Fade in
EXT – Day – dry gulch road
Helton is walking up a road in a small, deep, dusty gulch, sparse bushes and bare rock around him. He is sweating, and it looks hot. The sun beats down. As he comes around a bend he sees a group of six men ahead, working together with hand tools building a gate and part of a stone wall across the wash, looking like they could be right out of the 10th century. Continue reading
You need to turn down your crazy-magnet.
Robert Slaughter (@bobslaughter)
Tweeted on March 12, 2013 in response to More stalker activity.
[If he only knew the total sum of crazy people in my life he would think I have a herd of recruiters out looking for crazy people and sending them my way.
I actually asked my counselor why there were so many crazy people attracted to me and why I was, in many cases, attracted to crazy women. With her help I think I have solved the later problem. I suspect there is no practical, moral, and legal solution to the first problem.—Joe]
Fade in
INT – DAY – Eridani Parts Depot Office
Helton is in a modest office at a space-port / bone-yard, which is cluttered with various machine parts, electronics, shelves, and ship-related oddments. There are two desk, only one is occupied by a young man in plain cloths eying the e-reader in his hands. Helton sits opposite. Continue reading
Trying to argue abstract concepts like right and wrong or constitutionality with most Americans is a waste of time. Few believe in right or wrong, and fewer still have any conception of the Constitution as a contract between the generations.
Clayton E. Cramer
January 18, 2013
Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic.
[I can’t say that I disagree. But to agree with him sucks me into depression and despair. If right and wrong are beyond most Americans then are not also facts and fallacies, truth and falsity beyond them as well? Unfortunately I have substantial data to back up that claim.
See also Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1). A case can be made, as Rand does, that what Cramer states as fact can be explained by the lack of sound philosophy being taught to our children for the last 50 or more years.—Joe]
If you have been following along I have a “stalker” of sorts.
Background:
At 3:31 this afternoon I got a call from 630-489-9064. I didn’t recognized the number and didn’t catch the name they gave me. He ignored my attempts to repeat himself.
The bottom line was they claimed to be representing someone who was going to sue me for “information on your blog” and that I would be required to show up in California for the lawsuit.
I question the validity of this. I find it difficult to imagine a lawyer would take the case since no false statement of fact was made. Further confirmation of this hypothesis is that the number is not that of a law office. It is the same number that was used to deliver the threat on February 26th.
At 3:50 I received two more text messages from 619-646-7526 (this is the same phone number he used to call and sent me the text messages on February 18th):
I am suing you for internet defamation for eleven million dollars. Your site unlawfully placed information about myself that led to me being fired
And:
See you in court really soon buddy
I suppose it is possible the blog post contributed to him losing a job but I am of the opinion, if in fact he did lose a job, that the main factor is that he has way too many screws loose.
Fade in
INT- DAY – Starship liner dining room
Helton sits at a table with a half-dozen other passengers. Dinner is being served. A couple of tables over near the door, Bipasha is also being served, studiously ignoring him. At her table seem to be a collection of dignitaries, with fancy clothes and a couple in some sort of uniform. Light Bollywood-bluegrass music plays in the background, and there is chatter filling the air as well. A uniformed ships officer comes into the room, looks about, walks by Bipasha and goes up to Helton, and leans forward to whisper into his ear. Continue reading
Am I the only one convinced that once scientists figure out how to fix small penises/masculinity issues, the NRA will dissipate? #GunControl
Jola Mehmeti (@JolaMehmeti)
Tweeted on January 11, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
Fade in
INT – Night- Helton’s cabin
Low angle camera shot with his desk in the foreground in dim light, and bunk in the background. On the desk is the medallion that the monk gave him. Helton lays in bed under a light blanket. He tosses and turns. Continue reading
A combination of an exponential decrease in cost and an exponential increase in production would make Moore’s law and Wright’s law indistinguishable, as originally pointed out by Sahal. We show for the first time that these regularities are observed in data to such a degree that the performance of these two laws is nearly the same. Our results show that technological progress is forecastable, with the square root of the logarithmic error growing linearly with the forecasting horizon at a typical rate of 2.5% per year. These results have implications for theories of technological change, and assessments of candidate technologies and policies for climate change mitigation.
Béla Nagy
J. Doyne Farmer
Quan M. Bui
Jessika E. Trancik
2012
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress
[I have two observations.
One; This is awesome! A variation of Moore’s Law applies to, apparently, all technology.
Two; It looks as if they had to make a tie in “climate change” to get National Science Foundation grant money. That’s really messed up. Government grants should not exist. The politics of research should succeed or fail using the money of someone other than that taken by gunpoint via taxes.—Joe]
Mark Twain said: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” I’ve seen a lot of examples of this in my life, and heard of more. I’m sure you have too. In fact, in installment 002 of “The Stars Came Back” Helton points out that a lot of time the so-called experts have really BAD plans, and that you can’t tell what the outcome of a lot of projects will be based on the credentials of the people starting it.(He is specifically talking about climate science, in fact)
The Climate debate is no different. There is a LOT of garbage out there (and I say this a a teacher with a cert that includes “Earth Science;” I’m in the “CO2 is plant food” camp) Then, along comes something from out of the dry fields that takes on directly one of those “common knowledge, common sense” things directly, and says, “We were wrong. The solution we have been pushing for decades is CAUSING the problem!” It takes some good sized balls, and a dose of humility the size of a Hollywood celeb’s coke habit, to make an admission like that. More so to take that fact, and a much better DEMONSTRATED solution, on the road.
We all know over-grazing causes land to turn into deserts, right?
Maybe not. Maybe the solution to desertification is to put MORE beef in the fields, and on the grill. It’s a win-win-win-win, meaning the lefties will HATE it, and fight it tooth and nail. But the guy makes a good case.
INT – night – Adelaide bar
Normal space-port area mid-range night-life bar. Dim. Locals sitting or standing around drinking, talking, playing cards, shooting pool, socializing. No strippers, though there are a few couples dancing in a small corner clearing. At a 4-seat table off to the side near a corner sit SGT Kaushik and CPL Kaminski out of uniform, facing away from the wall, talking in low tones over drinks. An ancient blotto drunk wanders around a little, then staggers over to their table, looking at them a little too closely.
Old Drunk: You… you’re from the ship… Continue reading
Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate, they have good handling, they’re light, they’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers or intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background. The peace of mind from having a big, scary-looking gun gives her courage when she’s facing hardened, violent criminals.
Gayle Trotter
Independent Women’s Forum Senior Fellow
January 30, 2013
Best lines from the gun violence hearing
[It’s bigger than a handgun but not so big as a shotgun which can be cumbersome in close quarters.
Think of it as a Goldilocks gun. It’s not too big. It’s not too little. It’s just right.—Joe]
Fade in
INT – night – the cramped quarters of Kat, the battalion Legal Officer.
Kat sits at her desk, leaning back in her chair, reading, door open.
Allonia steps up to the door.
Allonia: Knock-knock.
Kat: ‘Evening. Continue reading
He’s always had some odd songs, many of them are disturbing or off-beat. Again, another artist that doesn’t just write and sing popcorn-brained “oh, baby, do-it-to-me, baby!” songs I’ve always like singers with clear voices who are performing to sing, not scream or get autotuned into key. He doesn’t seem to have (at least to my ear) an amazing range or anything, but he uses what he’s got well.
Warren Zevon – Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner
Interesting pics from the era and the place being sung about. A turbulent time – the effects of European colonialism ending meeting the ideology of communism in a place ruled by tribalism and the inheritor of a thousand years of depredation by Arab and Islamic slavers. It’s testament to human toughness and pig-headedness that anyone survived there, and it is only a bad as it is, and not worse.
When you’re wearing a gun, you do not get upset if someone takes your parking space, or if someone cuts you in line. You have this quite noble sense of being the sheepdog, being the protector.
Dan Baum
March 6, 2013
What Liberals Need to Understand About ‘Gun Guys’
[H/T to Cargosquid for the email.
I don’t agree with everything he said in the article but I come close enough that I don’t think it is worth squabbling about. The above quote really resonated with me. I said essentially the same thing years ago and I’m pretty sure it was in a Massad Ayob book that I read something similar as well.—Joe]
At the “urging” of ubu52 I finally decided to elaborate a bit on an edgy meme I’ve been pushing for quite some time. I’ve been saying something to the effect that people advocating for or enforcing anti-gun laws should be tried, convicted, and punished under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. These are, essentially, laws that prohibit conspiracy to infringe the rights of others which are secured by the Constitution.
I’ve long known that those laws are not going to be enforced against anyone anytime soon. I’m pretty sure there are even some laws that give immunity to government officials under many circumstances.
I don’t care.
I’m taking a long term view of things. There have been many instances throughout history where activities that were perfectly legal or at least accepted by all “right thinking folks” became politically out of favor. Then, as long as the statute of limitations had not expired, prosecutors found pre-existing laws to enforce and punish those who engaged in the activity. The most famous example of this is probably the Nuremberg Trials.
Examples exist in our country too.
Lynching blacks 75 years ago was technically illegal but the risk of prosecution and conviction was pretty low. Decades later some of those people were convicted of murder.
The perpetrators of the internment of Japanese were never brought to justice but, decades later, payments were made to those people who were put into the camps.
Ubu52’s point in regard to people advocating for gun control is:
But they should have the freedom to do that, right? This is the USA, isn’t it? Joe is saying that they shouldn’t have the freedom to do whatever they want. I think he’s wrong.
At first glance, in this context, I’m pretty certain nearly everyone would agree with her. But, in todays context, what would be the legal response to advocating riots, lynching blacks, and assassinating politicians? Anyone doing that would be running a serious risk of prosecution if they or people they influenced began conspiring to implement some of those ideas.
The bottom line is that there are, and rightly so, limits to free speech. Those limits in general are, in our country and our time*, set at the point where someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated. The classic “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” says it more succinctly and less abstractly.
Think about that. The limits of free speech are the point at which someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated.
You see where I’m going now, right?
This is a very clear logical path to prosecuting anti-gun people. Those that object to this logic either don’t regard being able to keep and bear arms as a “real right” or they are being logically inconsistent with those limits to free speech in existing law.
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read enough court rulings to know that judges will almost always give at least lip service to logic. They may have to fabricate a logic scaffolding that only Rube Goldberg could admire but they will rule in a “logical” manner.
A logically consistent case can, and should, be made that advocating for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is no different than advocating for riots and lynching. People can and do die because they were denied their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is directly foreseeable that people will be injured because of people abusing their right to free speech.
The logic in my example is far, far less torturous that hundreds of court rulings. It could happen.
What I am trying to do with my “That will come up at your trial,”** quip is to change the culture such that it becomes possible to regard the deliberate infringement of other rights as a punishable offense. Yes, it’s sort of twisted in that I am advocating the restriction of one right to protect another right. It is not “twisted” in the sense that restricting the right to some sorts of speech it does not put people in danger of life or serious bodily harm such as restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms does.
Of course no judge today, or probably even ten years from now, will rule in such a manner. But I want the seeds planted. I want people to ask, “Why aren’t these people violating the law?” “Why aren’t these people being prosecuted?” I want the anti-gun people to pause and think about it.
I want to see the day, perhaps 20 years from now, when people are brought to trial for the crimes they are committing today. By the advocating the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they caused the foreseeable, needless, injuries and deaths of tens of thousands and they should be brought to justice for that.
Update: L. Neil Smith points out we could, literally, have our own Nuremberg Trials in the U.S.
*Kevin links to a fascinating post which ties into this topic. It makes you think about other times and places if you are interested in a much bigger picture. For example, imagine a cultural shift where the advocating of the right to keep and bear arms is a punishable offense.
**Thanks to Sean for that line even if it was in a completely different context.
I received the following email this afternoon:
Subject: Cell phone app where users mark gun free zones
I built a cell phone app called GunFreeZone that allows users to mark and share where gun free zones are and which stores are firearm friendly. The users can then make the decision whether to patronize that particular business or not. We launched about a month ago and are just trying to get the word out – if you would like to do a post about the app, I can get you whatever other info you need (if you want graphics and so on).
The website is www.GunFreeZoneApp.com in case you’re curious.
Thank you very much for your time and response,
John Peden
The website indicates support for Android, iPhone and iPad. And it is free.
Nothing yet for Windows Phones.
At a rally for “gun violence” prevention:
In the middle of the program we had three songs by Eugene singer/songwriter PeterAlmeida, who coordinated the musical portions of the event, including a sing-along with John Lennon’s “Imagine.”
Wow! Maybe next time they should also visualize world peace, or is it whorled peas?
These people really are into the “feelings” aspect of things. It’s no wonder they can’t distinguish between making some people feel better and people being physically safer.
The stereotype of them being disconnected from reality has just been validated.
Fade in
INT – day – engineering
The Engineering Command Center a cramped-feeling, long, machinery and control panel filled room on the top deck, over the cargo bay. Stenson is looking at several screens full of readouts. There are tool-boxes and a generally crowded-but-organized appearance to the room. Helton walks in.
Helton: So, how’s progress? Continue reading
What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself.
Every witness that has come up here tonight, they want to feel unintimidated and feel free to debate freely on a college campus. And having you have the right to defend yourself against a violent attacker weighs more for them than for you and the right to self-defense. And for that, I apologize.
Ted Harvey
Colorado Republican state Senator.
March 4, 2013
COLORADO DEM TO RAPE SURVIVOR: A GUN WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED YOU AGAINST RAPIST BECAUSE ‘STATISTICS ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE’
[Some people are taking this statement out of context and using just the first paragraph. I too did this on Facebook. I now believe this is wrong.
Taken in the context of this lead in to the quote above things take on a different flavor:
Republican state Sen. Ted Harvey took a shot at Democrats’ gun control efforts, telling Collins that the point of Colorado’s proposed ban on firearms on campus is to make sure people aren’t “uncomfortable.”
Hence it appears to me that Harvey was explaining the stupid, callus, and indefensible position of the anti-gun people. Many people claim they have a right to not be offended or that gun owners make them uncomfortable and government should ease their discomfort. And this was the case in the hearing and Harvey was justified in calling them out for it.
You don’t have a right to not be offended. You have no more business asking the government to make you feel better by restricting the rights of gun owners than you do asking the government to forbid people of color from using the same water fountains, restrooms, and swimming pools or mixed race couples from using the same restaurants as you.—Joe]