Tag: You Can’t Cure Stupid

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

A common act of hypocrisy I notice from individuals that could best be described as tough on crime or neocons is their willingness to declare anybody shot by a cop a thug and demand an investigation before making any negative judgements about a cop who shoots somebody. Case in point, the grand jury decision regarding the Darren Wilson case will soon release a decision. In anticipation for the decision the Missouri governor had told his cops to have their batons at the ready. But there are individuals, sadly within the gun rights movement, that apparently already know what went on. Bob Owens, for example, has two tweets that demonstrate the mindset I mentioned at the beginning:

Even without a trial or so much as a grand jury decision Mr. Owens has already determined that Michael Brown was nothing more than a violent thug and that the people upset by his death are misguided.

I sometime wish I had clairvoyant powers and could know, for certain, what went down in situations I wasn’t in any way involved in. But this seems to be a power only the tough on crime and rioters possess. According to one side Michael Brown deserved to be shot by the cop and according to the other side the cop murdered Michael Brown without cause.

What Authors Come Up With When They Understand Neither Technology or Guns

Most gun owners know that journalists employed by major media outlets have a notorious lack of understanding of guns. Their ignorance, as many people working in the computer field know, doesn’t just apply to guns through. When it comes to technology they are more often than not entirely clueless. So when guns and technology are combined in one article the only expectation should be totally stupidity and that’s what we have here:

Broadcast for Safe Firearms draws on the idea that if computers are now reliable enough for cars, medicine and fly-by-wire aircraft, they are probably reliable enough to provide a framework to cut down mass shootings.

The idea isn’t brand-new, as the authors note. Their addition to the research is to propose what they call a “context-aware system in the firearm” that can draw on information from sensors in the environment to make safety decisions.

In other words, instead of enforcing “safe environment” rules by way of checkpoints where guns are not permitted (on airplanes, in consulates and embassies and so on), “we propose to address these safety areas within the firearm itself”. The gun would negotiate its operations by communicating with the safety area transmitter.

If the author understood guns and technology he would know to call bullshit on this research immediately. It’s an unworkable idea. The first thing going against it is that it relies on a central authority to distribute the access control lists to each individual firearm. That means any firearm will only be as capable as the central authority allows it to be. It also means that there is one point of failure, which is never desirable. Another thing going against this idea is that it relies on wireless communications to enable or disable firearms. Wireless communication is an amazing technology but we still haven’t mastered foolproof communication. Something as simple as a concrete wall can block a wireless signal meaning many buildings suffer very spotty wireless coverage. Additionally the access control mechanism is easily defeated by those shielded carrying bags.

It’s also worth noting that this mechanism, like most gun control schemes, relies on controlling the design of a very simple mechanical device. How, exactly, does one integrate this technology in already existing firearms and prevent individuals with 3D printers or computer numerical control (CNC) machines from building firearms without this technology included?

If You Want Limited Government You’re Not Getting it By Voting

November 4th is almost here (and almost over, thank the gods; I can’t wait until people are being nicer to one another again), which means the political rhetoric is in high gear and most people deeply involved in politics are being insufferable dicks to anybody who isn’t going to vote their way.

Since this isn’t a presidential election few people really give a damn. But there is one group of people who care very much, the small group of presidential hopefuls. These scumbag politicians are spewing some of the dumbest rhetoric out there in the hopes of drumming up a base of gullible suckers who will work furiously, for free, on their campaigns. Elizabeth Warren already beat on the rhetoric drum when she claimed that the Republicans are responsible for everything bad in this country. So it’s time for a Republicans to claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of this country’s ills. Who better to spew such rhetoric than Rand Paul:

Our Founder’s would be ashamed at what our government has become. Micromanaging the daily lives of citizens is not the duty of government. But the GOP is taking a stand—we are saying enough is enough.

It is the Republican party that is trying to limit government power and this is an ideal that all libertarians firmly believe in and support. If we want to protect our civil liberties, we must come together. And it’s no secret that the Republican party desperately need libertarian support.

This is what Rand has reduced himself to, being a mindless party shill in the hopes he will be given a chance at the presidency (he won’t). But it’s amazing how much cognitive dissonance this man maintains. The Republican Party, according to his article, will protect our civil liberties. I must have missed the asterisk that indicates your civil liberties won’t be protected if they involve wanting to marry somebody of the same gender, transition genders, smoke cannabis, avoid being spied on by the government, keep your assets from being randomly seized by police officers, stop this “tough on crime” bullshit this has made this country a total police state, freely cross the imaginary line between the United States and Mexico, go through the airport without being sexually molested, or practice the Muslim faith without being labeled at terrorist. Basically if the civil liberties you want to enjoy fall without a very small subset then the Republican Party may throw you bone if you beg really hard.

You’re not going to vote yourself a limited government. In fact a limited government is a pipe dream. Once a group of individuals has the power to declare what is legal and illegal and has the capacity for violence to beat down or kill anybody who disagrees the idea of limited control is thrown out the window. The only limitation you may enjoy are the ones approved by the state. As we have seen in this country every politicians is interested in curtailing your liberties. Some of them want to curtail one subset while others want to curtail another subset. In the end both subsets get restricted because both groups of politicians manage to wield some of the state’s power.

If you want limited government voting Republican isn’t going to get it. In fact it won’t even slow down the state’s grabbing for power. Republicans want to restrict your liberties just as much as Democrats. That’s why voting isn’t going to deliver the goods. The only candidates that have a shot of winning (because the Republican and Democrats used their duopoly to lockout other parties for all intents and purposes) want to expand the state’s powers.

Anyways I will try to avoid wasting your time with too many political articles between now and November 4th and focus on things that actually matter.

Be Kind to Plants, Don’t Eat Them

I have no objection of vegetarianism or veganism. What I do object to are the vegetarians and vegans who act like they’re morally superior to us omnivores because they don’t eat animals. They fall into the same trap most of us do, being animals themselves they have very animal centric views. Since they are capable of suffering they believe all animals are capable of suffering (something I agree with). However, they don’t have any way to emphasize with plants so they assume plants are incapable of suffering and therefore eating them is morally acceptable. As it turns out plants are living things and like any living thing they have a drive to live. More research is showing that plants have an opinion on being eaten and their opinion is that being eaten sucks:

Vegetarians and vegans pay heed: New research shows plants know when they’re being eaten. And they don’t like it.

That plants possess an intelligence is not new knowledge, but according to Modern Farmer, a new study from the University of Missouri shows plants can sense when they are being eaten and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening.

If you derive some amount of moral superiority for being a vegetarian or vegan on the grounds that plants don’t suffer then you can kindly shut the fuck up now. Those of you who refuse to eat meat because of the way animals are treated by farmers still have a valid argument because the way many farmers, namely factory farmers, treat their livestock is pretty disgusting.

The New Birther Conspiracy

Since Obama’s election there has been a branch of the neocons obsessed with the idea that he was secretly born in Kenya. They demanded that Obama unveil his birth certificate. When he finally did they started claiming that it was fake. But there’s a new angle to the birther conspiracy and it’s even dumber. Now a branch of neocons are insinuating that Obama’s two girls aren’t actually his girls, at least genetically speaking, but adopted children from Morocco:

While some Americans feel that the two girls have very little resemblance to their parents, others claim that the pair were adopted from Morocco. Similar to their father, there is very little evidence surrounding the two girls’ birth and background. Online searches for either of their birth records come up completely dry.

Why am I wasting your time with this? Because conspiracy theories fascinate me and therefore amuse me. They almost always involve some kernel of truth that is extrapolated from to absurd levels. In this case the evidence cited by the conspiracy theorists is particularly absurd:

Ancestry.com and GenealogyBank.com have no records of the two sisters.

Well that settles it. If Ancestry.com and GenealogyBank.com don’t have records of the girls then they must have been adopted!

My gods this shit makes me laugh so hard. I mean, seriously, there is a list at least a light year long of valid criticisms against Obama. Why are so many neocons obsessed with manufacturing conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the man’s office and entirely irrelevant even if they were true? This behavior baffles me.

My Recent Foray Into Lead Ammunition Ban Lunacy

I was feeling particularly masochistic yesterday so I opened up the Star Tribune and read through the Letters to the Editor section. On October 11th an individual wrote a letter explaining why a lead ammunition ban isn’t a great idea:

In the Oct. 3 article “Wildlife experts think hunters should consider nontoxic copper,” I was disappointed to read that activists are once again railing against traditional ammunition.

As the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will tell you, there have been no documented cases of lead poisoning in humans by eating wild game. Wild game harvested with traditional ammunition is safe, and to say otherwise is nothing but a scare tactic.

Bald eagle population levels are at an all-time high (even though traditional ammunition has been used for centuries), and even critics of traditional ammunition in this article agree it is not a threat to the eagle population.

Using lead ammunition is safe, so why does this issue get so much press each fall? What is the ultimate goal of traditional ammo critics?

There are some who would like to see all hunting and guns completely gone. They obviously can’t say or do these things outright in states like Minnesota, a state proud of its hunting heritage, so they must weaken our traditions. They chip away at them slowly, and they start with traditional ammunition.

Joe Drexler, Hastings

The point that Mr. Drexler made is a valid one. Gun control loons always try to take a light year when you give them an inch. But another opinionated individual totally missed that point:

An Oct. 11 letter writer sees a vast, antihunting conspiracy by the copper-ammunition crowd to take away one tiny hunting tradition at a time and ultimately end game hunting in Minnesota.

First: That there has been no case of human lead poisoning from ingesting lead shot and spatter doesn’t mean that the very-well-documented science of harm from lead ammunition to water fowl and other bird species is false. The writer may think that the bald eagle population is robust; I don’t.

Second: If the writer really wants to be authentic in his choice of traditional hunting “ammo,” he’d best go out and find a nice tree limb to make a bow from. (Sorry, no fiberglass-compound bows.) His traditional arrow shafts and real feather fletching, along with a gut drawstring, will be of his choosing. I hope he’s adept at making flint arrowheads.

Bob Brereton, St. Paul

Emphasis mine. That part just made me laugh. Mr. Brereton apparently feels that bald eagle populations aren’t robust and his feels obviously matter here. I think that really sets the tone of this letter as well since it shows that the issue is about feelings and not about facts. But the part that really made me laugh was the last paragraph where Mr. Brereton said that those wanting to use traditional ammunition should go back to the bow and arrow. Although Mr. Drexler’s letter used the term traditional ammunition his argument had nothing to do with lead ammunition being a hunting tradition. I’m fairly certain Mr. Brereton purposely missed the point because anybody with enough intelligence to write and mail a letter should be able to read and comprehend what Mr. Drexler wrote.

Mr. Drexler is correct though, this push to ban lead ammunition for hunting is just an attempt to get a camel’s nose under the ammunition tent. The history of gun control in this country is also a history of incremental restrictions. In 1934 we were told that machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and a random assortment of firearms simply labeled any other weapons needed to be more tightly controlled. This control came in the form of a $200.00 tax stamp and approval from local law enforcers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). After that gun control advocates demanded that the sale of all new firearms occur at federally registered dealers. Part of the new sales policy was that a record of the buyer had to be kept by the dealer. Then the gun control loons expanded on that by mandating that every person purchasing a new firearm be required to pass a background check. With its nose firmly under the tent the gun control camel then demanded a ban on standard capacity magazines and any firearm that it found aesthetically offensive.

Now gun controllers want to restrict lead ammunition. While I cannot read minds and therefore cannot know their intentions for sure I feel it is reasonable to not believe that they’re concerned about wildlife. More likely they want to ban lead ammunition because it’s affordable. Most gun control policies seem to be thinly veiled attempts at making participating in the shooting sports more expensive.

Five Years Old? Draw Something That Vaguely Resembles a Gun? Then You Must be Suicidal!

I honestly had a difficult time coming up with a title for this post because it contains more stupidity than a title rightly ought to describe. A five year-old kid in Mobile, Alabama drew something that vaguely looked like a gun. Since this is the nation of zero tolerance that picture required an immediate and overwhelmingly moronic response:

MOBILE, Alabama (WPMI) – An Alabama mother is furious that her 5-year-old daughter was forced to sign a school contract stating she wouldn’t kill herself or anyone else at school.

School officials told Rebecca, who did not want to give her last name, they had to send 5-year-old Elizabeth home after an incident in class.

“They told me she drew something that resembled a gun. According to them she pointed a crayon at another student and said ‘pew pew’,” Rebecca explained.

I’m not even sure what the line of thinking was here. The kid drew something that looked like a gun, which I understand requires immediate action from school administrators this day and age. I also understand that the response must be devoid of recognizable logic. But requiring the kid to sign a contract, which is unenforceable since she isn’t 18 and therefore irrelevant, stating that she won’t commit suicide? That’s just bizarre. The school administrators couldn’t believe the kid was either suicidal or a threat to fellow students otherwise they would have required more than a signature from a kid on a contract that wouldn’t accomplish anything on the best of days. Perhaps the school administrators are trying to get an incident of mental illness on the kid’s record in the hopes of making it more difficult for her to buy a gun in the future. Or, more likely, the school administrators are trying to embarrass the kid as much as possible in the hopes of linking anything involving guns with bad experiences.

The NRA Gave Me Cancer

I have a lot of issues with the National Rifle Association (NRA) but, in general, I believe the organization means well. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, view the NRA has the direct spawn of Satan. Anything that goes wrong in the world is, according to the gun control loons, the direct fault of the NRA. For example, did you know that the Ebola crisis is the fault of the NRA? I’m not joking on this one. Gun Free Zone linked to an article that would be absolutely hilarious if the author wasn’t being serious:

Every day brings more details about the first case of the Ebola virus to be diagnosed in the U.S. And while experts say there is essentially no risk of a significant outbreak here in the states, much of the public remains worried. A poll by Harvard found that 39% of U.S. adults are concerned about a large outbreak here, and more than a quarter fear someone in their immediate family could get sick with Ebola.

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

So the fear of Ebola is directly caused by the NRA because it somehow, through its Illuminati connections I’m sure, has prevented a surgeon general from being appointed and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is totally not telling people that the likelihood of Ebola spreading in the United States is remote.

Although I’m accustomed to gun control loons blaming the NRA for everything wrong in the universe this accusation takes matters to an entirely different universe. First of all I can’t remember any previous surgeon general dispelling fears about previous epidemics such as the yearly flu that was always slated to kill us all. As far as I know the person who filled that position has never even put a dent in the mass media’s rampant fear mongering. Additionally I’m not aware of the NRA having connections to the Illuminati, Bilderberg, Rothschilds, lizard people, or any other group conspiracy theorists such as the author of the linked article are so accustomed to claim is pulling the strings behind the scenes. If the NRA did have such connections I would imagine, as a member, I’d see some pretty stellar benefits.

Really all there is to do about this accusation is point and laugh. It’s downright nutty. In fact it’s probably nuttier than many of Alex Jone’s insane ramblings. Next week I’m sure the author will have a fascinating investigative piece that will determinate that the NRA is headed by Literally Hitler.

Here’s Some Compromise

Most people have probably heard that Apple is no long able to bypass a device’s encryption and Google has announced the same feature will appear in the next release of Android. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence is glad to hear this but there are a few dipships who think this is a bad feature. Take this fool for example:

How to resolve this? A police “back door” for all smartphones is undesirable — a back door can and will be exploited by bad guys, too. However, with all their wizardry, perhaps Apple and Google could invent a kind of secure golden key they would retain and use only when a court has approved a search warrant. Ultimately, Congress could act and force the issue, but we’d rather see it resolved in law enforcement collaboration with the manufacturers and in a way that protects all three of the forces at work: technology, privacy and rule of law.

So a police back door is undesirable but Apple and Google could perhaps implement a police back door. Idiot. Do you know what I think about that idea? This is what I think about that idea:

fuck-you

That’s right, fuck this guy and his idea. There is no magical security mechanism that can allow only legitimate bypasses. If there is a back door then it can, as a matter of fact, be abused. Even if malicious third parties were unable to access the system it would still be ripe for abuse by law enforcement agents, which have a notable history of abusing power.

Here’s my idea for a compromise. Apple and Google should not implement any back door and in return law enforcement agents can deal with the fact that they can’t access our personal data on our devices. How’s that for a compromise?

A Tip For Those Who Wish To Be Bigots

The more comments I read on various gun blogs the more I realize that there are a lot of bigoted assholes who read gun blogs. Talk about disappointment. As Caleb at Gun Nuts Media pointed out, a lot of gun owners lose their shit when anti-gunners insinuate that we’re all violent psychopaths but then go around and insinuate that Muslims are all violent psychopaths. And if you read through that link’s comments you’ll see his statement confirmed.

It’s obvious that a lot of people in the shooting community are dead set on being bigoted assholes. Fine. Who am I to tell them otherwise? But if they’re going to be bigoted assholes I would appreciate it if they at least understood a very important point: Muslims don’t share a hive mind and Islam isn’t a single undivided religion. Many of the people being bigots against Muslims are Christians, which is kind of ironic when you look at the history of Christianity. Between the Crusades and Inquisition the Church killed a whole heap of people. When I point this out the usual response is that the Church isn’t representative of Christianity, which is why so many different sects exist. Guess what, Islam is the same. There are many different sects of Islam.

The two major well known sects are the Sunni and Shia. But there are other sects as well including Ahmadiyya, Kharijite, and Quranism. Just as there are Catholic, Lutheran, and Presbyterian Christians there are many different sects of Islam. So when you insinuate every Muslim is a member of one big group you are demonstrating your ignorance and your ignorance is probably why you’re a bigot. Let’s look at the current boogeyman, the Islamic State (IS). If you listen to many people in the shooting community you would believe that the IS represents all of Islam. It doesn’t. The IS is part of the Sunni sect of Islam. Specifically it is part of the Salafi sect, which many Sunni clerics consider to be part of the Wahhabi sect. In other words the IS considers itself Sunni but not every Sunni agrees. In fact many Muslims disagree with the IS so strongly that they’re shooting its members.

So if you really feel the need to be a bigoted asshole please at least realize that Muslims aren’t bees, they don’t exhibit a hive mentality. It may even surprise you to know that Muslims are people and like all other people they exhibit individualistic behavior.

That concludes this public service announcement. Feel free to go about your day.