Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Ronald Reagan
[The freedom to ingest whatever mind altering chemical you desired was lost in the last century. They had to have a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, But for some reason they didn’t bother with giving themselves the power to ban Marijuana, heroin, or “magic mushrooms”. Politicians just assumed they had the power and almost magically they did have the power.

The same thing almost happened with firearms. From GCA68 to AWB ‘94 (slightly more than a generation) we came within a hair breadth of losing the freedom guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.. It’s possible we did loose a part of it (machine guns and destructive devices) to not be recovered in out lifetime–if ever.

There is a lesson to be learned here. It’s a slippery slope and minor, almost tolerable, infringements must not be tolerated.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Elias Isquith

I’m a great example of why it is that the NRA simply mops the floor with its opponents when it comes to influencing DC. As Bloomberg rightly notes, they — gun fetishists or simply Second Amendment absolutists — care way, way more. In fact, it’s not uncommon for that to be the only thing an NRA member cares about. A lifetime of political activism funneled into simply one tiny and, I would argue, frivolous niche.

Elias Isquith
February 17, 2012
Mike Bloomberg And The Politics Of Gun Control
[Regardless of his distain for gun owners there is a certain amount of truth in his statement. Many of us are willing to vote for (or against) someone strictly on the basis of their stand on specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, many of us use the Second Amendment as a strong indicator of a politician’s support for freedom in general. But conversely the anti-freedom people could claim the same thing with a sign change, “If a politician supports gun ownership then you know he is not going to support the type of government that is going to send all the people we don’t like off to the reeducation camps.” But for some reason it doesn’t work for them that way.

It is my suspicion the anti-freedom people can only succeed when they are deceptive. They have to hide their true intentions. They have to express their goals in terms of free unicorns for everyone instead of jack-booted thugs crushing human skulls. Raw anti-freedom simply doesn’t generate that many votes. Gun owners understand that guns are a strong indicator, and a requirement, of free society. Hence we do care more about guns and are willing to vote on that single issue.—Joe]

Mercedes Benz (revisited)

Janis Lyn Joplin, also known as Pearl, The Queen of Rock and Roll, The Queen of Psychedelic Soul, or The Queen of Rocking The Blues, made some good music, to be sure.  Mercedes Benz though was pure snark against capitalism– the straw man hypocrite, Christian American materialist that her generation thought defined “The (American) System”.  They still think much the same today.  They’re the Obama voters and the Madison protesters.  Their kids are the Occupy movement.

I wrote new words in response to the old tune, as snark against the socialists.  I call it Lifetime Free Ride;

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd
I’m ig’n’r’nt and stupid
But I like bein’ loud
Never worked a day in my lifetime
I’m worth,less an’ proud
Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd

Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love
I’m countin’ on you, Sir
There’s no one else above
I’ll need you on my side
When push comes to shove
Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love

(everybody)

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

(That’s it…heh heh heh)

I have a picture of her pointing a finger of blame at the camera (at all of us), mocking us, while she was in the throes of self-destruction.  To me it’s iconic of the left.

Here Come De Judge

Via Uncle;

I don’t know the whole back story, but I sure liked all the “what ifs”.  Yes; Ronald Reagan, The One, to whom all others must be compared, Ronaldus Magnus, presided over a near doubling of the federal budget, and was all in on the drug war.  I hadn’t previously heard of the things he said about Santorum.  Oh goody.

So how can we fix it?  It’s already been push verses shove for a long time (my neighbor, the political prisoner, gets out of the federal poke in a few months, but his business is totally gone)(I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told, “You’d better watch what you say…!”).  Ours has just been less violent than, say, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cultural Revolution.  So far.  I for one would like to keep it that way, but only if it can be going the opposite direction (away from statism and toward liberty).  We’d had far too much of this shit by the time I was born, during the Eisenhower administration.

I suppose then, what we need in a presidential campaign is someone who has a plan to “maintain the revolution, but turn it around the other way and without unnecessary killing”.

I’ll be interested to know where De Judge goes from here.

Coercively Funded Schools

I’ve been thinking about this for years, but this post of Kevin’s made something gel.

I say we should quit using the term “public school” and start using “coercively funded school”.  My wife is not a public school teacher, she is a coercively funded school teacher.  Why should we use their language when we have our own and ours is more to the point?  It is one thing to say you’re for public schools, or you’re for “Our Children” but it’s another to come right out and say you’re for coercive funding.

Now I would hope, and predict, that most (though not all) church leaders would eschew coercive funding of their church on the grounds that with government funding comes government control (actually, churches are already government subsidized, but that’s a matter for another post).

As I said in comments at Smallest Minority; the purpose of coercively funded schools is to promote coercive funding.  I.e. they’ll promote that which gave them life in the first place, and that which sustains them.  What would be the result, after all, if the coercive schools actively and consistently promoted the American principals of liberty?  They’d be working themselves into extinction of course.  “You’re right” the students would conclude, “freedom, the free market, would be far superior both morally and functionally, in every respect including education.”

No doubt about it; the American founders got it wrong.  Education should have been included with religion and the press in the first amendment, for exactly the same reasons.  As a result of that failure, our coercively funded schools have become indoctrination centers– socialist missions, if you will, churning out useful idiots if not impassioned believers.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why this was not predicted in the 1780s.

After all these years of entrenchment, what is the fix?  So many states have education funding in their constitutions, I believe it will have to come from the states.  Rex Rammell had a good plan for Idaho, but due to an incompetent campaign no one heard of it.  He acknowledged the state constitutional mandate, but would have chopped much of the top off of the coercive education infrastructure and budget.  It is currently extremely top heavy.  Other measures would have opened the doors to more private schools.

Quote of the day—Steve H.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist

This is the URL where many of my dreams go to die.

Steve H.
February 7, 2012
[The URL is to the list of the gun California allows you to own.

What if the URL were to the list of religious or political philosophy books the government allowed you to own and/or read? How long would that survive constitutional challenges?

Via the gun discussion email list at work.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Manolis Glezos

Enough is enough! They have no idea what an uprising by the Greek people means. And the Greek people, regardless of ideology, have risen.

Manolis Glezos
February 12, 2012
Glezos is one of Greece’s most famous leftists.
This was in response to the looting, rioting, and burning of the city of Athens and other places in Greece due to cuts in government spending.
Greek lawmakers approve austerity bill as Athens burns
[I know what it means. It means:

  • If leftists can’t loot via political means they will loot via direct violence.
  • Leftists do not understand economic reality.
  • We can expect to see the violence spread across Europe and to America as economic reality runs its course.

Barb and I had breakfast with son James and his wife Kelsey today. They were contemplating what the economic collapse would look like. This is probably a glimpse of what we have to look forward to.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Rauch

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it’s not a choice. It’s not a lifestyle. It’s an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don’t say “What’s the matter?” or “Are you all right?”

Third, don’t say anything else, either.

Jonathan Rauch
March 2003
Caring for Your Introvert—The habits and needs of a little-understood group
[This entire article really resonated with me. In addition to the “Caring for your introvert” aspects there are some profound political considerations addressed. The first thought I had was “Too bad it would be unconstitional to ban extroverts from seeking public office.”

Hi. My name is Joe and I am an introvert.—Joe]

Update: Applicable images from a reader who says the first one “… is especially for Lyle”:

 

IntrovertImage02IntrovertAnonIntrovertImage01

Quote of the day—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King, Jr.
[And we see that today in the way Washington D.C. and Chicago cling to their oppressive gun laws.—Joe]

Silliness

Well I guess it’s official, with that PSA during some big sports game or other over the weekend, Clint Eastwood has joined the Occupy movement.  What I don’t understand is the surprise expressed out there.  I never figured Eastwood for a tea partier.  Far from it.

The Catholic Church seems to be standing up to some small part of ObamaCare.  Odd.  As near as I could tell these last several decades, they’ve been on board with most Progressive ideas.  Oops.  I guess they didn’t think it through.  Oh well.  May the backpedaling be strong and long lived.  So if they get a waiver for their religious beliefs, you know what comes next.  That’s right–  Millions of brand new “Jack Catholics”.  “Yeah, Mr. Bureaucrat Doofus, I converted, like three seconds ago, as soon as I learned that I could get a waiver.”  So I guess the next step would be a requirement for some sort of official certification of membership from the church, etc., etc.  Measures, countermeasures.  As always in any statist system, we have, officially, different sets of “rights” for different classes of citizens.

If you want to get Gay Married, forget the lobbying, the sign carrying, the stupid politicians and the dog and pony shows and come to Moscow, Idaho.  I’ll marry the two of you.  My fee is fifty dollars.  Of course I’ll require that each of you sign a legal document, transferring all your future earnings and assets to the other, and likewise with power of attorney.  No double standards here.  If you ever want a divorce, you’ll need a team of lawyers to decide who gets the house, the cars, the fashion design show, the various bank accounts, etc.  You want equality, you can have it.  But that was never what you really wanted, was it?  Right now you have the best of all worlds– you can shack up with no legal or financial consequences, and split up easily and relatively pain free.  With marriage it’s a whole different ball game, kids, and with marriage comes common law marriage too.  But I guess it’s about the money either way you look at it.  Spousal benefits are nice, but there’s always another side to it.  You sure you’ve thought this through?  Depending on what state you live in, how many of your past relationships could have resulted in a separation that would involve lawyers and splitting up of the financial and other assets?  Really?  You want this?  No.  You don’t, but you’ve been led to believe that you do.  Suckers.  Anyway; my offer still stands, if you think you have the guts.  I have no legal authority of course, but it’s about the commitment anyway.  Until death do you part, and we can combine your assets through simple, easy legal means.  If I had my druthers, I’d get the government sanctioning nonsense OUT of my marriage.  My personal life is not their business.  Leave me alone.  I just can’t identify with people who are dying to get the government IN to their private lives.

Quote of the day—Sean

If you haven’t thought anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Sean
February 2, 2012
Comment to Unreasonable searches.
[Since it is from Sean you know it was sarcasm.

You also know it’s coming.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Geraghty

The administration that took military action in Libya without any authorization from force from Congress, that appointed czars with policymaking authority without Congressional confirmation, and that made ‘recess’ appointments while Congress was not in recess is invoking executive privilege to cover how the Department of Justice reacted when Congress began asking about a gun-trafficking operation that got U.S. law enforcement officers murdered by Mexican drug cartels.

All from a president who railed against a runaway imperial presidency when George W. Bush sat in the office he currently occupies.

Jim Geraghty
February 2, 2012
Eric Holder Should Become a Campaign Issue Today
[H/T to Say Uncle.

I’ve had admitted Marxist’s tell me, “We just need to have the right people in charge.” The problem is that power always attracts the people that can least be trusted with that power.

The only option is to not give anyone that much power. I don’t understand why this lesson has to be taught again and again. People have understood this since at least 1776.—Joe]

Unreasonable searches

I could see the day when the government attempts to get a search warrant for your thoughts:

A group of neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, reported they may have come up with a scientific way to read people’s minds.

They can already demand blood samples so why not connect you up to a machine to see if you have anti-government thoughts or knowledge of a crime?

A hint

Drones may be a significant threat:

It allows truly scalable global coercion:  the automation of comply or die. 
 
Call up the target on his/her personal cell (it could even be automated as a robo-call to get real scalability — wouldn’t that suck, to get killed completely through bot based automation).
 
Ask the person on the other end to do something or to stop doing something.

All the money is on cyber intel (to generate targets based on “signatures”) and drones to kill them.  When domestic unrest occurs in the US due to economic decline, these systems will be ready for domestic application.

Drones also need to be built, communicate with people on the ground, refueled and rearmed. And if they are using your cell phone for tracking and terminal guidance that phone doesn’t need to remain in your possession. It might just be that a vehicle supplying the drone base could use an old cell phone for a few days.

Quote of the day—Scott Z.

I too dream of that utopian future when we all get along, I really and truly do.

Until then, I’ll be stocking my gun cabinet.

Scott Z.
January 30, 2012
[From the guns discussion list at work.

The thing is there are some people that advocate unilateral disarmament. That too is a utopian fantasy. Unless there is some semblance of power equality very few relationships are stable. That is true at nearly every level from individual to international.

A good example of  this at the international level is Switzerland. The Swiss have not been in a state of war  internationally since 1815 yet they are well armed and have used those arms upon occasion to keep their neutrality and freedom.

At the individual level you only have to look how the smallest kid in grade school gets picked on unless he receives protection from the adults.

The Gun is Civilization and has been called a Peacemaker for a very long time with good reason.—Joe]

Shame on NSSF and Glock

I received an email from author Paul Barrett (my review of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun is here) this afternoon with a link to this article. The most interesting thing I found was the following:

Apparently, the executives at Glock Inc., the Smyrna, Ga., subsidiary of Glock GmbH are worried about the book’s look behind the scenes at the company. So Glock Inc. forced the National Shooting Sports Foundation to rescind my press credentials for the 2012 SHOT Show expo floor. Talk about disrespect for First Amendment free speech rights!

What?

Okay, so the First Amendment doesn’t always apply to non-government actors attempting to silence or restrict your access information. But even if it isn’t actually a First Amendment issue there are some principles involved here.

I can understand Glock being miffed at the revealing of some unsavory insider details in the book. But this is shutting the barn window after the horse has left, found a mare or three, and established a herd on the open plains.

I could see Glock employees refusing to talk to Barrett and maybe even asking him to leave their booth. But putting pressure on NSSF to rescind his press credentials? That’s way out of line. It was also stupid. Can you say, “Streisand Effect“?

And NSSF went along with this?

Shame on both of them.

Blind faith

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

The ‘Tone’ in Politics

We’re hearing it more and more lately.  It’s being said because we’re starting to have a good influence; “The tone in politics has gotten so nasty lately…”  I heard it from my mother last night too.

It’s like everything else in politics– if the Progressives like it, it’s great, no matter what, but if you love liberty and say things in support of it, you’re being “mean and combative”.

Our freedom can be attacked from all directions, and there’s never a problem with that.  We can be told we should just back down and shut up, or guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.  That sort of thing has been said for decades.  The very process of making a living in business can be maligned, vilified and smeared for generations, ownership of certain cars or trucks, or of guns, or simply being successful can be said to be a sign that we’re (ehem) “Compensating for something”.  We can be accused for generations of being racist if we want all people to live as equal under the law, and that’s not “nasty”.

Until we push back in favor of liberty– Then we are being “nasty”.  Then we’re being told how unfortunate it is that things are getting so vitriolic. 

Well sure; the ideals of statism/Progressivism/socialism, and plain old blind-and-stupid anti-Americanism cannot coexist with the principles of liberty.  One destroys the other.  So it’s been nasty all along.  As nasty as nasty gets.  How can a 100+ year long attack on the very ideal of human freedom and liberty be anything other than scum-sucking, in-the-gutter nasty?

So let’s not play stupid mind games.  Leave that to the Left, to play on each other.  For generations we’ve been cowards.  We let them get away with it for fear of being ostracized from polite society.  We let them play us for fools, always hoping against hope that that would somehow buy us something with them, and always failing.

On that note; I notice a lot of our own using disclaimers.  “I don’t work for so and so” etc. after giving a good review on a product or service.  Well how about this?  I love you, I respect you, I appreciate your input a LOT, but SCREW YOU!  That is to say; you don’t need to excuse yourself for saying good things about something.  If it turns out you were being dishonest, we’ll eventually find out and stop taking you seriously.  If it turns out you were right, as I suspect you are, I’ll listen to you next time with heightened interest.  See?  Understand that your eagerness to put in with the disclaimers comes from your having been cowed all your life into believing that there is something wrong with what we’ve come to call “commercialism” (with a little cringe at the distastefulness of the word).  Stop it, gawdamit.  If we can’t promote products for our own benefit, how long before selling ideas or principles for our own benefit becomes taboo?

How about this, just as an attempt to jolt you out of your life-long anti-capitalist hypnotic state (even though you think you’ve overcome it); How DARE you come here with nothing to sell!  How DARE you make comments with no products or services to offer your fellow Man.  How DARE you come here empty-handed, with naught but words.  Get your wits about you, Man.  Shake off the perpetual apologetic state and start selling something.  And no– don’t even go along in sarcasm, making disclaimers just to show how stupid they are.  That’s how it starts you doing out of habit.

OK;  Buy UltiMAK.  See?  That didn’t hurt a bit, did it?  Maybe I own the company and maybe I don’t, and it’s none of your business if I don’t feel like telling you for some stupid reason.  I do own it, and if I didn’t want you to know it would probably be because I was embarrassed by it and that should make you wonder why.  I’ll let the products speak for themselves, mainly, and my opinions of them will be tested by time and experience.  Anything I say about them will either be proven a; true, or b; not so true, and my reputation will go likewise.  And if someone comes busting your door in for trying to make a living in your own way, or they try to seize your bank accounts, fuck with your family, etc., you can always shoot them.  So what’s to lose?  You life, your liberty and your sacred honor.  That’s just three things.  At the end, which will be most important to you?

I the spirit of keeping the tone polite and cordial; anytime anyone spouts the slightest bit of even semi socialist, quasi-moderate or anti capitalist, anti corporate drivel, any time, anywhere, in any company, tell them to sit back and shut up because you’re sick and tired of the divisiveness and the nastiness.

Some People Just Cannot be Helped

Getting ready to make the left turn into our industrial park this morning, I find that the snow berm in the middle of the road is much too large to try to hop overt, even with a large 4 x 4, so I have to continue on, find a place to turn around and come back from the opposite direction.  In so doing I come across a guy in a sedan with a handicapped tag in his window, and he’s hopelessly stuck in the cold, loose snow, with ice under it, at the edge of the road.

It turned out he’s driving for the handicapped person, and he’s a young, healthy guy.  First problem; get a shovel and learn how to use it, Dude. Second Problem; he’s running street tires– great in the South on a hot, dry day, but worthless here in the winter.

I ask him; “Do you have a tow hook on this thing?  I have a tow strap and I can pull you right out.”

Third problem; “I don’t know” he says, so I crawl down in the snow to look for one.  Fourth Problem; his rig has a stupid f-ing air dam.  It acts as a plow blade, working against his forward progress in the snow.  Fifth problem; no tow hook– everything under the front end is plastic. So I tell him to back up some distance, get a run at it, and try to get up enough momentum to crash through the deep stuff and onto the road.

Sixth problem; I have to alert him to the fact that there’s a car coming on the road, and so wait a second, Skippy.  We make a couple of tries at it, and it becomes obvious that he’s never done this before.  “Stay in your old tracks each time and you’ll be able to get up more speed” I tell him.

“I can’t see my tracks.”  Oh boy.  He’s for sure never done this before.  Ever heard of hanging your noggin out the window so you CAN see, if that’s what it takes?  He keeps closing his window so I can’t communicate with him.

“Do you have tire chains?”

“Yeah, but they’re on so-and-so’s car over there…”  Oh boy…

Then; “Thaaaanks!” comes the voice from the passenger seat.  I’m in the middle of trying to explain how easy it would be, still and all, to get them out and on their way, and again; “Thaaanks!”

OK then.  You’re welcome.  Bye.

Not to brag, since it isn’t bragging if it’s true, but I’ve been in a freaking sedan in the freaking mountains on a freaking logging trail, with more snow than this.  We used to do that sort of thing just for fun, because that was the sort of thing kids did– you go out and see just how far you can push it, then you go a little more, get stuck, and figure out how to get un-stuck and back 15 miles down the trail to a plowed road.  In the dark.  It made for some great adventures.  So yeah; I know how to get this guy out, for a fact, even though he’s made no effort, and no pre-planning on his part.

The conditions are dangerous right here and now, but it’s still what I call Karmann-Ghia weather.  A friend once had one of those rigs, and he’d drive that thing no matter what, because it was all he had.  He made it work.  If you can get around in a Karmann-Ghia with some modicum of planning and experience and some willingness to work a little when it’s required, I figure the roads are fine, they don’t need plowed, and there’s just no excuse.

But as it often happens, the most knowledgeable and capable person present is the very one you endeavor to ignore or actively try to get rid of.

Coming soon to a progressive country near you

As I and many others have pointed out many times progressives have a thing about “education” and “labor” camps.

I pointed out an article to wife Barbara a few minutes ago with this information:

North Korea’s hardline regime is punishing those who did not cry at the death of dictator Kim Jong-il, according to reports.

Sentences of at least six months in labour camps are also apparently being given to those who didn’t go to the organised mourning events, while anyone who criticised the new leader Kim Jong-un is also being punished.

Those who tried to leave the country, or even made a mobile phone call out, were also being disciplined, it has been claimed.

Her first words were similar to my thoughts. I could see that happening here.