Politics

Unintended Consequences

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Austin just put a plastic bag ban in place.

Seattle has a bag ban. Some laud the “positive environmental impact”. Others lament the high increase in shoplifting and the massive losses it’s causing.

I’ve spoken with numerous people in Austin, and many are going to stop shopping in Austin, instead shopping in surrounding communities. The City of Austin adds a 2% sales tax on top of the state’s sales tax. It might be interesting to see what sales tax revenue looks like in a few months.

Tourism revenue will be interesting to watch as well.

SXSW starts now, the first major event to happen post-ban. I’ll be curious what those visitors to the city think. Oh sure, they are likely a demographic that will applaud such a move… but then mutter or complain under their breath, lest they look “unhip” to everyone.

I understand the good intentions behind this latest brick in the road, but like most “bans”, they never really achieve the goals the originators expect but instead tend to have a lot of unintended and undesirable side-effects.

I think you have it backwards

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Tom Diaz at the Washington Post asks:

Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?

and then he spends 2 pages railing about the need for gun control to save the lives of “won’t-someone-think-of-the-children”.

I’ll agree with him on one thing:

Our perception of the relative dangers of terrorism and gun violence is distorted. We don’t know it, and our leaders don’t bother to tell us.

And he’s right. Our perception of the relative dangers is vastly distorted, because when you have non-stop media coverage about a single event, it impresses strongly on your mind. But when you step back and look at the numbers, you find there haven’t been all that many people killed in mass shootings. Statistically speaking, more children die from accidental drownings and car accidents — but there’s no media outrage, no 24/7 coverage, and so yes perception is distorted.

So Mr. Diaz, are you saying “the media” is ‘our leader’? Because the mass media isn’t bothering to tell us either. They are taking no responsibility for providing a clear, logical, rational, and sound picture. Do they have to be so responsible? No, but then if you want such a proper picture, turn off the TV (and perhaps write for another newspaper).

I really think you mean ‘our leaders’ are our politicians.

They are not “our leaders”. They are our servants, only they forget it, never learned it, or because people keep referring to them as “our leaders” instead of the proper label of “our servants” they keep believing they are in charge of us and are supposed to tell us what to do and we’re supposed to blindly follow them.

Are they supposed to present us with a clear and proper picture? I’d say they have a greater responsibility to do so, and it seems Mr. Diaz thinks so as well. But I am constantly amazed at people that shocked at the corruption of politicians, then turn to the same corrupt politicians expecting them to help and have their best interests at heart.

What bothers me more, however, is I think Mr. Diaz has it backwards.

He is right that there’s something wrong with allowing the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to degrade in the name of “security”. What bothers me most about his article is he is calling for the 2nd to be just as or more degraded. All in the name of “leveling the playing field” of “equality”.

You know how you can also achieve this same end?

By upgrading (or rather, restoring) the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

I too think it’s horrible that we’re destroying our Constitution in the name of (false) security. But instead of calling for further destruction, we should be working towards restoration… else we just continue down the path we’re already going down.

WE must UNITE on issues, not DIVIDE on labels.

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

I think we need to reframe things.

We’re stuck in this “Democrat vs. Republican” or “Liberal vs. Conservative”, “Occupy” vs “Tea Party” mentality. Both in terms of how we look at things, and how we debate the issues.

It’s making us blind.

It’s dividing and making us weak.

We need to leave that behind.

It’s no longer about that, and cannot be.

Case in point.

There’s a pirate radio station here in Austin, Texas Liberty Radio. For ages I’ve seen the sign on Mo-Pac (a major highway running North-South through Austin) advertising it, and finally I tuned in to give me something different to listen to on my daily commute. The lady was talking about the dangers of the stuff in our food, specifically pointing out aspartame.

At the same time, I saw one of my “liberal” friends post about “Big Dairy’s” current move to put aspartame in milk. And the conversation goes on about the dangers of the stuff in our food, specifically pointing out aspartame.

These are two groups who, according to the old labels, are polar opposites and should never agree: the Libtards and the Teabaggers. But here they are, speaking out against the same thing. There are some minor differences, with the former talking about it more in terms of food supply and how it can mess with your body, and how the government is involved in a bad way. The latter is talking about it more in terms of how bad it is for your health, and the evils of big corporate lobbies having more influence over the government (than the people supposedly governed).

They are far more united than they are different. They both agree about the dangers of aspartame. They both agree that it’s bad for you. They both agree it’s bad to add it to food. They both agree that the government is playing a dangerous game here. They both agree the government cares more about money and power than about people.

Yes there are some differences, but that will always be the case so long as people are involved. But the more I listen to people on “both sides”, the more I see that we’re actually upset at the same thing: the consolidation of power in the hands of a few. These few tend to be involved in government, at the top of particular large corporations, and are more interested in growing their own wealth and power than caring for the people they are supposedly serving — because whether they are elected public servants (*cough cough*) or are CEO’s, they are supposed to be serving citizens or shareholders. Either way, they are to be servants, not greedy, lustful, power-hungry, self-serving.

We may differ on the specifics, but most all of us are in the same boat.

So instead of continuing to be divided along labels, why aren’t we being united by our issues? by our causes?

Are you willing to move beyond the division of labels, and unite in our causes?

Should ignorant people be allowed to make laws and policy?

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

I have a serious question.

Should ignorant people be allowed to make laws and policy?

I’m sure to some it seems like a stupid question to ask. But I have to ask it, because I see so many people permitting the ignorant to make laws and policy, and I don’t understand why.

Noted firearms specialist and personal-safety expert “Shotgun Joe” Biden continues to dole out firearms and personal safety advice:

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

Full story (h/t TexasCHL). Emphasis added.

There’s more to the transcript, but I want to focus on the last part of Mr. Biden’s statement.

I’d like to hope one doesn’t need to understand the fundamental rules of firearm safety to understand how dangerous, reckless, careless, and potentially tragic Mr. Biden’s suggestion could be. If you have no idea what’s on the other side of that door, you have no business shooting through it.

Right now we have a terrible shooting story in the news, of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius being accused of killing his girlfriend. Apparently he shot through a closed door without knowing who was behind it.

*sigh*

There’s tons of other things wrong with Mr. Biden’s comments, both the current ones and ones he’s made in the recent past. I’m at a point where I just don’t know if Biden is that ignorant of firearms and personal safety, or if he’s that smart and is trolling.

Either way, is this a person that should be in charge of making policy? That should be in charge of writing laws? Even if he is that smart and is trolling, is that how a politician should behave?

There are those who claim men cannot speak about abortion because, as men, they cannot understand women’s health issues. There are those who would find it ludicrous for climate-change deniers to set our environmental policy. Or that fundamentalist Christians should have any say over public school science curriculum. If such demonstrable and obvious ignorance on a topic is so unacceptable, why is it acceptable here?

If we seek true experts, people truly knowledgable in the field, when it comes to solving problems… why aren’t we doing that here? I don’t think Mr. Obama nor Mr. Biden has called Massad Ayoob or Tom Givens. Why would that be? Why wouldn’t actual public safety experts be consulted here?

Just because the end may wind up meeting your agenda, I cannot see how you can condone the means for getting there. For if you set the precedent that it’s OK for the ignorant to mandate policy when the policy serves you, just remember… karma’s a bitch.

Hooray for Government – keeping the homeless fed and safe

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

Louisiana’s State Health Department forced a homeless shelter to destroy $8,000 worth of deer meat because it was donated from a hunter organization.

[…]

“We didn’t find anything wrong with it,” Rev. Henry Martin told KTBS. “It was processed correctly, it was packaged correctly.”

[…]

“They threw it in the dumpster and poured Clorox on it,” Martin told KTBS. “Not only are we losing out and it’s costing us money, the people that are hungry aren’t going to get as quality of food, the hunter that’s given his meat in good faith is losing out.”

[…]

“While we applaud the good intentions of the hunters who donated this meat, we must protect the people who eat at Rescue Mission, and we cannot allow a potentially serious health threat to endanger the public,” the Health Department stated.

 Full story

1600# of venison.

Accounts vary, but it seems a “serving of meat” is considered to be 3oz. So that’s 8533 servings that were destroyed.

Let that sink in for a moment.

More than 8000 servings of food.

If you divided that by 3 meals a day, that’s 2844 days.

Can you see how many people who meat could have fed?

Meat is expensive. And hell, venison is lean and high quality protein. We complain about the poor food choices that people make, the poor food choices available to people. And when it comes to charity food donations, people aren’t always going to be donating organic canned goods from Whole Foods, y’know? But here you’re getting high-quality, free-range protein… and you’re destroying it.

Under the guise of “protecting people”?

What about the hunters or other folk that would have otherwise eaten the meat? Why aren’t they being protected? Why is their consumption of the meat OK? If the meat is unsafe to eat, it’s unsafe to eat — period; thus no one should be eating it. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?

None of this makes sense.

You’re not helping.

Gun Control = Elitism ? racism? classism?

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

In some areas, ordinary people of the wrong color, people who live in the wrong neighborhood and have the wrong kind of job — well, those folks are out of luck, and cannot legally own effective tools they might use to protect themselves and their families. They are priced out of the concealed carry market by abuses of “may issue” laws, or by the cost and difficulty of meeting the law’s training requirements, or by high bureaucratic fees. A fee that seems reasonable to a middle-class individual often falls far outside the reach of someone below the poverty line. A training requirement that can be easily met by someone with a high-status, 9 to 5 weekday job might be utterly impossible for a single parent working erratic hours at a low-status job. To put it bluntly, I oppose “reasonable” restrictions in this area because every law that increases the regulatory burden on good people, also creates unavoidable racist and classist effects in actual use.

– Kathy Jackson, on “reasonable” restrictions

It’s curious because many of those who seek “reasonable restrictions” and other sorts of “gun control” tend to also be those that are against racism, classism, and other sorts of social divide.

Then they promote it, through measures like this.

If there’s any one thing I value it’s consistency (which overlaps with integrity). I really don’t care what your political leaning is, your social leaning, just as long as you’re consistent about it. I don’t like bigotry, but I can respect a consistent and honest bigot more than someone who is selective, holds double-standards, and denies or is blind to their own bigotry. Yes, we all want answers, we all want solutions, but you have to think things through else those “unintended consequences” will bite you in your ass.

Why Colin and why not Evan?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Colin Goddard was shot four times during 2007 Virginia Tech massacre that left 32 people dead. He now works with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Full Story

We are supposed to listen to and revere Colin Goddard because he survived the Virginia Tech massacre. That because he survived, he’s now to be considered an authority on gun violence and his opinion and angle is to be given (more) weight. Because he survived.

Evan Todd survived Columbine.

Why isn’t he considered an authority, especially since he was there at the watershed?

Why isn’t his opinion given weight?

Evan Todd and Colin Goddard are both survivors of similar horrific events. A big deal is made out of the appeals of survivors. So why is Evan Todd’s appeal ignored? And does that perhaps speak louder about the mainstream media and many politicians? Do they really care about the survivors? or do they only care about what they can leverage for their agenda?

FWIW, the above link to Colin Goddard came from the HuffPo, because it was a top result in the Google search. I plugged “Colin Goddard” into HuffPo’s local site search and received hundreds of results. I plugged “Evan Todd” into the HuffPo’s site search and received zero results.

OK, I have to explain it

/ hsoi / 12 Comments

The ignorance of Joe Biden is gnawing at me. I shall explain his malfunction.

“Kate.

If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun. Have the shells, the 12 gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I’ve told my wife… we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded… I said Jill, if there’s ever a problem, walk out on the balcony here, walk out… put that double-barreled shotgun… and fire two blasts outside the house.

I promise you, whoever is coming in is not….

You don’t need an AR-15.

It’s harder to aim.

It’s harder to use.

And in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.

Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.

That’s the gist of what Mr. Biden said. He was speaking off the top of his head, so obviously he cut off some of his words as he worked to get all his thoughts out. No issues with that, I do understand how that goes.

So what’s the problem here? Where to begin.

His first major recommendation is to fire the shotgun into the air. I suppose “warning shots”. It comes off like he’s saying if you make the noise, that will scare them away. Bluff. I’m not really sure how well that works. Oh sure, some people may well get scared away by it, but a determined attacker will call your bluff. You’ve given away your position. And really… if “shooting into the air” was such a good tactic, why don’t the police do it? Why doesn’t our military do it? Why doesn’t the Secret Service do that?

Of course, if we’re only to have a double-barrelled shotgun and are to just shoot those 2 blasts, now they know you’re empty. That’s not a good position to be in, especially if they call your bluff.

Mr. Biden is very confident he knows how YOUR self-defense situation will play out. He knows exactly how much ammo you actually will need. He knows exactly how many attackers you will have. He knows exactly what tactics and defensive approaches will work. It’s great that he knows so much! But alas, most of us aren’t able to see into the future as he seems able to do. So if we cannot know what will come, isn’t it in our best interest to be as prepared as possible? But you know… Mr. Biden promises that 2 shots into the air is all you need and that will stop ’em. I’d like to see his Secret Service agents do the same… that’ll stop ’em, right?

An AR-15 is harder to aim? No it’s not. In fact, I’d say an AR-15 tends to be easier to aim, because of things like collapsible stocks that allow the gun to be better adjusted to fit the shooter. Most double-barreled shotguns are big and long, not very well suited for someone even the size of Mrs. Biden, nor very easily adjustable. But an AR-15? Very much so.

Harder to use? No, not really. Point-and-click interface.

Besides… have you ever compared the recoil of a 12-gauge shotgun vs. a .223 Remington AR-15? The 12-gauge will knock your shoulder out. The AR’s recoil is almost negligible. My wife will be very happy if she never shoots a 12-gauge again in her life; or even a 20-gauge. But an AR? She’ll shoot that all day. The gun fits her better, she can hold it better, she can adjust it to work for her better, the recoil is manageable… it’s frankly a lot easier to shoot.

And if you don’t believe me, well… I’ll be more than happy to take anyone to the range to shoot a 12-gauge and an AR-15 side-by-side. Proof is in the pudding.

Updated: I was in a hurry to get out the door last night and forgot to mention a few things.

Firing “warning shots” is reckless.  Do you know where those bullets or pellets will come down? Is “up in the air” a safe direction, because what goes up does come back down… or there could be something along the trajectory there. Let us remind the Vice President of the gun safety rules, or is it OK to ignore these “common sense rules”?

As well, “warning shots” can still be construed as use of deadly force. Depending upon your local laws, you might still wind up in a lot of legal trouble… just for “bluffing”.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool…

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

… than to be Joe Biden and remove all doubt.

He has no idea what he’s talking about. He does not have the credentials to speak with any authority on this matter. His motivations are 100% political, and have nothing to do with personal safety.

And if you don’t understand why every thing out of his mouth is not just wrong but also dangerous, reckless, will get you in deep legal trouble, and illegal in most parts of the country, well… swallow your pride, admit your ignorance, and drop me a line. I’ll be happy to help.

 

Leveling the playing field

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

Now, 15 years later, virtually all law enforcement agencies and officers are either issued AR-15 style rifles, or have them accessible. But, that is the police. In the context of self defense, why do armed citizens need AR-15 style weapons? Because, the armed citizen faces the VERY SAME criminals that police face. The only difference is that police, because they are more often called TO the incident, face these criminals more regularly. Understand, though, criminals do not prey on police, but instead, they victimize the public.

If the armed citizen wants to have a fighting chance against criminals who are armed with high capacity rifles and pistols, they also need effective weaponry. Just like the police did back in the 1990s and today.

Marty Hayes, President of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, responds to “why anyone would need one of those”.

In reading Marty’s response, it made one thing clear: it’s about “leveling the playing field”.

I’ve often said that a firearm is a force equalizer. A petite woman vs. a 300# beast of a man? Force disparity. Old man vs. young thug? Force disparity? Fit able-bodied person vs. small gang? Force disparity. So much of self-defense is about overcoming that disparity. I mean, when some martial art talks about how it’s techniques allow that weak tiny woman to overcome and cripple a 300# man, the underlying message is that martial art allows you to overcome force disparity, and thus it’s a good thing. Rape prevention techniques talk about using tasers, pepper spray, walking in groups – all means of overcoming force disparity. It’s all about reducing the disparity, or better, becoming the one with the force advantage so perhaps no one will mess with you in the first place. However, the reality is while these measures are all useful and do overcome force disparity, a firearm is a better tool for overcoming force disparity. It’s like any technological advancement; it’s why we blog and tweet and email, and why the US Postal Service is shriveling up.

We seem to put great stock in “leveling the playing field”. Why do we drug test in sports? Because we don’t want someone to gain “unfair advantage”. Why is there large political movement to change this country’s legal and economic structure? To stop few people from gaining unfair advantage and control over the rest of us. We want the field level, or whether people want to admit it or not, if the field is going to be tilted they want it tilted in their favor. So why should self-defense be any different? Why should we put ourselves at a disadvantage or force others to be at a disadvantage? That’s akin to telling the petite woman to not fight back against her rapist. To use force of law to deny her effective tools? That’s akin to tying her hands behind her back. Doesn’t it sound stupid to suggest “Hey ladies, the most effective way to keep from being raped is to lie there and take it! Just give him what he wants!”? So why do you suggest solutions that effectively create this situation?

There are numerous reasons why someone would “need one of those”, be it an AR-15, a modern semi-automatic firearm (rifle or pistol or shotgun), a firearm that could hold more bullets than you deem to be “necessary”. Fundamentally it comes down to overcoming force disparity and ensuring that “level playing field”. It’s about allowing the weak to stand strong. And yes, YOU are weak. There is always someone stronger than you: physically, mentally, economically, politically. And if not today, tomorrow you may be weaker (if nothing else, someday you will be old and frail). Are you willing to resign yourself and your fellow man to being crushed? Or would you prefer to stand strong?