My message is, I can see in my mind’s eye those rows and rows of white stones and all the hundreds of my friends who gave their lives, for what? The country of today?
“No, I’m sorry, but the sacrifice wasn’t worth the result of what it is now.
…
What we fought for was our freedom, but now it’s a darn sight worse than when I fought for it.
He is talking about the U.K. I cannot help but conclude this means people must be thinking their government of today is tyrannical. With the surveillance society, restrictions on free speech, firearms ownership, and even knife ownership I can see how a strong case can be made for that.
Burning your own fuel in your own house is about far more than the “aesthetic of it”, no matter how hard the papers try to tag it with that superficial label. A wood burner offers energy independence, and for that reason, like everything else that offers any kind of independence, they are considered a threat.
The existence of anyone or anything outside of the system, even in token or vestigial ways, threatens the idea that the system is even necessary. Therefore they must be attacked.
It’s an autoimmune response, a reflex; they can’t help it.
They need to know everything you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and why.
And, more importantly, they need you to be OK with that, to welcome it, even thank them for it.
They need you to know that is the safe; the normal; the only way the world works.
So, expect this messaging to continue until the ban is in place, or licenses are required, or they manage to wire a smart meter to a wood axe.
While the article is referring to potential U.K. regulations it would only take an administration change in D.C, for the U.K. craziness to be imported with similar motivation.
She uses an interesting collection of labels. I’m not sure they are all compatible. Pure communism not tolerant of religion. But then, coherence is not a defining characteristic of any of them.
My expectation is that within a few years New York City will be a shining bad example for the rest of the world to see. It is also my expectation that most people will look at the mess without seeing the root cause.
There is virtually nothing I can do about the problem, so I’ll get back to work on preparing my underground bunker in Idaho.
It is amazing to me how reframing things makes such a huge difference in not just the point of view, but in the conclusions about reality. Here is one such example (via Sarah A. Hoyt):
I spent nearly four decades in a relationship with a woman who had problems with depression. When she got depressed any evidence of her/our situation would be rationalized into justification for the hopelessness of things.
For example, if we were tight on money because of an unexpected car repair or some such thing my pointing out that we both had steady jobs and would be back to normal in a month or two. But she could not see “the light at the end of the tunnel.” It was a catastrophe. If a depressive episode occurred when things were going well, she had rationalizations to justify her depression “This is just temporary. It will get worse tomorrow.” “It is all downhill from here. This is the best it will ever be.”
This affected even the most ordinary of things in her daily life. And the really sad part was the self-fulfilling prophecy of it. This literally happened more times than I could count… She would be driving down a street free of traffic with a green light ahead. She would start slowing down as she approached the light. She did this because she was afraid the light would turn red, and she would have to stop. Of course, this increased the chances the light would turn red, and her concern would be justified.
I could see the future as awesome with a “clear road ahead”. She could only see the bridge ahead being taken out by a meteor.
Or another reframing, after your wife has just had sex with another man:
With most men, assuming the wife didn’t get killed, it would mean a divorce. Yet, another set of men think this is awesome and something to be enjoyed. How can these two framings be compatible with the same data? Yet, they are. These are alternate, very real, realities.
From the engineering world one of my favorites is to tell people to solve tough problems by looking for a different point of view. Imagine never having seen a wheel before and viewing a heavily loaded cart from a distance moving straight away from you pulled by a single horse. How can that be? That just can’t work! But if you look at the cart from a 90 degree again to its direction of motion it is incredibly simple.
Politics are filled with examples. One of my favorite examples is destroying the “right” versus “left” view of politics. People tend to believe that if you are opposed to a few of the left-wing policies that you must be in favor of all of the right-wing polices. In essence, many people will shout, “There are only two choices!”
<heavy sigh>
No. There are many ways to view the political world. A simplistic way of understanding my view political ideal is, “Free markets, free minds.” With this point of view, you see people on both the right and left as incoherent and something to be opposed. Both “wings” want some things controlled by the government and other things free from government interference. They just want government oppression for different things.
And on a whimsical note, there are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
If you look for these alternate framings/realities, you will soon see them everywhere. And in doing so, just as with the wheel example, you will find better solutions to problems of all types. Psychology, sex, engineering, politics, almost anything can be seen from different viewpoints. And finding better solutions to problems in all domains makes the world a better place.
When the political left claims their opponents are Nazis fascists there is more than a little projection.
Right-wing and left-wing labels do not matter. What matters is, do the policies violate individual rights? If so, then those policies should be opposed.
Whether the gods are spiritual, tyrants, or political beliefs it probably always has been a crime in one form or another. And as demonstrated last week, it carries a death penalty in certain social circles.
People do not like having their most cherished beliefs challenged. Especially when the challenger is correct.
got a call from a criminal defendant I believe is innocent. Before calling me, he voluntarily participated in a police interrogation for several hours. He believed that “I have nothing to hide” and that he could explain to the police why they had the wrong guy.
Defense attorneys might call this naïve, but look at the responses to Fleishman’s OP. Even high-IQ people really believe this is how law enforcement works.
Here’s the problem. When you agree to a police interrogation, you and the police are playing two different games.
As the suspect, you believe you are playing a multiplayer, collaborative game.
But the police aren’t even playing a multiplayer game. They’re playing a one-player game, like Tetris.
As the suspect, you’re not a player in the game. You’re more like the game environment, producing falling blocks for the player—the police.
The police play this game by collecting your statements like blocks and fitting them into a picture that incriminates you. When enough blocks have fit together, the police have won the game and refer the case to a prosecutor.
You believe that, once you convince the police that you are innocent, you will all win. But that’s not a real outcome of the game. “Evidence that I am innocent” is not even a game element. From the cops’ perspective, if they fail to assemble the blocks into an incriminating picture, they have lost the game.
Suspects who think “I have nothing to hide” are always surprised when the interrogation lasts several hours. “I’ve already explained everything – why am I still here?” they think.
That’s because the longer the game goes on, the more falling blocks the police have to assemble their case. It’s in their interests to keep the game going long past what your game required.
All suspects eventually sense this on some gut level and become frustrated. You think: “Wait a minute, – all of their questions are subtly premised on my guilt! But I can prove to them that I’m not guilty. I need to appeal to them to really hear me out.”
I.e., “Let’s start over with a different game where we can all work together.”
But even as you’re trying to change the game, you are speaking and therefore generating more blocks.
Here’s the only solution. The moment you have any reason to believe you’re a suspect, exit the game. Politely ask if you are free to leave. If they say “no,” calmly tell them “I invoke my right to remain silent and my right to counsel.”
If you’re in custody when you say this, the cops will actually physically stand up and leave the room as if you’ve just uttered a magic incantation.
I have never heard it explained like this before. This is awesome!
I have had similar thoughts, but I had no idea how to explain it so well. And my thoughts were more based on the assumption that the police were outright evil. It goes like this…
Every bit of information I give the police could be used to construct evidence and motivations that is consistent with my alibi and innocent reasons for my actions such that my alibi and reasons are neutralized.
Exercise your Fifth Amendment rights. Do not talk to the police if you might be a suspect in a crime.
The Trump administration has bent rules and pushed interpretations in new directions. But after digging into the source evidence, I haven’t seen anything that qualifies as “tyranny.” That said, people shouldn’t ignore the political shifts or assume everything is perfectly fine.
Government should never be trusted. Always be on guard and prepared to respond appropriately.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles.’ But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
It is not huge, but it is another brick in the wall. Each time a case is concluded our team learns a little more. The arguments are tuned to match the precedents of the previous wins. The reluctant judges are herded into corners by the previous decisions on less important cases. They have fewer and fewer options to rule in favor of the dark side. We are winning but it is still a long hard grind to something approximating a total victory.
Name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
I’m certain this is not literally true. But I don’t think is entirely wrong either.
We were headed down that path, but we have reversed course to a certain extent. It will be interesting to see how much our path diverges from the U.K. path in the next few years. And most importantly, is our recent reversal temporary or permanent?
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
A year ago, I could not have imagined seeing this sort of thing happen. I sometimes think I must be dreaming about how well things are going in the fight for the rights of gun owners. We lived the nightmare for so many decades it is nice to have things turn our way.
The really big thorns in our paws are now:
Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles.
Restrictions on standard capacity magazines.
Permitting of all types.
Waiting periods.
I think these are all relatively easy wins if we can just get them before SCOTUS.
Zohran Mamdani’s run for mayor of New York City is a clear and present danger to the stability, economic health, and democratic foundation of both the city and the nation.
His platform is rooted in a radical socialist ideology that has, time and time again, led to failure, repression, and suffering wherever it has been tried.
And thanks to a clip surfacing on social media today, we see that Mamdani is not hiding this. In fact, he has been strikingly open about what he believes and what he plans to do. You can listen to his comments for yourself here.
Speaking in 2021 at the Young Democratic Socialists of America Organizing Conference, Mamdani said his goal is to “continue to elect more socialists” and to be “unapologetic about our socialism.”
He followed that with two key objectives: boycotting Israel and “seizing the means of production.”
The phrase “seizing the means of production” is not some vague slogan—it is the core tenet of Marxist revolutionary ideology. It means that private property, businesses, and industries are taken from their owners and turned over to collective or state control.
There has been talk of combining the ATF into the DEA. Gun rights groups are opposed to this (see also here). I’m not entirely convinced it is a bad idea. But that could be a bias of mine.
You see, I am of the opinion that the DEA should be abolished. Where in the constitution does it say the Feds have the authority to regulate recreational drugs? How many billions have they spend on the failed war on drugs? And if you don’t think it has actually failed, here are some things to consider:
The DEA was established in 1973, and tracking heroin street prices over the decades reveals some fascinating—and troubling—trends. Here’s a summary of the data I found:
📈 Heroin Street Price Trends (1973–2011)
The DEA’s Heroin Domestic Monitor Program began collecting consistent data in 1979, focusing on price per milligram of pure heroin. Here’s a snapshot of key years:
Year
Avg. Price per mg Pure Heroin
Notes
1982
~$3.90
Very low purity (~7%)
1992
~$1.50
Purity increased to ~28%
2007
~$0.81
Mexican heroin purity ~33%
2011
~$1.35
Mexican heroin purity dropped to ~17%
These prices reflect retail-level purchases made by DEA agents in major U.S. cities.
🧪 Purity vs. Price
As purity increased, price per mg of pure heroin dropped—making heroin more potent and affordable.
By the 2000s, heroin from Mexico and South America dominated the U.S. market, with regional differences in purity and price.
📉 Long-Term Trend
From the early 1980s to the early 2000s:
Price per pure mg dropped significantly
Purity rose, peaking in some cities at over 60%
This made heroin more dangerous and accessible, contributing to rising overdose rates
Since its founding in 1973, the DEA’s budget has grown dramatically—from $75 million in its first year to over $3.4 billion in recent years2.
💰 Estimated Total DEA Spending (1973–2023)
Using historical budget data from DEA.gov, here’s a rough cumulative estimate:
1973–1980: ~$1.4 billion
1981–1990: ~$2.7 billion
1991–2000: ~$13.2 billion
2001–2010: ~$22.6 billion
2011–2020: ~$28.6 billion
2021–2023: ~$9.5 billion
🧮 Grand Total Estimate: ~$78 billion
These figures are approximations based on annual appropriations and may not include all supplemental or off-budget expenditures.
📊 Spending Highlights
The DEA’s budget has consistently increased, especially during periods of heightened drug enforcement focus (e.g., crack epidemic, opioid crisis).
In 2023, the DEA requested $3.1 billion, a 6.3% increase over the previous year.
The agency now operates in 93 foreign offices across 69 countries, reflecting its global reach.
So… if the war on drugs was effective you would think the price would go up and the purity would go down. That is pretty much a well-known economic law, right? But that is not what happened. It seems to me that either the war on drugs was ineffective and the price and purity changes were unrelated, or the DEA somehow contributed to the lower prices and increased purity.
Either way we are faced with the fact that the war on drugs has either failed or it is not about making it more difficult for people to obtain recreational drugs. Perhaps it is more about acquiring power as in the famous Ayn Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged.
In my mind, combing the ATF and DEA sort of makes sense because we might be able to get more support from those opposed to the war on drugs who might be opposed to reducing gun regulations.
In the National Instant background Check System (NICS) data, it appears most of the denials are false positives. Hard data on the errors found in the NICS system are not available. John has pointed out there are very few prosecutions of people who have been denied by the NICS system compared to the number of those denied. John stated NICS denials are often based on the phonetic spelling of the last name. The denials are not done with high levels of certainty. Because many people in the same ethnic group have similar sounding names, and because Blacks and Hispanics have much higher rates of felony convictions than Whites or Asians, it is likely Black and Hispanic people are denied from purchasing firearms in the NICS system at a much higher rates than people who are not Black or Hispanic.
In October of 2020, John Lott was appointed as a senior adviser for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs. This was the second time he had worked for the government in D.C. When John got to DC, John went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and proposed a study of the NICS denials including data on race and sex. The BJS thought it was a great idea.
The the BJS sent the request for data to the FBI. went through the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The BJS thought the idea of analyzing the NICS data was very good. When the Bureau of Justice Statistics contacted the FBI, The FBI responded, claiming there was no way we can get this done before January 20th. In any case, we are sure the Biden Administration will not be interested. After more emails and calls, the FBI response was: we just can’t think of any reason why anyone would want to break down this data by race and sex.
John responded: You guys break down everything by race and sex. What’s the big deal with this?
The BJS tells the FBI, it is not your decision to make. We decide what to look at and study. Your job is to collect and give us the data. The FBI refuses and the BJS persists. Finally, the FBI says the BJS will have to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
…
The AG, Bill Barr, orders the FBI to stop mucking around and send the data to the BJS.
…
The FBI dithers and delays. After a couple of weeks, the BJS receives the data, but something is wrong with it. It does not make any sense. The BJS complains, and the FBI apologizes, says they do not understand what went wrong. There are more delays, then the FBI sends another batch of data, which still doesn’t make an sense. This sequence happens a couple more times. The last time the FBI sends data which does not make sense is on January 19, 2021. Then the Biden administration takes power.
The Washington State Patrol has a new tool to help slow down speeding drivers, and your cellphone may have helped.
Cellphone data from more than 1 million cellphone users in Washington in 2023 helped the state identify where to look for dangerous drivers.
”This is so exciting to be using data that we haven’t had access to before,” said Washington Traffic Safety Commission acting Director Shelly Baldwin, “This is predictive as opposed to reflective.”
…
Over the next six weeks, the Washington State Patrol will be looking for speeders in four locations where speeding regularly occurs, according to the cellphone data: Interstate 5 from Joint Base Lewis-McChord to Fife, from Fife to Auburn on I-5, north and south of Everett on I-5, and a 14-mile stretch of Interstate 90 east and west of downtown Spokane.
At first glance you might think your phone is being used to hand out tickets. But reading a little close you will see the phone data is from 2023 and the enforcement is over the next few weeks, and the data probably was not personal identifiable. That makes it a little less objectionable. But I thought cell phone providers did not give out cell phone data to law enforcement without a warrant (or perhaps in extremely rare cases where life was in immediate danger).
Still… Be exceptionally careful when driving in these areas. No speeding, talking on your phone, or texting while driving.
