Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Why Should We Give The 'Dreamers' Citizenship?

If you think we should offer citizenship to illegal aliens, even just those who were brought here illegally by their parents, I think you should re-think the long term consequences of rewarding illegal behavior.

Do you think we have so few native born scofflaws in the country that we need to import foreign scofflaws to break our laws?

Should we reward the parents who knowingly broke the law by bringing their children here illegally by giving their children citizenship?

Do you think we should tell the law-abiding citizens and immigrants that they are fools for being law-abiding? Should we tell our children that obeying the law is optional?

Or should we tell the illegals bluntly that those who have legal problems now because their parents brought them illegally have no one but their parents to blame? That is who is responsible for the so-called Dreamers' problems: their parents, and those of you who think that bad behavior deserves to be rewarded.

The children aren't victims of the United States of America: they are victims of their parents' decision to break our laws.

If you think we would be a better country if we threw away the rule of law, and publicly reward law breakers for breaking laws, you go right ahead, but you are the problem, not the solution.

My brother-in-law came here legally, and eventually became a citizen. Are you going to stand up and tell him and the rest of law-abiding America that he was a fool for obeying the law? When you give citizenship to people who broke the law, that is exactly what you are doing, loud and clear.

How long will this be a good country when our legislators publicly announce to the law-abiding -and their children- that obeying the law is for fools?

Labels: , ,

If We Regulated Guns and Shooters Like Cars and Drivers

I replied to a fellow who thinks we should regulate guns and gun owners like cars and drivers. As in vastly increasing regulation. My response:

I'm in favor of regulating guns, ammo, and accessories like cars and drivers.

If we did, there would be no federal or state license required to manufacture or deal guns or ammo.

A simple written and practical test would get everyone 16 or over a license to operate aka carry in public, and that license would be good in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. No license or permission would be required to acquire a gun, whether one was a licensed user or not, nor would a user's license be required to operate a gun on private property.

One could transport an unloaded gun on public streets without a license, just as one can trailer or tow a car. No registration or fees would be levied on guns as long as they were kept on private property, or transported unloaded on public property.

If ammunition was for use on private property, there would be no excise tax, just as there is none on agricultural use of gasoline.

There would be no taxes or background checks or prohibitions of fully automatic weapons, just as there are none on fully automatic transmissions.

There would be no prohibition of gun types or calibers, just as there are none on engines sizes. There would be no regulation or prohibition of large capacity magazines, as there are none in gas tanks.

There would be no taxes other than standard sales taxes, nor background checks, nor prohibitions of mufflers aka sound suppressors aka silencers.

With a license to carry aka operate in public and a credit card, anyone could walk into a gun rental company and walk out with any gun she pleased and operate that gun in public.

Getting a gun operators license would be a rite of passage for the vast majority of teenagers.

People would need no licenses to make their own guns, even if they planned to sell them.

So yeah: I agree with you. We should regulate guns and gunners like cars and drivers.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, September 08, 2017

Biased 'News'

From a recent e-conversation:


Correspondent: 'Then again, since the press is biased I hardly know what is true and what isn't.'

My reply:

That has become the big problem I see, and a huge part of that problem is that the majority of people DON'T see it. It is almost impossible for an interested person to figure out what is fact and what is lie, and the average person watching TV news and reading news and commentary will not even be aware that they might be on the wrong end of a very big and very successful propaganda campaign, like 'Trump is a virulent ant-Semite (whose son in law, daughter, and grandchildren are Jewish but don't bother me with facts, you racist. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NPR, PBS tell me it is true, so it must be.'

Whenever I take the trouble to find source documents on a controversial issue, such as the Google engineer's 10 page memo a couple weeks ago, I discover that the the news people have been lying through their teeth.

I frequently can't tell what the lie is. In the James Damore/Google case, did they lie by implying they had read it ie were competent to characterize/comment on it, or did they read it and deliberately misrepresent what it said? Either way, while I don't know which lie they told, I know they lied, because I read the memo and know what they said about it was not merely a different characterization, but utterly removed from what he actually said, AND I read what respected biologists and evolutionary psychologists said about Damore's memo and they said he was right about the science.

Now we have the vast majority of so-called news people and bien pensant commenters claiming that Trump is a neo-Nazi because he pointed out correctly -as did the ACLU- that BOTH the racists and the Antifa fascists went to the rally prepared to commit violence. The "news" position, as well as Trump's political critics' position, seems to be that if the white racists are bad people, then the Antifa angels who showed up with paint balloons, ink balloons, apparently with urine balloons, were peaceful civil rights advocates who were attacked without provocation. And that despite Antifa violent behavior elsewhere, which of course is routinely characterized as 'mostly peaceful', much like the Berkeley response to conservative speakers coming to campus.

It is really scary that most of the country is falling for the lies told by propagandists in the so-called news services and in high government positions. This really is not a lot different from Europe in the early 1930s, and I think it is going to get a lot worse, especially if the propagandists succeed in overturning the results of the election. Too many people are aware of what they are doing for this to remain peaceful.

Now we have Google shutting down websites -offensive ones, to be sure- based on their political positions. Where does that stop?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

'War for the Planet of the Apes'

Valerie and I went to the latest incarnation this afternoon. Not awful if you take it straight, not particularly good, either.

As anti-white, anti-American, anti-US military metaphor, though, it couldn't get much more heavy handed.

White American Special Forces troops herd all-black apes into Nazi-like concentration camp, play the Star Spangled Banner, beat the black folk mercilessly, starve them mercilessly, wave the American flag, suffer attack aka civil war from other American troops who come from the North, the American flag goes up in flames, avalanche kills all the white people, and the black apes hike off to the Promised Land, free at last from white people. Just what you should expect from a Woodie Harrelson movie.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Post-Apocalyptic Erotica

I went to Amazon's Kindle book section and started typing 'post-apocalyptic fiction' into the search field to find something inspirational to read, but among the suggestions for the search was 'post-apocalyptic erotica'. Well, I accidentally clikked on that of course and found that there are 28 pages of 435 post-apocalyptic erotic offerings for your panting, I mean prepping, pleasure. Prepper porn: Who knew?

This could open up a whole new market of potential preppers among the erotica-inclined: "Marsha stroked her shapely AN-M14 TH3 incendiary grenades as she softly moaned 'Oh, yes, Dirk, yes! I love it when you go full-auto!'"

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

Let's see Donald Trump start vigorously enforcing "18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section...they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Start with the DC City Council and Mayor for their gun control laws. Move on from there.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Our Responsibility: Preparing for Low Probability/High Consequences Events

Juliette Kayyem, in The Atlantic magazine :
The “never again” standard is as absurd as it is simplistic. It is as vague as it is damaging. It tried to convince Americans, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that invulnerability was a possibility. This has hindered homeland-security planners for a decade and a half: Knowing that no security apparatus can stop all forms of harm, including “lone wolfs,” progress is better measured in how well people prepare and educate themselves for the inevitable. What if the United States simply accepted, as a nation, that bad things happen and get ready for that possibility?
I agree with Juliette Kayyem about preparedness rather than a hopeless focus on prevention, but what does this really involve at the personal level?

With the exceptions of hurricanes in hurricane zones, major earthquakes in earthquake zones, and the like, most threats are individually highly dispersed and/or low probability/high consequences events.

Just as we reasonably expect our home to never burn down, but have insurance anyway, should we consider these individually improbable events like terrorism against us personally something we should individually insure against? If so, what to do?

I suspect that government in a relatively free society cannot deal easily with highly dispersed threats like terrorism or even random crime: police cannot be everywhere at all times, nor should we want them to be.

Several million Americans have gotten concealed carry licenses, while millions more have gotten their state legislatures to do away with the need for CCW licenses entirely. So far as I can tell, there have been no great negative consequences to either of those events. If there have been, the news media, no friend of law-abiding private citizens carrying handguns, has done a lousy job of covering them.

Imagine what might have been different in Orlando or Paris if if even a few people had been carrying guns. Given the US experience with legal concealed carry, background crime would not have been 'blood in the streets', while one or two people shooting back might have saved dozens of lives.

Even a strong defensive mindset might have made huge differences in the kill counts: apparently no one in Orlando or Paris counter-attacked even though the murderers had to pause multiple times to reload. Imagine if someone had the defensive mindset to attack, either with a chair, a bottle, or even barehanded. Instead they got out their cell phones and shot videos.

Wrong mind set.

The less radical preppers may be on to something: personal responsibility for one's self and family. I'm not talking about the quasi-millenarianist End Of The World As We Know It people, but those who take preparing for disasters quite seriously, with food, water, medical supplies, defensive weaponry, communication equipment -at least battery powered receivers so one can hear news reports- a ready reserve of cash (actual cash in small bills, in case the ATMs and cash registers are down for a few days or weeks), sanitation, and the like, sufficient for a few weeks.

It seems outright foolish not to have such preps if one lives in a hurricane or earthquake zone, but perhaps people in the rest of the country might do well by considering their own circumstances and prepare for the more likely disasters.

An interesting aspect to preparing for 'normal' short term disasters is that the preparations are pretty much the same: preparing well for the more probable issues also prepares one for the less probable.

Kayyem:
I have come to believe—as a security expert but also as a mother of three—that among all of its flaws, the worst aspect of “never again” was that it let experts like me run the show. We have failed to show that the conflicts and choices inherent in protecting the homeland are really not that different from those Americans and people around the world encounter every day. In our day-to-day lives, people try to protect those closest to them, but they also plan for the bad things that will happen. The essential aspects of those two priorities—preparedness, planning, flexibility, communication, back-up systems, learning from mistakes—are essentially the same. By too easily separating the homeland from the home, experts have failed to nurture the vigor and resiliency which is the greatest strength of a nation that was built on vulnerability: the American public.

And if the United States could build resiliency one home at a time, maybe, in another 15 years, the country will have stopped asking the question to some anonymous bureaucracy with strange acronyms and esoteric risk assessments: “Are we safer?” Instead, people should start embracing, “Am I ready?”
Taking personal responsibility is self-empowering. What is right about that?

Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 10, 2017

The Good Old Days of Carrying Guns On Airplanes

Back in the 1960s it was not all that unusual for people going hunting to carry long guns in soft cases right into a plane. Hard cases hardly existed, except for some leather ones, because no one in his right mind would put a gun in checked luggage: too big a chance of damage. While few people could get a permit to carry a handgun in those days, those who had a revolver or pistol in their briefcase would never have been challenged, either, because no one looked. Or cared.

I remember as a kid going through General Mitchell Field in Milwaukee with my Dad and a pair of Browning A-5 semi-auto shotguns in soft cases. After checking in we went up the escalator to the concourse, where a couple very polite gentlemen in grey suits buttonholed us and asked if they could speak to us. Asked when our flight left, looked at our tickets, then sent us on our way with "Have a great hunt!"

We continued through the concourse and onto the plane. The very nice stewardess, knowing they would not fit in the overhead hat racks, took them and put them in the coat closet until we got off at the destination. We then walked off the plane and through the concourse with our shotguns. Repeat on return home, with dead ducks in our luggage.

It turned out that LBJ was coming in an hour or so after our plane departed. No sweat at all, which in retrospect is interesting, given how LBJ happened to be President in the first place.

My guess is that if we went back to that there would be surprisingly few incidents.

Labels: , ,