Tag: You Can’t Cure Stupid

Another Article Claiming Gun Owners are Terrorists

Another day, another mainstream media report trying to label gun owners as terrorists:

There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal.

They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.

No, the greatest danger to the lives of American is the United States government. Considering the Attorney General stated that it’s legal to murder American citizens on United States soil with drones I don’t think there is any way to claim that those who oppose the state are a real danger. I do lover this excerpt:

Patriot groups are motivated by a host of anti-government attitudes, but their primary focus is guns. They are convinced that the government is out to seize their weapons, even though most legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or restricting the types of weapons that can be sold.

I would say the “patriot” movement’s primary focus is to make the United States government abide by the Constitution, which is why I’m not part of the movement (I want to abolish the government entirely). What the Los Angeles Times is trying to do with that statement is isolate gun owners from the general populace, divide them from the large group so they can be easily conquered. The irony, of course, is that the Los Angeles Times is trying to make gun owners look dangerous while their city’s police department shoots up random trucks and burns a man down instead of following due process. Denizens of Los Angeles should be well aware of the fact that the state is far more dangerous than independent gun owners.

On the upside, at least they’re not blaming the anarchists this time.

The End of the World

If the White House website is to be believed the world is likely to end since Obama has signed the mandatory budget cut:

US President Barack Obama has signed into effect a wave of steep spending cuts which he has warned could damage the US economy.

The cuts – known as the sequester and drawn up two years ago – will take $85bn (£56bn) from the US federal budget this year.

Last-ditch talks at the White House to avert the reductions before Friday’s deadline broke up without agreement.

White House scare tactics aside what this really means is that the federal budget will increase less than was wanted. Nothing was cut, budget increases were merely reduced. The sun will rise tomorrow, business in the United States will continue as usual, and the government will maintain it’s currently quality of service (which is to say they won’t provide any quality service).

Oh Krugman, You’re Always Good for Laughs

Paul Krugman has to be one of my favorite people in economics. Every time he speaks about economics, which is claims is his field of expertise, he says something so incredibly dumb that it makes one laugh our loud. In his latest opinion piece in the New York Times he claimed that Austrian economists are akin to cultists:

Substance aside — not that substance isn’t important — Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith.

What makes this statement so funny is that every one of those accusations can be aimed at Keynesian economists. Keynesian believe they have access to a truth that generations of classical liberal theorists have somehow failed to discern. Even in modern times the followers of Keynes believe that war is good for the economy. What they fail to see, as Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in 1850, is that which is unseen. When a Keynesian sees a destroyed building they see economic stimulus waiting to happen. In their eyes rebuilding the structure will employ people and require materials, which will result in economic growth. They fail to see that the people and materials used to rebuild a destroyed structure could have instead been used to build a new structure. Instead of merely replacing that which was destroyed real economic growth, that is the creation of new wealth, could have occurred.

Keynesian also go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. Whenever the programs they advocate fail they don’t admit they were incorrect, they merely claim that the program wasn’t done hard enough. When printing money (often referred to as quantitative easing) failed to stimulate the economy the Keynesians claimed that the Federal Reserve simply failed to print enough money. The Federal Reserve is now printing $40 billion a month because their last two bouts of printing new money failed to get the economy on track. Even with so much money being printed the economy continues to falter and the Keynesians aren’t admitting their theory is incorrect, they’re blaming the Federal Reserve for not printing more money.

Failing prophecies also strengthens the beliefs of Keynesian economists. Keynesians claimed that printing money was the solution to the economic depression and now that they’ve been proven wrong they hunker down and demand that more money must be printed. They never stop to consider that their predictions may be wrong. When it comes to economics Keynesians are the masters of demanding the same failing programs be tried again, only harder.

The best part of Krugman’s column is the final sentence:

It would be sort of funny if it weren’t for the fact that this cult has large influence within the GOP.

Honestly, that sentence would be sort of funny if it weren’t for the fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality. Show me a single member of the Republican Party that has studied and advocates Austrian economics (and now that Ron Paul is retired he no longer counts).

Mainstream economics has failed, in part, because its practitioners try to shape economics facts to fit their hypothesis. Consider unemployment. Keynesians are quick to claim that the creation of government programs is the solution to increasing unemployment numbers. When the government created programs to employ people the unemployment rate failed to drop so the Keynesians in the state redefined unemployment. Entire sections of the unemployed population were removed from the statistic and that allowed the state to report improved numbers. The state now reports, what it calls, the U3 statistic, which doesn’t include individuals who have been unemployed for more than one year (removing those individuals from the statistic is justified by claiming those individuals are no longer looking for work and are therefore unemployed by choice). By massaging the numbers the Keynesians were able to make the economic fact of employment fit their hypothesis and therefore claim to be knowledgeable in economic matters.

Raising Minimum Wage

One of the things Obama urged during his State of the Union address was for Congress to increase the minimum wage to $9/hour:

He urged Congress to work with states to provide “high quality” preschool to all low- and moderate-income 4-year-olds, and he proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour, up from $7.25 today.

Those of us who have studied the Austrian tradition of economics duly point out that increasing minimum wage also increases unemployment. Minimum wage laws create a barrier for entry, especially for those just entering the workforce and therefore unskilled.

Let’s look at minimum wage laws another way. If raising the minimum wage actually increases the average wealth of the lowest paid workers why stop at $9/hour? Why not make it $100/hour or $1,000/hour? Isn’t it time we stopped screwing around and made everybody millionaires? Wouldn’t that put everybody above the poverty line? No, it would make almost everybody in the workforce unemployable, at least legitimately. Most people don’t produce $100/hour worth of value let alone $1,000/hour. If raising minimum wage to $100/hour sounds preposterous and unworkable why do people think raising it to $9/hour is any different?

A Proposal to Save the Australian Government Time and Money

I don’t claim myself to be a financial genius but I believe I can save the Australian government a lot of time and money:

Three American companies-Apple, Microsoft and Adobe-have been summoned by the Australian Parliament to explain why they charge higher prices Down Under than in other countries.

My proposal is to call of the hearing because I can provide the answer. The reason Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe charge what they charge is because those are the prices people are willing to pay. It’s as simple as that. If I manufacture a laptop, charge $2,000 for it, and enough people buy my laptop to turn me a profit I find acceptable then I know I’ve set the right price. Unfortunately the Australian government is unlike to find, “Because those are the prices the market will bear.” as an acceptable answer.

More People Submitted Notice to Carry at the Minnesota State Capitol

How can anybody be surprised by this news:

The number of people who have notified authorities they will be carrying loaded weapons in the state Capitol area has spiked since the DFL-controlled Legislature put gun-control on the agenda in the wake of the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.

While there were 56 people filing such notifications all of last year, there have already been 148 notifications filed in the last month.

It is legal for a permit-holder to carry his or her loaded weapon into the state Capitol and most surrounding buildings — state Rep. Tony Cornish says he is armed every day, usually with a 40-caliber Glock with a high-capacity ammunition magazine. This past week, supporters of gun-owners’ rights have been a force at the nearby State Office Building, swamping committees that have been discussing background checks, bans on weapons and ammunition and other gun issues.

[…]

In all of 2012, when the pro-gun GOP held control of the Legislature, only 56 new notices were filed, according to a spokesman for the Department.

Based on this article it appears that the author is attempting to insinuate that the increase in notices is due solely to the Democratic Party taking control in the legislature. It’s not until the last paragraph that the real reason is mentioned:

Since Jan. 7, the day before DFLers took control and began talking about responding to the Connecticut shootings, there have been 148 notices filed. More More than 50 new notices were received from Feb. 1 to Feb. 6, which includes days the hearings were taking place in the State Office Building. That is nearly as much as were received all last year.

The sudden spike in notices wasn’t due to the Democrats taking control, it was due to the sudden push for gun control. People in the gun rights movement who carry everywhere and were planning to attend the hearing simply gave notice so they could do what they always do, legally carry a gun on their person. While the author notes that a mere 50 of the 148 notices this year were filed between February 1st and 6th he fails to note that the hearings were known about in January. Many people likely filed their notices as soon as the hearing dates were announced so they didn’t have to file their notices before entering the hearings.

In other words this story is really a non-story and required no more than one sentence to cover. What the author should have wrote was, “Gun rights activists who carry firearms everywhere carried their firearms when attending the hearings on gun control.”

Why Didn’t Anybody Tell Me My LR-308 Could Blow Up Railroads

I want to know why nobody informed me that my LR-308 could knock jets flying at 30,000 feet out of the air and blow up railroads:

Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday repeated the debunked claim that semi-automatic and so-called assault weapons can “shoot down airplanes” — and added that they can also “blow up railroads.”

“Semi-automatic weapons are not just about gun control, they’re about national security,” Jackson said on Fox News. “You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue.”

I’m also curious how I unlock this feature on my rifle. In three-gun competitions I use it to shoot at steel plates and it fails to penetrate them so I have a hard time understanding how it could blow up a railroad. Is there a special type of ammunition I’m supposed to use? Are there occult rituals I need to perform? Would somebody tell me how the hell I can get these features working? Shouldn’t shit like this be in the owner’s manual?

Poor Risk Assessment

Every year hundreds of thousands of people flock to the Minnesota State Fair. One of the biggest attractions of the Fair is the ocean of heart attack inducing deep fried food on sticks. Even though the food at the Fair is likely to take a few years off of your life the primary health concern of fair goers appears to be second hand smoke:

The fair’s board of managers voted to ban smoking in virtually all open-air space on the 320-acre grounds starting with the 2013 Great Minnesota Get-Together. Smoking, already prohibited in fair buildings or in entertainment seating areas such as the bandshell and grandstand, will be restricted to designated outdoor smoking areas.

Risk assessment is hard.

Not Helping

As usual Ann Coulter, psychotic neocon (but I repeat myself) extraordinaire, isn’t helping:

Ann Coulter is insisting that guns don’t kill people, non-white people kill people.

The conservative columnist on Monday told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the country had a “demographic problem” because “white populations” in the U.S. and Belgium had the same low murder rate.

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

Even though gun control has its roots in racism I think it would be wise to divorce the topic of gun control from race. Coulter’s attempt to blame demographics is absurd. Self-defense isn’t about race, religion, or gender. Everybody has the right to defend themselves.

Gun Control Advocates Like to Contradict Themselves

I maintain a relatively positive outlook most of the time by finding the funny side of things. Because of this I can find the Star Tribune somewhat entertaining at times. If I were a more negative person the Star Tribune would be a constant source of anger. Both the articles written by the paper’s staff and the letter received from their readers are often headache inducing if you try to find any logic. Take the following letter sent to the Star Tribune:

In response to the Jan. 10 letter on gun violence that ended with “Never forget, the Constitution was created to protect us citizens from our government”: This libertarian myth is contrary to the full breadth of the document. According to constitutional scholar Garrett Epps (writing in the Nation, Feb. 7, 2011): “[The] document as a whole is much more concerned about what the government can do — not with what it can’t. From the beginning, it was empowered to levy taxes, to raise armies, to make war, to set the rules of commerce and to bind the nation through treaties and international agreements. … [It] was not written to weaken an overreaching Congress but to strengthen an enfeebled one.”

I actually agree with this paragraph. The Constitution was actually a federal power grab. Before it the federal government was ruled by the Articles of Confederation, which kept most power in the hands of the individual states. In fact the federal government was unable to collect taxes, instead relying on voluntary payments from the individual states, and didn’t have a Supreme Court, leaving it unable to make court rulings affecting people living in the individual states. This is why I’m not a fan of the Constitution, it centralized power and left the door open so the federal government could perpetually grab more power. Had the writer stopped there she may have been able to claim a point but she continued:

The Constitution continues to be a living, breathing document — the 27 Amendments are proof of this — and should not be considered a means to restrict our present laws based on an 18th-century, musket-toting populace.

LUANNE SPEETER, EDINA

She claims that the Constitution is a living document as attested by the 27 amendments that have been made to it. Notice that she specifically indicated the the document is living because of the amendment process, she didn’t claim that the Constitution was a living document because the interpretation of the statements found within can be change over time. She contradicted herself by saying the amendment process is how you make changes to the Constitution then claimed that the Constitution shouldn’t “be considered a means to restrict our present laws based on an 18th-century, musket-toting populace.” The second of those 27 mentioned amendments specifically protects the rights of gun owners from disarmament. On top of that the Supreme Court, which was granted the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. You can’t claim that the amendment process is how you change the Constitution and then turn around and ignore one of those amendments.

Gun control advocates can’t help but get caught up in contradictions. Their entire philosophy is contradictory. They claim to oppose violence but demand the state use violence to disarm gun owners and they claim to oppose gun possession but demand that the state be allowed to keep guns.