Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Henry Louis Mencken

Posted on by

The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.

Henry Louis Mencken
Minority Report, H. L. Mencken’s Notebooks [78], 1956
[I’ve seen this in engineering as well as politics. Someone who doesn’t really understand the problem has great enthusiasm for a simple solution that on the surface is very appealing. This enthusiasm and confidence can sometimes be very difficult to combat because it can take a great deal of effort to educate the people advocating the solution on the error of their ways. And in fact it may be impossible to educate them because they are too stupid to understand. Gun control is one such example.

This brings us to another Mencken quote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

I have no idea how to deal with this in politics. I have enough trouble with it in engineering where most of the people are rational and reasonably smart. This is part of the reason that government powers should be severely constrained. Political decisions are frequently very complex issues with incomplete data sets. Even if you had rational people involved, which you frequently don’t, and they had the general populace’s best interests at heart, which they almost never do, getting a consensus on the solution that best fits the available data is nearly impossible. In politics data, if present, is cherry picked. Proper data analysis is completely absent.

It is far better to let the free market provide the “remedy for all the sorrows of the world” because the solutions attempted will be varied. The non-solutions will quickly end up in the dustbin. The partial solutions will be tweaked and retried. The true solutions will dominate and another “sorrow of the world” will be reduced or eliminated.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janet Reno

Posted on by

The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.

Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General during the Clinton administration
1991
[Ms. Reno was mistaken. Had such a law been passed there would have been a great deal more “crime” than she would have imagined or been able to handle.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul M. Barrett

Posted on by

Feldman is trying to organize a politically moderate gun owners’ association as an alternative to the NRA. So far, he has not had much luck with that project.

Paul M. Barrett
Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun page 267.
[Richard Feldman,Esq. doesn’t have anything on his web site about trying to do this but Barrett knows him personally and perhaps has inside knowledge that I am not privy to. That aside, this would appear to be the worst error I found in the book. I have a lot of good things to say about the book and will do so in another post. I really liked the book so don’t let my disagreement with Barrett about the quote above adversely color your thoughts about the book. That would be very unfair.

The error in the quote above is as follows: I know many people who have left the NRA and having nothing good to say about the organization. All of them left because the NRA was too “moderate”. They felt the NRA compromised when they shouldn’t have. The anti-gun groups try to paint the NRA as extremist but that is certainly not the viewpoint from the majority of gun owners that I know. That Feldman hasn’t “had much luck with that project” would indicate to me that there may be a problem with his vision. Admittedly the “market” for political gun organizations is a bit crowded and it is always difficult to break into a new market even if you do have a lot of money and/or an exceptional product. My impression is that Feldman has neither. The “product” Feldman is selling, if he is in fact trying to do this, is not going to find a very large market. The people that yearn for a more “moderate” NRA either advocate against guns and gun owners or don’t care about the issue. Neither of which would join such an organization.

Barrett has done a very good job with this book. He has done a lot of research and he accurately reports on many subtle points that I would not have expected him to have found. I’m a little surprised he didn’t realize the statement above does not match the reality as I know it. Perhaps he does recognize it as an error on Feldman’s part but he didn’t comment on it beyond the “not had much luck” quip.

I found similar things in the book on other topics. He has all the facts right and then fails to draw the obvious conclusion or sometimes a jarringly different conclusion from what seems obvious to me. But these are mostly little things. I really liked the book and will report about it at length very soon.—Joe]

When looters run out of places to loot

Posted on by

Socialism is reaping the usual results in Greece:

Airliners will be grounded, trains halted and tax offices shut when Greek state workers strike against austerity measures on Wednesday, defying a plea by the government to rally behind its effort to fend off national bankruptcy.

Most probably don’t really understand what is happening. They think they can just demand the government hire people and people will have jobs. What their simple model doesn’t take into account is that they are no different than looters with the government doing the actual theft. The one level of indirection and the facade of respectability allows them to believe they are not engaged in immoral behavior.

The truth is that while economic laws are less well understood and probably more subtle than the laws of physics they are no less certain. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. They have been looting the people who produce for so long the producers have either left the country, given up, or have simply run out of wealth to loot.

I’ve often wondered what it looks like when those who know no life outside of looting run out of places to loot. We sort of saw what happened in the USSR in the ‘80s but that was before the Internet and they were a much more closed society than Greece.

Popcorn anyone?

Quote of the day—Richard Samuel Najjar

Posted on by

…[P]olitically motivated entities like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun (formally Handgun Control, Inc.), the oddly named Violence Policy Center, and Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Handguns rely on discredited studies that were rejected elsewhere, or by pulling numbers out of thin air to craft an argument while they attempt to smugly and piously stand in the way of continuing reforms. Gun control was a failure. Gun control is dead. It’s time to bury it once and for all.

Richard Samuel Najjar
October 1, 2011
Comment to Cause and effect or coincidence? Gun control scrapped …crime plummets
[The only nit I have to pick with this is I wouldn’t say gun control is dead. As long as there exists an anti-gun organization with fulltime staff or an electable politician that supports gun control we have work to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kelsey Leal

Posted on by

I come from a family of liberals. We believe that people that don’t work should live better lives than those that do.

Kelsey Leal
October 3, 2011
[Kelsey is my soon to be daughter-in-law.

This was in response to me giving her a bit of a hard time about not even recognizing the name of the Cato Institute. When I explained it was a Libertarian think tank part of her response was the quote above. It achieve the desired results. I was speechless.

She says she was joking—mostly.—Joe]

Banning the ATF not guns

Posted on by

There are rumors the ATF is about to be thrown under the bus. Although there are people calling this rumor “a bombshell” (via Say Uncle and son-in-law John) it isn’t really all that new (from almost three months ago):

The unfolding scandal over a gunrunning investigation allegedly botched by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives could do what years of criticism of the long-beleaguered agency never quite accomplished — result in its demise.

People on both sides of the issue commented on it:

“I think something like that is likely to happen,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

…

Christopher Cox, legislative director for the NRA, the agency’s longtime nemesis, also said arguments for shuttering or breaking up ATF are building.
 
“Their criminal investigation tactics are going a long way to proving that point,” Cox said. “If they cease to be an effective law enforcement organization, they will cease to be legitimate, and the calls for restructuring or abolishing of ATF are going to become more and more valid.”

Sebastian says, Careful What You Wish For and he has some good points. The concern that the FBI has credibility and respect the ATF doesn’t and we would rather have a money starved easily demonized bunch of screw ups instead of the FBI, the Secret Service, or the U.S. Marshalls enforcing the regulations has been the whisper from behind the scenes since as least the Regan years when the first serious thoughts of disbanding them came up.

Things have changed with the FBI since the 1980’s. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The ATF created the messes but it was during the FBI “cleanup” that the FBI shot the woman holding the baby and burned down the church with the women and children in it. The FBI has it’s own public relations issues to be concerned about.

I’ll leave making a recommendation on this specific topic at this specific time to others more politically savvy but if we are to make progress trimming down the size and scope of government agencies need to start disappearing. Why is now not as good a time as any to get rid of the ATF? The ATF is heavily involved in a major scandal, the Heller and McDonald decisions imply that many of their duties are constitutionally suspect if not right illegal. Because they are so weak this might be the time to get rid of them simply because it is politically possible.

If now is the time then to “avoid overloading the FBI” with either new tasks and/or the training of large numbers of new personal Congress should simultaneously cut back on a lot of the obsolete laws. Here is my list of gun laws that could be put on the chopping block along with the ATF:

  • The ban on interstate gun sales. We have NICS, run by the FBI already, which covers the concerns put forth for the original proponents of the law.
  • The registration and tax on suppressors. Make a NICS check on them a requirement with 4473 like paperwork shouldn’t be that much of a political sell because all the functionality of the existing system would still exist except for the tax revenue which almost for certain doesn’t pay for itself as well as being constitutionally suspect.
  • The laws against on short barreled rifles and shotguns. This only made sense when there were plans to ban handguns (originally part of NFA 34). That didn’t happen and isn’t going to happen (see Heller).
  • Postal restrictions against mailing of firearms. We can ship them via UPS, FedEx, etc. Why not USPS?
  • The classification of some 12-gauge shotguns as “destructive devices”.
  • The “sporting purpose” tests for firearms. The Heller decision makes it very clear that the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. This particularly affects imports. Unless it as part of some trade war it makes no sense that guns and ammo which are perfectly legal to manufacture and own inside the U.S. cannot be imported. Either ban them as part of a coherent (as if trade wars can make sense but that is another topic so please don’t get into it at this time) trade policy or get rid of the bans.
  • The ban of sales of firearms to citizens who have no U.S. residence. Just because someone has been living and working in another country for a few months or even years does not mean they should be prohibited from exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms when they return for a visit.

I’m sure there are lots of other nonsensical laws and regulations that could be cut at the same time which our opponents would be hard pressed to defend. And with all the grief the ATF has had because of their “mistakes” perhaps the agencies that take on the remaining functions will “play nice” compared to the ATF.

If we could ban the ATF and “ease the burden” on the FBI at the same time would it be worth taking the risks associated with having the remaining ATF functions divided up among other agencies? I’m thinking it might be.

Game name

Posted on by

As part of Ry’s quest to hold a world record we need a name for a game. The rules for the game haven’t been finalized but it will probably be something like Steel Challenge only using one time use reactive targets (Boomerite). You are timed as you shoot the five to ten targets (not sure yet) and the fastest time wins.

We have tentative plans to use this game as a fundraiser for pro-gun (duh!) political lobbying groups at “Legislative Shoots”. The first official event is tentatively planned for January or February of 2012 but I expect we will be doing some dry runs prior to that to work out the bugs and give Ry his chance at a world record. This will also give us a chance to make videos and put together promotional material.

I expect the range will be something on the order of 15 to 20 yards and there will be very few different courses of fire. Perhaps even just one course of fire. There will be no direct “power factor” requirements. If the boomers don’t go off then you didn’t bring enough gun. This typically means participants will use a centerfire rifle but with the right ammo and caliber some centerfire pistols and rimfire rifles may work.

I expect we will have the following classes of firearms:

  • Open (Anything that is safe)
  • Full Auto (Same as limited except full auto and burst are allowed)
  • Limited (No glass or other special optics and no full auto or burst)
  • Lever Action (Must be a lever action rifle)
  • Bolt action (Must be a bolt action rifle)
  • Shotgun (Maybe. Some magnum buckshot and/or slug loads might have sufficient velocity to detonate the targets)

Here are the candidates so far:

  • Bowling for Boomers (Barron)
  • Steel Yourself! (Barb)
  • Boomer Challenge (me)
  • Zoom Boom (me)
  • Speed Boomers (me)

What are your suggestions for a name? The prize will be the fame and fortune (one free entry into the next Zoom Boom event you participate in). The winner will be chosen by the political lobbyist who schedules the first event.

As a side note I have to wonder at the participation level of an event like this versus the events the Brady Campaign put on where they try to find people to lay on the ground and pretend to be dead for a few minutes.

Quote of the day—Ubu52

Posted on by

Isn’t the smallest form of government a dictatorship? Is that really what Libertarians crave?

Ubu52
September 29, 2011
Comment to The Mind of the Left.
[I suppose it could be very ignorant question. After all, even if you were to grant that a libertarian dictatorship is technically possible the smallest form government would be no government at all or anarchy.

But I think I smell a troll.—Joe]

Radical Democratic Vision

Posted on by

That’s Left-Speak for “a People’s [communist] Revolution”.  Cornel West wrote an article for the NYT to describe it.  “Martin Luther King Jr. Would Want a Revolution…”

Often has the left attached itself to good causes, co-opting them and bending them into radicalized socialist movements.

Have you heard much about the protests on Wall Street?  Me neither.  Here is Cornel West leading a group of drones in one of those protests.  Listen carefully.  He wants an “American Fall” to coincide with the recent Arab Spring.  The Belt-way left is in a pickle.  The base was fired up and ready to go, but they didn’t get their revolution.  They feel it’s time to pounce.  They’ve taken off the masks, taken to the streets, and now they’re feeling let down.  Wait ’till they’ve simmered and seethed for another year and then see their hopes and dreams, their radical democratic vision, slip away.  That could get ugly.

This is why we aren’t supposed to feed the bears in the national parks.  You give them a little bit of socialism here and there, and before you know it they’re ripping the doors off your car trying to eat your children.  Then you’re forced to shoot them.  It’s inhumane.  DON’T FEED THE SOCIALISTS!  The Republicans have been happily feeding socialists for generations, trying to prove their own good intentions, the fools;
“Look!  Aren’t they cute?  And that one has some little cubs!  Awww!  I’ll be nice and give them my cold french fries, so they don’t go away unhappy…” 
I think we should convince some park rangers to have words with the GOP leadership.

Quote of the day—John Dewey

Posted on by

You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.

John Dewey
From Accuracy In Media
[Ahhhh… yes. The collective society. The good of the collective is more important than the good of the individual. The individual must not think for themselves. Except of course the dear, enlightened, leaders who decide what is best for the collective and just happen to live lives of luxury.

What the “intellectuals” need to understand, if history has any lessons to be learned on this topic, is that the “intellectuals” are the first to get the bullet in the back of the neck and occupy the mass graves in the woods. Look at what Stalin, Pol Pot, and communist China did.

It may be that it “won’t happen here”. It may be the government of the collective will put the “intellectuals” in positions of power and that when the shooting starts it will be individualists who first occupy the mass graves. But when the shooting stops it will be because the individualists ran out of collectivist “intellectuals” as targets. Not because we ran out of ammo or individuals.—Joe]

The Mind of the Left

Posted on by

North Carolina Democrat Governor Beverly Perdue gave us a rare moment of honesty as she called for a suspension of elections in order to Get Things Done.

Hat tip to the guy filling in for Michael Savage today.

This confirms, once again, my definition of “Divisiveness” in the language of the left– “Speaking ill of or disagreeing with socialists or socialism.”  She didn’t use the “D” word, but used “partisan bickering” instead, which is the same thing.  When they win an election, it is the beauty of democracy in action– the will of the people expressing itself in the best of ways.  When they lose, democracy itself is under attack.  Things can’t get done due to political posturing and gridlock, the American People are throwing a temper tantrum, etc., etc.

The assumption is always the same with communists– the stupid little people don’t know what’s good for them.  They don’t appreciate all the great things we smarter and better people could do if only they’d stop asserting their will and submit to ours.  In its naked form, it is a cult of mass destruction.

The mindset is nothing new of course.  What’s unique is the blatant honesty in Governor Perdue’s statement.  It’s very, very rare for a socialist to say something so direct in public in an official capacity  They very much love hiding in complexity and have said exactly so.  This only shows us that they’re beginning to feel comfortable, and that tells us something.  It means things are getting more dangerous, but I suppose that anyone who’s been paying attention already knew that.

We’re now being told it was all a little joke.  Reading the quote I don’t see it as a joke.  I see it as a trial balloon.  Leftists can get away with that.

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

Posted on by

Not only are you stripping the right of the local municipalities to protect safety but you’re also asking them to adhere to gun laws at the state level that don’t even exist.

Brian Malte
Director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
September 27, 2011
Lawyer keeps local gun laws in his sights—Lawsuits against Evansville and Hammond demand communities comply with state measure
[“Protect safety”? “Adhere to gun laws that don’t exit”? What in the world does that even mean?

I suppose it’s possible the reporter had the crap for brains and messed up the quote but I doubt it because the quotes from the other people in the article weren’t just word salads. It could have been deliberate maliciousness by the reporter but usually the bias is against gun owners.

It’s true that we are sometimes our worst enemy but it may be more so for our opponents. We don’t always act as a team and give conflicting messages to the public and the politicians. We have people that sometimes say things that which, while true, can be exploited by our opponents. They have crap for brains and it shows.—Joe]

Quote of the day—President Obama

Posted on by

I’m determined because there’s too much at stake. The alternative I think is an approach to government that would fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century and that’s not the kind of society that I want to bequeath to Malia and Sasha, and your children and your grandchildren.

President Obama
What President Obama saying to his donors
September 25, 2011
[What President Obama isn’t directly saying is that the U.S. Constitution is crippling his vision of a utopian society.

And while I say that’s a good thing the battle has mostly been lost. I fear the majority of people in this country will have to learn the lessons of socialism and perhaps even communism for themselves.

—Joe]

Where is the Beef?

Posted on by

It leaves me somewhat dumbfounded in a way, and yet it’s thoroughly normal and predictable.  What leaves me dumbfounded is that fact that it is so normal and predictable.

“Where’s Waldo” was one title that occurred to me, but there is no Waldo.

I have a challenge for you.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find one thing that Rick Perry actually said in this ad;

Just one meaningful statement– one example of what he’s done to further some goal or other in the past, one guiding principle, one thing that would suggest what he actually wants to do as president.  Anything.  I only watched it twice, but I don’t think you can do it.  Right now as far as I can tell, this ad is recycled from an old Obama ad.  As I said in comments over on Uncle’s blog, it was probably produced by the same people, who did Bush’s and Clinton’s ads.

And yet there are people who really love this ad, and that is the rub.  Are we as a society capable of thinking critically anymore, or is it simply over and done for us?

We need to able to watch something like this, looking, probing, asking ourselves; “Where’s the meaning.  Where’s the substance?  What’s actually being said here?  Anything?”  It should be automatic – you’re waiting for something to be said.

Now I don’t want to hear about Perry.  For all I know he’s the greatest defender of liberty the world has ever seen, but if so he would tell us in his very own words.  However, there is nothing here that would tell us one way or the other, and the fact that he can’t actually say something in his own ad already tells me he’s not my man.  Don’t defend him.  If he were the leader we need, he would never allow an ad like this to be produced in his name.  If he comes out tomorrow and tells us it was done against his wishes, and that those responsible for it have been fired, I might change my mind, but not before.  When ads like this one are soundly ridiculed in the public arena, by all sides, that’s when I’ll know we’ve made progress, yet we are nowhere near that now.

He did say that the greatest deeds are reserved for future generations, but like all the other statements, that one has no substance.  No indication of what he thinks is a great deed, but the strangest part about that statement is that it makes no reference to current generations.  What about us?  Why can’t we be doing any of the greatest deeds?  Why are they reserved for someone else, and who is in charge of reserving deeds these days, and why?  Who appointed this new “Deed Tsar”?  See; you can go crazy trying to infer meaning where there is none.

Quote of the day—Mike Jensen

Posted on by

I’m all for shared sacrifice.  But I think it should be shared sacrifice of those responsible for this mess in the first place.  So instead of punishing the super rich, who didn’t spend us into oblivion, let’s have shared sacrifice among those responsible for this mess.

I propose this:

  1. Collect the name of every member of Congress—Republican or Democrat—who ever voted for a federal budget that included a deficit.
  2. Determine which of these members are still living.
  3. Add the names of all living presidents.
  4. Increase THEIR taxes.

I propose that we tax all former members of Congress at a 50% flat tax rate.  Former presidents would be taxed at a flat 75% of annual income.  Finally, current members of Congress and the current president would be taxes at 100% of their annual income.  Any other Americans who would like to can volunteer to join either of these groups (time to walk the walk, Warren!).  These tax rates will stay in effect until the debt is erased and we have a balanced budget.

How about we stop coddling those who caused this problem in the first place?

Mike Jensen
August 30, 2011
Coddling
[Yup. Those responsible should be the ones to pay the price for fixing the problem.

And if insufficient progress has been made by the time their term in office is over consideration could be given to auctioning off their body parts.—Joe]

Stumbling Into the Hard Truth

Posted on by

…and then denying it.  Pete Sessions, NRCC Chairman, sends out regular e-mail alerts.  Every single one of them can be interpreted as “Look at those dirty rotten Democrats!  Give us money!”

Today’s e-mail alert title was “Threatening is Not Governing”.  Even though it’s completely wrong of course, I might be tempted to see that title as a sign of some positive development in Mr. Sessions’ understanding in that it touches upon an important point, but I know him too well.

What he referred to as “threatening” was Obama’s “threat” to “…veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase.”  That contains so many layers of idiocy that I won’t even get into it.  Forget the president and that it’s fully within his job description to “threaten” to veto anything Congress pukes out.

The point is that any and all governing is threatening.  Every law, rule, ordinance, every tax or restriction, every subsidy– they’re all backed by threats, and all government threats include a group of people with guns who are ready, willing, and I dare say eager to make good on those threats.

I’d say I’m hopeful that even Pete Sessions has stumbled upon an important truth, but he of all people will never admit to understanding it.  Maybe, since he has broached the subject, more of us can expand on it.

Mr. Sessions; I see your accusations in much the same way I’d see a drunk sitting at a bar with a martini in his hands accusing the drunk next to him of being a drunk.  Only worse– the typical drunk probably isn’t going to work every day to find new ways to formulate threats against the whole of The People.

Quote of the day—Paul Krugman

Posted on by

Fortunately, physicians no longer believe that bleeding the sick will make them healthy. Unfortunately, many of the makers of economic policy still do.

Paul Krugman
September 19, 2011
Decline in manufacturing capacity is probably only the beginning of the bad new: Paul Krugman
[He is apparently oblivious to the irony as he goes on to say, even though the U.S. Government is broke, “For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts abroad.”

Krugman believes that budget austerity is the equivalent of “bleeding the patient” when sane people would recognize it as reducing the hemorrhaging. One has to wonder if Krugman is practicing doublethink, doublespeak, or both. In any case he has crap for brains if he thinks the majority of the people will believe him.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carrie Severino

Posted on by

I’m not sure exactly what these folks are pledging to do. Are they living constitutionalists pledging fealty to the Constitution on the day they sign the pledge? Or some future Constitution the exact substance of which they don’t even know when they sign the pledge? Is each person pledging to their own Constitution which just doesn’t change to them? Unless, of course, they are all pledging to a Constitution that actually has a definite, knowable, unchanging substance — in which case I look forward to joining them in celebration of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s service at the next Federalist Society convention.

Carrie Severino
September 16, 2011
More on the Living Constitutionalists’ ‘Pledge’
[People who “believe in a living constitution” haven’t thought things through. Do they also believe in “living contracts” where the terms of the contract change without all parties to the contract agree to the changes or even being notified that the contract no longer means what it says? To say, “we have a living constitution” means we have no constitution.—Joe]

Quote of the day—4moreDubya

Posted on by

Look at it this way, do you think it’s up to the states to set their own rules on slavery? Or search and seizure?

4moreDubya
September 14, 2011
Comment to House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
[States have powers to set their own tax rates, build (or not build) roads, license businesses, and many other things. States have not been given the power to infringe upon specific enumerated or natural rights. Some people just don’t grasp the difference between exercising powers granted to them and infringing upon rights specifically protected. Some people just aren’t very bright.—Joe]