Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

It will always be a loophole

Posted on by

One would think that eventually they would figure it out when something isn’t working they would stop doing it. Nope. This is the U.K. and guns. All rational thought must be resisted.

Banning real guns didn’t solve their problem so now they are banning deactivated guns. What is a deactivated gun? From the BBC News:

Typically, a deactivated gun has its barrel sawn down the middle and a metal rod is then welded inside to make it incapable of discharging a bullet.

The breech block – which contains the mechanism to actually fire the bullet – is ground down so there is no firing pin.

Hmm… so these must be used in crime a lot in order to justify banning them. Wrong:

However, the most recent Home Office firearms figures from 2005/6 show that reactivated or deactivated firearms were used in just eight offences, out of a total of 11,084.

Reactivated handguns were used twice; deactivated firearms were used four times; and other reactivated firearms were used twice.

So what is going on here? As near as I can tell it’s mass insanity. Other links:

And of course the anti-gun bigots are pleased:

Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network said: “We are delighted. This has been on our agenda for a long time. It is a big loophole in our firearms legislation.”

When you hear the bigots in this country call the lack of a repressive gun law a “loophole” keep in mind there will always be a “loophole” for these people.

Runnin’ With the Devil

Posted on by

[Mostly this is a rant because I’m pissed. I don’t particularly blame the NRA-ILA or any other pro-gun group. Political reality is significantly different from gut response. The following is 95% emotion and its to just get it out of my system.]

The instant Bush signed the NICS Improvement Bill into law we get this crap:

President George W. Bush signed the nation’s first new gun-control legislation in 14 years Tuesday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy immediately announced she would take her crusade to the next step.

This time, she and others want to close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows some dealers to sell firearms without background checks.

[…]

Schumer agreed that the next item on the gun-control agenda would be to require background checks in every gun sale, but predicted that would be harder to get passed because of opposition by the National Rifle Association. The law signed Tuesday, in contrast, had NRA support.

And this from Paul Helmke:

Many of us in the gun violence prevention movement are excited about the year ahead.

America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.

Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”

[…]

Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.

[…]

Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from common-sense gun laws that will reduce the toll of 30,000 gun deaths every year in this country.

  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from preventing suspected terrorists from walking out of a gun store or a gun show fully armed.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from getting a background check for every single gun purchase they make, including at gun shows (this is closing the gun show loophole).
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from strengthening Brady background checks to make sure that “prohibited purchasers” like felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and domestic abusers are denied guns at the point of sale.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from reporting lost or stolen guns to the police in a timely manner.
  • Law-abiding Americans (who aren’t in the legal gun business) have nothing to fear from being prevented from buying guns in bulk purchases.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from keeping military-style assault weapons out of most civilian hands, reserving them for military and law enforcement use only.

If you “compromise” with the Devil don’t be surprised if you get burned.

Sean’s words need to be repeated here:

What typically gets lost, and lost deliberately, is the meaning of the word ‘compromise’. In a compromise, both sides gain or lose bargaining points in a mutually acceptable, if not optimal fashion.  In the gun control debate, the meaning of compromise is twisted to, “Okay, we’ll only take half your guns, this time.” The pro-RKBA folks are never even offered anything in return. This is a variation of the slippery slope that I call “Zeno’s Paradox of Lost Rights”. As with the paradox of motion, the remaining scope of the Second Amendment is progressively halved, and halved again. The illusion is that we never lose the right, because there is always the remaining half. The Theory of Limits suggests otherwise.

Sean Flynn
6/15/98

If McCarthy, Schumer, and their ilk were asking me to compromise my initial position would be that they get the death penalty under 18 USC 242. The only people that aren’t allowed to own weapons are those that are locked up or are unable feed themselves. If they are safe enough to be allowed on the streets with a 2000 pound car, a full tank of gasoline and a book of matches then they are safe enough to be allowed a M60, a M60 Patton, or, with suitable storage facilities, TNWs. And finally the 2nd Amendment guarantees the RKBA and since a right someone can’t afford to exercise, just like a right to an attorney, isn’t really worth anything the Federal Government should subsidize arms for those that want them but cannot afford them.

We start our negotiations there.

And now that I’m got that out of the way let’s talk about those words from Helmke:

So, 1.4 million people were stopped from legally purchasing firearms. Since there are about 200 million adults in the country and only about 40% own firearms that must mean that about one out of every 60 people that tried to by a firearm were legally prohibited. And that’s not good enough for him. When will it be good enough? One out of 20? One out of 10? No. We know what the real number he is looking for, one out one.

Those “30,000 gun deaths” include justified, even praiseworthy, shootings by police and private citizens. Either Helmke is deliberately misleading or he thinks the life of a thug who put an innocent life in immediate jeopardy of death or permanent injury is just as valuable as the innocent life. In either case he is not to be trusted.

If suspected terrorists are to be prevented from owning guns, the list of suspected terrorists is created without due process as currently is the case, then President Hillary could declare all NRA members, or all even private citizens, suspected terrorists and we all are screwed. Helmke is an enemy of the U.S. Constitution if he supports the disemboweling of both the 2nd and the 4th Amendments.

As for the other bullet items, except for the last item, those can only be implemented if you have a gun registration in place. And we all know that registration always leads to confiscation within at most a few decades.

As for the last bullet item, Helmke has demonstrated he can’t be trusted, so Μολὼν λαβέ.

And because this is what I was listening to while writing this and I think it fits Schumer, McCarthy, and Helmke well; Runnin’ With the Devil by Van Halen:

I live my life like there’s no tomorrow
And all I’ve got I had to steal
Least I don’t need to beg or borrow
Yes I’m living at a pace that kills
Runnin’ with the devil
Runnin’ with the devil
I found the simple life ain’t so simple
When I jumped out on that road
I got no love, no love you’d call real
Ain’t got nobody waiting at home
Runnin’ with the devil
Runnin’ with the devil

Land of the Free or Home of the Brave New World?

Posted on by

I was reminded of this by today’s QOTD.

Banning light bulbs isn’t enough, of course.  I heard mention of this today by Jason Lewis on the radio, and via crypton.  There is now talk of requiring remotely (web) controlled thermostats in private homes.  The idea is that a utility company be able to remotely alter your thermostat setting, overriding your selected setting, to save energy, you know, for your comrades.

It will happen.  Also get ready for total use restrictions– a family of four, for example, will not be allowed to exceed a certain KW/h, or therms, etc., monthly usage without paying large fines.  When that fails to make us all happy, safe and comfortable, as it surely will, we can expect something more severe.

We asked for this the second we decided it was OK for government to involve itself in the energy (or any other) industry.  Anyone warning of this very thing would of course have been put down as an alarmist, and so here we are.

Once the principle (of private property in this case) has been violated, the only debate possible is over the degree of the violation.  There is no principled stand to be taken in favor of any particular degree of violation of a human right.  But this has all been said before.

Socialized medicine review

Posted on by

Ignore for the moment that the Federal Government does not have Constitutional permission to engage in socialized medicine. Look only at results where it has been tried. Kevin tells us about how it’s working out in the U.K.

There are lots of other examples but the first implementation appears to have come from Germany and was a failure as well.

One of the basic problems with socialized medicine is who is spending who’s money. As pointed out by Milton and Rose Friedman in Free to Choose there are four different possibilities (from memory):

  1. One spends ones own money on themselves.
  2. One spends ones own money on someone else.
  3. One spends someone else’s money on themselves.
  4. One spends someone else’s money on someone else.

On average, the first case is going to result in the best return on any given dollar spent. The person will optimize the result for the available money.

On average, the last case is going to result in the worst return on any given dollar spent. The person has little incentive to limit the amount of money spent and to get a good result for the money spent.

Socialized medicine most closely matches the last case and results in the least efficient spending of money.

Tell all the Democrat candidates for President to shove their illegal plans where the sun doesn’t shine then save on their own health care by getting their colonoscopy for removal of the reams of paper done without sedation.

Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

Posted on by

Only those with a vested emotional interest in seeing through on the promise of total gun confiscation continue to hang onto the false hope of gun control. After years of being convinced of the righteousness of their cause they are blinded to reality and have begun to believe their own lies. That is the only way to explain how they can still be pushing their failed agenda.

If it wasn’t such a serious issue the determination of anti-gun proponents would border on the laughable. Since their misguided ways have led to untold numbers of people being left at the mercy of armed thugs, it takes all the humor out of their laughable ways.

Still, their determination has brainwashed them to believe in their cause at all costs. I also proves that they are incapable of creating a conspiracy with the anti-gun establishment media. The sad sorry truth is they actually believe this crap.

Gerard Valentino
Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair
January 3, 2008
There is No Leftist Anti-Gun Conspiracy – They Really Believe This Crap
[The conspiracy theory model explains a lot but ends up with more questions than answers. I’m with Valentino, as implausible and counter factual as their belief system is I think they actually believe it.–Joe]

New ammonium nitrate regulations

Posted on by

Last Wednesday Bush signed into law a new restriction on our freedom which does nothing but create another bureaucracy. The Los Angles Times has a pretty good write up on it but the tone is “the Feds should have done more”:

Ammonium nitrate regulated — sort of

The fertilizer can be used in explosives. Some in law enforcement and counter-terrorism wanted much tighter controls than Congress passed.

More than 12 years after Timothy J. McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, Congress quietly passed legislation this month to regulate sales of the explosive.

But the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007, part of an appropriations measure signed Wednesday by President Bush, falls far short of the strict law that some in the counter-terrorism community and federal law enforcement were hoping for.

[…]

Outside groups are asking for tougher action. “Congress simply didn’t understand what it was doing,” said Peter Stockton, senior investigator for one of the groups, the Project on Government Oversight, which is a watchdog on national security issues.

“Maybe they thought doing something was better than nothing.”

The text of the actual law is here. Assuming I’m reading the version of the bill that was actually signed there is an exemption for people with an explosives license (me). The biggest impact I see to most readers of this blog is that if you want to buy Target Master Exploding Targets or Tannerite maybe you should do it now. Both of those products use ammonium nitrate as their primary ingredient.

This law also affects farmers in a big way.

Under the new law you will be required to register with “Homeland Security” before you can manufacture, sell, or buy, AN. The seller will be required to maintain records. If anyone violates these new regulations they can be fined up to $50,000 per violation.

There will be regulations implemented which will provide “guidance” on storage and sales which of course will do nothing but harass the innocent. Just like the regulations on firearms do nothing the terrorists that want to do evil will steal their materials or use a strawman. Or if they are suicide bombers they will just go through the registration process and buy it just like legitimate users. It’s not that difficult to manufacture either. The chemical formula is NH4NO3. The elements to manufacture it can all be obtained from the air. Try regulating those precursor chemicals.

Like Stockton, above, I think they just wanted to “do something”. And as I pointed out in my QOTD today even “experts” (I hesitate to call anyone who works for the government an expert on anything other than government) don’t think it does anything for security. It’s nothing but more security theater for the masses.

Just let me store it

Posted on by

Poor guy. Assuming it wasn’t stolen, if he had just let me store it everything would have turned out so much better:

Authorities raid barn filled with military-grade explosives

SUFFOLK, Va. – Authorities are questioning an ex-Navy SEAL this evening after a raid that officials say turned up enough military-grade explosives to damage an entire Suffolk neighborhood.

Suffolk fire and rescue spokesman Jim Judkins says police secured a warrant yesterday and raided a barn on Ferry Point Road after receiving a tip.

Police have been joined investigating the barn by FBI and ATF agents, and the Virginia State Police this evening.

The unidentified former SEAL is in custody and is cooperating with authorities.

Judkins didn’t specify just how much explosive material was in the barn.

But he says it was enough to do damage to houses about one-third of a mile in any direction.

You can be sure the barn wasn’t “filled”. Based on the information I have he probably had about 1000 pounds of high explosives. Most explosives are within a factor of two of the density of water so you could put that much explosives in a car that is capable of holding five large men. It wouldn’t have filled the barn. I wish I knew where it was on Ferry Point Road. If it was actually greater than 320 feet of the road or 800 feet of inhabited building (halve that if it was in the woods out of sight of the buildings or road) then the distances were acceptable according to ATF regulations. But it doesn’t sound like he had an appropriate storage magazine for the materials. [heavy sigh]

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.

Milton Friedman
[Liberals/”progressives” take note. I want to scream this in their faces, I want to pound it into their heads with a clue by four, but I know it wouldn’t matter. They just don’t seem to get it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Rev. Jesse Jackson

Posted on by

The fact that it is legal does not make it moral. Jim Crow was legal, but it was not moral. Denying women the right to vote was legal, but it was not moral. Denying workers the right to organize was legal, but not moral.

Rev. Jesse Jackson
President of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
July 12, 2007
Anti-gun activists building momentum
[This is from the same article as the QOTD from yesterday where Father Michael Pfleger used this same theme to push for more restrictions on gun owners. Another thing that strikes me about this line of thinking is that they are comparing the lack of restrictions on firearms to excessive restrictions on people in years past. They are whining about excessive freedom yet invoking memories of repression. Do they even have a glimpse of the irony? I sometimes think they are incredibly stupid to use such crude attempts at emotional trickery. But I keep hearing the voice of Sean Flynn telling me otherwise.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Father Michael Pfleger

Posted on by

Slavery was legal, it wasn’t moral. Apartheid was legal, it wasn’t moral. We have to have the understanding that laws have to be changed if they are wrong.

Father Michael Pfleger
Pastor of the Faith Community of Saint Sabina Church
July 12, 2007
Anti-gun activists building momentum
[This is so ironic. He invokes memories of repressive racist laws while demanding repressive laws which had racist origins in the U.S. But what do you expect? Many anti-gun bigots have mental problems.–Joe]

Thank You and Grow Up

Posted on by

I sent the following letter to our local (Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington) newspaper, The Daily News and to the University of Idaho newspaper, The Idaho Argonaut.  Some background:  Our Moscow, ID mayor, Nancy Chaney, decided that people should not be allowed to carry pistols in public spaces, worried, as she put it, that people might “swoop in and create confusion” in the event of serious trouble.  She later found our about Idaho‘s preemption law, making it illegal for local governments to limit people’s rights any further than state law.  She couldn’t accept that, and tried to get state legislators to rewrite state law.  Running into a brick wall, Mayor Chaney and her conspirators have decided to table the issue “indefinitely”.  So far so good.  They were held back, but they now need to pay a price for their indiscretions, even if it’s only in the form of a letter from a concerned citizen:

Dear Editors,

“Thank You” to all the brave individuals in Moscow and around the state who fought to protect a human right (the right to self defense in public spaces).  As for Mayor Chaney and the others; you have some growing to do.  You could not be more wrong about self defense, concealed carry, or about the good and responsible citizens of the State of Idaho.

I submit that any holder of public office should be glad for our rights, comfortable with them, unafraid, and should always strive to protect those rights, confident in the knowledge that it is the proper thing to do.  Further, that anyone who is at all suspicious or fearful of the rights of the individual should stay out of public office.

As for the argument that since the feds place restrictions on carrying in certain places, it should be OK for local governments:  It’s not OK for the feds either.  Creating a patchwork of varying 2nd Amendment infringements can do nothing other than ensnare innocent Americans and make the criminals laugh at us.  Who’s going to consult their “rights infringements map” before moving from point A to point B (step in this square and you’re perfectly OK, but step in this other square and presto, you’re a felon)?  You call that law enforcement or public safety?  I call it insane.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological.

Try as you might to conceal it, Mayor Chaney, your distrust for the people of Idaho is obvious and on display.  If you can work past that distrust and begin advocating more, rather than less individual freedom, you may find that you have more friends and more goodwill from Idaho citizens than you can imagine.

I just read another Daily News article, commending 44 people for their brave deeds during a shooting in Moscow last May, for things like “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury.”  That’s a good thing– people who try to save others at their own personal risk are an inspiration to all of us.  One tiny little gripe here:  The one regular citizen (non cop, non firefighter, non EMT, etc.) who also exhibited “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury” received no mention whatsoever, in spite of his having been shot and seriously injured in the process.  Blundering oversight or personal disdain on the part of the reporter or editor?  Could be either.  It certainly shows no respect.

 

Study of the TSA confirms their brain cells are lonely

Posted on by

I’ve been saying this for years, pointed out the TSA is engaged in illegal acts, they know they are illegal, they are stupid, even idiotic, security is a joke, and then I suggested some tests of better security concepts. Now the Harvard School of Public Health says:

Study: Airport Screening Process Pointless

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.

[…]

“Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year,” the researchers added. “Most of these illegal items were lighters.”

This is like the Brady Bunch crowing at how effective NICS is because millions of people have been denied the sale of a firearm. Never mind that some of those people were guilty of “crimes” like being in possession of a deck of cards having naked white women on them (the “criminal” was black) and that the Brady act has never been shown to have made the public safer (Just One Question).

“We’d like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we’d like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures,” Linos said in a telephone interview.

With $5.6 billion spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements — such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.

“Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?” they asked.

A TSA spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

The British Medical Journal contributed:

There is no solid evidence that the huge amounts of money spent on airport security screening measures since September 11th are effective, argue researchers in the Christmas issue of the BMJ.

[…]

Despite worldwide airport protection costing an estimated $5.6 billion every year, they found no comprehensive studies evaluating the effectiveness of passenger or hand luggage x-ray screening, metal detectors or explosive detection devices. There was also no clear evidence of testing accuracy.

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) defends its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year. But, argue the authors, there is no way of knowing what proportion of these items would have led to serious harm.

This raises several questions, they say, such as what is the sensitivity of the screening question: ‘Did you pack all your bags yourself?’ and has anyone ever said ‘no’? What are the ethical implications of pre-selecting high risk groups? Are new technologies that ‘see’ through clothes acceptable and what hazards should we screen for?

While there may be other benefits to rigorous airport screening, the absence of publicly available evidence to satisfy even the most basic criteria of a good screening programme concerns us, they write.

Put this another way. If you were selling a product advertised as curing some disease and it, in fact, did no better in scientific tests than a placebo you would be at least fined and probably go to jail. If you sold a product advertised to allow your car to use water as fuel you could be sued when it didn’t work. But the U.S. Government can get away with providing nothing more than comfort to those that want to feel more secure while actually decreasing the security of travelers at great expense.

Can you imagine a snake-oil salesman using the defense, “My customers wanted to feel they were doing something even if their disease was incurable. Therefore I did nothing wrong.” Prosecutors would break out the victory champagne before the defense drew their next breath. And so it should be with the TSA. Either they are incredibly stupid or they are snake-oil salesmen who should go to jail.

Another person who should study more Friedman

Posted on by

What a jerk.

This comes straight out of my stock earnings and bonus:

The three companies have cut a deal with Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, under which they’ll pay up but neither admit nor contest charges that they received advertising money from online-gambling operations.

Microsoft has the biggest bill to pay, with a total of $21 million. Of that, $4.5 million will go the government and $7.5 million to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The software giant also will provide a $9 million online public-service advertising campaign aimed at college-level or younger people, pushing the idea that online-gambling enterprises are illegal.

Is Hanaway one of those that believe stores should be closed on Sunday too? Or does she just need to get a lesson in Constitutional law? Where in the powers enumerated by the U.S. Constitution does it say the Feds have power to enact and enforce restrictions on free trade like this? She must have run out of terrorists, child pornographers, recreational drug users, and gun owners (one of her stated priorities although not so bluntly put) to prosecute in the 20 months she has been in office.

Joe’s translation service

Posted on by

From the Guy Guys we have this slightly disguised spewing of bigotry. I’ll translate it into terms that will make the bigotry more obvious. You’ll recognize my contribution when you see it:

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily white Ohio males who love their handguns – and they are a minority of white “Buyckeye” men – the state has passed not only a CCW law (the right to carry hidden handguns) in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to firearms.

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily gun-nig**rs – and they are a minority – the state has passed not only a law that “recognizes” their “rights” in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to gun-nig**rs.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact gun policies that best protect its citizens. In short, they are disenfranchised by gun fanatics.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact policies to keep the gun-nig**rs in their place and protect our women folk. In short the gun-nig**rs are getting so uppity they thing they have just as much right to be on the streets as us white-folk and have managed push us out of positions of city power.

[…]

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need for firearms in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from being shot on its city’s streets?

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need to pollute their racial heritage in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from defiling themselves its city’s streets?

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun toters who can’t break their firearms addiction.

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun-nig**r lovers who can’t break their perversions.

It’s long past time that the majority of citizens of America are held hostage against their will by a well-financed, profitable, over-heated lobby that cares more about its own pastimes than the lives of our youth and citizens in so many areas of our great nation.

Cleveland is just one city that is handcuffed from doing what is right by its community members.

And as a further service I translate this post for you:

Well, this is not about Second Amendment “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

Well, this is not about gun-nig**r “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some gun-nig**r will lose control and rape one of your children during the night.

If the “brave” men of the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

If the “brave” men of the NAACP are so fearful of being lynched in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

 

That will leave the rest of us safe and sound.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing their inherent potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

Considering Teddy Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined, one would think that if the National Parks were to be gun free that Roosevelt would share those inclinations. But this quote refutes that hypothesis.

Legislating the laws of physics and economics

Posted on by

Okay, so they aren’t really trying to legislate the laws of physics but the stupid/sloppy/careless/whatever reporter(s) and editor(s) make it sound like they are:

Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate’s approval last week.

Do you see that? All it takes to increase the fuel economy is to pass a law. It’s as if they can’t distinguish between a law of physics and a law of man. They would get my “crap for brains” tag just for that alone. But they continue on, apparently thinking they can somehow change the laws of economics in the same bill:

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

“This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow” on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was closely involved in crafting the legislation. “It’s groundbreaking in what it will do.”

If it changes the laws of physics and economics then Pelosi is correct. If not then she is another fascist. My bet is on a fascism outcome. And, people know it will fail and aren’t being entirely quiet about it:

“What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Although I’m opposed to our lawmakers doing this personally it’s great economic news for our family. The big push and subsidies for ethanol over the last few years has pushed the price of wheat to over $10/bushel in the last few weeks (via Idaho Wheat Commission).

Even this graph doesn’t give the “big picture”. The price of wheat has been in the $3 to $5 range for over 30 years. That’s unadjusted for inflation. A lot of the equipment my family uses on the farm is over 30 years old. The bulldozer I use for making modifications to the Boomershoot site is over 60 years old. I visited the farm last weekend and they were putting new tires on tractor which still had the original rubber on it until a week or so ago–rubber that was over 30 years old. They have been hurting for decades and now they are finally making a profit and are attempting to upgrade their equipment.

You might ask, “Why is the price of wheat, delivered to Portland Oregon doubling and tripling in price (the price for delivery in March of 2008 is over $13/bushel) when all the ethanol is made from corn in the Midwest?” It’s because wheat is a substitute grain for corn in some situations. And because a lot of the Northwest farmers are planting more wheat to take advantage of the higher profits to be made the supply of lentils and peas (also grown on our farm) is going down and the prices are going up on those as well.

So when the bozos in congress attempt to challenge the laws of economics the best they can do is obscure the costs of their meddling. The costs of their actions are spread out in strange places via obscure mechanisms but eventually the consumers will pay the price, one way or another.

A few teeth short of a full gear

Posted on by

I find it difficult to model the mind of someone that says, all in the same article, the following things. The best I can come up with is some sort of machine with most of the gears missing teeth. It starts and stops and sort of seems to be working but the end results is totally different from what is expected for the given input.

In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have to ask the question whether anyone outside of the security forces must be allowed to carry a gun at all. Gun control is a controversial issue all over the world. Opponents of gun control argue that it takes away the rights of good people to protect themselves while criminals will always find a way to own or use guns.

[…]

I am aware that there is a body of evidence, especially in the US that shows that gun bans or even gun control does not substantially affect the crime rate.

[…]

Therefore the unpalatable conclusion must be that gun control has failed and has to be replaced by a complete gun ban at least for a period of time preceded by a campaign against gun use and ownership and an amnesty for the handing in of illegal guns.

Gun control has failed therefore we need more gun control? It’s typical, even though I don’t understand it except as a sort of psychological pathology.

Quote of the day–Mika Brzezinski

Posted on by

You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.

Mika Brzezinski
December 11, 2007
Video here: 2007-12-11MSNBCMJMika.wmv (2.17 MB)
In response to Joe Scarborough telling her, “One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference.” in regards to Jeanne Assam stopping the murderer at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Via Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters and an email from Ashley Varner @ the NRA-ILA.
[No attempt at refuting the claim, just dismiss it. But of course what else could she do other than change her mind? The facts speak for themselves.–Joe]

A Letter From Israel

Posted on by

This is from a friend who lives there.  He’s been a long-time marksmanship and sniper instructor for the IDF, and he does seminars in Israel and the U.S. on counterterrorism.

You just can’t make up this stuff:

Friends:

 

Over 20 Kassam rockets rained down on the northern Negev.  We get only partial information.  If we received all the facts and figures, like Kassams landing around Askelon almost every single day, the government would be forced to defend the country or resign.

 

Have a good weekend.

The response from the U.S. has been to supply arms, ammunition, and training to the Palestinian government in Gaza, which ostensibly are for keeping the terrorists in check, but in fact are being promptly used against Israelis.

 

In summary; the situation in Israel is normal.

Whining about legal sales of guns

Posted on by

Just outside the city limits of Chicago there are gun shops selling guns to people that live in the city. That is an entirely legal transaction. They owners of the new guns are prohibited by Chicago law from bringing the guns into the city. Since some of them violate that law the politicians and media are whining and making plans to shut down the gun shops–who did not violate the law. Nothing to see here, just punishing the innocent, move along now.

The free market is a wonderful thing

Posted on by

The little guys try harder:

In what’s likely to be seen as a privacy-friendly move, IAC Search & Media’s Ask.com search engine Tuesday announced a new feature called AskEraser that deletes a user’s search activity data from the company’s servers.

When enabled by the user, the feature will completely delete search queries and associated cookie information from Ask.com servers — including IP addresses, user IDs, session IDs and the text of queries made, according to the company. In most cases, the deletion will take place within a few hours of the time a search is completed, the company said.

What’s bizarre is that some people want government involvement in something where the big concern is government involvement to begin with:

Ask.com has also said that it will also retain user search data in cases where it is required by law to do so, according to Chester. Formal legal requests for search data will continue to be honored, even if AskEraser is enabled.

As a result, Chester argued that Ask.com still hasn’t fully addressed consumer privacy concerns.

“Some privacy advocates will suggest that this announcement shows the ‘market’ is working,” he said. “No doubt, that’s what Google and the other online advertisers opposed to a serious privacy policy will echo, whispering it to regulators, lawmakers and journalists. That’s why a national privacy policy is required.”