DOJ could learn something from Ronald C. Dozier

On Tuesday (Illinois) McLean County State’s Attorney Ronald C. Dozier announced he would not prosecute many victimless crimes associated with firearms. The U.S. Department of Justice could learn something from Dozier instead of pursuing prosecutions such as this one:

Tracey Eberhart, 41, Augusta, Kan., and her husband, Jeffrey Eberhart, 50, Augusta, were charged in a criminal complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Wichita. Jeffrey Eberhart was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and one count of dealing in firearms without a license. Tracey Eberhart was charged with one count of aiding a felon in possessing firearms and ammunition and one count of providing firearms and ammunition to a convicted felon.

According to an agent’s affidavit, Tracey Eberhart obtained a federal license as a dealer of firearms when she opened Traceys Dream Weavers Salon And Sporting Goods at 431 State Street in Augusta, Kan. She told an investigator her intention was to cater the firearms business to women. During the application process, she made no mention of her husband, Jeffrey Eberhart. Because of prior felony convictions, he was prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.

On Jan. 20, 2012, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives attended a gun show in Topeka, Kan., where they saw Jeffrey Eberhart selling firearms at the Dream Weavers booth. He was wearing a Dream Weavers T-shirt and was heard talking to buyers about guns and laser scopes. Eberhart explained to an undercover agent that his wife and female employees sold guns during the week while he and another man sold firearms at gun shows on weekends. Later, ATF agents purchased ammunition and guns from Jeffrey Eberhart, both at the storefront in Augusta and at gun shows.

Jeffrey Eberhart was pictured with his wife at gun show in a photo on their web site, www.beautyandbullets.com.

If I could go back in time and make a suggestion or two to the founding fathers one of the suggestions I would make is that it should be unconstitional to criminalize victimless behavior.

Gardening

This year I endeavored to keep a nice garden.  The biggest job, after the soil has been worked and the seeds planted, is weeding.  Early on, when the seedlings are all very young, it can be difficult to tell the difference between some weed seedlings and the ones you want, so I tend to let some of them get more established before I pull them.  It took a lot of work, but between planting the vegetables on little berms and watering only the berms, I have the garden relatively weed free, except for some morning glory that never goes away unless you blast the whole garden several times with Roundup before planting.


But something struck me along the way.  Even now, months into it, I find weeds that are mature, “hiding” among the desirable plants.  They have a color or a shape just similar enough that we don’t see them among the vegetables unless we look very carefully.  Several of us have taken it upon ourselves to hunt down and pull the weeds, but still a few of them can be found, growing and maturing, feeding off of the water, nutrients and sunlight intended for the vegetables, and producing seeds that will hang around until next spring.  Then the battle starts all over again.


Although there are many good techniques for keeping them in check, the weeds still find a way to exist and suck some of the life out of the garden, even if it’s just a little bit.  It is a never-ending battle that you never really “win”, see, but it can be rewarding all the same if you keep your eyes open and do what needs to be done.


As the Republicans are frantically trying to figure out just what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election, and while we stand here and complain to each other that “we can’t vote our way out of this” there are organizations already in place already doing something about it and already having a positive effect.  Even if “we who uphold the principles of liberty” win and win and win, one election after another, we can never stop tending this garden.  There is never any final victory after which you can let your guard down and just live.  Life is like that.  We can complain about how the weeds have just totally taken over the garden, and yet who’s fault is that?


Weeds are what they are– we know exactly what they are and how they operate.  We know that they aren’t going to disappear from the Earth.  We also know what the vegetables are and what they need to thrive, right?  So…


(Sorry if you don’t like allegory.  For some reason I’m seeing it all over the place lately, as though life itself is one big set of metaphors and allegories.  I get on a kick like this for a while, and then it’s on to another.  It’ll pass)

Brains, learning, and school

I had started writing a essay on learning and the brain and
current understandings about it, and realized as it grew HUGE that it revolved around examining some rhetorical
questions. Here are some of the core questions, with their import and details left
as an exercise to the readers and commenters, unless there is significant
interest in a particular one being addressed in some future essay.

Compare and contrast data,
information, and knowledge.
                Why do people use them
interchangeably, and what problems arise when people do?

Compare and contrast school
and education.
                Must one imply the other
(or the other, one)?

Compare and contrast smart
and educated.
                Why do educated people get
them confused so much more often than smart people (both in themselves and
others)?

Compare and contrast teaching
and learning.
                How do you measure the
effectiveness of a teacher?

Compare and contrast knowing,
understanding and wisdom.
                How does one get turned
into the other?

Compare and contrast intrinsic
aptitude
and interest.
                Can one be leveraged into
the other, or are they merely randomly connected?

What is the most important thing a human should learn?
                Rank, in order, the top 10
things one should learn by voting age. Why?

How can you tell truth from falsity?
                How often do you ask
yourself “how do I know that? What
are my assumptions?”

At its most basic (biological) level, what is learning?
                What makes this happen?
How are repetition and strong emotional tagging different?

Is it important for children or young adults to learn how the brain learns and works at some point, before they become an adult?
               How could learning this help children in school?

How can a neural connection be strengthened, or made more interconnected
with others?
                Compare and contrast a
single, strong connection, with highly interconnected knowledge.

How many strong emotional “tags” are there in a very safe,
nearly risk-free, environment?
                Would this present a
challenge to learning?

What makes the brain think something is important enough to
learn (that is, remember and think about enough to apply the knowledge later)?

What is the brain designed to do, and in what sort of
environment?
                WHY? HOW? Can we use this to help teach and learn?

Random thought of the day

How is it people can think communism is viable when even very small children and animals defend their property and territory?

I have to conclude either they are incredibly naïve, stupid, or intend to be the enforcers and hence are incredibly evil.

Quote of the day—Mark McHugh

The path we’re on ends with mountains of corpses when the great experiment fails.

Mark McHugh
August 19, 2012
Shhhh…It’s Even Worse Than The Great Depression
[H/T to Tyler Durden.

One of his main points to support this prophecy is that the velocity of money in this country is lower than even during the Great Depression. That alone is a scary data point.

The prophecy that a lot of people are going to die as a result of government interference with the free market is consistent with what I have been saying for years. The only questions I see unanswered are the relative contribution of economic policy versus social policy and who, in what order, and how high people are stacked.—Joe]

Bananas

I almost always carry concealed, but Saturday I forgot my Hawaiian shirt as I left the house.  “Oh well; I’ll open carry”.


I had my daughter with me in the supermarket, when she said we should get some bananas.


We were discussing the amount of bananas we’d been going though lately when a guy standing very close to us blurted out; “Speaking of bananas…!” and then walked off quickly before I could make sense of it.


“I wonder what that was supposed to mean” I said to my daughter.


“I have no idea” she said with a chuckle.  Then I realized that the guy probably was responding to the gun on my hip, and the spare mag carrier on the other.  So I’d gotten a drive-by criticism.  It was a “drive-by” or a “hit and run” because a charge was made with no possibility of a response.


At the risk of over-analyzing; I’ve often said that the left were cowards, and this response reinforces that assertion.  The hit-and-run commenter could make the case that he was afraid of confronting an armed man (but then why say anything at all?) but I say he was afraid of what he himself might do in a straight-up conversation.


Two points then.  One; the haters simply cannot help themselves– they’ll blurt out their hate reflexively, without hesitation.  Two; they’re afraid, both of themselves (they know they’ll embarrass themselves by their own behavior) and of a fair contest in which their assertions might be challenged and laid bare.  When you point out a hater’s hate, they hate you for it.  Their hate is projected upon you, so as to make you the source of the hate…


In fact of course he had nothing at all to fear.  I would simply have said something like, “Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home?…”

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

They’re accomplishing the impossible: of all the anti-gun stronghold states in the U.S., California is the Grand Imperial Palace of gun hatery … and Calguns is besieging and tearing it back down brick by painstaking brick. There is no superlative adequate to describe my regard for these guys.

Brennan Bailey
August 15, 2012
Via the guns email list at work.
[Yeah. I have a pretty high regard for Calguns too.—Joe]

Been there. Done that. Let’s move on.

Even on the Huffington Post anti-gun posts get swamped by comments from the pro-gun side. It wasn’t very long ago that there was an almost fair battle in the comments. It doesn’t seem to be that way anymore.

The latest one I looked at was We Need a Serious Gun Control Conversation by Greg Palmer. He begins with:

Can we have a conversation about guns now?

I contributed Just One Question but really my response should have been something along the lines of the following.

Huh? I have been having “serious gun control conversations” for just under 20 years now. And in many ways I am a newcomer to the “conversation”. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War for history that goes back over 40 years.

Let me give Palmer a recap of the last 40 years.

We had the “conversation”. Your side lied, cheated, and took unfair advantage at every opportunity. But still your side lost. Big time.

You side lost the safety argument and your side lost the legal argument (see the U.S. Supreme Court decisions D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago). You have no arguments left. The conversation was over years ago and all you are doing now is whining about the outcome. Go tell your problems to a therapist because the adults in this conversation aren’t interested in your delusions of relevancy.

Quote of the day—H. L. Mencken

Whenever ‘A’ attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon ‘B’, ‘A’ is most likely a scoundrel.

H. L. Mencken
[I believe this to be true with both social and economic “moral standards”. Hence I hold nearly all strong Democrats and Republicans in low regard.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Blake Zeff

No one in power is scared of the gun control movement.

Blake Zeff
August 14, 2012
What the gun control movement can learn from gay rights
[Good! That is the way it should be.

If you were to read the article you would find Zeff got it just backward. So I left the following comment for him:

The similarities between gun rights and gay rights are much greater than those between gun control and gay rights.

Gun owners just want to be left alone. 80 to 100 million gun owners and millions of gays are good neighbors, parents, co-workers, friends, and didn’t commit any crimes last year. The extremely small fraction that did commit crimes should be punished. Collective punishment and discrimination against people who have harmed no one is wrong and a very strong motivator. This injustice is the reason the NRA can motivate gun owners to vote against politicians. Politicians don’t fear the NRA. They fear gun owners who vote.

That there even exist gun control organizations is a stain in our political environment. Just as gay, black, Jew, and women control organizations would be and have been.

It appears comments are moderated so it may never show up (Reasoned Discourse) but at least I have it here.—Joe]

History and dark spots

Many of those that don’t like America point to all the evil
things we have done over the years of our existence, and say “you can’t tell us
what to do, because YOU took land from the Indians, gave them infected
blankets, practiced the worst kind of slavery for almost a century, treated immigrants
poorly, interned the Japanese during WW II, didn’t give women the right to vote
until the 19th Amendment, dropped the atomic bomb, etc., etc.”

Well, yah, we did those things. What’s your point? We never claimed to be perfect. We freely admit
to our many mistakes, and when we recognize our mistakes, we usually try to correct
them as best we can, and move on. Times change, mores change, understanding of
human rights change, technology changes. But, can you name any nation of significance, at any point in history, that doesn’t
have blemishes as bad or worse, and with anything like the saving grace of America’s
accomplishments?And even then, how many of those nations still refuse to admit to the darker spots on their own record?

The Japanese militarists of the 1920s through the end of WW
II committed all kinds of atrocities in China and SE Asia, from the Rape of
Nanking to treatment of POWs to ugly medical experiments.

Various Russian pogroms killed millions, and the soviet communist
gulags and artificial famines killed tens of millions more.

Five of the ten bloodiest wars in history were Chinese civil
wars, and most of the dead were not soldiers, and a “middle-ground” estimate
for the number of dead in the famine caused by the Communist “Great Leap Forward”
is 30 million, and they are famously xenophobic and genocidal against the “wrong”
ethnic groups, and their harsh “one-child” policy has killed millions.

Turkey’s Armenian genocide killed on the order of a million
souls, and the preceding Ottoman empire was for centuries famously cruel to it
salves (mostly Christians as a policy), who they often took as children from
their parents, castrated, and were made government functionaries because the
Christian boys they took tested as smart, and the Turks to lazy to do the hard
work of administration.

Germans had their genocide during WW II against gypsies and
Jews, as well as Slavs and others perceived as inferior.

The Aztecs and Incas butchered millions in human sacrifices (in one recorded case, 80,000 in just four days, with priests working in shifts!),
eating still-beating hears, skinning victims alive and wearing their skins, and
worse.

The various African tribes and kingdoms routinely practiced
slavery, genocides against opposing tribes, witchcraft and executed those
accused of the same.

The Native Americans were at near constant war with one
another, taking slaves, stealing whatever they could, conquering neighboring
territories, and practicing harsh “coming of age” rituals that often left
people scared for life or dead.

The British Empire (and their colonial descendants) had an
active policy of “westernizing” aboriginal populations in Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, and elsewhere, by taking children from their homes and sending
them to boarding schools, where they suffered a shocking (30% to 60% 5 year in Canada’s
case) mortality rate.

The Mongols, Huns, Vandals, Norsemen, and others made their
way burning, looting, raping, and pillaging, across the lands of Asia and Europe.
The Romans were quite effective as reducing cities and nations that opposed
them, raping and enslaving their people, as were the Persian Empires, the Assyrians,
Babylonians, and the rest of the ancient empires.

The various Islamic armies gave millions the “choice” of “convert
or die,” conquering and enslaving tens of millions across the ancient world,
razing cities and destroying peoples left and right. Even today, some of the Islamists
push an active program of utterly destroying archeology sites that might,
possibly, in any way, contradict their particular interpretation of the Koran,
destroying possible insights into history as they do so.

The list goes on, but the pattern is clear. Virtually every
nation or people of note in history did terrible (by modern standards) things
to others that were not considered part of their tribe, clan, religion, or
group. But most of them did it without accomplishing much of particular
significance, furthering scientific advancement, making the average person
better off, broadening human rights, broadening educational opportunities,
helping other nations succeed, or otherwise improving the lot of their citizenry
other than at the expense of the oppressed.  The exceptions, like the Roman Empire, are
notable because they are so unusual,
but even they generally refused to acknowledge their flaws.

America admits the flaws, and tries to learn from them, and
get better. But to do so without also
acknowledging the truly great and unusual things the nation has done is to do
our nation and her people a great disservice, sort of like only looking at the
murders done with guns but not also seeing the cases of guns used for
self-defense. It’s a “cost-benefit” analysis that only looks at the costs, which
gives an entirely incorrect picture of reality.

That is why I think that history should be second only to
language as a field of study in public school. It is full of exciting stories that
anyone and everyone can relate to and learn from, it’s not always technical, it’s
got fascinating bits and pieces as well as sweeping, epic tales, interesting
people, great inventions and close-fought battles, and it can be made exciting and relevant to all age groups. To quote
George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it”. We really, really
need to not repeat some of the missteps of the 20th C; to do that,
we need to be aware of them. To look at only the warts on our republic’s
history and demand radical changes is the same as admitting that you are
unaware of the worse warts shown to be on all other competing systems of
governance. We are not perfect; but neither are we as evil as some make us out
to be.

Let’s keep working to improve America, not to destroy it and
hope that, magically, something better replaces it; history says that’s
unlikely.

Quote of the day—Jennifer Rubin

Liberals would like us to believe we don’t have stricter gun control laws because politicians are putty in the hands of the National Rifle Association. In fact, most pols are exquisitely attuned to popular opinion. The reason neither Democrats or Republicans aren’t pushing for gun control is that voters don’t want it. Democracy can be a stubborn thing.

Jennifer Rubin
August 8, 2012
Thumbs down on gun control
[Rubin is correct but doesn’t go far enough. Many Liberals do not understand that facts and even reality can be a stubborn thing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

My position is absolute. I want less, not more gun control. I’m not going to compromise or work with them on any issue unless the other side gets me in a position where the only choices are bad and worse.

Sebastian
August 7, 2012
A Defense of Absolutism
[I think there might be some exceptions to this position but generally he gets it right.

Our opponents do not have our best interest or even the interests of society at heart. Some of them openly admit that they will push for more gun control as long as there are still even one accident or crime committed which involved a gun. There is no trade-offs in their world view. They view the private possession of guns as evil. There is no negotiating with people that “think” like that. If they cannot even discuss the costs of gun control there is no point in even talking with them. They must be politically destroyed.—Joe]

Public Education

I heard a call to a talk show late last night (sorry, I don’t know who’s show).  The caller had this great, revolutionary idea– instead of using gasoline or fuel oil, we should use a computer program to move the pistons in an engine.  Engines are computer-controlled to some degree already you see, so why not go all the way?  He said he’d been thinking about this for a long time and it had been bugging him– why, it’s so obvious.


If a person can think that, what can’t be believed?  It is said that Kim Il of North Korea hit some fantastic score in golf the first time out, that when he was born a new star appeared in the sky to mark the event, and that he doesn’t urinate or deficate.


Yes; public education has a purpose, and to some degree it’s working.


The host set him straight, recommending a book; “Physics for Future Presidents” I think it was.  How about just plain old, basic physics?  That would be nice, but all Democrats and most Republicans would always lose if we knew that it’s impossible to get something from nothing.

Regulation is a force of destruction

What made Milton Friedman so famous was not just that he was
smart, but that he had a way with words that made his views on market economics
so clear and easy to understand (often using pithy quotes), and once understood
they are very hard to argue against. Here is my attempt at a useful pithy
quote:

Regulations are a
force of destruction
. A business seeks to provide a product or service for
a price. Anything that drives up costs must be passed on to customers, or taken
out of profits. No profit, no business. If you are running a business, a
regulator can fine you, imprison you, or shut you down. All of those reduce your
productivity, meaning it destroys value.
Defensive actions in an effort to ensure compliance, such as hiring a CPA to
make sure the accounting is done right, hiring ANY sort of P to make sure Q is done
in accordance with the law that no normal person can know all of, destroys
productivity. Any decision to not
pursue a productive action because regulations will kick in forcing other
actions that will make the whole thing profitless or worse, is the corrosive
destruction of regulation.

That is where we are today. Regulations restrict, suppress,
repress, confine, compel, confuse, hold back – so many regulations that
business is stifled, dragged down, and killed. Why?

Cronyism – business with “friends in high places” shutting
out less connected folks who could provide a better deal, by “helping”
legislators write the regulations to favor them.

Protectionism – companies seeking regulations to block
others in the same business, or to block entry into the business by “grandfathering”
all the existing businesses.

Regulations as a business weapon – in too many places, it’s
not the company with the best product, or best price, but the best legal
departments to sue competitors, win.

When a company says the highest
ROI of any business investment is lobbying
congress,
it’s time to start cutting back on the number of laws and
regulations.

But, perhaps worst of all, Legal and OK get confused – Too many companies are so buried in regulations that
they get to the point where if the lawyers say something is legal to do, they assume it must be OK to do; they no longer have their conscious
constraining their actions, but only the technical letter of the law, and there
is a HUGE pressure to keep the business alive and profitable (kids, mortgage,
etc). This erodes and destroys two essential components of a free market
economy and a free society: trust and respect. So, not only does many regulations
destroy businesses, they destroy people and any culture of freedom and enterprise they have.

To be sure, some regulations are
needed – but I’m pretty sure we are well past the point of the necessary
minimum to ensure an operational economy and thriving culture.

Quote of the day—Charles Garcia

No politician, including the most powerful man in the free world, wants to pull the trigger on solving the complex issue of gun control. The odds of political survival after such a move are worse than those in a game of Russian roulette.

Charles Garcia
August 2, 2012
Politicians hammered by the NRA
[And no politician, including the most powerful man in the free world, wants to pull the trigger on solving the complex issues of speech, freedom of association, or religion control either. So what’s his point?

Is he saying he isn’t capable of understanding the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right? In 2008 the U.S. Supreme court ruled guns in common use are protected. Earlier rulings said firearms used by the military are protected. Garcia needs to either 1) Advocate for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and get swept into the dustbin of history; or 2) Find a cure for his ignorance problem.—Joe]

Quote of the day—charles hugh smith

Central bankers present themselves as Masters of the Universe. They are, but only in their own little Theater of the Absurd. In the real world, they are as clueless as any other mortals about the unintended consequences of their actions and the speed with which the corrupted, unsustainable financial Status Quo will decay and die.

The only attribute they possess in abundance is hubris. Their claims to godhood are comical when viewed in their little Theater of the Absurd, but they become tragic when the consequences of their actions play out in the real world.

Their job, such as it is, is to deflate a tottering system based on phantom assets slowly enough that it doesn’t implode. Stripped of mumbo-jumbo, their strategy to accomplish this is to inflate other phantom assets to replace the phantom assets that are falling to zero.

All their promises, preening and posturing boil down to patting their breast pocket and speaking vaguely about a “secret plan” to end the crisis without bringing down the system that spawned the crisis as a consequence of its very nature.

There is no secret plan, of course, and no secret financial weapons; all they really have is artifice and the hubris to present artifice as reality.

charles hugh smith
July 31, 2012
The Central Banking Theater of the Absurd
Emphasis in the original.
[In the history books and in stories from my parents I heard of bankers and brokers in 1929 jumping out the windows of tall buildings and utilizing “Smith & Wesson” retirement plans. I don’t hear of that sort of thing these days even though by many measures the financial situation is just as bad or worse as in The Great Depression.

I keep wondering if the reason for the difference is that we have different types of people in the banks and positions of power this time around. The sociopaths don’t care and the Marxists intend for our system to fail.

What I don’t think they understand is that when people get hungry enough they will figure out the reason for the failure of the system, have nothing to lose by going after those responsible, there will be no place to hide, and retirement, in whatever form, will be forced upon those who destroyed the greatest economic and political system the world has ever known.—Joe]

Common ground

Via Kevin.

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.

Molon Labe.

Quote of the day—Bill Buckler

In their Ten Thousand Commandments 2012 report which was released in June, the CEI estimates the cost of US government regulation at $US 1.75 TRILLION. That is just under half (48 percent) of the budget of the federal government. It is almost ten times the total of all corporate taxes collected and almost double the total collected from individual income taxes. It is also one-third higher than the total of all pre-tax corporate profits. It is the hidden cost of doing business in an interventionist economy. The fact that the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention. That end result is capital consumption.

In the US, the federal government lists its regulations in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules of the economic “game” cover 169,000 pages and more than ten new ones are added every day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. In 2011, the US Congress passed a total of 81 new “laws” while government agencies issued 3,807 new regulations. As the CEI points out, if there ever was an example of government without the consent of ANYONE – this is it.

Bill Buckler
July 22, 2012
The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion
[Emphasis in the original.

And please don’t ever forget there are those who believe they were “born to regulate”, “And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.”

I need a new frontier.—Joe]