Second Amendment Infringements in a Nutshell

Posted on by

This one, possibly from Daniel Nauenburg, together with this classic from the Half Hour News Hour, tell you just about everything you’ll ever need to know about the subject of gun restrictions.  Add one more, illustrating what governments have done to their disarmed populations, and you’d have all the bases covered in just a few minutes.

The moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-rights movement would be laughable so long as it never gained any traction.  As it is, there remains justice to be done, wrongs to be righted where possible, thousands of laws to be repealed, and government agencies to be disbanded.  When can the healing begin?

Casting for New TV Show about Disaster Survival

Posted on by

I can sort of figure out why this email was sent to me. But I’m not the person they are looking for:

Hello,

I’m currently casting for a pilot television show about preppers/survivalists. I think you may be a great resource for finding well prepared people, who would be open to appearing on camera. I’m wondering if you would be willing to post this info on your blog or website, or just pass this info along to anyone you think would be interested.

The gist:
It’s a 30 minute show, and we will feature two stories. We are mostly interested in seeing what the person has prepared or prepped, and right now we’re specifically looking for someone with a stocked bunker or extensive prep. The idea is to meet the person and see what they’ve prepared, then bring in a survivalist expert to evaluate how long you could actually live for if a catastrophe were to happen.

The purpose of the show is not to exploit beliefs, we actually want to cast people who the viewers will be able to relate to. We also want to feature someone who has prepped extensively, either in the home, or in a bunker. We really want something visually stunning.

This has been extremely hard to cast because of the secretive nature of the people who are preparing–which is completely understandable. I am contacting you because I think it’s important to get the word out about survivalists/preppers–that they aren’t all crazy people, that most of them are smart, well-informed people who we could take a lesson from. And I am hoping you will be able to pass this info along if you know someone who may be interested in participating.

We can provide full anonymity, and compensation is $1000 for the person who is chosen.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time!

Michelle Reindal | producer | screaming flea productions |  mreindal AT sfpseattle.com

It’s not that I can’t keep the crazy away long enough or that I couldn’t pass for smart and or well-informed if I really wanted to. It’s that I finished my prep when I left the farm 35 years ago and then I moved out of my bunker and took up residence in the Clock Tower just last month.

A riot story from long ago

Posted on by

This came from the gun email list at work from Brennan B. Published with permission:

I had just moved to the U.S. and was attending U.C. Riverside at the time of the L.A. riots.  An RPD cruiser got flipped and burned in the shopping center across the street from my apt.  Roommate worked in an auto parts store over in Rubidoux (the closest thing Riverside’s got to Compton) but he wasn’t on shift those days.  We acquired plenty of beer before the stores closed and spent much of that time in lawn chairs on the roof drinking, listening to a portable radio, and watching the city burn.  It was nothing if not picturesque, especially after sunset.  I don’t have much to tell first-hand, but his work’s monthly staff meetings involved meeting up at our place, talking plenty of smack and drinking plenty of beer, so I heard all that they had to say on the subject.

Prior to this, the auto parts store where my roommate worked had been getting robbed pretty regularly every 3~6 months.  Less than a year before the riots one of the employees got beaten because the robbers didn’t believe that he couldn’t open the safe or get more than $20 out of it at a time.  Shortly thereafter the store manager and assistant manager, Carlos and some Korean guy whose name I forget, both got handguns and started carrying them regularly.  Everything was completely black-market, no paper trail, no permits, no nothing.  Like most folks in that neighborhood, honorable intentions or otherwise, I presume they saw little point in applying for a concealed carry permit since they would of course get denied anyway… and if they were ignoring that one particular asinine gun law, why bother with the rest of them?  Hard logic to argue against in a neighborhood where following the law very likely meant compromising one’s life, and apparently no beat cop in his right mind was interested in driving around demanding to see people’s CCW permits anyway.

Anyway, some guy tried to rob the store shortly thereafter on a day when both managers were on shift, and one was crouched down stocking behind some shelves.  In no time the robber got bum-rushed, disarmed, pistol-whipped, dragged out back at gunpoint, beaten like a piñata and left in the dumpster to sleep it off and reconsider the poor decision-making process that had brought him to that unhappy point in his life.

Then when the riots hit a mob came into the parking lot with Molotov cocktails in hand screaming that they were gonna burn it all to the ground.  Carlos and whassisname came out to discuss the issue with their pistols tucked Mexican-carry into the front of their waistbands in plain view, and asked who wanted to light up first.  The mob abruptly decided they had something more important to burn down elsewhere and went on their way.

Though I never asked, I was completely confuddled as to why these guys risked their lives like that for an employer that didn’t treat them particularly well in the first place and, had the regional office ever caught word of such goings-on, would certainly have fired them all in a nanosecond, done everything possible to sell them out to the police for maximum jail time, and anything else that might make an appropriate example of such vigilantism.  I also wondered if the regional manager ever pondered the question of why those few stores in that mini-shopping center were the only ones for blocks around that didn’t at the very least have some broken windows.  …in fact I remember hearing that something like 80% of the [national chain] Auto Parts in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties got torched, and this one was in one of the worst neighborhoods of any of them.

It was only much later that I realized it had nothing to do with loyalty to their employer.  Rather, it was for themselves and the workers for which they felt genuinely responsible.  I think they simply recognized that they spent a large portion of their waking lives there, and that no one was going to take care of the chronic crime for them, so they finally decided to let the neighbors know not to bring trouble around their doorstep anymore because they were sick of dealing civilly with uncivil individuals.

Objectively speaking, their revised approach to the problem seemed to work out pretty well.  My roommate transferred to another store but kept in touch.  We even still occasionally hosted some staff meetings from the old store, and word was that work life had become blessedly boring following those two confrontations.

There really is no socially acceptable moral to this story.  Actually in retrospect I have to say this saga planted one of the many seeds of cognitive dissonance in my mind that [much] later blossomed into a full-fledged rejection of the “guns are bad, m’kay?” stereotypes that inform us as to what sort of people carry guns (especially illegally), and how tragically this was all supposed to have turned out both times.  Though I’m still not inclined to press my luck with the black-market guns and unlicensed carry.

I think the moral to the story is that morality and the law only have a slight positive correlation and there is sufficient data to support the hypothesis that willfully breaking the law is sometimes the correct thing to do.

Quote of the day—Rush Limbaugh

Posted on by

Obamageddon. Barackalypse Now. The only silver lining I can find is that as far as 2012 goes, Obama’s a Debt Man Walking. Anybody want to tell me he’s not landslidable now?

Rush Limbaugh
August 8, 2011
Quoted in a Tea Party newsletter.
[Maybe. The election is a 15 months from now. 15 days is a long attention span for many voters.

And silver lining? Nope. With the current price of silver that is way too optimistic of an outlook. I could believe a lead lining. That would have sort of a tarnished silver look to it. I mean really–will there be a replacement available that is any better?

If I could vote for anything right now it would be for the Feds to just go away. Or maybe to throw about 90% of the Federal politicians into a tar pit and dump a few truck loads of chicken feathers on top. Flaming cow dung on top that is optional.

The states can take care of themselves. If some of the states go bankrupt they can sell off their assets. Why not put city, county, and maybe even state governments up for auction? Who would disagree with the claim that Apple, Google, and Microsoft could do a better job of running there own cities than the bozos that try to do it now.

Forget elections for the government entities that went broke. Sell them off to whoever wants to have them. Let people run them however they want as long as people can move out with their property if they want.

What do you want to bet that states of BillGatesand SteveJobs will be much better places to do business, live, raise your kids than the People Republic of GeorgeSoros? And the village of RonJeremyVille will have a night life and adult entertainment which will make sin city Las Vegas look like the city of angels. It would be the most densely populated patch of land on the planet that no one claims to have ever visited.

I’m more than a little cynical right now.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

The disease is socialism. Every little bit of it, and the perpetrators aren’t on the front lines. They use the poor for their dirty work. So regardless of the system to be used, the perpetrators, who tend to work from cover and often hold official positions, are the ones who need “schooled”. Go after the queen bee and you get the whole hive.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
August 10, 2011
Comment to What caliber for riots?
[In essence I agree and have a big blog post in mind about this. My disagreement with the above is that removing the “queen bee” will not be of any use if there isn’t an appropriate replacement for “her”. In the case of Europe and probably several states in the U.S. the great majority of the population cannot comprehend a free society.

I remember having a conversation with one person who insisted that “someone or something” had to be “on top”. It was either government or God that must rule the people. He didn’t trust government, governments were corruptible and had a strong tendency toward evil. Therefore it had to be God that ruled. Our government must be subservient to (his, of course) God.

I explained that is not how our government was set up and it didn’t have to be that way. Our government was found by the people and for the people with only certain enumerated powers that were granted to it by the people. Any involvement by god(s) was merely as an observer. The “one on top” is the people that granted the powers to the government.

The concepts presented yield a confused look and a mild protestation that “the people” couldn’t exercise power sufficiently wisely for that to actually work. The discussion was dropped after that because I think the light bulbs were starting to come on with the realization that god(s) and governments always communicate through people anyway so the situation wasn’t any better with his view of the world.

I think the same mindset exists in the socialists/progressives/leftists. They think of it as their people or their opponents ruling over the losers rather than a free society with government defending the rights of everyone.—Joe]

Capitalism: A Necessity

Posted on by

My 17 year old wrote this essay for his English class this summer.  While the Brits are rioting over what kind of socialism they want, and American public employees have taken to the streets for more of our money, calling for revolution if they don’t get 100% of the coerced funds they think they want, this is a timely piece.  Advocating freedom is always timely though.  I didn’t help him a whit (other than to try to raise him right) and here I left in the parts with which I had minor gripes over syntax, or over a word or two;

Capitalism: A Necessity

We live in a world full of criminals, fools, rapists, murderers, and countless other evil-doers. Many of us are left to deal with the ramifications of these burdensome people. However, evil-doers are not the only issue; many well-intentioned people make mistakes that affect millions. In considering these seemingly never-ending problems of the world, one is left with quite a dismal picture. The subsequent thought is, how can these problems be solved? Is it possible? How can we make society better? There are many ideas about how to best deal with society, some of them promising to perfect it and eradicate crime and evil. In all reality, there will always be evil and evildoers. However, a condition can be imposed which makes life better for all of us, protecting us, and allowing us the freedom to think, create, and trade with others. This condition is Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system of government which allows individuals the most possible freedom while, at the same time, protecting them from the potential harm of others. This is because its main function is the government recognition [of] individual rights. Individual rights are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (Rand, Man’s Rights). Among them are:  that a person has the right to their  own life, that a person has the right to liberty (or the freedom to think and act), and that a person is free to “pursue happiness,” or to do what they please. A person assumes these rights with the caveat that they may not violate any other person’s rights. A system such as this protects individuals, while still allowing them freedoms proper for their survival.

All rights are actually corollaries of the right to life. Man is a living creature; naturally, he must have the freedom to perform all actions necessary to stay alive. Also, Man is a thinking creature; he relies on his creative faculty to produce the tools necessary to live. Therefore, in order to have the right to his own life, he must have the freedom not only to create, but to own what he creates. Otherwise, he is a slave, subject to the whim of a master (Rand, Man’s Rights 322) and has no right to his own life. Essentially, all other rights ensure Man’s right to life which, in itself, is a basic condition for his survival.

Capitalism holds that government’s only enterprise is the protection of these basic rights. It was also the form of government originally intended for the United States by its founders. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence). It is clear in this excerpt that the founders of the United States thought of government as a protector of the people rather than a controller or a regulator.

A well known  aspect of Capitalism is the absence of economic regulation, or a free market system. No economic regulation can exist in a capitalistic system because it inherently inhibits people’s right to free trade – therefore violating their right to life. A common argument against Capitalism is that a lack of regulation would allow business to grow exorbitantly, take advantage of society, cause poverty and contribute to a general degradation of people’s lifestyle. However, in a free market, if a business is not practicing in a manner that is beneficial to the public, a niche is created for another business to enter, and the public is free to boycott the business in support of an emerging one. As long as a business does not violate another’s rights, they are free to act as they wish. However, in the situation where a business is violating other’s rights, judicial action would be appropriate, just as with any other criminal.

Capitalism is the only system of government that does not require, and in fact prevents, control by force. It ensures that no force may ever be initiated and that the only appropriate force is self-defense. The only method by which any trade may occur is by mutual consent – a transaction in which both parties involved must agree. In this system, it is inherent that both parties benefit; both consensually walk away with something they consider more valuable than what they traded. Other systems of government such as Socialism and Fascism are based on the notion that each individual in society is less valuable than a “public good” and that force may be initiated on society for the sake of this “public good.” In reality, this translates to an ever-growing government control of the citizens. These systems, unlike Capitalism, fail to recognize that society is actually a group of individuals rather than a single entity. In a capitalistic system, individuals are free to act in their best interest and are barred from violating another’s right to do so, creating an optimal situation for the success of society.

An argument made against Capitalism is that it inherently results in people unable to take care of themselves being left to starve because of the lack of redistribution programs such as welfare. However, in a Capitalist system, people are free to help other people as they wish. If an individual believes another person or group should receive help, then that individual can provide monetary support or bolster more widespread support. Additionally, charity organizations can flourish and help millions worldwide. By no means does Capitalism prevent needy people from receiving help. It actually works more efficiently than a welfare system; Capitalism does not support people who, entirely capable of caring for themselves, decide instead to take advantage of a government redistribution system unless other people willfully decide to support them. In a Capitalistic system, force upon any party is forbidden because it violates people’s rights, so redistribution is impossible.

Capitalism is the system that best allows man to produce wealth – anything of value which helps improve his survivability. It does this by giving man the freedom to think, discover, and act on his own volition without oppression from any entity (government, criminals, etc.). Man did not evolve as a highly specialized community species such as bees or ants. By nature, man works best if he is allowed to make his own choices. The early caveman did not create the spear because his only motive was to work for a “public good” – to improve the lives of other cavemen – he created the spear out of his self-interest in his own survival. Even so, the result was an improvement in mankind as a whole; because they saw the first, other cavemen’s lives were improved by using his idea for themselves. Capitalism does not ensure a perfect society. Rather, it ensures the conditions which best allow society to function. It does this by protecting Man’s rights.

 

Works Cited

Decaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776). Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Appendix: Man’s Rights.” Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967. Print. This chapter specifically outlines the nature of man’s rights and their necessary existence.

The public college teacher gave him a “B”.  I’m a little bit suprised she didn’t lose composure and start breaking things.  Maybe she’s been in contact with her higher-ups, trying to find ways to deal with this problem “under the radar”.

What caliber for riots?

Posted on by

Like a lot of other people I’ve been thinking about what would be the best defense against the riots like are being experience in the U.K. and the flash mobs in some U.S. cities.

Recently someplace, which I can’t find right now, I proposed a couple of fully loaded USPSA Grandmasters could rapidly educate a crowd on the downside of violence against innocent people.

Yesterday Phil advocated 9mm because of the greater capacity.

While I think those ideas have potential the rioters in the U.K. have been dispersing at the first sign of law enforcement then regrouping at another location (apparently many of these “poor” people have cellphones). Plus no matter how many rounds in whatever caliber you have when you are facing off against hundreds of people the odds of getting hurt yourself is significantly greater than zero. This calls for a different weapons platform.

I think the right caliber for the task is a couple of AC-130s.

Quote of the day—Chas

Posted on by

Their extremist rhetoric against the Tea Party is outrageous. People who peacefully participate in the political process are not terrorists. Let me say that again, since important things are worth repeating: Peaceful participation is not terrorism.

This is an administration that won’t call terrorists, terrorists, but they have no problem slapping that label on the American middle class, which kinda lets ya know who they really regard as being the enemy.

Hint: It’s not the jihadis, with whom they share an anti-American agenda. It’s the people who want America to succeed with whom they have a problem and with whom they do not share an agenda.

If we’re terrorists, then shoot us, or shut up and stop making fools of yourselves!

Chas
August 8, 2011
Comment to You’re all a big bunch of meanies!
[As son James pointed out after I showed this comment to him last night, “Well… we are their enemies—ideologically.” Yup. And as Lyle (and here) and history frequently points outs, when the left starts loosing they do crazy, scary, violent stuff. We may be headed for those times where they do treat us as terrorists. The rhetoric is ramping up for it.—Joe]

Violent Socialists

Posted on by

But I repeat myself.  Spending most of the article sarching in vain for a coherent thought, the author eventually slips in her take on the UK riots;

The failure of the markets goes hand in hand with human blight. Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution. After the Great Crash, Britain recalibrated, for a time. Income differentials fell, the welfare state was born and skills and growth increased.

Damn those pesky income differentials– they did it!  She had to hide her editorial in ~1,000 words of mish-mash.  That one paragraph would have sufficed.  See; that their socialist democracy failed to crush productivity overnight in the first half of the 20th century is proof that it is good and that we need much more.

This demonstrates a couple of my old catch phrases;
The socialists are angry because the socialists in power aren’t socialist enough.
When socialism fails, freedom is to blame, and the answer is more socialism.

When the Teaparty holds a peaceful rally, advocating liberty and denouncing tyranny, leaving the rally site cleaner than they found it, they are guilty of inciting violence.  When socialists riot, loot and burn, calling for revolution, it is because of the income differential– we should listen to them because they represent our future.

Meanwhile in the U.S., our Republican Party leaders, thinking themselves the oh-so-much-more-clever-than-thou pragmatists, are busy trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election season, figuring out how to please this group, gingerly, without overly offending that group, taking polls, doing market analysis, organizing think tanks and hiring image consultants (in other words; there isn’t a shred of seriousness or principle amongst the whole lot of them).

State Sponsored Media?

Posted on by

Speaking of the tools and mechanisms of oppression, have any of you noticed how many government or Ad Council ads there are on AM radio lately?  We’re being told where to find out how to raise our kids, fasten their car seats, talk to kids about drugs, notice the signs of a stroke (call 911) quit smoking, and ZOMG– be afraid of your food!  In the 20 minutes or so I listened to KMAX this morning, there were two or three government ads to one commercial ad.

Now; I haven’t looked into who runs the Ad Council or where its funding comes from, and I don’t know how many of the government ads are actually paid for as opposed to being forced as “public service announcements” but it’s looking more and more like there is already a mechanism in place to further control radio stations– threaten to their pull ads, which are becoming a majority of the ads on the air.

I thought y’all might want to look into this, as there has been “chatter” for years about how to clamp down on talk radio and yet no one is talking about the recent uptick in Big Brother ads.  I smell “Hope and Change” in this.

Quote of the day—Henry Mencken

Posted on by

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Henry Mencken
[I’m unable to find the date or the context but the ‘net seems unanimous in attributing it to Mencken.

Mencken makes a very important point whether it is a First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendment or natural rights issue. The oppressors make it difficult because they get to choose the “poster children” who will have standing to challenge the oppressive law. This is the main reason I am far more tolerant of the ACLU than many of those that I keep company with.—Joe]

Key-holing

Posted on by

I have known for a long time that often something strange happens out between 30 and 40 feet when shooting my STI Eagle 5.1 (chambered in .40 S&W). The groups get much larger. At about 20 feet I can almost keep it on ragged hole even when shooting unsupported. But at 40 feet it’s about 6” to 8” groups. At 75 feet they will just barely stay on an USPA target.

I went to the range today and finally figured it out. Below are three different bullet holes from a target at 75’ feet.

WP_000151(2)Web_2011

WP_000154(2)Web_2011

Some of the bullets are key-holing the target. This means the bullets are not stable in flight.

The same thing could be seen at 40’ but less frequently. On the 40’ target, which used a different type of paper you could actually see an imprint of the side of the bullet.

This was cheap “gun show ammo” in 180 grain FMJ but I’m pretty sure it happens with at least some of my hand loads too.

I then tried some Winchester Ranger in 135 grain HP. It was a 16 shot 2” group at 40’. I tried Winchester Ranger in 180 grain HP with the same result; a 2” group at 40’.

I have some 180 grain Montana Gold HPs that I should load up and see if they give me the better results. Fellow shooter Don W. told me a year or more ago that he did experiments with various bullets with his STI chambered in .40 S&W and the Montana Gold 180 grain HP gave him much better accuracy than the FMJs.

I think I will have a chance to do the tests next weekend.

Same planet but different worlds

Posted on by

As everyone knows by know S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating after the debt ceiling was raised.

I then heard some pundits on the radio saying this was the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. If they had raised the debt ceiling earlier instead of engaging in brinkmanship it would have happened. The increased interest rates the Federal government will now have to pay will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each year and taxpayers can “thank” the Tea Party for that.

The major news media gleefully repeats this line:

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

WHAT?!!! Where are their layers of editorial oversight?

Did anyone bother to actually read what S&P said was their reason for the downgrade? It was right there in their press release (emphasis added):

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

The rating was lowered because progress containing the growth in public spending is less likely that previous assumed. Who was it was trying to contain growth in public spending? Unless the media and the liberal politicians are living in a different world than I am that was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not sufficiently effective in reducing spending so S&P downgraded the debt rating.

Thomas Sowell has it right. There is no point talking to them. These people are suffering from Peterson Syndrome. They do not have the mental tools to determine truth from falsity and with the pedal to the metal they are driving the U.S. into a financial abyss.

Invest in food, gold, silver, and copper jacketed lead.

Update: The Washington Times, although somewhat more obliquely, says the same thing.

Update2: WizardPc has a humorous take on it.

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

It’s a shameful law. The gun lobby is determined to force guns into every corner of our society. That does not make us safer.

Dennis Henigan
Interim president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
August 6, 2011
South Florida cities, counties forced to scrap gun laws — NRA-backed state law forbids local regulation of firearms
[The law is not shameful. It’s shameful that Henigan’s organization even exists.

Henigan has it exactly backward. The “gun lobby” is slowly reducing the force that was determined to remove guns from every corner of our society. The only thing the “gun lobby” is forcing is for governments to stop using force against people who exercise constitutionally protected rights. It’s no different than repealing laws prohibited blacks from voting and it’s time for Henigan to face the music and shut down his organization. We need to move past this shameful chapter in our history and closing down the Brady Campaign would be a major step in the right direction.—Joe]

Too bad

Posted on by

Information Week says Windows Phone is likely headed for extinction:

Microsoft’s share of the smartphone market is plummeting at an alarming rate–so much so that the company’s last ditch effort to make an impact in mobility, Windows Phone 7, may be irrelevant by the time it manages to ship the much-anticipated Mango update and realize its partnership with Nokia later this year.

…

Mango’s debut should also coincide with the arrival of the first Nokia phones running Windows Phone 7, though Microsoft has yet to provide precise arrival dates for Mango or Nokia phones. Under a partnership announced last year, the Finnish phone maker is transitioning its entire smartphone line to Microsoft’s mobile OS.

Whether Windows Phone 7 is a legitimate player in the market by the time that happens remains to be seen. The current numbers suggest otherwise.

I was very proud of both my contribution and of the final product. I can’t speak for the iPhone but I have played with the Android enough to be convinced the Windows Phone has a better user interface. Barb has always said she didn’t want a fancy phone. She just wanted something really simple. I knew she wasn’t going to be very pleased when I got her one for Christmas. I was pretty sure she would eventually be happy with it but I had to get her something else to go with it or else I would be in trouble so I got her a Jeep. Now she loves the phone and she came up to speed on it really fast.

I now sometimes get a dozen or more text messages a day from her. With her previous phones the kids and I could sometimes get her to read text messages but sending them was exceedingly rare and usually accompanied with a bad mood. Now she even Tweets from her Windows Phone 7.

As I was leaving Microsoft in the middle of May I had some people inside and outside of Windows Phone who were in much better “positions to know” than I was tell me, “You are doing the right thing.” A lot of this was based upon the market acceptance of Windows Phone 7 as well as the crappy manager I had.

Microsoft might still pull it out but there are a lot of outside influences that Microsoft just doesn’t have that much control over like the number of external developers who support Windows Phone. And the carriers who might wonder why they are putting effort into supporting a smart phone with such a small percentage of the market.

It’s too bad. I think it’s a great phone and I’m look forward to the Mango update.

Monster Hunter books

Posted on by

I have finished Monster Hunter International and Monster Hunter Vendetta. I now have Monster Hunter Alpha on my Zune ready for my Monday morning commute. I’m really looking forward to it.

Son James thought there was a bit too much gun porn in MHI but since a lot of it was about STI handguns and Saiga shotguns (which I have) I found it well within tolerable limits.

We’re winning in Illinois

Posted on by

There are now law enforcement openly supporting concealed carry in Illinois:

The Illinois Legislature may still be divided on allowing residents to carry concealed weapons, but Fox Valley police chiefs and sheriffs are much less split.

Of the dozen area law enforcement leaders contacted by The Courier-News, none said they opposed concealed carry.

…

The Illinois Sheriffs’ Association long has been in favor of concealed carry. Last year, the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police went from “against” concealed carry to “neutral” — a significant change after years of opposition.

It will be a race between SAF/Gura and the Illinois legislature to see who brings home the prize. One thing is certain, the anti-gun people will soon be contemplating the whiskey and sleeping pills or maybe Tequila. Others will probably want to maintain a suicide watch but I think it will be best if we just keep advancing as fast as we can.

In a few months we can be advocating for the abolishment of NFA weapons as a cost saving measure. By then the ATF will be hurting so bad that they will agree to almost anything as long as they aren’t completely abolished.

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Posted on by

Fascitelli would have the world – or at least the Pacific Northwest corner – believe that just one more gun law, and a lot fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would be a panacea to the kinds of irrational violence witnessed recently at the Kent car show and a casino near Auburn.

He would gladly sacrifice our civil right to advance his political agenda. That may be okay in New York, but he’s on the wrong side of the Mississippi River to be pushing involuntary public disarmament.

Dave Workman
August 5, 2011
Question to CeaseFire president: Who is the real extremist?
[The Washington CeaseFire board president claimed the Second Amendment Foundation was an extremist organization. This is particularly amusing, as Workman points out, because SAF was on the winning side of  the Heller and McDonald decisions while the position advocated by Fascitelli was struck down. When the Supreme court disagrees with you might want to revaluate who you are calling an extremist.

Does anyone else keep seeing “Fascist” when they glance at the name “Fascitelli”? As a name for anti-gun advocate that has to rank right up there with Professor Bogus.—Joe]

Privacy issues

Posted on by

Numerous times I’ve posted half-baked concerns about our increasing loss of privacy and the dangers and even extreme dangers.

Some people have brought up good points and/or asked good questions and I will respond to those people then share further thoughts I’ve had on the topic.

Acksiom asks (after I said having a twin could be useful to raise reasonable doubt about who did what):

Joe, what kind of situations do you have in mind where that would be appropriate?  I can’t imagine any where I would want to raise reasonable doubt by blaming another innocent person, so I’m curious.

What if your employer is extremely conservative/liberal and a picture shows up of you at a gay-bar or sex shop/gun range or Tea Party rally? There are lots and lots of things of this nature. In the mild case they are things like pictures of a drunk, topless, woman at spring break 10 years ago who now wants to run for public office or be a Sunday School teacher. In the worst case we are talking matters of life and death, Jews in the Attic, type of things.

Alan states:

Privacy is a recent illusion caused by growing population and increased mobility.  Technology is allowing the return to the historical lack of privacy that has been the normal human condition for thousands of years.

You can’t fight it any more than the RIAA or MPAA can fight file sharing.  Better to start thinking how we’re going to adapt to everyone knowing everything.

In regards to his first point, it’s more like millions of years but that doesn’t distract from the validity of his observation. What is different now is that we don’t have a small homogenous tribe. We have an exceedingly diverse population with a powerful government.

In regards to his second point I’m not entirely convinced it is possible create an environment where “everyone knows everything”. And as long as an imbalance of knowledge exists there are “issues”. I am convinced that he is right about the analogy with the RIAA and MPAA. The “privacy gene” is not only “out of the bottle” the bottle has evaporated.

Sebastian posted (three+ years ago):

But in an information based society government will be able to know a lot about its citizens.  Our government probably knows more about its citizens than any other government in history.  There won’t be much means to avoid that.  Conversely though, information technology also makes it possible to know more about our government than any other people in history.  I would encourage and recommend anyone who’s interested in this topic to read David Brin’s The Transparent Society.

Tam stated (several months ago):

I think David Brin had it mostly right in The Transparent Society: This genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and the only non-Orwellian outcome will be if everybody has access to it.

Sebastian echoes (last night),

One of the sources I look to in this issue is David Brin’s “The Transparent Society”. I don’t think Brin is right about everything, but the fundamental idea that the loss of privacy isn’t such a big deal provided it’s applied equally in society, I think is a reasonable concept.

I responded (three+ years ago) by saying the politicians and government employees should go first and we will see how well that works out. The only thing I think I need to add to that post is that they should add real time location information to the collection of public servant information available to the general public.

We are entering uncharted territory. Never before has their been societies this diverse able to know this much about everyone else. Sure, if you go back far enough (it would not be necessary but just to make the point stick go back to where the family tree branching off of the apes) people didn’t have privacy when they had sex or were defecating let alone where they were or what sort of god(s) they did or did not worship. But in those days, with a much more homogenous society, it may not of mattered.

I say “may” because I wonder if such an open society was almost forced to be homogenous at a communistic lowest common denominator level. Perhaps a capitalistic/competitive society requires certain levels of privacy to function. My hypothesis is that trade secrets, secret contracts, and secret finances are necessary for a competitive society. Stated in the strongest (but perhaps indefensible) terms, if you don’t have privacy you cannot “get ahead”. A corollary that follows (perhaps also indefensible) is that if there is no privacy then society is economically doomed to some sort of tribal communistic system. Did the rise of commerce, technology and industry only come about because various tribes had privacy from one another?

Now there may be at least partial solutions to the economic hazards of a completely open society. Patents, for example, are intended to protect information that cannot be protected by trade secrets. Written agreements can be kept private unless a court order demands otherwise. But there are still many vulnerabilities when facial images or location data of people entering corporate headquarters reveals a connection between two or more companies that didn’t used to be there. Or your employer tracking after hours employee location data discovers a handful of engineers getting together at a bank and checking out empty office buildings together.

Imagine what can happen in political campaigns. Knowing who is talking to who gives someone tremendous information about what sort of issue are going to be important and how much money is going to be involved. Sure that information all comes out eventually but when you have the info weeks in advance it will make a huge difference.

Imagine the implications for stalkers. Anytime they wish to go on the hunt they leave their cell phones 50 miles away and know exactly where their prey settled down for the night.

Imagine the implications for an abused spouse trying to hide from their ex.

On a governmental scale the events are less likely but the consequences are catastrophic. Here is a scenario I heard outlined this morning. Monitoring of your water, electricity, and data (Internet) consumption shows a step increase. Examination of your communication traffic might well show that one or more people had a decrease in traffic therefore they are likely
the new residents in your home. Examination of transportation expenditures could confirm it. This fails my Jews in the Attic Test.

Imagine a scenario where a government is deadly hostile to gays (gun owners, Jews, blacks, Tea Party “terrorists”, Christian Fundamentalists, whoever). Public records (while I support gay marriage I sometimes wonder if it is a greater risk than people realize), blogs, and social networks, are scoured to identify the individuals. The communication traffic is examined and the leaders are easily identified even without knowing the content of the communication. Location information is then used in synchronized snatches at 3:00 AM. The plans for the snatch in any realistic “transparent society” would still be opaque because it would be protected out of concern for “nation security”.

Do you think it couldn’t happen in this country?

If so you have forgotten about the black lists in the 1950s. And the Japanese, German, and Italian internments which held over 100,000, of which about 60% were US citizens, during WWII. And you aren’t familiar with the Palmer Raids. Okay, the Palmer Raids were at 9:00 PM, not 3:00 AM. You have me there.

Those events are just the tip of the iceberg and  without computers. Imagine what a government could do with computers and far, far, more detailed information about our location, habits, and social networks.

Someone in law enforcement once told me that the government has a list of everyone in this country who has training as a sniper and “keeps close track of them” in what sounded like nearly daily updates on their locations and somewhat less frequent updates on their attitudes toward high level government officials. How many high-power rifle shooters also have their names on some list?

In a “transparent society” what does it matter if there are lists like that, right? You can have your lists too! But some lists are scarier than others and will always be secret for “reasons of national security”.

Although some have advocated deliberately adding noise to your digital footprint unless this is automatically done by your own computer at near zero cost per transaction you are soon going to get tired of the game. And if FinCEN can’t pierce the noise they will just make it illegal. And, as a person with a Masters degree in communication theory where we learned to pull signals out of noise, I don’t think it would be that hard to detect the noise, pull out the true signal, and then give greater attention to those people.

A few years ago I mentioned to someone in the banking industry that I did almost all my financial transaction in cash. Checks, credit and debit cards where used far less than most people. I was told that, for certain, put me on a list.

Perhaps my view is biased by reading too many books like Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Plotting Hitler’s Death, and Bloodlands—Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, but I contend a “Transparent Society” is very risky. I still don’t have any good answers short of “dropping off the grid” which just doesn’t scale. I have some possible answers which I would be glad to discuss in private but I just don’t have the time to implement them let alone deploy them on a scale where it could make a material difference even if they were effective and could avoid being declared illegal when detected.

The one method of last resort, a doomsday plan, which appears to be the least distasteful if things get really bad are the Second Amendment remedies. But even without formal gun and/or gun owner registration our society is already transparent enough that a “first strike” on the top 10,000 or so gun owners/activists with follow ups on a few hundred thousand more (remember the numbers from the WWII internment camps?) might be sufficiently effective to neutralize even it.

I’m told I’ll never have to worry about that. I suspect most of the people that tell me that are absolutely correct but for the wrong reason. I’ll be in the “first pass”.

Let them start with John Kerry

Posted on by

While I can understand the impulse if this were to be implemented I think it should be first applied to the likes of John Kerry who says stupid things like:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

This was in regard to the Tea Party who he claims “held the country hostage” during the debt ceiling debates.

“Everybody knows”? I would like to suggest Senator Kerry reexamine the last election results in terms of how many people believe what the Tea Party candidates have to say.