JTBolt and other games fans, especially Fallout 3 fans which includes half of my office, will find this useful. Glad to see the media is taking life skills serious.
Preparing Our Kids for the Apocalype
Preparing Our Kids for the Apocalype
Free Shooting Introduction
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Get Out The Tinfoil
This must be a conspiracy of those deluded global warming/climate change/whatever-we-can-scare-and-extort-you-with-this-week deniers to stop the truth from coming out.
They must have sabotaged the rocket to prevent the truth revealing satellite, the minion of Gore from revealing the fact that we are all doomed! It must be the only explanation for this. Rockets simply do not fail unless acted upon by those who are afraid of what those missions will reveal. Those global warming deniers will go to any length necessary and they have!
Sorry, had to get it out there. Because I know within a week that some wingnut will be trumpeting that the launch was deliberately sabotaged by AGW deniers to prevent the truth from getting out.
The more rational among us know that launching anything into space is risky. Malfunctions happen and when you're dealing with what are essentially controlled, long duration explosions and hypersonic velocities, small malfunctions can become serious indeed.
In this case, the payload fairing (the cone on top of the rocket that protects the satellite within) failed come off when it was supposed to. As a result, the rocket wasn't able to maintain enough velocity to reach orbit. And even if it had, it would have still been a failure since the satellite would have been trapped within and unable to function.
A lot of things have to go right with a satellite launch to ensure success. Only one thing has to go wrong to guarantee failure.
Not a good day for the JPL team and Orbital Sciences who makes the Taurus XL booster. This has raised their failure rate to 1 in 4 and that's not a good place to be in the small launch vehicle world. I'm sure the launch insurer isn't happy either. Hopefully future launches will improve the vehicle's overall record.
Others seem to think the 63 inch fairing might be a issue. Although the other blogger states that Pegasus (which Taurus XL is derived from) is rocket meant to doom missions, its failure rate of 1 in 8 seems better than the current Taurus XL rate.
Or maybe those pesky global warming deniers are making it happen. You be the judge.
They must have sabotaged the rocket to prevent the truth revealing satellite, the minion of Gore from revealing the fact that we are all doomed! It must be the only explanation for this. Rockets simply do not fail unless acted upon by those who are afraid of what those missions will reveal. Those global warming deniers will go to any length necessary and they have!
Sorry, had to get it out there. Because I know within a week that some wingnut will be trumpeting that the launch was deliberately sabotaged by AGW deniers to prevent the truth from getting out.
The more rational among us know that launching anything into space is risky. Malfunctions happen and when you're dealing with what are essentially controlled, long duration explosions and hypersonic velocities, small malfunctions can become serious indeed.
In this case, the payload fairing (the cone on top of the rocket that protects the satellite within) failed come off when it was supposed to. As a result, the rocket wasn't able to maintain enough velocity to reach orbit. And even if it had, it would have still been a failure since the satellite would have been trapped within and unable to function.
A lot of things have to go right with a satellite launch to ensure success. Only one thing has to go wrong to guarantee failure.
Not a good day for the JPL team and Orbital Sciences who makes the Taurus XL booster. This has raised their failure rate to 1 in 4 and that's not a good place to be in the small launch vehicle world. I'm sure the launch insurer isn't happy either. Hopefully future launches will improve the vehicle's overall record.
Others seem to think the 63 inch fairing might be a issue. Although the other blogger states that Pegasus (which Taurus XL is derived from) is rocket meant to doom missions, its failure rate of 1 in 8 seems better than the current Taurus XL rate.
Or maybe those pesky global warming deniers are making it happen. You be the judge.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
On Rights: Part 1
John Galt at The Rights Project asks:
To frame the discussion, I must quote Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". While many folks may find Heinlein simplistic, unrealistic, sexist, fascist and so on, I can say that Heinlein had a great influence on my thinking. He was the first author to articulate and crystalize views that I held but didn't know how to articulate. The book that did that was "Starship Troopers".
I've recommended the book to many people and even given away copies free to interested friends and colleagues. Anyone who thinks "Starship Troopers" is a book about futuristic soldiers killing giant insects has never read the book. Starship Troopers is a philosophical, moral and political treatise set in a science-fiction universe. The sci-fi is merely the backdrop that supports these concepts.
There are many themes in the book but the best part to me is the discussion on the nature of rights by Mr. Dubois, the History and Moral Philosophy teacher of the main character, John Rico. This discussion is what I want to excerpt. It deals with rights as they applied to juvenile delinquency, specifically referencing as Mr. Dubois says, "...that magnificent poetry" of which we are all familiar.
From Chapter 8, Pg.125 of my copy of "Starship Troopers" (yours may vary):
With these words in mind, let me try and answer John Galt's questions...
1) Do I have any rights? If not, why not?
As I mentioned in my short reply to him, my answer, as much as it pains me, agrees with Heinlein: No, we do not have any rights. Specifically, we have no natural rights.
Natural, or God-given, rights cannot exist. To do so implies there is a higher order to the Universe that transcends us. More importantly, it implies a type of natural law that should be obvious, discoverable and immutable just as any other natural law. I think many of us, despite faith or belief, can agree this state of affairs is highly unlikely.
A man alone has no rights. Or the corollary, a man alone has infinite rights. I, standing alone in a field, can imagine myself any right I dare to dream up. King of the Ladybugs, Tyrant of the Ants, Almighty of the Second Sewer Pipe. I may believe I have absolute power, that I have a right to life and liberty and that the fishes should swim at my bidding but Nature will not care. Or listen as Heinlein alludes to.
How can I have any natural rights when Nature itself decrees that on a long enough timeline that it will deprive me of even the most basic so-called "right", the right to life? And even if Nature is feeling particularly generous today, there is no continued guarantee to my right to life tomorrow.
I can choose not to find food. Or I can try and fail. The results are the same and Nature is indifferent to the means that I arrive at my lack of food. Effort even of the best of intentions does not mean reward. Or if my efforts result in injury or sickness, my right to life is subsequently diminished. Go far enough and it ceases to be. Nature will be blind and indifferent to those circumstances regardless.
If I cannot prove a basic right to life, how can I possibly justify any further elaboration on other, more complex and profound natural rights? I cannot for Nature neither preserves or grants them.
All rights, if any, must come from us and us alone. What we call 'rights' can only evolve in the context of social interactions between human beings and nowhere else. As a result, what we perceive to be "natural rights" are little more than social cues and interactions we mutually agree upon.
This also covers the answer to question #2. Since "natural rights" do not exist, they can have no source.
It is when others arrive that things start to get interesting. If we have no natural rights, how can we assert their existence? How can we agree upon a framework that two or more individuals can acknowledge as "rights"? And can they exist in a universal context?
Perhaps. It depends on how you choose to define "rights".
The main problem is that social constructs are relative to their parent societies and those are constantly shifting and evolving. Plus, as Heinlein discusses in "Starship Troopers", morality is everything. But even morality is relative.
If a culture decides that sacrificing the redheaded, left-handed children and having the village feast upon them for a good harvest, is it moral? Even if, year after year, said feast results in bountiful harvests, is such behavior "moral"? If that is all you know and all the villagers down to and including the sacrificed redheads agree on its morality, how can we as outside observers judge such an act to be immoral or a violation of someone's "rights"?
Tricky problem, eh?
As John Galt discusses, actions taken voluntarily even against one's own self-interest or self-preservation are not and cannot be a violation of one's "rights". The actions of one having no effect on others in a harmful fashion do not involve "rights" at all except as that individual chooses to identify them. As I said, individual rights are a figment of one's perception, absent or infinite. The individual can even scream "My rights are being violated!" to all observers but as long as that person is lying on the sacrificial altar and putting the knife to their own throat, all it can be is a final grand performance in the great theatre of life.
But a slight change in circumstances gives us a glimmer of hope. As I said, "rights" can possibly exist as soon as you bring others into the equation since they can only come into being as a result of social interactions.
Is our sacrificial volunteer's rights being violated when he or she lies willingly on the altar but another puts their knife to their throat but at the moment the blade begins to move, screams "Why are you doing this?!? My rights are being violated!"? If our victim continues to allow having their throat slit after crying out, is it a violation of their rights? Does the willing have rights that are now being violated by another that they themselves found normal and umquestioned when it was by their own hand?
Think upon this. Tomorrow I provide my answer.
1. Do I have any rights? If not, why not?In his comments, I promised him my views on the subject. So here are my views on the subject of rights.
2. If yes, what are they? Why do they exist / What is their source?
Now, assume a second person shows up, and determine the following:
3. Do my rights and this second person's rights come into conflict in any way? Why or why not?
4. Do we gain (or lose!) any rights now that we are no longer alone? Why or why not?
5. What are the principles necessary to give us the best possible chance at living together peacefully?
Finally, assume X more people show up, and determine the following:
6. Does the addition of X more people have any affect at all on the answers given to the questions above? Why or why not?
To frame the discussion, I must quote Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". While many folks may find Heinlein simplistic, unrealistic, sexist, fascist and so on, I can say that Heinlein had a great influence on my thinking. He was the first author to articulate and crystalize views that I held but didn't know how to articulate. The book that did that was "Starship Troopers".
I've recommended the book to many people and even given away copies free to interested friends and colleagues. Anyone who thinks "Starship Troopers" is a book about futuristic soldiers killing giant insects has never read the book. Starship Troopers is a philosophical, moral and political treatise set in a science-fiction universe. The sci-fi is merely the backdrop that supports these concepts.
There are many themes in the book but the best part to me is the discussion on the nature of rights by Mr. Dubois, the History and Moral Philosophy teacher of the main character, John Rico. This discussion is what I want to excerpt. It deals with rights as they applied to juvenile delinquency, specifically referencing as Mr. Dubois says, "...that magnificent poetry" of which we are all familiar.
From Chapter 8, Pg.125 of my copy of "Starship Troopers" (yours may vary):
..."The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand - that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.'"Starship Troopers" remains on the reading lists of the Navy, Army and Marine Corps and the only science fiction book on the lists at four of the five US military academies. If you have not read it, I recommend it highly.
"The results should have been predictable, such a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Someone took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry, Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots of it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
"The third 'right'? - the pursuit of happiness? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives - neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure I will catch it."
Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.
"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure."
With these words in mind, let me try and answer John Galt's questions...
1) Do I have any rights? If not, why not?
As I mentioned in my short reply to him, my answer, as much as it pains me, agrees with Heinlein: No, we do not have any rights. Specifically, we have no natural rights.
Natural, or God-given, rights cannot exist. To do so implies there is a higher order to the Universe that transcends us. More importantly, it implies a type of natural law that should be obvious, discoverable and immutable just as any other natural law. I think many of us, despite faith or belief, can agree this state of affairs is highly unlikely.
A man alone has no rights. Or the corollary, a man alone has infinite rights. I, standing alone in a field, can imagine myself any right I dare to dream up. King of the Ladybugs, Tyrant of the Ants, Almighty of the Second Sewer Pipe. I may believe I have absolute power, that I have a right to life and liberty and that the fishes should swim at my bidding but Nature will not care. Or listen as Heinlein alludes to.
How can I have any natural rights when Nature itself decrees that on a long enough timeline that it will deprive me of even the most basic so-called "right", the right to life? And even if Nature is feeling particularly generous today, there is no continued guarantee to my right to life tomorrow.
I can choose not to find food. Or I can try and fail. The results are the same and Nature is indifferent to the means that I arrive at my lack of food. Effort even of the best of intentions does not mean reward. Or if my efforts result in injury or sickness, my right to life is subsequently diminished. Go far enough and it ceases to be. Nature will be blind and indifferent to those circumstances regardless.
If I cannot prove a basic right to life, how can I possibly justify any further elaboration on other, more complex and profound natural rights? I cannot for Nature neither preserves or grants them.
All rights, if any, must come from us and us alone. What we call 'rights' can only evolve in the context of social interactions between human beings and nowhere else. As a result, what we perceive to be "natural rights" are little more than social cues and interactions we mutually agree upon.
This also covers the answer to question #2. Since "natural rights" do not exist, they can have no source.
It is when others arrive that things start to get interesting. If we have no natural rights, how can we assert their existence? How can we agree upon a framework that two or more individuals can acknowledge as "rights"? And can they exist in a universal context?
Perhaps. It depends on how you choose to define "rights".
The main problem is that social constructs are relative to their parent societies and those are constantly shifting and evolving. Plus, as Heinlein discusses in "Starship Troopers", morality is everything. But even morality is relative.
If a culture decides that sacrificing the redheaded, left-handed children and having the village feast upon them for a good harvest, is it moral? Even if, year after year, said feast results in bountiful harvests, is such behavior "moral"? If that is all you know and all the villagers down to and including the sacrificed redheads agree on its morality, how can we as outside observers judge such an act to be immoral or a violation of someone's "rights"?
Tricky problem, eh?
As John Galt discusses, actions taken voluntarily even against one's own self-interest or self-preservation are not and cannot be a violation of one's "rights". The actions of one having no effect on others in a harmful fashion do not involve "rights" at all except as that individual chooses to identify them. As I said, individual rights are a figment of one's perception, absent or infinite. The individual can even scream "My rights are being violated!" to all observers but as long as that person is lying on the sacrificial altar and putting the knife to their own throat, all it can be is a final grand performance in the great theatre of life.
But a slight change in circumstances gives us a glimmer of hope. As I said, "rights" can possibly exist as soon as you bring others into the equation since they can only come into being as a result of social interactions.
Is our sacrificial volunteer's rights being violated when he or she lies willingly on the altar but another puts their knife to their throat but at the moment the blade begins to move, screams "Why are you doing this?!? My rights are being violated!"? If our victim continues to allow having their throat slit after crying out, is it a violation of their rights? Does the willing have rights that are now being violated by another that they themselves found normal and umquestioned when it was by their own hand?
Think upon this. Tomorrow I provide my answer.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Things in Threes
Can you believe I actually turned down opportunities to obtain additional firearms that could share calibers I already possess?
This past weekend was the gun show and the only thing I got to show for it was 200 rounds of 7.5mm French. Cleaned out one dealer and bought some extra from another who was overpriced. All boxer primed and reloadable brass. But I turned down the $350 near-mint condition Egyptian Hakim and Swedish M38. As usual, I will beat myself up for weeks over that. But I have pretty much no room left to store them and frankly felt guilty about spending the coin to do it.
One of the reasons is because I read this. It is about the economic collapse in Argentina in 2001. You should read it and take it as a wake-up call. I would argue that the American experience of an economic collapse would not mirror Argentina but I would agree that there would be certain parallels. Such as rising crime, property theft and ever more heavy-handed measures by the Government to attempt to maintain some illusionary semblance of order.
At a minimum, I think maybe another handgun might be a worthwhile investment.
Or maybe I just felt like keeping some money in my wallet. There's always April and the summer. Plenty of time to churn and consider next steps. A wait-and-see approach never really hurt anyone.
I've been asked a lot lately why I haven't ever signed up on Facebook or MySpace, this is the reason. Some might argue that using Blogger is no better but their TOS doesn't give them an unlimited right to use my content for any purpose they desire.
Sorry, I'm just not the trusting sort. I know Facebook and MySpace are neat and fun to connect with friends on but it just isn't my thing. It's bad enough I maintain a blog. Although someone with minimal analysis could figure out who I am through my blog, it will still require work and a phone book won't help you because I'm not in it. I'm not all that interested in having Facebook take a picture of me holding a rifle and blasting across an anti-gun ad. I'm sure my HR department would be very understanding about such things. Wouldn't they?
No thanks. I'll maintain a modicum of anonymity or at least make you work for my identity.
Finally, let's discuss perception. A co-worker stopped by and informed me there were some good deals to be had on Kalishnikov rifles out in the hills of Virginia and West Virginia by desperate country folks needing money. I told him that if he knew anyone with such a deal I'd be happy to send some cash their way as long as their willing to ship to my FFL. In the course of that conversation, he mentioned that those folks were getting pretty ansty and concerned about future gun control. Specifically the threat of encoded ammunition and its requirement to turn in and destroy unencoded stocks. And that if such a bill were passed and the Government came for their ammo, they would be turning it in one round at a time, rapidly, pointy end first.
Although an anecdote, I believe it. I've heard similar concerns expressed over such bills. And the inevitable expression of similar mechanisms of resistance against Government overreach and tyranny. While I might agree with the sympathy, no matter how glorious the thought of fighting for your freedom might be or the prospect of righteous armed revolution might be, you're not in touch with reality here.
On this point, I have to agree with many otherwise delusional liberal Democrats: The Government isn't coming to take your guns or ammunition regardless of whatever law they pass to make either illegal. They don't have to.
As much as we would like to see law enforcement and the BATFE kicking down doors to seize the now-illegal "assault weapons" or unencoded ammunition, it's very likely it is just not going to happen. Unless the Government was willing to shed all pretense of being a elected, representative body and rally citizens against it, they simply don't need to engage in such theatrics.
All they need to do is wait and pick us off one at a time.
Say they make unencoded ammunition illegal and you have a stockpile. The "turn over or destroy" date comes and goes and you still have it. No black helicopters, no FBI or SWAT team, no Sheriff knocking on the door. And it will stay that way. You're a criminal on paper in violation of the sanctified "Peace and Crime Free Citizens Act of 2009". Yet no one comes for you.
They don't need to. All they need to do is wait until you get pulled over for a routine traffic stop and get caught with illegal ammunition in your vehicle. Voila! You've gone from criminal on paper to criminal in reality. Doesn't matter if you were at a range or out plinking in the woods with close friends, the result is the same.
You become a convicted criminal in the eyes of the Government and then they will take your guns. Probably with the Sheriff's help while you're sitting in a cell waiting for bail and it will be done legally and the community will cheer. Because the media will paint you as a defiant psychopath in possession of dangerous, illegal ammunition. And you will be. All your protestations about rights and civil disobedience will be drowned out. You'll have a voice on the Internet, people will listen and perhaps you'll be given probation and an admonishment to "never do it again".
And you won't because you'll already be disarmed as a criminal when it happens.
Same will go for any gun ban where the now illegal guns are grandfathered in and the grandfather clause is stripped away. Kind of like what happened in California with the SKS. Then they'll wait and over time, they'll snare "innocent" gun owners on a technical violation and that will be that.
They won't need SWAT teams or black helicopters. They'll just need time. It certainly won't eliminate the "illegal" guns or ammunition but it will make examples of those unfortunate enough to get caught and force the remainder underground. Out of sight, out of mind. The net effect will be the same regardless of the means.
That's the reality and a lot of gun owners don't see it. They're gearing up for a fight I don't think will happen on the terms they're expecting. Sure, it might happen in some of the liberal paradises but in the vast majority of the country, it will be done so slowly and incrementally that you won't realize you're a criminal until your caught or haven't been paying close attention.
No standoffs, no "dying on your feet rather than living on your knees", no 3 percenters. And the Three Percenters who do pull the trigger will likely be marginalized and isolated as domestic terrorists, nothing more.
I think that's the reality. And gun ownership becomes forbidden, like the Prohibition Era and we'll have speakeasy ranges, nod-and-wink agreements with the neighbors on distant property or stuff just stuffed into an attic and admired once every 10 years during cleaning as wistful memories of a bygone era.
Welcome to our New American World.
This past weekend was the gun show and the only thing I got to show for it was 200 rounds of 7.5mm French. Cleaned out one dealer and bought some extra from another who was overpriced. All boxer primed and reloadable brass. But I turned down the $350 near-mint condition Egyptian Hakim and Swedish M38. As usual, I will beat myself up for weeks over that. But I have pretty much no room left to store them and frankly felt guilty about spending the coin to do it.
One of the reasons is because I read this. It is about the economic collapse in Argentina in 2001. You should read it and take it as a wake-up call. I would argue that the American experience of an economic collapse would not mirror Argentina but I would agree that there would be certain parallels. Such as rising crime, property theft and ever more heavy-handed measures by the Government to attempt to maintain some illusionary semblance of order.
At a minimum, I think maybe another handgun might be a worthwhile investment.
Or maybe I just felt like keeping some money in my wallet. There's always April and the summer. Plenty of time to churn and consider next steps. A wait-and-see approach never really hurt anyone.
I've been asked a lot lately why I haven't ever signed up on Facebook or MySpace, this is the reason. Some might argue that using Blogger is no better but their TOS doesn't give them an unlimited right to use my content for any purpose they desire.
Sorry, I'm just not the trusting sort. I know Facebook and MySpace are neat and fun to connect with friends on but it just isn't my thing. It's bad enough I maintain a blog. Although someone with minimal analysis could figure out who I am through my blog, it will still require work and a phone book won't help you because I'm not in it. I'm not all that interested in having Facebook take a picture of me holding a rifle and blasting across an anti-gun ad. I'm sure my HR department would be very understanding about such things. Wouldn't they?
No thanks. I'll maintain a modicum of anonymity or at least make you work for my identity.
Finally, let's discuss perception. A co-worker stopped by and informed me there were some good deals to be had on Kalishnikov rifles out in the hills of Virginia and West Virginia by desperate country folks needing money. I told him that if he knew anyone with such a deal I'd be happy to send some cash their way as long as their willing to ship to my FFL. In the course of that conversation, he mentioned that those folks were getting pretty ansty and concerned about future gun control. Specifically the threat of encoded ammunition and its requirement to turn in and destroy unencoded stocks. And that if such a bill were passed and the Government came for their ammo, they would be turning it in one round at a time, rapidly, pointy end first.
Although an anecdote, I believe it. I've heard similar concerns expressed over such bills. And the inevitable expression of similar mechanisms of resistance against Government overreach and tyranny. While I might agree with the sympathy, no matter how glorious the thought of fighting for your freedom might be or the prospect of righteous armed revolution might be, you're not in touch with reality here.
On this point, I have to agree with many otherwise delusional liberal Democrats: The Government isn't coming to take your guns or ammunition regardless of whatever law they pass to make either illegal. They don't have to.
As much as we would like to see law enforcement and the BATFE kicking down doors to seize the now-illegal "assault weapons" or unencoded ammunition, it's very likely it is just not going to happen. Unless the Government was willing to shed all pretense of being a elected, representative body and rally citizens against it, they simply don't need to engage in such theatrics.
All they need to do is wait and pick us off one at a time.
Say they make unencoded ammunition illegal and you have a stockpile. The "turn over or destroy" date comes and goes and you still have it. No black helicopters, no FBI or SWAT team, no Sheriff knocking on the door. And it will stay that way. You're a criminal on paper in violation of the sanctified "Peace and Crime Free Citizens Act of 2009". Yet no one comes for you.
They don't need to. All they need to do is wait until you get pulled over for a routine traffic stop and get caught with illegal ammunition in your vehicle. Voila! You've gone from criminal on paper to criminal in reality. Doesn't matter if you were at a range or out plinking in the woods with close friends, the result is the same.
You become a convicted criminal in the eyes of the Government and then they will take your guns. Probably with the Sheriff's help while you're sitting in a cell waiting for bail and it will be done legally and the community will cheer. Because the media will paint you as a defiant psychopath in possession of dangerous, illegal ammunition. And you will be. All your protestations about rights and civil disobedience will be drowned out. You'll have a voice on the Internet, people will listen and perhaps you'll be given probation and an admonishment to "never do it again".
And you won't because you'll already be disarmed as a criminal when it happens.
Same will go for any gun ban where the now illegal guns are grandfathered in and the grandfather clause is stripped away. Kind of like what happened in California with the SKS. Then they'll wait and over time, they'll snare "innocent" gun owners on a technical violation and that will be that.
They won't need SWAT teams or black helicopters. They'll just need time. It certainly won't eliminate the "illegal" guns or ammunition but it will make examples of those unfortunate enough to get caught and force the remainder underground. Out of sight, out of mind. The net effect will be the same regardless of the means.
That's the reality and a lot of gun owners don't see it. They're gearing up for a fight I don't think will happen on the terms they're expecting. Sure, it might happen in some of the liberal paradises but in the vast majority of the country, it will be done so slowly and incrementally that you won't realize you're a criminal until your caught or haven't been paying close attention.
No standoffs, no "dying on your feet rather than living on your knees", no 3 percenters. And the Three Percenters who do pull the trigger will likely be marginalized and isolated as domestic terrorists, nothing more.
I think that's the reality. And gun ownership becomes forbidden, like the Prohibition Era and we'll have speakeasy ranges, nod-and-wink agreements with the neighbors on distant property or stuff just stuffed into an attic and admired once every 10 years during cleaning as wistful memories of a bygone era.
Welcome to our New American World.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Pork But No Primers
Did a few quick searches on the Stimulus Bill text (aka Porkulus). I'm relieved to see that Pelosi, Feinstein, McCarthy and the other usual suspects have not injected a last-minute Hughes Amendment type addition to the bill. I figured the Democratic leadership might try to sneak something in below the radar but nothing in the version online that I can find.
Searches for "firearm", "gun" and "assault" fail except for a single reference to "sexual assault".
Not out of the woods yet but just something we need to keep an eye on since we lack a Constitutional Amendment that prevents such unrelated amendments from being added to a bill.
Searches for "firearm", "gun" and "assault" fail except for a single reference to "sexual assault".
Not out of the woods yet but just something we need to keep an eye on since we lack a Constitutional Amendment that prevents such unrelated amendments from being added to a bill.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
In For a Penny, In for a Pound
In Obama's eyes, I must be one of the few people in America that isn't angry at CEOs getting lavish bonuses on the taxpayer dime.
The government attached no conditions to the first round of $350 billion in TARP money. As much as they told the American people their expectation was that this would get credit and money flowing, they did not make the companies who took the money sign anything to that effect.
So why are people surprised when the banks took the money, sat on it or paid it out in bonuses to CEOs who had contracts that said they could receive them?
Silly American people. Why are you getting upset about business-as-usual behavior from the Government?
And as to getting mad at CEOs for taking bonuses? Just because you might have ethical or moral concerns about such conduct doesn't mean your beliefs get projected onto others. From their standpoint, the CEOs had earned the money and more importantly, they had contracts that required it be paid. Absent an agreement on their part and that of their employer to modify those contracts as a condition of receiving government money, why would they need to modify them? Because you think so?
We may think so but that isn't our judgment call to make. My attitude is "More power to them.". If you had someone paying you millions of dollars per year, would you want the government to unilaterally modify the terms of that compensation? "Yes!" you cry, if it is CEOs, "They make too much!".
Okay, then apply that logic to yourself. Maybe someone out there who makes less than you thinks it is unfair that you get paid what you do. Think it is such a bright idea now? Would you want the government to decide that a talented doctor making $500,000 per year was "making too much" and decided to forcibly reduce their compensation? How long do you think the supply of talented doctors would last under those circumstances?
I can give you the answer: Look towards Canada where the government does exactly that by setting how much a doctor can make and bill. Why do you think a lot of doctors come here to work? Because compensation is more in line with what the market will bear.
It is all a matter of degree. Demanding something "be done" about CEOs who make lots of money is the same as anyone demanding wages be "made fair" in any profession. Beware of where that road leads you because you likely will not enjoy the resulting destination.
If you want to be angry at anyone about this waste of taxpayer dollars, be angry at Congress for passing the bill in a hurry without conditions because "something needed to be done.". Something was done alright. It just wasn't what you expected.
In the words of Megan McArdle: "The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality".
The government does learn however. Even if it is in billion-dollar spurts. Bruce highlights how the government now wants to impose wage caps on CEOs of companies who take government bailout money.
Bet those companies are regretting that Faustian bargain now. You take the King's Shilling, don't be surprised when the King demands fealty afterwards. Even if it is by the point of a sword.
What the hell did you think was going to happen, sheep of America? That home loans would be handed out like candy and you'd be getting two more Visa cards in the mail like you always had? Seriously, what did you expect? That a piddling $700 billion dollars on the Taxpayer Visa for your grandkids to pay off was going to undo a $60 trillion dollar derivatives mess?
Welcome to Reality! Hope you enjoy the stay!
Bruce points out the great and true outcome of this wedge of bailouts on the taxpayer dime. The opportunity to expand the program well beyond its original intentions.
From Bruce:
What constraints, Mr. Frank? The so-called constraints Frank complains are lacking are, in fact, the very banking regulations those institutions currently operate under! The regulations said the banks could leverage themselves out to 25 or 30 to 1 so low and behold, they did! Where's the shocker in that? Regulations, I might add, were put in place at the bank's insistence so they could make more money or expand their business. Same goes for regulations that allowed banks to remove the barriers between investment banking and regular banking.
Are you shocked they pushed those regulations right to the limits? Unintended consequences, folks.
And you're seeing another example of exactly that in those highlight words. If you believe it is a good thing for the government to impose penalties or restrictions on how a bank can make money within the letter of the law in order to control their behavior, don't be surprised when the behavior they engage in is none at all.
My prediction is if Frank gets his wish, the affected financial institutions will simply not lend the money anymore in the government-controlled areas. So if you think that the end result will be the banks being forced to start lending to you again under the threat of government penalties, think again. They'll simply avoid the penalties completely and not offer you a single red cent.
I'll bet the average American who thinks this type of regulation is a good idea hasn't thought about that. Unintended consequences.
No one was complaining when the banks, supposedly lacking constraints, were making money hand over fist and everyone was buying houses and things to put in them like there was no tomorrow. But now that the banks have learned and many of us are realizing that on the other side of up is down, there is sudden outrage?
Stow it, American people. Your outrage is not borne by any thought put into the issue. You bought into the Government handing $350 billion dollars to failing businesses with no strings attached. Man up and live with that decision made on your behalf.
If you wrote your Representatives and told them to vote against it and they voted in favor of it anyway, good for you. You at least tried to have your voice heard. But if you did nothing or agreed that the Government needed to "do something", you have no one to be angry at but yourself.
It is said the most frightening nine words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.". I wholeheartedly agree. I would argue though that the hardest four words in the English language to say are "It is my fault.".
Alas, the Government will never say those four words. You get the Government you elected and deserve. So don't throw a hissy fit because the Government is doing exactly what you should expect it to do.
Which is not what you would expect at all.
The government attached no conditions to the first round of $350 billion in TARP money. As much as they told the American people their expectation was that this would get credit and money flowing, they did not make the companies who took the money sign anything to that effect.
So why are people surprised when the banks took the money, sat on it or paid it out in bonuses to CEOs who had contracts that said they could receive them?
Silly American people. Why are you getting upset about business-as-usual behavior from the Government?
And as to getting mad at CEOs for taking bonuses? Just because you might have ethical or moral concerns about such conduct doesn't mean your beliefs get projected onto others. From their standpoint, the CEOs had earned the money and more importantly, they had contracts that required it be paid. Absent an agreement on their part and that of their employer to modify those contracts as a condition of receiving government money, why would they need to modify them? Because you think so?
We may think so but that isn't our judgment call to make. My attitude is "More power to them.". If you had someone paying you millions of dollars per year, would you want the government to unilaterally modify the terms of that compensation? "Yes!" you cry, if it is CEOs, "They make too much!".
Okay, then apply that logic to yourself. Maybe someone out there who makes less than you thinks it is unfair that you get paid what you do. Think it is such a bright idea now? Would you want the government to decide that a talented doctor making $500,000 per year was "making too much" and decided to forcibly reduce their compensation? How long do you think the supply of talented doctors would last under those circumstances?
I can give you the answer: Look towards Canada where the government does exactly that by setting how much a doctor can make and bill. Why do you think a lot of doctors come here to work? Because compensation is more in line with what the market will bear.
It is all a matter of degree. Demanding something "be done" about CEOs who make lots of money is the same as anyone demanding wages be "made fair" in any profession. Beware of where that road leads you because you likely will not enjoy the resulting destination.
If you want to be angry at anyone about this waste of taxpayer dollars, be angry at Congress for passing the bill in a hurry without conditions because "something needed to be done.". Something was done alright. It just wasn't what you expected.
In the words of Megan McArdle: "The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality".
The government does learn however. Even if it is in billion-dollar spurts. Bruce highlights how the government now wants to impose wage caps on CEOs of companies who take government bailout money.
Bet those companies are regretting that Faustian bargain now. You take the King's Shilling, don't be surprised when the King demands fealty afterwards. Even if it is by the point of a sword.
What the hell did you think was going to happen, sheep of America? That home loans would be handed out like candy and you'd be getting two more Visa cards in the mail like you always had? Seriously, what did you expect? That a piddling $700 billion dollars on the Taxpayer Visa for your grandkids to pay off was going to undo a $60 trillion dollar derivatives mess?
Welcome to Reality! Hope you enjoy the stay!
Bruce points out the great and true outcome of this wedge of bailouts on the taxpayer dime. The opportunity to expand the program well beyond its original intentions.
From Bruce:
The bill, which the committee is working on in consultation with the Obama administration, also will require financial institutions that bundle mortgages into securities to share in potential losses. This would give banks and mortgage-specialists an incentive not to make bad loans, he said. Institutions that securitize loans improperly will incur tougher penalties.Those highlighted words should send chills up your spine.
"There have been too few constraints on major financial institutions incurring far more liability than they could handle," Mr. Frank said.
What constraints, Mr. Frank? The so-called constraints Frank complains are lacking are, in fact, the very banking regulations those institutions currently operate under! The regulations said the banks could leverage themselves out to 25 or 30 to 1 so low and behold, they did! Where's the shocker in that? Regulations, I might add, were put in place at the bank's insistence so they could make more money or expand their business. Same goes for regulations that allowed banks to remove the barriers between investment banking and regular banking.
Are you shocked they pushed those regulations right to the limits? Unintended consequences, folks.
And you're seeing another example of exactly that in those highlight words. If you believe it is a good thing for the government to impose penalties or restrictions on how a bank can make money within the letter of the law in order to control their behavior, don't be surprised when the behavior they engage in is none at all.
My prediction is if Frank gets his wish, the affected financial institutions will simply not lend the money anymore in the government-controlled areas. So if you think that the end result will be the banks being forced to start lending to you again under the threat of government penalties, think again. They'll simply avoid the penalties completely and not offer you a single red cent.
I'll bet the average American who thinks this type of regulation is a good idea hasn't thought about that. Unintended consequences.
No one was complaining when the banks, supposedly lacking constraints, were making money hand over fist and everyone was buying houses and things to put in them like there was no tomorrow. But now that the banks have learned and many of us are realizing that on the other side of up is down, there is sudden outrage?
Stow it, American people. Your outrage is not borne by any thought put into the issue. You bought into the Government handing $350 billion dollars to failing businesses with no strings attached. Man up and live with that decision made on your behalf.
If you wrote your Representatives and told them to vote against it and they voted in favor of it anyway, good for you. You at least tried to have your voice heard. But if you did nothing or agreed that the Government needed to "do something", you have no one to be angry at but yourself.
It is said the most frightening nine words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.". I wholeheartedly agree. I would argue though that the hardest four words in the English language to say are "It is my fault.".
Alas, the Government will never say those four words. You get the Government you elected and deserve. So don't throw a hissy fit because the Government is doing exactly what you should expect it to do.
Which is not what you would expect at all.
Monday, February 2, 2009
On Taxes
Time for a little "dirty laundry". Well, not really.
With all the stories out about cabinet appointees "forgetting" to pay taxes owed to the IRS, I thought might offer a contrast from my own culture.
Growing up, we heard horror stories about the IRS. And a lot of them were true. That the IRS would take your house, your car, seize your bank accounts and the sell the family pet if you failed to pay your taxes. Well, maybe they didn't put Fluffy up on the auction block but the rest they would do. Without mercy.
Early life lesson: In America, pay your taxes otherwise the IRS will destroy you.
So I am enjoying the hypocrisy on display at the moment about a mere $146,000 being owed to the IRS and the IRS not sending agents to collect in person and ask your neighbors where you are. But if it had been you or me owing the IRS that sum, I suspect they wouldn't be being kind or easygoing about the whole thing. We may not be in prison but we might as well be when our ATM statement reads a balance of $0.00 and calls to your bank end with the agent telling you the IRS has garnished every last penny of your income until the year 2025.
There are two government agencies you never fuck with in this country. One is the USCIS (formerly INS). That only applies to me. The other is the IRS. Unlike everyone else, the IRS sending me a notice of their intent to audit me wouldn't frighten me as much as a letter from the INS reviewing my status. I suspect your average citizen would find the reverse to be true.
But that leads to my cultural divide. In this country, I file my tax returns and go to great lengths to ensure I don't owe the government more than a token amount of money. A withholdings screwup (not mine) a few years ago left me with a $5000 tax bill and I swore that it would never happen again. And it hasn't. To the point I am making substantial annual interest-free loans to the Federal and State government if this year's tax returns are any indication.
But if I did owe the IRS money. you'd bet I'd be doing everything in my power to keep them happy and away from me. Most people would probably agree with me. Writing checks, begging for mercy. Anything but the wrath of the IRS on your doorstep.
Contrast this to Canada.
In 1996, I was a poor, just-out-of-college programmer making around $21K a year. Not poverty but working-class wages. It was my first job. So imagine my surprise in 1997 when I owed them nearly $3000. Of course, making barely living wages I couldn't pay them and Revenue Canada had this policy at the time that if you couldn't pay the whole amount, wait until you could.
So I did. And moved to the USA a year later. And for years have had this debt hanging over me. Now, understand this is not tax evasion since I did file a return. Problem was Revenue Canada could never quite get their act together to send me the necessary information so I could pay it off. Apparently Canadians living in the USA confused them for years.
Eight years of confusion in my case. By which point interest had tacked a bit more onto the bill and I made arrangements to start paying it off. And did so in 2004. Life being what it is, the amounts varied but little by little, I worked it down.
Finally in 2007, they started sending statements to my house. So I started sending them quarterly payments. Now, they didn't say I could do this but I did, they cashed the checks and sent me a new statement. Upon which I sent them another payment. Hey, it worked for me! Do-it-yourself payment plan. I have a policy of not sending the government anything unless it is in response to correspondance they send me first. Mainly to cover my ass.
So here I am 12 years later. In December, I sent them a check that brought the amount down considerably. So I've been waiting for the little brown envelope to arrive from Canada with the current balance owing so I can write them one final check. Usually the statement would follow a few weeks after the check is cashed. It hasn't shown up.
So I did what anyone in this country would probably consider insane: I called Revenue Canada to ask how much I owed. The very nice lady gave me the amount and asked if I would her to send me a statement. I said "Yes, please". She said it would be here in a couple weeks and was there anything else she could help me with? Nope. It ended with "Thanks for calling the Canada Revenue Agency, have a nice evening.".
Any creative writers care to imagine the substance of that conversation had it been the IRS on the other end of the phone with a 12 year old tax debt?
Us Canadians, we're really easygoing and laid back. Even when it comes to taxes. From stories from back in my hometown, unless you are a business or an individual owing Revenue Canada a metric fuckton of money, they don't care enough to come after you. Let the interest pile on and eventually they'll call you or send a letter asking how to you plan to pay. And even then they're pleasant.
So I'm not complaining and finally my last burden to my home country will be discharged. But I'll bet a lot of you wished the IRS acted like the CRA in Canada. Maybe we wouldn't complain so much about taxes if they did.
I'm going to miss that type of thing when I naturalize.
Taxes, have to love and hate them.
With all the stories out about cabinet appointees "forgetting" to pay taxes owed to the IRS, I thought might offer a contrast from my own culture.
Growing up, we heard horror stories about the IRS. And a lot of them were true. That the IRS would take your house, your car, seize your bank accounts and the sell the family pet if you failed to pay your taxes. Well, maybe they didn't put Fluffy up on the auction block but the rest they would do. Without mercy.
Early life lesson: In America, pay your taxes otherwise the IRS will destroy you.
So I am enjoying the hypocrisy on display at the moment about a mere $146,000 being owed to the IRS and the IRS not sending agents to collect in person and ask your neighbors where you are. But if it had been you or me owing the IRS that sum, I suspect they wouldn't be being kind or easygoing about the whole thing. We may not be in prison but we might as well be when our ATM statement reads a balance of $0.00 and calls to your bank end with the agent telling you the IRS has garnished every last penny of your income until the year 2025.
There are two government agencies you never fuck with in this country. One is the USCIS (formerly INS). That only applies to me. The other is the IRS. Unlike everyone else, the IRS sending me a notice of their intent to audit me wouldn't frighten me as much as a letter from the INS reviewing my status. I suspect your average citizen would find the reverse to be true.
But that leads to my cultural divide. In this country, I file my tax returns and go to great lengths to ensure I don't owe the government more than a token amount of money. A withholdings screwup (not mine) a few years ago left me with a $5000 tax bill and I swore that it would never happen again. And it hasn't. To the point I am making substantial annual interest-free loans to the Federal and State government if this year's tax returns are any indication.
But if I did owe the IRS money. you'd bet I'd be doing everything in my power to keep them happy and away from me. Most people would probably agree with me. Writing checks, begging for mercy. Anything but the wrath of the IRS on your doorstep.
Contrast this to Canada.
In 1996, I was a poor, just-out-of-college programmer making around $21K a year. Not poverty but working-class wages. It was my first job. So imagine my surprise in 1997 when I owed them nearly $3000. Of course, making barely living wages I couldn't pay them and Revenue Canada had this policy at the time that if you couldn't pay the whole amount, wait until you could.
So I did. And moved to the USA a year later. And for years have had this debt hanging over me. Now, understand this is not tax evasion since I did file a return. Problem was Revenue Canada could never quite get their act together to send me the necessary information so I could pay it off. Apparently Canadians living in the USA confused them for years.
Eight years of confusion in my case. By which point interest had tacked a bit more onto the bill and I made arrangements to start paying it off. And did so in 2004. Life being what it is, the amounts varied but little by little, I worked it down.
Finally in 2007, they started sending statements to my house. So I started sending them quarterly payments. Now, they didn't say I could do this but I did, they cashed the checks and sent me a new statement. Upon which I sent them another payment. Hey, it worked for me! Do-it-yourself payment plan. I have a policy of not sending the government anything unless it is in response to correspondance they send me first. Mainly to cover my ass.
So here I am 12 years later. In December, I sent them a check that brought the amount down considerably. So I've been waiting for the little brown envelope to arrive from Canada with the current balance owing so I can write them one final check. Usually the statement would follow a few weeks after the check is cashed. It hasn't shown up.
So I did what anyone in this country would probably consider insane: I called Revenue Canada to ask how much I owed. The very nice lady gave me the amount and asked if I would her to send me a statement. I said "Yes, please". She said it would be here in a couple weeks and was there anything else she could help me with? Nope. It ended with "Thanks for calling the Canada Revenue Agency, have a nice evening.".
Any creative writers care to imagine the substance of that conversation had it been the IRS on the other end of the phone with a 12 year old tax debt?
Us Canadians, we're really easygoing and laid back. Even when it comes to taxes. From stories from back in my hometown, unless you are a business or an individual owing Revenue Canada a metric fuckton of money, they don't care enough to come after you. Let the interest pile on and eventually they'll call you or send a letter asking how to you plan to pay. And even then they're pleasant.
So I'm not complaining and finally my last burden to my home country will be discharged. But I'll bet a lot of you wished the IRS acted like the CRA in Canada. Maybe we wouldn't complain so much about taxes if they did.
I'm going to miss that type of thing when I naturalize.
Taxes, have to love and hate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
