3D Printing, Guns and Free Speech

The debate on the second amendment took an interesting turn recently.

The video below demonstrates a gun magazine created with what's known as a "3D Printer."

A "3D Printer" is a device that can create solid items from an electronic description.

In the case above a magazine for an "assault" rifle.  The description of the magazine is merely a collection of computer codes - typically from a standard CAD system like AutoCad.  You transmit the instructions to the printer, load in some plastic or metal, and in a few hours the object described by the CAD file is completed.

3D printing is a fairly new technology and still somewhat costly but all that will change as the advantages of manufacturing things locally begins to outweigh the cost and complexity of doing other ways, e.g., having something manufactured in China and shipped to the US.

Of course, volume manufacturing methods such as injection molding, will continue to dominate for high volume applications.

Soon people will be manufacturing complete guns with this technology.

And now we have a situation similar to the one involving "Steal this Book" by Abbie Hoffman.

From Wikipedia

When published in 1970 it was quite an exercise in first amendment rights because it described illegal activities.  It held descriptions of smoke bombs, Molotov cocktails, dirty nuclear bombs, pipe bombs, antidotes for tear gas, and any number of other interesting things.

The CAD descriptions of gun parts and components is really no different a first amendment activity than this book was.

When you think about this you have to consider things like Google "mapping" popular Grand Canyon trails (see this).

No doubt folks who would otherwise pay a private company to ride down the trail can now sit at home and go down the trail virtually.  Of course this will take away from the private companies business.

Isn't that stealing?

Or is it progress?

Time and again the ways we do things are up-ended by change - technical progress, e.g., 3D printers.  Abbie Hoffman opened an entire world of activity to my 8th-grade mind with his book.

There was "Captain Crunch" (John Draper) and his "phone phreaking" that allowed you to take control of telephone trunk lines - all garnered from public information.

The problem is that our founding father understood that controlling speech was paramount to controlling a population which is why the first amendment was so important to them (and why its the "first" amendment).

Time and again the US Supreme Court has sided with "free speech" over interests that try to use it to control us or what we do that speech or the information it contains.  Rest assured that if Abbie Hoffman was writing about dirty nuclear bombs in 1970 plenty of terrorists today already know about them.

A free society is always to some degree a dangerous society because there are fewer limits than you might find in a totalitarian state.

Which is why the second amendment exists as well.

To provide a mechanism for people to assure their own free speech.  Clearly a government interested in controlling speech can make laws or attempt to control people by any means it sees fit.  And if its subjects have no recourse, i.e., are unarmed, then the government will likely succeed.

Today we live in a world most likely never imagined by our forefathers.  Both in terms of technology such as the internet as well as in terms of government tyranny (consider the Nation Defense Authorization Act or NDAA in which sections 1021 and 1022 provide for "unlimited detainment" of those deemed to be a threat to national security).

Our forefathers considered that with freedom comes responsibility.

After all, to live in the 1700's you had to be responsible, i.e., organizing a means for you and your family to eat as there were no "supermarkets," or you died.

I believe that this notion of "responsibility" was not written explicitly into the US Constitution because it was an innate element of life, i.e., anyone who ignored these responsibilities simply died of hunger.

So implicitly there was "freedom of speech" with responsibility, i.e., not yelling fire in a crowded theater, not inciting a riot, and so on.

Similarly for the Second Amendment and all the rest.

But today this notion of responsibility is largely lost - at least on the population that expects the government to provide for it in some way - basically half of the people.

And the government, in turn, thinks that legislation is a replacement for responsibility.

The only problem is that no matter how clever the law a clever criminal or lawyer will find a way around it.

So the government, in order to control the people, creates every more byzantine laws to control ever finer details of behavior as a replacement for people not being responsible for themselves.

Tens of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that no one understands nor can abide by.

This is tyranny.

In order for the government to control its population the notion of a description of a gun will be attacked next, lest anyone build one.

(Meanwhile things like zip-guns - simple home-made devices that act as guns - are basic fodder for sophomore shop class...)

The image above was constructed by a 13 year old in the 1950's.  (Why didn't he kill anyone with it?  His parents would have killed him first for making it - but that's not longer allowed.)

Fortunately with today's educational system no one even knows what a zip gun is... so I guess we are all safe due to ignorance.

Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Looking Into What's In Your Food = Terrorism

"Obesity" from the ABC News article.

Part of the obesity problem we face in this country I think has little to do with "moving" and "not playing video games." It also only partially to do with too much soda and junk food.  In particular you might want to read this piece from "Food Safety News" on the production of chicken in the US.

(Note that there is a lot of "conspiracy" involved in this as well - see this ABC news article on how "big food" pays industry and academia to poke holes in the consensus about how bad modern food is for people.)

The Food Safety article starts by talking about a movie called "45 Days" that describes the life of a broiler chicken at a typical US chicken farm.

This movie, made ten years ago, describes how chickens are raised on these farms:

- Each of the 25,000 chickens has approximately 8" x 11" of space.

- The cage is not cleaned during their entire life, nor is there enough room for the birds to move.

- 3% of the birds die before the 45 days is up.

- Birds are given growth hormones and antibiotics.

And this was ten years ago.

You don't hear much about this today, not because things have changed or gotten better, but because of laws like Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Animal Facilities Protection Act.

These laws make taking pictures (without permission of course) inside an "animal farm" a federal terrorism felony.  Ditto for pretending to want a job at such a facility in order to obtain such images.

What might you find inside such a facility if you looked?

According to Wired (summary from here) we might find in our chicken

• Multi-drug resistant E. coli on broiler chicken carcasses.
  
• “Alarmingly high” levels of multi-drug resistant bacteria in all forms of chicken including organic chicken.
  
• An additional class of drugs important in human medicine called fluoroquinolones. 
  Fluoroquinolones were described in my post on C. diff.
  
• High rates of multi-drug resistant bacteria on chicken meat.

And looking into this makes you a federal "terrorist" according to these laws.

Here is information on the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - a law widely supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

And this is just the chicken industry.

The same is true for plants grown on US farms (see this on "Round Up Ready" crops).

The same is true for the pork industry (though I have not researched this in detail).

And similarly for the beef industry.

(See "Food, Inc." a 2008 movie - but only if you have a very strong stomach.)

What does this all mean?

Duh!

We are killing ourselves with our food.

Killing our own children.

If you like global warming you'll love plotting the rise of the "industrialization of food" against the obesity epidemic (see this as an example).

The epidemic of obesity probably costs us about $150 billion annually in terms of additional medical costs.

And now anyone investigating this is a terrorist under federal law.

Little wonder our country is going down the drain.

Car Insurance: RIpping Off the Poor

So the clever folks at Consumer Federation of America (CFA) via this article at Bloomberg issued this press release.

According to the press release (underline mine): "...  In two-thirds of the 60 cases studied, large auto insurers quoted higher premiums to safe drivers than to those responsible for an accident. And in more than three-fifths of the cases with these higher premiums, the premium quoted the safe driver exceeded the premium quoted the unsafe driver by at least 25 percent."


Basically it shows that all the fancy Gecko, Flo, "good hands" and burning hair ball commercials come from companies that are ripping you off in terms of auto insurance (see table below).

In some cases the "poor" person paying 100% more than the rich one.

Why?

From the press release:  “Again, our research on auto insurance prices reveals a marketplace that is highly uncompetitive,” said CFA’s Brobeck. “Any economist will tell you that when prices range 100%, even 200%, for similar products, that marketplace is not competitive. But it appears that this lack of competitive pricing mainly reflects the frequent lack of interest of major auto insurers in selling basic products to low- and moderate-income drivers,” he added.

Lets look at the "test" person for which, in a number of markets listed below, auto insurance quotes were requested:

Shared Characteristics
Female, 30 years old, driven 10 years
Reside in city in ZIP code with median income of about $50,000 Drive 2002 Honda Civic they own 7500 miles/year
Minimum liability auto insurance coverage required by state law 

Varying Characteristics

Receptionist: driver is a single receptionist with a high school education who rents, has been without insurance
coverage 45 days, and has never had an accident or moving violation 

Executive: driver is a married executive with a Masters degree who owns a home, has had continuous insurance coverage, and has had an at-fault accident with $800 of damage within the past 3 years 
 
Here are the quoted rates (full table at link above):

Only State Farm appears to have gotten it right - the executive with an accident paid more than the receptionist because she has had an accident recently.

Beyond that there should be no difference for the same vehicle and coverage.

According to Bloomberg Progessive, when asked via email about these results, said:  “... [they] price each driver’s policy as accurately as possible” using multiple criteria, “which sometimes include non-driving factors that have proven to be predictive of a person’s likelihood of being involved in a crash ...”

So if you are poor you are going to be in a wreck - unilaterally.

State Farm - which insures about one quarter of all drivers somehow - seems to get buy without this discrimination.

Don't look for to much interest in this and remember, these big insurance companies want you to feel good about what they are doing for you, just like the government...

There's a Cake for Every Occasion!

Inscription: "I'm sorry I thought you were a woman"

Inscription: "Sorry I slept with your Mom :(" - or maybe "Man"...

 Inscription: "Here I Come"

Inscription: "Till Death..."

Inscription: "Emo Cake Cuts Itself"

Inscription: "Sorry I Ran Over Your Baby"

Inscription: "I'm Sorry I projectile vomited all over your apartment and cat"

From www.happyplace.com, check out the other, less appropriate cakes too!

A Nation Of Takers? More Like "Financial Rape" of Future Generations

Free Romanian Poker! - Check the Urban Dictionary Link

Each and every day, each and every person in the United States contributes about $20.27 USD to "social programs" which cost some $2.3 trillion annually (see this).  (Calculated by dividing 2.3 trillion by 310 million and dividing the result by 365 - the number of days in a year.)

However, about 35% of the US population accepts one or more of a variety of government social programs.  So its unlikely you are contributing to or paying for a program if you are using the program because you have no money (most programs are "means tested" meaning you must not make any money to use them).  (Calculated by dividing 2.3 trillion by 210 million and dividing the result by 365.)

So instead of $20.27 a day its more like $30 USD a day.

But consider: only about 45% of people in the US work so that means its costing working adults about $66 a day for the current social welfare model.  (Calculated by dividing 2.3 trillion by 45% of 210 million and dividing the result by 365 - the number of days in a year.)

A minimum wage US job $58 USD a day at $7.25 per hour.

What his means is that if you are just starting out on a job and not taking part in the social programs yourself your portion of paying for the US social programs leaves you in debt about $8 USD each and every day (that is assuming you work 365 days a year).

But what if you only work a regular 40 hour work week?

That amounts to about 200 days a year of working so we need to recalculate...  (Calculated by dividing 2.3 trillion by 45% of 210 million and dividing the result by 200 - the number of days in a year.)

Doing this we find that if you only work a regular schedule of 40 hours a week its more like $121 a day to fund US social programs.

So if you want to pay your "fair share" of the US social programs cost you have to contribute about $15 an hour each and every hour you work.

At a minimum wage job you go "in debt" about $55 each and every day relative to social programs.

Or, you can figure it this way.

The first $24,000 USD or so you make each year covers only your portion of this cost.

Not your portion of what you might use in the future on Social Security or Medicaid but what the country in spending right now in this regard.

So to reach Tax Freedom Day - the day you have to work until just to cover your taxes (April 17th in 2013) - you then have to make another $24,000 USD to keep old Uncle Sam's social programs current.

But wait!

The National Wage Index according to our government is $42,979.61 USD (other sites make it as high as $48,000).

Let's just assume that its $48,000.

Now you work about 1/4 of the year for taxes, so that's $36,000 of your $48,000 left after you reach Tax Freedom Day.

Take $24,000 from the $36,000 and you have about $12,000 USD left that you could at least somewhat with a straight face claim was "yours."

Of course, this does not count all the past debt the US has encountered.

Figuring in that $16 trillion plus interest and each and every one of us is losing money relative to our "social responsibilities."

This is about seven times the amount we spend each year.

So though you might be taking home a paycheck the value of that paycheck is effectively negative relative to the country, our society and our responsibilities.  This is because if you paid off the past due balance over thirty years and figured in interest, etc. you'd see your $12,000 USD a year dwindle down to nothing or negative.

And this does not even include future obligations - say your own retirement and Social Security and Medicare.  Or even the obligations for the guy living next door retiring next year.

So you are literally working for nothing if you make an average wage.  No matter how much extra time you might put in you will be unable to overtake the arterial cash hemorrhaging out the door at the US treasury.

Even if you confiscate all the money anyone makes as tax beyond a $250,000 as taxes you still cannot keep up with this.

We are broke and sliding backward into an abyss of failure as a nation.

Our social programs are going to cost us more each year because more people are retiring.

Our government is spending more and borrowing the difference.

Our lives cannot make up the difference, i.e., we as a nation are not making enough GDP to repay this debt because its expanding faster than we can pay for it.

We are a nation of takers.

We are taking the future of our grand children to pay for promises made in the past that are impossible to keep.

From 1948 to 2008 the percentage of adult men 20 and older seeking work dropped 13%.

Today 7% of all late thirties males do no work at all.

Not only are we taking from those that work at an unsustainable rate but we are simply "taking off" from society as well by just sitting home and playing video games or becoming a stoner.

We the people who take, our leaders and our government should be ashamed of this.

Its not taking - its simple financial rape.

Just take a look at the definition of "financial rape" in the Urban Dictionary...

"Why I Raise My Children Without Religion" - An Analysis

 For some parents raising their children without the "divine" is an important undertaking.

For example, there is a long and interesting post on a CNN report blog here called "Why I Raise My Children Without God" written by TXBlue08 (a woman) which I guess was written first on this blog.

Whether you agree with this or not I find the reasoning here by the parent interesting.

Let's go point by point (as taken and quoted from the link above - bold and italics below represent authors original comments):

#1. God is a bad parent and role model.

If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Good people don’t stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don’t condone violence and abuse. “He has given us free will,” you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.

So let's see if I understand the reasoning here.

Good parents guide their children and since we have no guidance from God he is a bad "parent" (in terms of actually parenting us as well as a "role model").

God is not our parent - God is usually defined as our "creator."  We are not physically expelled from God's body on the floor squalling.

You seem to have expectations based on God as a physical parent which is an unusual perspective.

#2. God is not logical.

How many times have you heard, “Why did God allow this to happen?” And this: “It’s not for us to understand.” ... Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God. He had a reason. He wanted more angels. Only he knows why. We write poems saying that we told God to leave our schools. Now he’s making us pay the price. If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind?  Doesn’t this go against everything Christ taught us in the New Testament?
Hmmm...


The underlined part is interesting.

The point seems to be that she believes that we, as humanity, do a lot of what Christ taught is bad (war, murder, torture, heinous acts).

I would agree with that.

Okay, so though Christ teaches us these things are wrong you don't teach Christ (which would in turn provide a basis for what you think is wrong) to your children?

Seems like humanity, at least in your view, would do better following Christs teachings.

Yet you don't teach it because "God is not logical."

I am really not following TXBlue08's logical here.

The comment continues:

The question we should be asking is this: “Why did we allow this to happen?” How can we fix this? No imaginary person is going to give us the answers or tell us why. Only we have the ability to be logical and to problem solve, and we should not abdicate these responsibilities to “God” just because a topic is tough or uncomfortable to address.

TXBlue08 seems to believe that as a society we must simply abdicate to God to physically intervene and address all of our  ills.

As far as Christianity is concerned (and I suspect it is also true for most other religions) I am unaware of any part of which where Christ or God, New or Old Testament, claims that he/they will simply resolve everyone's problems for them, or for that matter, even suggest solutions.

Christ, on the other hand, does explicitly ask us to treat each other as we would ourselves want to be treated (Luke 6:27-37).

Christ does not call on us to call on him.

He expects us to call on ourselves to solve these sorts of problems.

TXBlue08 here seems to me to be basically suggesting the same solution as Christ - yet deriding Christs solution...

#3. God is not fair.

If God is fair, then why does he answer the silly prayers of some while allowing other, serious requests, to go unanswered? I have known people who pray that they can find money to buy new furniture. (Answered.) I have known people who pray to God to help them win a soccer match. (Answered.) Why are the prayers of parents with dying children not answered?

This is sort of troubling.  Apparently the author knows explicitly when God answers prayers.

If God is fair, then why are some babies born with heart defects, autism, missing limbs or conjoined to another baby? Clearly, all men are not created equally. Why is a good man beaten senseless on the street while an evil man finds great wealth taking advantage of others? This is not fair. A game maker who allows luck to rule mankind’s existence has not created a fair game.

This is troubling too.  The US Constitution, in the context of governance and how governance affects the governed - us - says that "all men are created equal" (Declaration of Independence - Preamble) - not any religious texts I am aware of.

Nor is there any biblical texts claiming that life, religion or, for that matter, any other part of human existence is "fair."

As my mother used to tell us children: "Life's not fair."

Perhaps these unfair elements are brought about because people no longer teach religion to their children, nor teach their children they will "go to hell" because they do bad things???

Life is not fair and, while you can wish it was in one hand and spit in the other hand, the spit hand will fill up first every time.

As for heart defects, etc. I think that, because we have not belief in God, we can safely lay the blame at the feet of Charles Darwin for these. 

Even a blind watch maker makes mistakes (which is also not fair but an "okay" unfair because its only blind evolution...)

#4. God does not protect the innocent.

He does not keep our children safe. As a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot. We protect our little ones as much as possible. When a child is kidnapped, we work together to find the child. We do not tolerate abuse and neglect. Why can’t God, with all his powers of omnipotence, protect the innocent?


How do you even answer this?  God is not "government" or "society" or even "dad" or "mom" - nor does God claim to be.

But, on his behalf, like God is some sort of absent parent, you claim he should be doing this.

God is not physically manifest, at least in my world, so how would he do this?

TXBlue08 seems to need someone to take care of things for her - this repeats over and over in this article.

#5. God is not present.

He is not here. Telling our children to love a person they cannot see, smell, touch or hear does not make sense. It means that we teach children to love an image, an image that lives only in their imaginations. What we teach them, in effect, is to love an idea that we have created, one that is based in our fears and our hopes.

Do you love your dead husband or grandparent?  Do your children inherit ideas, money, wisdom, or things from them?

They are not present either - they are dead - they have no smell, they do not talk, etc.

Yet they are part of our lives.

Do you not perceive your "historical past?"  ("Those who cannot remember their past are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana)

Today we disparage our past because it asks us to love God and be moral.

So even our "past" is not present - and look at the world we live in - full of the evil TXBlue08 dislikes.

#6. God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good

A child should make moral choices for the right reasons. Telling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will be externally focused rather than internally structured. It’s like telling a child to behave or Santa won’t bring presents. When we take God out of the picture, we place responsibility of doing the right thing onto the shoulders of our children. No, they won’t go to heaven or rule their own planets when they die, but they can sleep better at night. They will make their family proud. They will feel better about who they are. They will be decent people.


I think that TXBlue08 is kind of lost here.  God equals Santa Claus, the "Big Guy in the Sky" (sounds like something Tom Hanks would say...), God is "watching you."



Sounds like a Catholic grade school philosophy enforced by nuns.  I grew up in such an environment.  And I think that's exactly the point - I grew up not to see God as Santa Claus.  If you're mired in grade school catechism this is kind of where you end up.

Except I imagine that TXBlue08 is not seven years old any more.




#7. God Teaches Narcissism

“God has a plan for you.” Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness. “No matter what I do, God loves me and forgives me. He knows my purpose. I am special.” The irony is that, while we tell this story to our kids, other children are abused and murdered, starved and neglected. All part of God’s plan, right?

Though this woman knows God answers prayers for new furniture she cannot comprehend that no matter what, in at least Christianity, God loves and forgives me.

Huh?

Pick and choose what you want to believe in.

So what's the bottom line.

Why am I writing this today?

I find that TXBlue08 seems to be focused on "what God does for her" as in delivering new furniture someone prays for, protecting the innocent by showing up, in a flaming chariot I guess, and wiping out bullies, and making life "fair."

(Drawin and genetics are relegated to the back row on the "birth defect" front - apparently God has a hand in tinkering (or not) directly with DNA.)

TXBlue08 also seems confused on what at least Christianity asks (do unto others...) and promises (forgiveness and love) as well as what the US Constitution says versus what, for example, is in the bible.

(I cannot speak for other religions in detail here but, based on her comments, we have to assume a Catholic or Christian bias to her statements.  My guess is that TXBlue08 would find, for example, Islam singularly less appealing in terms of reason and fair treatment, at least as far as she was personally concerned, than whatever religion she is complaining about.)

The good news is that the grade school catechism has set TXBlue08 on the right track in terms of morality - she just seems to have the purpose and causes confused as well as the fact that God expects you to be responsible for yourself.

TXBLue08 sees what's wrong with society but fails to see that the religion she is deriding offers direct action for fixing the problems she complains about.

My guess is that she feels religion is "irrational" and "illogical" because she really hasn't worked through it very far.

Raising children is a difficult task these days and doing it without a moral compass is particularly tricky.

If there is no absolute God and "right and wrong" where do you look?'

The internet?

Your feelings?

A Lady GaGa video?

Things are bad today, TXBlue08 because "religion" has been thrown over the side for the last few decades.  Mostly because people much smarter than you and I have decided that they need to be able to do whatever they want to do without consequence (now nor in a future after life). 

So they have gotten rid of religion and consequences.

You are being confused by this.

Religion, morality, the notion of consequences, of loving others as yourself, etc. are all important in order to have the "good" society you desire.

You really have to ask yourself why the notion that these good things are bad is so pervasive today.

Raising your children without a certain moral compass will not make society better...

Is There A Better Way to Devalue Yourself than "Naked Cellphone Pictures?"

"Ms. Toups" Twitter photo from betabeat.com

A Ms. Hollie Toups, a 32 year old law enforcement student in Texas, sent revealing pictures of herself to her boyfriend (see this and this - and no, these are not the actual pictures, those you'll have to find for yourself).

Subsequently said boyfriend became a "former" boyfriend and the revealing pictures ended up on a Texas "revenge porn" web site where jilted lovers (mostly men I imagine) post pictures of their former lovers.

So you "gave" these pictures to a boyfriend - give as in "transfer possession of something to someone else" - and that special someone did something you didn't like with them.  (I suppose you could have posed for the boyfriend - in which case he would own the photos.  Without a release from you the photos cannot be used "commercially" whatever that might be.  In any case you're in the same boat.)

Does this work for anything else in society?

Perhaps I could "give" the IRS money and then later demand that my money is somehow "private" and I want it back?

Right.

In fact before I gave the money to the IRS it was private property - mine - just like your revealing photos.

The act of "giving" the money to them transfers possession, just like anything else.

Yet apparently this is so rampant that a site called www.endrevengeporn.com has been set up to deal with the rash of such incidents.

From the site (at the bottom): "If posted material was created before your 18th birthday, you have legal recourse. That crime is classified and can be prosecuted as child pornography. If, however, posted material was created after your 18th birthday, you have few legal options. The crime (and it IS a crime) can in some cases be classified as stalking, harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation of character but is very difficult, costly and time-consuming to prosecute."

The underlined part is interesting and confirms what I said above.

Yes indeed, if you give someone something, its theirs to use as they see fit.

Your phone number, your address, your car keys, your house key, your revealing pictures.

I think everyone has had an experience in life where they gave someone a key or loaned them a book or other item and had a bad experience.

And there's a simple reason why.

If you are using something someone has given you that something has no intrinsic "value" because the cost to you to acquire it was nothing - zero.  Sure it might have "actual" value if you sold it - as in real dollars.  But it cost you nothing so you are going to look at it as something with less value than a thing which you, for example, paid money for.

People also tend to treat things with no value to them with some degree of contempt.

Especially in the case of jilted lovers.

So your private revealing photos you "gave away" have translated into something that has no value.

Which, for the person holding your "reveaing photos," translates your value to that person to, well, zero or nothing.

So there is little reason to expect that someone with said revealing photos would give a second thought about doing whatever comes to mind with them.

Like uploading them to a revenge site.

In the olden days it was often difficult to even get the phone number from a woman you wished to try and date.  And if you abused that number, say by writing it on the bath room stall wall, you would probably never date that woman or her friends for the rest of your life.

But today revealing pictures, presumably far more valuable than a phone number, are simply given away.

The sponsor of "End Revenge Porn" wants to make "revenge porn" a corporate problem and, for example, sue companies like GoDaddy.com for hosting the site (see my comment on "free speech" below).

What I find hard to understand is why this happens in the first place.

Number One: 

Sure somebody is your "boyfriend" - that doesn't mean you trust them 100%.

If you did trust them 100% that somebody would probably be your "husband" and (most likely) far less likely to put those pictures on the internet without your permisson.

There's a reason he's not your husband...

Number Two:

Revealing photos on a device you are likely to forget, lose, misplace, have stolen, loan to someone else, etc. are simply a bad idea.

If you value your privacy then don't leave it lying around accessible.

If you just "give it up" willy-nilly its not worth much.

Number Three:

Would you want your child doing this?

Sure its child porn but some 20% of high school kids sext anyway according to this web site (interesting more girls than boys).

Number Four:

If you give away your revealing pictures publishing them is likely to be considered "free speech" - a Constitutionally protected activity - if you are not a child.

If you emailed, transmitted or otherwise explicitly gave those images to someone else then they are totally out of your control.

To me this all boils down to one thing.

The devaluation of women in society.  Sadly a devaluation to which the women themselves are significantly contributing though their consent to these activities.

If you disagree then think about this:

Even a porn star's image in a Hustler magazine in 1970 had more value than today's sexted pictures?

Why?

Because in order for someone to see it they had to actually buy the magazine.

In the case of Ms. Toups her boyfriend didn't have to spend a single dime for her images.

And we can see now what he thinks of Ms. Toups.

Today's world is all about "sharing" and community and "giving."

Which is fine.

But people seem confused about just how far they should go in this regard.

Engaging in activities which devalue you or what you do is simply stupid - unless you think of yourself as worthless...

The "Facebook Effect" - How Social Networking Alters Your Understanding of Facts

We're all beautiful and you're ugly! - the "clique"

So now we have the "Facebook Effect" on science comprehension.

Let's imagine we have a scholarly scientific article about some topic - accurate and correct as best anyone can understand.

Now imagine below that article has invented sets of different "comments:"

One set positive.

One set negative.

One set full of name calling and vitriol.

According to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin described in this Journal-Sentinel article: "Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.

So arguing, angry folks writing comments on something like Facebook about the article content makes the science itself seem more dodgy.

"In other words, just the tone of the comments . . . can significantly alter how audiences think about the technology itself," according to the study.

Researchers found that even actual relevant scientific knowledge of the articles content did not seem to affect the perception created by the comments.

I don't think this is really very surprising but now one has to think about what it does for other things, like, say, your picture.

So I post my image and someone makes a disparaging comment and an argument ensues in the comment section.

No doubt this also says how you would then view me would be affected in a negative way.

Perhaps I myself would also view myself in a negative way because of this.

In fact, how is this different than the "in clique" laughing at you or making fun of you because you are not part of the clique...?

The study points out that in the past, when science was written in dusty journals checked out from the local university library the comprehension was different because there was no social commentary there to distract you.

One might conclude that the reach of Facebook now can influence people not just in their social activities but in more basic activities like learning.

It also shows how those with an agenda can influence your interpretation of facts simply by finding a way to make your consumption of those facts occur in a less-than-pleasant environment.

Not that this is really news I guess...

Imagine reading from a text book in class during silence as opposed to during an loud argument.

Unfortunately only 12% of the population, according to the study, actual goes to non-scientific sites to read about science. 

The rest, apparently, rely on Facebook.

What Kind of Liberty Did Martin Luther King March For?

Samuel Adams, Faneuil Hall

Today we celebrate Martin Luther King day for a man that fought as our founding fathers did for absolute liberty.

But today our president offers "redefined" liberty as a goal we should strive for.

Is this what King marched for?  

Let's begin by examining what liberty is and what the president said.

Samuel Adams Speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

"In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable."

Here Adams speaks of the tyranny of England against America and how those in the colonies fought for their freedom through violence.

"When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny."

When our spirit of "liberty," basically our freedom from oppressors (note that he only speaks of the spirit of liberty becoming "extinct" whatever the reason), ends, implied here as our descendants forgetting how they got where they are and live in a state of "tranquility, wealth and luxury," we become easy victims of tyranny - again he is not specific; any kind of tyranny.

"Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?"
 
Again Adams reminds us of England who has "let loose on us the dogs of war."

And finally

"... if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace.  

We ask not your counsels or arms.
 
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. 
 
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countyman!"

Finally Adams proclaims that if you love wealth before freedom or peace as a minion rather than free man you should depart from men like him and further, you become the servant of your master, bound in chains, perhaps as a slave.

Now let's consider the President's words today:  "It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm."
 
Let's contrast these comments as well as the reality of what they entail with the notions presented by Adams above.

For me the notion that somehow every wrong must be "righted" (as underlined) for us as a nation is simply ridiculous.  Instead of suggesting we as a people remain vigilante of tyranny we are presented a laundry list of what must be done to supply everyone with whatever is needed to make their lives better.

Do we want "freedom" or the ability to "earn a living?"

This is the question - security or freedom.

When we cast aside the notion of freedom and the price to possess it we end up in a position to "lick the hands" which feed us.  In Adam's day this would be equivalent to embracing England in order to have prosperity - become a slave to English masters bound in chains.

Today millions more are on food stamps, on welfare, without jobs than four years ago.
If you take food stamps or welfare are you in fact trading security for liberty? 

Are you not making the "government" your master before which you take on chains or "crouch down" to like that hands which literally feed you?

I think so...

The president then continues: "... it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness...." Sadly this makes me think we are in a modern school setting - words can mean whatever we would like them too...

The idea of "liberty" comes from Latin libertatem (nom. libertas) "freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission," or from liber which means "free."

How else could anyone define liberty yet still use the word?

I cannot think of any way this could be done.  Either you are a free man or not.

There is no other notion.  If you support yourself by "taking" (as in the 47%) from others are you still "free" or are you dependent upon others to provide for you?

Are you free if others take from you to replace their own had work?

This is the most fundamental question and the reason that so many do not understand what troubles people about government today.

Either you have true, absolute liberty or you do not.  There is no "in between."

The founding fathers understood this regardless of whether they were white slave holders or not.

In the end "liberty" was available for all, at least in terms of voting and laws to ensure equal pay, as well as through the Civil War.

But, as you cross the line from "liberty" to "tyranny" there are problems.

Specifically is the reduction of someone's liberty tyranny?  I think so...

The president continues: "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall."
 
So I guess we are now defining "liberty" as a principle for which an imperfect result is acceptable rather than an "absolute," i.e., you are free or not free.

And here lies the conundrum which plagues us all in the US.

There is either liberty or death ("Give me liberty or give me death!"), as Patrick Henry is quoted as saying. 

There is no "imperfect" or "partial" liberty as the president would have us believe.

Yet why does he say this?

I think his meaning here is crystal clear.

In fact, he specifically says that we all do not have to "define liberty" the same way.

The president says what he says because he expects us to surrender our "ideals" of liberty (absolute liberty), of the Second Amendment, of other things our founding fathers held dear - to allow them to be "imperfect."

The reasons?

• So that he can proceed down a path that will reduce everyone's liberty in exchange that allows some or many to do less for more by simply redefining what it means.
  
• So that the "wealthy" can pay "their fair share.
  
  
• So that you will accept less liberty in exchange for chains and licking a hand that feeds you - as if that is a privilege he can procure for you rather than slavery.

Dangers that Samuel Adams specifically warns us about in the first quotation above.

A notion not to be found in the absolute principles involved in the founding of our country.

What is so striking here to me is that Martin Luther King fought as our founding fathers did for freedom and liberty.  I believe that King believed in absolute freedom and liberty - not a principle of freedom and/or liberty.

How our president can expect us to accept that that "liberty" must be different or reduced from an absolute to a mere principle that we all define differently is why I think so many people have taken up the cause of the Second Amendment in these last few months.

Our president is a tyrant of the kind Samuel Adams warns us about specifically, offering a bogus "grade school" redefined, repackaged "liberty" that means whatever someone says it should mean rather than what it actually means.

A definition that, when you accept it, allows you to have less freedom so that others may have more.

Would Martin Luther King have marched for this "liberty" as defined by our president?

Would he have accepted "someone else's" definition of liberty?

Or did he march for the absolute notion of liberty as defined by Samuel Adams?

The "Disease" of Violence: Without It You Would Be a Slave

Some think that violence is just like a disease.

Gary Slutkin, a University of Chicago epidemiologist, says “it’s extremely important to understand this differently than the way we’ve been understanding it [violence ] ... we need to understand this as a biological health matter and an epidemiologic process.”  (A more detailed description of this is available here at Wired.)

The theory goes like this more or less: exposure to violence is somewhat similar to exposure to a biological disease. Acts of violence are the "memes" or "germs" that trigger the spread.  Repeated exposure to violent acts alters neurological function.

According to the Wired article as one is exposed to violence: "Cognitive pathways involving anger are more easily activated. Victimized people also interpret reality through perceptual filters in which violence seems normal and threats are enhanced. People in this state of mind are more likely to behave violently. Instead of through a cough, the disease spreads through fights, rapes, killings, suicides, perhaps even media, the researchers argue."

Its are hard to imagine a bigger load of bunk (to be polite).

If this theory were true then things like stupidity, childishness, smart dressing, buying red cars, arithmetic, would all also be "diseases" as well.

After all, you don't learn to hunt or do sums unless someone teaches you, so, like violence the knowledge of doing sums I guess spreads like a disease.  The "meme" or germ of the knowledge being repeated forced onto an unwilling mind will eventually alter neurological function.

This is the same thinking that gambling or drinking is a "disease."

In fact, with this line of thinking anything people don't like, in this case "gun violence," gets turned into a "disease."

(Funny, though, how no one ever thinks about "pot smoking" as a disease.  Yet, by these criteria how is it different?  Acts of "stoner wonder" act as memes or germs.  Repeated exposure to pot smoking alters your neurological function and viola' - you're a stoner!)

One might argue that this "theory" works for, say, learning in general, but that would hardly be news.

But it is news when its applied to something people don't like, such as gun violence.  This magically transforms a problem into a domain where government can pretend its a "health care" issue and issue edicts.

I think to me what's the most troubling about this is that this theory is something researchers at University actually spend money and time on.

How is this anything but the most basic common sense?

Look at past wars, history of war, and culture over the last five thousand years or so.

Alexander the Great managed to conquer much of the known western world without a single gun.

What about Egypt and its great empires?

Or the Roman empire?

No guns in any of those places.  All of these situations with large standing armies that conquered vast amounts of territories.

All supposedly "effected" by the "disease" of violence I suppose...

So what about those they conquered?

Perhaps they suffered from a disease as well.  Apathy, laziness, or perhaps there were simply peaceful folks who didn't bother anybody.

All "diseases" by the University of Chicago standards as well.

Look what happened to them: they became slaves in the respective empires.  I suppose because the "disease"of violence was what, more virulent?  That would be the only explanation I can see...

Slavery or death, perhaps also a "diseases" by this standard, would be the result of their infection to be simple peace-loving folks.

You can always detect BS by taking something like this notion of "violence" as a disease to its logical consequence - in this case the history of the world.

No, I am afraid violence is simply that, violence.

And while you can pretend its a disease the problem is that the propensity for human's to conduct violence on one another has been with us since the dawn of recorded human history.

Violence and war have had major influences in advancing our cultures and societies.

Making violence a "disease" might sound like a good idea if you were stupid.

Violence is a response to emotions and no, emotions are not diseases either, though they could be by this same ridiculous standard.

People can learn alternate and more constructive forms of managing emotions and that will, to some degree, reduce violence.  You can offer people outlets for violence: sports, contests, and so on.

But it will never go away and, most certainly, if the government treats it as a disease, their efforts will most certainly fail because whatever government tries to limit you end up with more of it.

Without "violence" there would be no freedom.

America would not be free.

There would still be a Soviet Union.

Nazi Germany would still be in charge of Europe.

Slavery would still exist.

So I guess that places like the University of Chicago show their true colors when trying to make "violence" a disease....

Because by eliminating violence they would eliminate freedom.

Little wonder the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was written the way it was.

Our founding fathers understood this all to clearly because they themselves had to engage in violence in order for us to have the freedom to be so stupid.

Te'o - Dating in the Modern World...

You have to ask yourself what the world is coming too when an adult man such a Manti Te'o cannot distinguish a real girlfriend from a "fake" girlfriend.

How emotionally detached, as well as desperate, do you have to be to have a relationship with someone you have never met?

Today "dating sites" account for a huge percentage of dates according to this site:

The total number of single people in the U.S. is roughly 54 million of which some 40 million have tried on-line dating.

Some of the more interesting aspects of this: the average courtship on-line for marriages is 18.5 months, 42 months for courtships begun "off line."

Whatever you think about this here is some food for thought: 33% of women have sex on the first online encounter, 53% of on-line site daters date more than one person simultaneously and 10% of all sex offenders use on-line dating to meet "people."

According to the NY Times 81% of people lie on these sites.

I have to believe that on Facebook, where there is far less of semblance of organization, structure or "truth" - whatever that may be - the statistics must look far uglier.  People lying on Facebook - unimaginable!

Now consider that before about 1991 there were no on-line means to meet and date people save for "classifieds" in newspapers or magazines like the "National Enquirer."  Dating this way was mostly relegated to folks like inmates.

My God! How did people manage to find dates?

Its hard to say yet the entire history of humanity proceeded along quite well without artificial means for couples to "find each other."

Basically you simply went along through your life and when you physically met someone (at a family function, school, social activity, shopping, at work) you thought you might like you went on a date or perhaps spoke on the phone.  The function of a dating site might be handled by a brother, sister, parent or relative "matching" you with someone they thought you might "like" - no pun intended.

Everything was done to a large degree "in person."  If you were remote from each other you wrote letters or, if you could afford it, talked on the phone, or, gasp, simply "waited" until you saw the other person again.

There was less in terms of "expectations," i.e., it was hard work to find and meet someone you really liked so there was less "pressure" to go back to the well and "keep searching" for "greener grass."  People worked much harder at their relationship because it was very costly in terms of time, social status, children, etc. to "give up" and start over.

Today I guess that, at least in the case of Te'o, all that was required for an engrossing faux relationship was a simple chat Facebook account.   Apparently the two sweet hearts met, at least according to ABC News, on his Facebook page.

So there you have it: one grainy cell phone picture (probably a lie) talking to another grainy cell phone picture (definitely a lie) using simply text typing miles apart.

No physical presence what-so-ever - Do yo exist?  Are you real?  No common friend to expedite the communications, nothing.

No pheromones helping your brains decide if you like each other or are in fact simply long-lost siblings. (It's a well known fact that physical presence and scent in terms of pheromones helps people make good choices in mates.)

No wonder our society is so screwed up...!!!

Young people unable to conduct a "normal" relationship.

A relationship is an "investment" two people make in a relationship with each other.  If the "value" of the relationship is less than the value you give yourself then it will simply fail.  It has to because its simply not important enough to succeed.

Think about other "investments" you make.  Would you wire your money off to a bank someone told you about on Facebook site unseen? Buy a car or house off craigslist without ever looking at it in person?

Yet somehow people like Te'o do...

The statistics really aren't in your favor as far as dating is concerned given 81% of the people lie.

What's even worse is that this passes for "news" - especially compared to things like the national debt and our countries future.  (And there is so much historical evidence of "failure" in fancy, high-profiles on-line dates: see "Wolf's Reality Test...")

How interesting that no one from the media ever bothered to try and speak with this girl as the story unfolded.  No one checked anything.

Its also little wonder that criminals work hard to create on-line banks and business opportunities.

You know what they say about fools.

The Source of "The Conspiracy..."

I posted some links to Sandy Hook conspiracy the other day.

Here is a good source at the bottom of much of it: memoryholeblog.com.

I think there is a lot of rubbish being posted but I think that there are some serious questions posited by this blog that people should read.

There are a number of interesting low level sources of information as well, for example, audio logs of the police traffic during the event, raw videos of various events, and so on.

Most of the commentary is nutty or wrong but the raw material is interesting.

There are definitely links to video and other sources that have been changed, deleted or edited in some way.

Perhaps the most troubling element in all this is video of the father of one of the victims who comes out before he thinks the camera's are rolling laughing and joking and then, seen on the cellphone video, "goes into character:" begins weeping and crying, and then gives his official speech.

Here's one - Google for more yourself...

There are better videos that show the whole sequence of events.

You can read about the other side of the story, i.e., non-conspiracy, here at salon.com - but a good way's down they list a paragraph with lot of issues but simply offer no real explanations to the issue listed.

Isn't conspiracy fun?

Treating C. diff with Fecal Transplants: Proven 94% Effective

So in October of 2010 I wrote "Fecal Transplants, er, I mean bacteriotherapy" after reading this article in MedPageToday.
C. diff is a serious health problem created when antibiotics kill your good gut flora along with whatever bad bacteria they are being used to treat.

C. diff kills some 14,000 people a year.

Fecal transplant is the technique of replacing bacteria in the colon killed by these antibiotics with feces (and the healthy gut bacteria contained therein) from another healthy individual - typically via enema.

Recently a study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated a 94% effective rate for curing C. diff using fecal transplants.

Now all this is sort of old news at this point.  Yes it works.  Yes, it even makes sense when you think about it - after all gut flora are bacteria.  Antibiotics indiscriminately kill bacteria in your body good and bad.

The more interesting question is why does the modern medical establishment not get this?

According to Wired  Lawrence Brandt, a US pioneer of fecal transplant wrote in Clinical Infectious Diseases last year: "Patients with (C. diff infection) and their accompanying family and friends who come to see me were highly knowledgeable and not “turned off” by the fecal nature of the fecal reconstitute; rather they were “turned on” by the possibility—indeed the likelihood—of cure. For many the major stumbling block has been the intransient negativism of their physicians, who told them, uninfluenced by any of the positive reported data, that FMT was “quackery,” “a joke,” “snake oil,” or other pithy labels that were discouraging but served only to delay, not dissuade, these perseverant individuals."

So the major stumbling block is the physician...

Now if you think about this for even a few minutes its completely obvious that its the use of antibiotics that's the problem.

Image that you are being attacked by a rabid rat or other small animal climbing around on your shirt.

Antibiotics are like shooting a shot gun full of buckshot at you from 30 feet in order to kill your attacker.

The pellets in the buck shot don't care whether or not they hit the animal attacking you, you, or miss entirely.  Just like antibiotics - they kill bacteria good or bad.

(Of course there are many reasons, this among them, that antibiotics are bad, but that's another story.)

So for some reason physicians are more comfortable with this approach.

Even though modern medicine knows that

A) Antibiotics are over-prescribed

B) Bacteria are evolving strong immunity to them.

C) Antibiotics cause problems like C. diff.

Science and medicine have known about bacteria and how they are necessary for human life for decades (see "Life on Man" as an example from 1969).

The problem I think is that the American Medical Association and the FDA are far, far too comfortable controlling every aspect of medicine and that there is very, very little interest in actually changing the average doctors perspective from what is "common practice" - e.g. over-prescribing antibiotics.   (Another example is h pylori and its relation to stomach ulcers which took decades to penetrate modern medicine's approach to treating ulcers.)


The people with the problem are much more open than doctors.

Why?

Because the treatments doctors are giving them are wrong and not working.

People are smart enough to notice this, but not doctors. 

In fact, it makes so much sense once you understand the relationship between bacteria and human health you have to wonder why doctors continue to do what they do...

In fact, it seems like a crime that 14,000 people should die of this each year.

But I am sure the FDA and AMA will want decades more research before changing anything they recommend or love.

Good thing Walmart sells enema kits and strainers...

Second Amendment Racist? Simply Fantasy.

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

Did the Second Amendment of the US Constitution have anything to do with slavery?

According to Thom Hartmann and truth-out.org it was required in order to ensure Virginia would enter into the United States.   (Perhaps you've seen this on Facebook.)

It is hard to find anything at all historically that addresses the claims Hartmann makes.

The Second Amendment has a long and detailed history from the 12th century related to the English long bow and other arms and the use of it by militia to both serve a variety of functions such as policing as well as to control tyrannical kings (see this and this).

There are a number of web sites detailing the history of the drafting of the Second Amendment.

Nothing I can find seems to relate to Hartmann's thesis.

Hartman claims "Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias."

However, the full quote in context says "... If they give power to the general government to provide for the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is intrusted with the public defence. In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say, that every black man must fight?"

Clearly Henry is concerned that the "north" (an area that did not support slavery generally) will take away the slaves from those who own them for the purpose of a "general defence" of the country.  The "north," where the "general government" would reside would see slaves as a "numberless" resource to be called out when defense was required.

Nothing to do with "slave patrol militia."

Hartmann's thinking clearly falls along the lines of "The Real and Racist Origins of the Second Amendment" available at the www.blackagendareport.com.  The idea here is that modern "gun culture" is a "... self-justifying mythology that construes the Second Amendment as arming the citizenry as final bulwark of freedom against tyranny, invasion or crime."

However, clearly everyone involved in the framing of the US Constitution was focused on the tyranny of Britain and providing for a self defense in the context of the country being attacked and, hence, not a mythology at all.  (A reasonably detailed description of the framing and acceptance of this amendment is provided here as well as other places resolved by Googling "history second amendment.")

Again it seems that a discussion of some general topic, in this case "gun control," has been turned instead into a question of whether or not you agree with "racism."  Effectively that if you believe in the Second Amendment you are a racist.

Instead it seems that the Revolutionary War served as a starting point for blacks becoming free from slave owners (see this as an example as well as this from the National Park Service).

Fortunately for those who care about actual facts incredibly detailed records exist of the framing of the US Constitution - documents involved in the decision making process as well as the thinking, e.g., the Federalist Papers, that went into what was proposed for the Constitution and Amendments.

All of which debunk Hartmann's thesis.

Was the issue of slave ownership involved in the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution?

Clearly as described by Patrick Henry's own words.  However, you cannot simply take random portions of the framing and ratification process and jumble them into something  that they are not: racism.  Slavery remained in the US after the Revolutionary War into the 1800's.

However, the notion that "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" as well as its thesis are simply false.

Need Gun Control: Here's Some Conspiracy Theory...

So as we wait for new gun mandates from the current Administration here are tidbits for conspiracy theorists:

A) "Sandy Hook" map in the latest Batman movie (lower left quadrant in black):

Here it is referenced in the actual movie.

B) Victoria Soto R.I.P. Page (dated 12/10/2012 - days before the shooting):

Here's the acquisition of the data above in a video:



C) United Way’s Sandy Hook School Support Fund webpag:

If you are clever and Google a bit you can still find sites linking to the United Way fund raiser dated from Dec 11, 2012.

I am not going to post the data here because then it will magically change in Google.  The pages listed here all have this magical property as well.

However, the clever engineers at Google apparently don't know how their search engine works.

Good thing or this information would not be around any longer.

All of this is summed up nicely in this video:

Printing Money the Government Way

The US Government issues some 80 million "payments" each month according to this.

That's 960 million payments each year.

Divide the $3.5 trillion the government spends and you find that each payment is about $3,600 USD per payment.

Each work-day hour 480,000 (based on a 2,000 hour work year) "payments" are made.

That's about 133 payments of $3,600 USD each second.

A fast printer can easily print 1,000 pages a minute or 50,000 pages an hour (considering support and maintenance time as well).

So ten big fast printers running non-stop would get the job done if the US Government was a business.

But its not.

There are dozens if not hundreds of departments and areas that print checks.

And then there is the preparation for printing the checks - who receives the check (or EFT) - what amount - on what date, etc. etc. etc.

When the current Administration says that "prioritizing payments" is "unworkable" (see this) I think that it really means is these printing operations simply run non-stop making "payments" without checks or limits beyond whatever funding the agency receives.

What I mean is that there is no notion of making specific payments.

For example, in a business, you have to prioritize payments.  Revenue and sales are not consistent month to month yet bills, e.g., a car or equipment lease payment, must be made each month.

So in a business you typically prioritize employee payroll and taxes first - if you don't pay they won't work.  If you don't pay payroll taxes you'll get hammered by the IRS.  Management is secondary in terms of payroll.

Next you have to pay things like rent, leases, and regular expenses like power, water, and so on.

Things that need to be paid or they will get turned off.

Sometimes if revenue is thin you put off rent, or power, or rotate payments just enough to keep everything on and running.

Sometimes you pay but you pay late.

But my belief is that the government model is not like this.

There is either an "on" state - we have budget so we pay - or an "off" state - no funding we have to stop running the check printers.

There is nothing else because that's how government thinks.  It believes that there will always be "funding" to run whatever operation needs running.

In reality, of course, only the government thinks this way.  My belief is that not even states (with some exceptions) do this.  All have actual budgets, payment priorities and so on.

Of course there are legal obligations to pay.

But what if there is in fact no money to do so?

Obviously IRS refunds, for example, could be delayed days or weeks without problems.  Similarly for many other types of payments such as retiree payments (which the Treasury is currently delaying because the borrowing limit has been exceeded).

Employee pay or benefit payments, however, would be problematic to delay.

Basically the US Government is a giant machine that craps out money no matter what.

And since this has gone on for decades no limits, bounds, checks or prioritization is built into the system.  So the Administration needs "all the money" or nothing will work.

Government is not designed to say - okay Social Security (which, by the way, is supposedly solvent for a few more years so why budget issues would affect this are unclear to me) - you only get X dollars to work with this month.

But it needs to be.

Its pure fantasy to pretend money will always be there regardless.

The "full faith and credit" of the United State Government applies only to debt payments.  There are about $20 billion dollars of these each month.

The US Government takes in about $200 billion USD each month.

More than enough to maintain the good standing of US debt.