to have an increased risk of dying from cancer of 16 hundred-thousandths of one percent. Given that very small risk, it is easy to see why most rational people would choose to undergo dental X-rays every few years to protect their teeth.

More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.

Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists.

Nate Silver on the hidden cost of these new airport security measures.

According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.

Hidden costs… That is something that is difficult to get across to many people. Just like gun control. Ban all the guns and the total crimes committed with firearms will probably go down but the crime rate may actually increase because having unarmed or poorly armed victims enables crime. It appears that is just too difficult of a concept for some people.

I’m not sure how to handle this problem. If they didn’t have (or threaten to have) the force of government behind them it would be fairly easy to ignore them and let Darwin take care of them. But that isn’t the way it works. They can use government to force us all to back over the cliff trying to avoid a nut case in front of us who pops up and says “Boogie! Boogie!” once every few years. We should just allowed to carry our guns and put a bullet in his head when he shows himself.

It seems people are beginning to realize the price they are paying for the security theater but will they be willing to embrace freedom and self-reliance?

Whatever the outcome it makes things worse for gun control. We should be able to draw the parallel between security on an airplane and security in schools, office buildings, and college campuses. If this is what it takes to make things safe on an airplane why should it take any less to make a dorm room “safe’?

How many people do you think will be tolerate this sort of “security” every time they enter a building or any other “gun free zone”? I don’t know the answer but we should start asking the question.

Update: I forgot about Rob’s email that I had saved away:

And from Mike:

Quote of the day—Kurt Hofmann

Posted on by

We are expected to accept Goddard as some kind of expert on our rights–as having some unique insight about how to legitimately infringe on that which shall not be infringed–not because of extensive study on his part of Constitutional law (his major was international studies), but because he was shot.  When he argues that continuing the mandated defenselessness policies on college campuses is necessary for safety (despite how poorly that worked at VA Tech and elsewhere), we are similarly asked to accept that he is an “expert” on the subject, not because of his extensive training in self-defense (which I have never seen claimed), but again because he was shot.  By that standard, I suppose everyone who survives a heart attack is now a cardiologist.

Kurt Hofmann
November 15, 2010
‘Gun control’ gets a new poster boy
[Oh! I like this game:

  • Everyone who has ever been in an automobile wreck is now a traffic safety engineer.
  • Everyone who has ever had their computer crash is now a software developer.
  • Everyone who has ever been divorced now is an expert on relationships.
  • Everyone who has ever failed a class is now a professor.
  • Everyone who has ever said something stupid is now a genius.

–Joe]

Nigerian bomb request

Posted on by

I get the most unusual email:



From: timi top [mailto:timitop_007@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 9:12 AM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: how can i build a bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hello sir,


                                    My name is temitope and I recite in Nigerian, it’s being a long time have been searching in other to know about how I can build bomb, it not just for fun, but for people in my area to know me that am one of the researcher, I will like you to put me through so people in my area will be doing that in my memory when I grow old and die, and I will be able to generate money from there, please sir I love it if you can help me through and also help me to buy some materials that can be use for it  because am not in usa and I will need someone to help me in other to purchase this items and send it to Nigerian, you can reach me by my mobile number or my e-mail address, am on timitop_007@yahoo.com or call me on +2348169640844 I will be looking for to read from you soon bye and do have a lovely weekend aheard


TEMITOPE


I’m not sure I could find law enforcement in Nigeria but I may not need to because all the IP addresses in the email header are from New York. So I might as well play the fish for a while:



From: Joe Huffman [mailto:joeh@boomershoot.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:21 AM
To: ‘timi top’
Subject: RE: how can i build a bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What do you want to do with the bomb? What does it need to be able to destroy? How big does it need to be?


-joe-


Update (11/15/2010 05:16): I received a response.



From: timi top [mailto:timitop_007@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:09 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: thanks for your reply sir


hello sir
            thanks for your respond , i want to generate money from there, by selling to my country military people, not that i want to use it for harm or for any dirty game, is just to know know that am one of the people that develop technology in Nigerian please help me out sir, cos we have already have people that is building guns and bullet, but i want to be first  person in Nigerian  to build bomb and one of the people that develop Nigerian technology…… i will be looking forward to read from you again bye


TEMITOPE


I replied:



From: Joe Huffman [mailto:joeh@boomershoot.org]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:16 AM
To: ‘timi top’
Subject: RE: thanks for your reply sir


I am sorry but I don’t have any experience in building those types of bombs. The difficulties are as much or more about the accurate delivery of the bomb than about the explosives which is where I have a little bit of expertise.


-joe-

Quote of the day—MikeB302000

Posted on by

I couldn’t care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.

MikeB302000
November 12, 2010
Austin, Texas Murders Way Up
[We’ve known this for a long time but it’s nice for him to admit it. If only all the anti-gun people would do so it would make things a lot easier.—Joe]

If You Have to Ask…

Posted on by

…you clearly haven’t been paying attention.


The Political Insider (requires registration for e-mail alerts) is fielding a poll, trying to find out who we want for the next Republican presidential candidate.  It’s all multiple choice, with the usual suspects.  There are some general opinion questions too.  The one that really got me is; “Do you think the tea party represents the Republican Party?”


Oh boy.  First; No, or I sure hope not.  But that’s not the proper question.  The proper question would be; “Do you think the Republican Party represents the tea party?”  The answer is; “Hell No, that’s why the tea party exists.  Get it?”


That, you Insiders, is the problem, and so the tea party is trying to overrun the Republican Party, co opt it, and bring it into line.  The other question I did not see is; “What should be the primary goal of the Republican Party over the next several years?”


The one, simple answer is; “Get rid of socialism and purge the socialists from American government payrolls.  All of it.  All of them.”  We’ve had enough.


They didn’t give us the opportunity to answer in our own words, so I deleted the message.

Quote of the Day – Bill Whittle

Posted on by

…just because something is fun, and scares away weenies, doesn’t mean that it’s stupid.


Bill Whittle
November 4, 2010
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
[Freedom is scary for a lot of people, and it means that people who hate you can’t tell you what to do or how to do it, just because they hate you.  It sucks for them, and it makes them angry.  Hence, freedom pisses people off.  Hence, if you love freedom, you have to come to grips with the fact that people are going to hate you.  Embrace it, Little Grasshopper.  Or as Zaphod Beeblebrox said after having a nuclear missile attack launched against his ship; “Man, This is Great!  It means we’re really on to something if they’re trying kill us!”–Lyle]

Philosophy questions

Posted on by

I moved some pages I had on a different web site to this blog for better visibility and archival. These posts were from 1997 and 1998 which was long before my first blog post (February 3, 2004) and I have given the posts their approximate original date.

 

The pages moved are:

 

 

 

If you want to comment on one or more of those posts you will have to do it on this post as the comments are disable for posts that old.

Quote of the day–Patrick Smith

Posted on by

Somebody, somewhere, needs to shake us from this stupor of blind policy and blind obedience. I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t some test — a test of just how stupid Americans are. If TSA said that from now on we had to hop on one foot while humming “God Bless America,” would we do that too?

That’d be ludicrous, certainly, but how much more ludicrous is it, really, than asking people to remove their belts for purposes of walking through a nonexistent body scanner?

Patrick Smith
November 4, 2010
Airport security reaches new levels of absurdity–Here’s what happens when you refuse to comply with TSA’s “new rule.” Blue-glove groping, anyone?
[Smith, a pilot, attempts to go through A Security Theater. They tell him he must take off his belt. The following then occurred:

“But … What if I don’t?”

“Then you’ll have to go through secondary screening and a full pat-down.”

And so I opted for the secondary screening. Not that a pat-down is reasonable, either, but I did not want to submit to something that I felt was excessive and ridiculous without a reason or explanation.

I was asked to stand in a cordoned-off area, where I waited for several minutes as guards stood around looking at me. Finally a supervisor came over, wearing disposable blue gloves, to administer my secondary screening.

“Sir,” he said, “um, you still need to remove your belt.”

“What do you mean? I chose this so I could leave the belt on.”

“No, either way the belt has to come off.”

“What? And if it doesn’t come off?”

“Then I cannot let you through.”

So, it would seem, secondary screening isn’t really “secondary” at all. Instead of simply taking off my belt, I get a full, blue-glove groping and I have to take off my belt. Either that or I’m not allowed to fly the plane.

I could be wrong but I’m sensing that A Security Theater has almost reached the point where they are going to get slapped down a notch or two. They should be wiped off the face of the planet but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.—Joe]

Neighbors

Posted on by

My son and a neighbor kid got into some trouble last Spring.  A minor property crime against the local grange– a stupid, boyish stunt.  That’s the first big mistake in this series.


John Law got involved and came down HARD on the two kids.  Really serious shit, as if they were career, hard-core gang leaders or something.  Second big mistake.  No one’s really responsible either– things go largely according to a pre-ordained plan in a largely manditory system.  I would have thought this could be settled better, more efficiently and with more focus on restitution and correction, by neighbors talking to neighbors, but John Law has to get his piece of the action or he feels all left out and stuff.  Instead, my first news of this came after the kids had been arrested.  Watching the excitement on Hawaii 5-O and hardly ever even getting to slap the cuffs on some kids in a small town can be a bitch I guess.  Maybe we’re all bitches now.  Some people seem to think so, or wish it were so.


Fast-forward several months.  My son’s “partner in crime” from last Spring was found dead this Saturday morning.  Someone spotted his body near a bridge a few blocks away and made an anonymous call (who does that?) to 911.  I still don’t know the cause of death and it would be irresponsible to speculate.  All we know right now is; it has been reported that foul play is not suspected.


While making a huge pot of soup from our garden vegetables, duck eggs and yearling elk heart (which is tender and wonderful– thank you, Chris) this weekend, I thought back to 1977 which is when my sister and niece were killed.  Some of our neighbors brought over prepared food for us, and it was very well received.  It’s so simple, yet it makes a lot of sense.  When you’re tragedy-struck, you probably have less, or no, appetite and you sure don’t want to fix meals or go shopping when you have all the aftermath to deal with, and the grief.  But you have to eat, so I thought of bringing the parents and surviving son some of the soup and some other things this last Sunday.


Then the doubt kicked in.  Third big mistake.  “I don’t even really know these people, and for all I know they might hate the very idea of elk heart (Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies offering ‘possum-n-grits, chicken fried skunk, or some such, comes to mind), they might be offended, or maybe they’d blame my son for what happened or something.  Maybe they don’t eat meat or these other things.”  All this stupid, inane garbage prevented me from going down there straight away.  The wife was out of town at a rehearsal, the kids need to stay on their homework—all the regular stuff adds up too.


An offer of help can always be refused, but at least you’re giving them the option and asking nothing, which is the whole point.  Isn’t it?  I’ve gone stupid and wobbly in my old age.  Yakkity yacking more and doing less, maybe.


A few days later I finally got around to going over there with some home-made sweet cider and some fresh duck eggs.  The grandmother answered the door, and I spoke to her and the mother.  They were extremely gracious, appreciative and talkative, almost fawning, but that’s not the point.  I’d decided in advance that if they slammed the door in my face I’d be OK with that.  They informed me that the kids’ father is now in the hospital in intensive care for, among other things, not eating. (sigh)


If you think someone might need a little gesture of help, and even if you think your offer is dumb, maybe you should just offer the damn help.  Git ‘er done.  But I’m not finished here;


A community social network of some kind can be a precious thing, and whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, or haven’t thought much about it, your local church organizations can and do offer that sort of network.  So long as they don’t go all hell-fire and brimstone on people, they are potentially a great value to society.  I’ve harshly questioned organized religion, and I think with good reason.  Some of them are downright evil, some have fallen in with the Tides Foundation or other global leftist organizations, but the argument isn’t all one-sided.


Time was when churches, the Rotary Club, Elks, Moose Lodge, Eagles, Granges and so on were THE centers of local community action.  Now it’s a coercive, increasingly centralized government in concert with what can only be described as communist agitators and punks (such that now even the very term “community action” connotes leftist agitation).  Which would you rather?

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

I, for one, do not welcome our Neocortical Overlords.

Kevin Baker
October 21, 2010
Our Neocortical Overlords
[Make that two. I’ve worked on too many government projects with people that said things like “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us” or seen the results of spending billions on some of the most stupid and wasteful things.

Oh! It’s least four (via both Alan and Kevin):

And when you people with obvious mental defects (such as Peterson Syndrome or other problems) an inability to read and comprehend, or an inability to determine truth from falsity insisting they should be making the rules then we have an even bigger problem of people with the mental capabilities of a two year old “thinking” they are our superiors. That should convince even the most skeptical this is a real problem and must not be allowed to continue or ever happen again.–Joe]

Quote of the day—John R. Lott Jr.

Posted on by

The only “evidence” that “screening works” comes from their claim that, in 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were denied from purchasing a gun. What the authors likely are aware of, though they do not tell the readers, is that virtually all these cases represent so-called “false-positives”: In 2006 and 2007 (the latest data years available), a tiny fraction — just 2 percent of those 1.5 percent — involved possible unlawful possession; just 0.2 percent of the 1.5 percent were viewed as prosecutable — 174 cases in 2006 and 122 in 2007. At least a third of the remaining cases didn’t result in convictions. These are the types of errors that an academic journal shouldn’t let in, but if it does, they should fix it. But it is my understanding that the journal has refused to publish a clarification of these numbers.

…

Eventually even the subscribers to the New England Journal of Medicine will learn about these facts. Just look at the changes in the climate debate — not even the most prestigious places can get away with biased research for too long.

John R. Lott Jr.
October 18, 2010
Medical Journal Bias on Guns
[Via Phil.

As I have said before people can appear to be normal functional members of society yet have severe mental defects. Just as people at the Brady Campaign can’t seem to distinguish between a hypothesis and a conclusion some of the “researchers” published in the New England Journal of Medicine have the same problem or are deliberately publishing bad papers. In either case they deserve to have their credentials pulled.—Joe]

Huh?

Posted on by

This just doesn’t make sense to me. But I guess that is to be expected when you are dealing with journalists and anti-gun people:

Wendy Cukier teaches at a business school, so she understands economic imperatives – and the importance of innovation and prosperity. But for the associate dean of Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, what matters most is preserving core Canadian values around safety, equity and respect for human rights.

This is so full of fail it is mindboggling.

The right to defend oneself is the most basic human right in existence yet she works to restrict it at every opportunity. This endangers and imbalances things. It doesn’t preserve safety and equity.

She understands economic imperatives? Yeah, right. Read the rest of the article. She is all about liberal causes.

An expert in emerging technologies, Prof. Cukier has spent two decades championing workplace diversity and gun control. The unifying themes of her work are innovation and change processes, says the co-author of 2002’s Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership From Java to Jurassic Park. After spending her early career with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Prof. Cukier became a consultant to organizations such as the Palo Alto, California–based Institute for the Future.

It seems to me it is quite a stretch to connect “emerging technologies” with “championing workplace diversity and gun control”. I wonder if that was Cukier or the writer that came up with that.

Also note:

The Transformational Canadians program celebrates 25 living citizens who have made a difference by immeasurably improving the lives of others. Readers were invited to nominate Canadians who fit this description. Over several weeks, a panel of six judges will select 25 Transformational Canadians from among the nominees.

Nominations remain open until November 26. Submit yours today.

I think some balance to the anti-rights representative needs to made. Know any pro-freedom Canadians that might qualify?