I have QOTD posts for Markley’s Law scheduled into 2014 so I’m not hurting for Markley’s Law Monday material. I received a pointer to this cartoon via “someone adverse to email” and decided to post it in a more timely manner.
Found here:
Heavy sigh. With a clean canvas and with virtually only space restrictions on what they can say the best they can come up to attack gun owners is to invoke Markley’s Law? That’s pathetic.
This started out to be a comment in response to ubu52 who said:
Since this is only part one of a four part series, how do any of you know she didn’t get training?
The response grew and the links increased to the point I decided it really should be a post on it’s own.
At the time of the writing of the post being discussed she had no training. Perhaps she attended a class this last weekend and just hasn’t made a post about it yet. We’ll see what she says in her next post.
She is playing a very risky game. She is in “danger” of having her beliefs shattered. It is my guess that she had a set of beliefs totally at odds with reality.
In effect she was challenged by Wayne LaPierre:
Wayne LaPierre, told the country, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I wondered what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun. Finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more?
I decided to find out.
There are at least three ways to interpret this.
The first post, in what is planned as a four part series, clearly fits interpretation 1. That she is so certain she will not want the gun after a month is very telling of her predisposition.
But read the first page of this website. She was (and probably still is) firmly committed to a set of beliefs and has relevance to action (condition 1 from the website). She has taken actions that are difficult to undo. These include being on the board of directors for the Brady Campaign and writing a book advocating more restrictions on gun ownership (condition 2). Her beliefs are almost certainly sufficiently specific and refutable by real world evidence that given sufficient contact with the reality of gun owners and gun ownership condition 3 will be met.
There are at least two paths for the future of Yewman’s relationship with gun politics. We have some control over which path is taken. Conditions 4 and 5 from the website hold the key to which path she will take.
Condition 4 states that undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. Condition 5 states that if she has strong social support for her faulty beliefs, even in spite of and in fact because of, the disproving evidence then she will increase her anti-gun activities.
She admits she didn’t know what it feels like or means to own and carry a gun but she surely had some preconceived idea or she would not advocate against gun ownership. I believe those beliefs can only flourish in those that are ignorant, malicious, or mentally defective.
From reading her writings (this is not the first work of hers I have read) I’m nearly certain she is not mentally defective (on the other hand Joan Peterson clearly is). I also believe she has the best of intentions. She is not in the same category as those that advocated for gun control so people of color could not defend themselves from the KKK.
I believe ignorance is her only defect. But ignorant beliefs, absent mental defect, do not long survive contact with reality unless there is extensive social support for those beliefs.The more contact she has with the reality of gun owners and gun ownership the greater the chance she will have sympathy for our culture and the more likely she recognize the flaws in the gun control culture. The very fact that she is censuring sincere helpful comments must raise the intensity of her cognitive dissonance.
If we wish to divert her path to one which is not hostile to gun ownership then we should be doing two things. The first is we should give her undeniable disconfirmatory evidence that her beliefs are faulty. The second is we need to give her an alternate source of social support rather than her ignorant, malicious, and mentally defective fellow travelers. If we can do that then the chances are very high that she will discard the erroneous beliefs. If we don’t then she will be an even stronger advocate for restrictions on gun ownership.
Are we up for the task? Or will we blow it by attacking her every misstep and error thus confirming beliefs that gun owners are belligerent, rude, and angry people that cannot be trusted with sharp objects let alone guns?
To all you fellow racists redneck Tea-partiers and haters, who only opposes the Obama-sariat because you are racists haters (yes, there might be a tad-bit of sarcasm there), I give you a guy who gets it. Nothing new, just well-presented.
I’d sure vote for him over any of the candidates I’ve seen run in my district in the last twenty years. I’d prefer a straight-up libertarian, but he’d be a vast improvement over the statist we have now.
I’m much less effective than I might otherwise be because instinctively I distrust emotional argument and rely on evidence and reason. Which is to say, I am BORING.
Don B. Kates
May 21, 2013
Shutting Up Anti-Gun Hysterics
[It is irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]
This afternoon I received an email from Microsoft telling me my new phone app failed the certification testing.
There were two errors. In the first case I didn’t have a clue I was violating the policy. In the second case I was careless. Both are easily fixed.
Test failure 1:
Test: Content that is offensive in any country/region to which your app is targeted is not allowed. Content may be considered offensive in certain countries/regions because of local laws or cultural norms. Examples of potentially offensive content in certain countries/regions include, but are not limited to, the following:
Group 1: China
Prohibited Sexual Content
Disputed territory or region references
Providing or enabling access to content or services that are illegal under applicable local lawComments: Result: Fail
Your application uses the Bing Maps Silverlight Control for Windows Phone. Bing Maps is not supported for Group 1 countries at this time. You may resubmit your application and deselect the Group 1 countries.
Test failure 2:
Test: Screenshots must only contain app graphics, and must not include any emulator chrome, frame rate counters or debug information.
Comments: The application screenshots contain frame rate counters and debug information.
Three out of the eight screenshots had the frame rate counters and debug information in them. I knew better and just wasn’t paying close enough attention in my rush to get the app submitted.
It will take 30 minutes or so to fix it and resubmit. I’ll get to that sometime tonight after visiting my son and his family.
Heidi Yewman is a board member of the Brady Campaign and the author of a book about “the impact of gun violence”, Beyond the Bullet. She recently bought a 9mm Glock and is carrying it daily now.
You can be pretty certain the intent is not benign in regards to the gun culture but I left a comment on her blog post welcoming her to the world of gun ownership. The comment is currently awaiting moderation so to protect against “Reasoned Discourse” I’m posting here as well:
Heidi, I’d like to welcome to the world of gun ownership. I’m sorry it’s so stressful for you. It doesn’t have to be. The culture you are familiar with regards gun ownership as dangerous and to a certain extent evil. Those of us in the gun culture know better.
Although I know your intention is to destroy our culture I want to thank you for visiting and would like to make the visit as pleasant as possible. Knowledge is good thing but can be hard to come by. This is especially true if your background has a strong bias.
I know good gun people not too far from where you live and even consider myself within range to welcome you and show you around. Let me know if you are interested in meeting our ambassadors. If your objective is to understand our culture then let us show you around and make your visit as safe and pleasant as possible.
Update: There are several other comments with timestamps after my comment that have made it through moderation now. Combined with other people reporting the same thing in the comments here we can now safely conclude the following:
Heidi Yewman, Brady Campaign Board Member, does not want free speech. And when she has the power she will enforce restrictions on it.
When allowed the power to do so Mayor Bloomberg didn’t just enforce and advocate strict gun laws. He created laws against “high capacity” soft drinks, and salty foods.
Anti-gun people are not just anti-gun. They are anti-freedom. And far too often they enable or implement genocidal regimes. All in the name of “common sense”, “for the children”, and “preventing gun violence” they are anti-life. Of course people like Yewman don’t realize this. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions but it is still a road to Hell.
#ICouldHaveBeenARepublicanBut – but not trying to compensate for my tiny penis by starting wars or having a big gun
jimmy streich (@streicher187)
Tweeted on February 5, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
Gotta pause a bit. Stomach bug. End of school. Other half out of town. Job apps. A bit of writing, rewriting, and editing. I will be back. Don’t worry, I won’t leave it hanging like this for too long. It WILL get done. Just not in the next week.
In the mean time: Continue reading
Let’s all sit around the fire and tell Brad stories.
Kevin
June 15, 2013
Referring to my 22 year old nephew, Brad Huffman, who died sometime during the night between Thursday and Friday.
[Last night Brad’s father, my brother Doug, and Brad’s siblings Amy (with her husband Nate and son Jared), Lisa (with boyfriend Kevin), and I sat around a fire in the woods behind the house and told stories about Brad for a long time.
It helped. Thanks Kevin.—Joe]
Had the federal government prohibited bookstores from selling books to out-of-state residents, no court would hold that impacted readers lack standing to challenge such a law under the First Amendment. Barring access to the national market for books would directly inflict an injury-in-fact upon consumers. Federal courts are empowered to fully redress that injury. None of this is particularly difficult or controversial.
But substituting “handguns” for “books,” and “Second” for “First” Amendment, sometimes yields different results. The lower court held that criminal prohibitions of retail handgun sales do not directly impact frustrated consumers where the prohibitions are directed at sellers. The sellers’ compliance with the law in refusing to complete a prohibited transaction, and the prohibition’s impact on the market, are, as far as the lower court is concerned, merely the intervening voluntary decisions of third parties.
The decision below contradicts not only decades of firmly established precedent upholding consumer standing to challenge governmental interference in the marketplace. It squarely conflicts with recent Fifth and D.C. circuit decisions upholding consumer standing to challenge various applications of the same federal statute.
Left unchecked, the opinion below threatens to shut the courthouse door on a broad range of legitimate Article III cases and controversies. This Court’s review is warranted.
Alan Gura
May 28, 2013
MICHELLE LANE, AMANDA WELLING, MATTHEW WELLING, AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., v. ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit
[Gun laws in this country are really messed up. This is but one of many, many instances where the Second Amendment is treated like a violently abused person of color that most people want to ignore. People know it’s wrong. People know it’s going on. But almost no one wants to do anything about it and many people try to prevent others from doing the right thing.
This has to stop. Alan Gura and SAF are on the leading edge of bringing the bigots, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.—Joe]
Yesterday a new Huffman came into the world with the birth of my grandson. I joked on Twitter:
I became a grandfather at 3:13 on June 13, 2013. No name yet. He has two black cats at home so I’m proposing “Lucky”. pic.twitter.com/BseuMzy9AK
— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 13, 2013
Happy times. I was going to Idaho to spend time with my Dad for Father’s Day and share pictures, etc.
I got a call from my brother Doug this morning. His son, Brad, died in his sleep last night. He was 22 years old.
Brad Huffman with his nephew Jared.
He didn’t smoke, drink, or do drugs. No known health issues.
This is really messed up. This isn’t the way things are “supposed” to happen. He just finished college. He had a good job. He was considering taking over the farm when Doug and Gary retired.
As Barb L. pointed out when I talked to her about it, “It’s so terrible, one Huffman enters the world and another leaves.”
Fade in
INT – DAY – Engineering
Stenson and his team look tired, unshaven, and excited.
They have clearly been hard at work a while, and are looking forward to a real test. The readouts are all in the green. Most are steady, some are fluctuating a bit. The sound of the drives is an intense, slightly pulsing hum. Stenson nods in approval at what he sees. Continue reading
Only ridiculous and hysterical people oppose gun registration, so far as I’ve seen.
There has been no sound argument against it presented.
Miss Esther P. Codwalloper
Comment to Gun control groups plan to try, try again
June 11, 2013
[I guess Miss Codwalloper hasn’t read the story of The Belgium Corporal. Or perhaps her case of cranial rectum inversion is so advanced she hasn’t heard how the IRS abused it’s powers. And she had to have totally missed out on the failed Canadian gun registry.
Then there is the little case of U.S. v. Haynes where it was ruled unconstitutional that convicted felons could be required to register their firearms.
I have to conclude Codwalloper has nothing but crap for brains.—Joe]
As everyone knows perfectly well, we must respect all other cultures. Quaint, foreign cultures have a LOT to teach us. Why, you could spend a lifetime studying just one other culture and never learn enough about it. They’re like the Amazon jungle – full of untold treasures, if only we could find a way to open ourselves to them.
Furthermore, and as we all know perfectly well, the idea that people around the world could possibly learn anything beneficial from American culture is not only preposterous in the extreme, it is unbelievably arrogant and bigoted. Why, to even THINK that that WE have anything to offer the world is just sick. It should be illegal.
As we all know perfectly well, we must respect every nation’s sovereignty. It only makes sense. Every nation has the right to self determination, including oppressive, murderous authoritarian slave states. It is their people’s natural right to live under such conditions and it would be pure arrogance and shameless aggression for us to even think of trying to change them. If you say so much as one word to the contrary, you are a disgusting pig.
Furthermore, Americans are arrogant and bigoted if they wish to enforce any semblance of American national sovereignty. What a bunch of heartless pigs we are for even thinking the words “American sovereignty”. There is rightly no such thing. We should be, no, we had damned well better be, ashamed of ourselves. Everyone knows this perfectly well.
Last night Barb L and I were hanging out with a bunch of friends. The woman who, a few months ago, reported breast enlargement after frequent “Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything” treatments was there. She was telling all her friends, “See! Look at this! I went from an ‘A’ cup to a ‘C’!” “And”, she continued, pointing to her boyfriend, “It’s all because of him!” At first people thought he had paid for a boob job. Nope; It was the continuing application of the treatments advocated by Dr. Joe.
Apparently five minutes of continuous orgasms once a day (she claims, “I didn’t even know that was possible!”) for a few months stimulates enough hormones to dramatically affect breast size. She says she is continuing the treatments and is increasing the frequency of treatments to twice a day. She went on to say, perhaps jokingly, that she anticipates another increase of two cup sizes in a few more months.
Since she gives Dr. Joe partial credit I asked for pictures. This evening I received this picture:
Yeah. Not quite what I was hoping for either.
Entirely by coincidence I stumbled across this blog post yesterday. She references Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras.
She claims:
And of course there are the obvious conclusions that a guy like me would love to endorse but further research on my part turns up this information:
The book’s claim that bras cause breast cancer has been dismissed by the medical and scientific communities; the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institutes of Health have all concluded that there is no link between bra use and breast cancer.
Heavy sigh. I’m probably too honest. I’ve been accused of that before.
If anyone gave a damn about the poor, poor, downtrodden Mexicans, they’d be asking why Mexico is such f^<ked up crap-hole of a country that people are so desperate to get out of it. They’d be asking themselves what might be done to fix it.
If anyone cared about people having a place to escape to, they'd be spending all their time shoring up, teaching and defending the American principles of liberty.
But they don't. Far from it, which proves they're full of shit and couldn't care less about Mexicans, or about oppressed people anywhere.
In all the talk about the latest scandals involving the targeting of political enemies by government, the arming of criminal gangs and Islamist groups, and government spying on American citizens, there is a lot of back and forth about security verses privacy and so on.
All of it misses the main point, the preverbal elephant in the living room– Our government can and currently does consider patriotic, pro constitution citizens a greater threat than practically anything else.
While sheepishly looking away from the Fort Hood shooter’s jihad talk, while twiddling their thumbs regarding the warning signs prior to the Boston bombing, they were crawling up the assholes of tea party groups, and targeting states like Colorado and Texas to reorient the political landscapes there.
If you’re a strong, self sufficient, productive, independent thinker who loves the American ideals, YOU are the enemy of this government. Your country is the enemy of this government. The jihadists provide a convenient excuse to have the power infrastructure in place and to build on it, to help keep constitutional limits to a minimum. To maintain this charade, they actually need the occasional terrorist attack. They need a certain amount of crime, unemployment, border insecurity and inflation.
Without pain, suspicion, fear, frustration, demoralization, anger, miseducation, dependency, hopelessness and chaos, they are nothing. In short; they’re waging a multi-front war against America’s founding principles. Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out.
As painful as it may be to face up to it, we must if there is to be any solution. The first step in solving any problem is to admit you have it (or that it has you). We certainly will never solve any problem we’re unwilling to define and address openly.
This has been passed around for a while now, and it’s fascinating.
A certain cyber spook who shall remain nameless at this juncture told me about this sort of data analysis many years ago. It was just one or two little sentences along the lines of, “You would be AMAZED at the sort of things “they” can find out about you.” As I say; that was many years ago, and orders of magnitude in increased capability have been achieved since. As a merchant having done installment sales for more than a decade at that time, I had a database of my own, consisting of thousands of accounts, and immediately could see the power of what on the surface would seem like rather mundane and mostly useless points of information.
BUT, when you ask the right questions, and can sort by multiple data fields, WOW! We used it to make buying decisions, which were extremely important and had to done months in advance of peak selling seasons, and so it involved recent history and long term trends. It was also extremely useful in predicting patterns and indicators of contract violations. If I told you half of that stuff I’d be branded a scumbag, a bigot and a general son of a bitch. Its one and only purpose though was to avoid going bankrupt– You make the wrong decisions and you’re stuck with major inventory you can’t pay for, or you get it out the door and don’t get paid for it, and so you can’t pay for it.
So yes; we profiled in a very big way, you could say. At one time the default rate was so bad that we required a credit check of every prospective customer, but with analysis of a large enough database were able to do far better by asking for only a few simple bits of information.
Learning important things doesn’t need to come from positive data either. That is to say, what isn’t there can be as useful as what is there, when forming the kinds of association tables in the link, or plotting behavior patterns. For example; knowing those times when someone is unaccounted for (enter the Smart Grid, to know when someone is not at home), when compared to certain events, over time, can tell you a whole lot.
So I now wonder what a look at the metadata in the time and place of Jesus (arguably one of the most influential people in human civilization) would show. How about Bedford Falls of “It’s a Wonderful Life” (thoughbeit a fictional town)? In that story, you could say that Clarence showed George Bailey where he fit in the metadata analysis.
The Soviets, using infiltrators, both of the overt and the covert kind, were able to come up with their various arrest and kill lists in much the same manner.
That brings us to another issue, that being the concept of the inception i.e. a planted idea– The tiny seed of an idea that can germinate in the minds of people, multiply and grow into something large. The looks into associations in the link are all very interesting, but being able to predict or pinpoint inception sources is also very interesting.
Reading about the various groups and group associations in the link got me to thinking about the modern version of the 1700s pub. You’re looking at it. Sort of, but it’s much more open to the world.
I was also struck by the modern lack of such clubs and associations. We’re a much more fragmented society. We don’t meet with our neighbors much at all anymore, whereas it used to be common. We often don’t know anything about them.
But your government sure as hell can find out.
And I submit that this is by design. It’s either by the design of mere mindsets, which will reflexively respond in predictable ways, or by some mastermind scheme. I say it’s a combination of both, each nourished by the other.
Call it a leap into Crazyland if you like (I’ll be quick to say I told you so, later) but looking at the data points over my lifetime, things make a lot more sense if one assumes that our government is in a full-on war against the ideals and principles, the foundation of the U.S. and has been for decades. When other people are saying “W. T. F.!???” and getting all exasperated and confused, I’m saying, “Well sure. It fits perfectly don’t you know.”
Try it. Ask yourself what institutions, traditions and associations would be under attack or already under control if our own government were at war against the American founding principles and the American economy. What groups would be funded worldwide, which ones given a pass, and what groups would be targeted for degradation, intimidation or destruction. What industries would be targeted for nationalization? Yup. Gotcha. On all counts.
So accept it. Then you won’t be surprised or confused anymore. The specific organization of this war isn’t so important, not so much as that you realize it’s a war. And we’re losing, mainly because we’ve not been willing to face up to it’s full import. It’s too crazy. Too horrible. We can’t go there. We’re cowards. Look and listen to the pundits. Any of them, no matter how great you think they are. They’re giving you data points that they themselves are unwilling to connect. We’re all afraid and so we’re very easy to distract. Oh look! Gays!
