A Brief NFA Interlude...

               Indulge me for a moment, won’t you?

               The loony left is constantly rabbiting on about how Amendment II protects the right of the state to form a militia.  You know and I know that that is wrong – it’s an individual right, there’s no reason for “the people” to have a different meaning in that one sentence than in the rest of the document, but indulge me.

               A “militia” is a paramilitary unit that may or may not operate under the auspices and authority of a state.  Note that word – “paramilitary.”  Part and parcel of a militia, and key to the following argument…

               If we are to form a militia, we must have militia-ready weapons to work with.  Firearms.  Bayonets.  Melee weapons.  Explosives.  Grenades (launched and hand.)  Man-portable rocket launchers.  For larger militia units, artillery is not out of the question – private ownership of cannon was common during the Founding era, and fully-owned warships were in private ownership before we had an effective navy!  Called “privateers,” they operated under the auspices of the nascent United States government, being issued Letters of Marque or Letters of Reprisal to deal with specific targets.  Privateer warships carried United States Marines to places like the Barbary Coast, to deal with the Arabs causing trouble for our shipping there.

               So, up to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34,) it was common for military hardware to be in private ownership – no trouble.  When machine guns were invented, those could be had mail-order or cash-and-carry, no trouble at all.  Want an M1917?  They’re on the surplus market.  After about 1925, Thompson SMGs were a cash-and-carry proposition.  And it wasn’t a big problem until the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre – and that was the beginning of “instead of blaming the criminal, let’s blame the tool!”

               And NFA34 was passed.  And a $20 machine gun was assessed a $200 transfer tax, and an “enhanced” background check, where they made sure you didn’t beat up other kids for milk money in kindergarten.  The tax hasn’t gone up, although the prices of machine guns has (especially since the supply has been closed with the passage of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 – FOPA86,) and machine guns – unless they’re owned by ranges in Las Vegas – are now “investment property.”  And innovation is shot, which is why our military small arms are now heading toward all being foreign designs.  Sidearms – Sig (Swiss).  Longarms – will probably be H&K (German).  Squad Automatic Weapon – FN (Belgian).  Light Machine Gun – also FN (Belgian) (both of which are built under license by Barrett, so at least domestic production.)  At least our heavy machine gun is still the M2HB Browning .50 – it’s old, but it still does the job.  Someone over 30 you can trust!  But domestic innovation in automatic small arms?  Not really happening.

               Now, the NFA et sequelae effectively bans the hardware that has the greatest militia use – automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, explosives, grenades, artillery – all this I had trained with while I was in the military myself (yes, including artillery.  Never knew where I was going to have to work.  I’d also trained on the small arms of forty different nations – how to shoot ‘em, troubleshoot ‘em, fix ‘em, tear ‘em to bits, clean ‘em, put ‘em back together, and make adjustments on ‘em.)  The NFA was upheld in United States v Miller (1939), and enhanced by the Hughes Amendment to FOPA86.

               Given the logic above – that the “point” of Amendment II is the formation of militia units – NFA34 et sequelae is effectively barring us from the firearms and ordnance that is most effective for militia use.  This makes NFA34 et sequelae prima facie unconstitutional, and should be struck forthwith on constitutional grounds.  No transfer tax, no NFA stamp, no Forms 4, no 10-cards, no background check (other than NICS,) and firearms made up to today are freely available.  I would also argue that FFL type 09, 10, and 11, as well as the S(O)T, should be removed, and commerce in former NFA firearms be carried out under the Type 01 (Dealer) or Type 02 (Pawnbroker), manufactured under a common Type 07, and imported under a common Type 08 (no S(O)T endorsements needed.)  Since suppressors also have a valid military/militia use (ever done house-to-house combat?) they should be deregulated, which effectively nullifies the need for the NFA in the first place, if it hasn’t been struck outright.

               Moreover, since the NFA was the entire raison d’etre of the BATF(E) in the first place, I would also suggest that that organisation be disbanded and its personnel scattered to the four winds, with three months’ severance and a caveat that they are ineligible for any armed position in future employment.  The FBI already runs NICS, so that’s fine – explosives can be handled by NICS as well (permitting for blasters maintained.  I need to look into getting my blaster’s card again…)  Alcohol and tobacco can be handled by the FDA, who should be looking into such matters anyhow.  F Troop has been out of control since they were formed under the IRS in 1934.

               Anyhow, I hope you enjoyed this example of using the Left’s own logic against them.  We really need to do this more often (for instance, let’s incorporate Bruen against the states under Amendment XIV, since the Left has been beating us over the head with it for so long.  Time to reverse that particular situation…)

Current Thoughts – Voting Rights

              There’s been quite a lot of debate on the issue of voting rights in this country of late.  This year, Washington, D.C. has decided to run training for non-citizen voting [cf: Judicial Watch, documents obtained 12APR2024.]  Whether non-citizens are being allowed to vote solely in local/municipal elections, or if their vote is to be allowed all the way up to the Federal level, I firmly believe this is the wrong way to go.  Allow me to explain my position:

              First and foremost, exercise of the sovereign franchise is simply the responsibility that one accepts as part of the privilege of citizenship in the country.  [I also have difficulty with the idea of “birthright citizenship” – citizenship conferred merely through an accident of birth – for similar reasons.  But, I’ll get into that elsewhere.]  Voting is how we exercise our say in how the country is to be run.

              But, part and parcel of the responsibility for the privilege of citizenship is also paying taxes, staying informed of the issues and candidates, keeping track of what’s going on around you, and generally being an informed voter.  One cannot be an “informed voter” if one is spending all of one’s time trying to make sure one doesn’t get caught and deported [more on that in another installment.  Perhaps.]

              Further, it’s a simple fact that, if one is not helping to pull the wagon, there is no reason why one should have a say in which way it should go.  Whether you’re voting for President or dogcatcher.  [This is not even getting into the fact that ballots and election materials should damned well be printed in English and English only, for reasons that are fodder for yet another discussion.  Elsewhere.]

              It is for this reason that even “green card” holders (Permanent Resident Aliens) aren’t allowed to vote – they haven’t yet ceded their citizenship in their home country and become naturalized Americans, so why should they have any say in how America is run?  And, if we’re not going to let Permanent Resident [legal] Aliens vote, then why in the Nine Sacred Names should illegal aliens be allowed to vote?

              The sole and only benefit an illegal alien should expect is a one-way ticket to the capital city of his home country, hand-carrying a bill for food, lodging, security, medical care, education, and any other social benefits or resources conferred or used [with copies to follow via Registered International Post and diplomatic courier,] payable in gold, NET 30.  No option given on whether or not repatriation will be allowed – we’re sending them, you’re getting them.   We’re sending them with our own agents who will walk them off of the airplane and convey them to the steps of your capitol building.  But, I’m cranky.  And that, yet again, is fodder for yet another discussion.

              And yes, that includes deportation of people here on a visa or on a ‘green card’ for advocating for the destruction of the country or casting their lot in with people and/or groups that want to see this country destroyed.  You are a guest, and you are here at the pleasure of the Department of State, Government of the United States.  You didn’t have to come here, you don’t have to stay here, and we damned sure won’t keep you here!  If you’re here on a scholarship to university, then scholarships should be revoked [if not have a refund required for monies already paid out…] and you’re paying for your own transport out of the country.

              If you are married, your husband/wife has the option to leave the country with you.  They can go with you, they can stay here, they can wait for you to come back [which will be on the twelfth of Never,] or they can file for divorce.  Although, if they’re spouting the same nonsense you are, and they’re citizens?  We just may revoke their citizenship and deport them with you – the difference is that you will still have citizenship in your home country.  They will be ‘stateless’ – which I am given to understand can pose quite the difficulty…

              Children?  They can exercise the same option as your ‘other half’, or go with you – as you or they prefer.  And if they’re citizens because of ‘birthright citizenship,’ well, that gets tossed out.  They get your citizenship, green cards if they stay here, &c, &c.  That way, the United States can’t be accused of ‘breaking up families’ – any ‘breaking up’ of your family that happens is on you.

              You should have thought of that before you started spouting off, y’damn fool.

              Anyhow – you (and your spouse, if he/she is firing off at the mouth the same way) will be looked into, talked to, and put out of the country, and don’t bother arguing.  And don’t bother going to the ACLU, either, because I’m sure none of their attorneys would like to be disbarred.  You [and your spouse, if s/he wishes] will be put out of the country, even if s/he isn’t rabbiting on about “Death to America!” and such nonsense – and be glad we’re only deporting you.

               Speaking of ‘birthright citizenship,’ I hope Trump does reverse that – it’s granted by act of law that was a perversion of the language of Amendment XIV, meant to grant full citizenship to the recently-manumitted slaves.  As even discussed in the debates then, it was not meant to confer citizenship willy-nilly upon an accident of birth (and for those of you who want to drag Wong Kim Ark into this, there are a couple of critical factors to consider:

1)      The Wongs (Kim’s parents) were here legally as resident aliens.

2)      Mr. Wong (Wong Kim Ark – the Asians list their family names first.  We would have known him as Kim Ark Wong) was born here.  To lawful resident alien parents.  Who were therefore “under the jurisdiction of the United States.”  And could therefore legally give birth to someone who would be a citizen.  If you’re here illegally, you’re not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' except insofar as you are subject to immediate removal if caught.

3)      Therefore, no-one involved would have been considered an “illegal alien,” and the text of Amendment XIV would not be challenged, nor would the foolishment under Federal law be needed (I don’t recall the exact section, I should probably look for it again one of these days.  I think it was in Title 8.)

There was no Amendment XIV challenge, simply because the Wongs were ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, being lawful residents thereof.  See how that works?

 But, I digress.  Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, not even for city dog-catcher or on municipal bond issues, simply because they’re not invested enough in the process to become citizens and get some real skin in the game.

Green card voters aren’t allowed to vote for a reason.  There is no sane reason at all why illegal aliens should be allowed to even enter the polls!  Yes, I know, some city out here in California went and appointed an illegal alien to some City Council position – “to represent the interests of undocumented immigrants.”  My answer to that City Council?  “I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain to you why that is a bad idea.”  We’ve also allowed an illegal alien to go all the way through law school, and they are now admitted to the Bar!  Excuse me?  An illegal alien is now an officer of the court?  Okeh, now I’m pretty sure one of us has gone insane, and I’m reasonably certain it’s not me.  Eighty-five percent sure.  I’m not going to rule out us both being nuts – but I’m reasonably sure I’m not the one that has gone barking mad. . .

I still itch a little at children born to green card holders being automatic citizens, but at least green card holders are still doing it legal.  At least they care enough to come here properly.  I can respect that.

Illegal aliens being issued (handed outright?) valid driver licenses.

Illegal aliens being appointed to government jobs.

Illegal aliens being made officers of the court.

Now, they want illegal aliens to vote!

Small wonder they’re all coming up here – we’re treating them better than they get at home!

 

 

JDK

Psychodrama

 Someday, I may start writing consistently for this thing.  Today is not that day.

Tomorrow don't look too good, neither.  Anyhow.

I have noted with pleasure that Stephen King's The Long Walk is being made into a movie, hopefully to be released soon (they finished filming last year.)  I look forward to this - The Long Walk is one of my favour psychodramas, and one of my favourite King works (even though it was a Bachman book, and my reaction to those was a bit mixed - but generally positive.)

The othes I'd like to see made into movies, if done right?  I'd like to see a proper redux of The Running Man," a 'long-short' (30-45 minutes should do) of Survivor Type, and (although I am sure to be considered crass for this,) Rage.

I once did a paper for psychology called The Mechanics of Madness: a Study of Insanity in Popular Literature, and I drew heavily on those three.  Survivor Type being largely self-destruction of the ego, Rage being a major conflict between the aspects of the mind, and Long Walk being about the social destruction of the psyche, wearing it down bit by bit.

Now, as a rule, I don't normally go to the theatre - I don't own a house to take out a second mortgage on to afford the tix and concessions.  The last movie I went to go see was the third Abrams Star Trek (and despite popular opinion, I enjoyed all three.  The connection with "Spock Prime" was a neat way to establish the Abramsverse as an alternate timeline, and I thought it was fun having the Beastie Boys on a Star Trek soundtrack, each time.

Sadly, I have lost the paper (homelessness is a bitch, and having your stuff auctioned off in a storage sale sucks.  Worse, the guy that bought it didn't follow the rules and return personal papers - so I lost all my geneaology and military history notes, and 20 years' worth of technical notebooks (mechanical solutions, tool designs, &c, &c) to the bin.  And he pushed the truck I had in storage out onto the street into a No Parking Zone - I spent years fighting that ticket!)  I may try to recreate it someday - I won't get the same thing (after all, you can never cross the same river twice,) but it would be interesting to see my take on it now, 30-odd years later, with much more experience and all that has happened to me since - including nearly losing my own sanity, which gives me a more comprehensive view of madness now.  (I'm surprised my kid sister didn't use me as a case study in abnormal psychology - I'd happily have been interviewed...)

The UK Online Safety Act

 Or, simply put, the "censorship bill."  Has anyone else seen this thing?  Two hundred twenty-five pages of overly vague nonsense, shifting the burden of censorship to the online platforms and providers for no good reason.

Since most of you don't have the time to waste reading this thing (advantages to being at least semi-retired, y'know...) let me hit a few highlights.  You can view the bill and follow along at https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-final.pdf ...

Starting with Part 2 - "Key Definitions"

- Under "User-to-User Service" and "Search Service," "(1) In this Act, "user to user service" means an Internet service by means of which content that is gnerated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user or the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service.  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1); (a) it does not matter if content is actuallyshared with another user or users as long as a service has a functionality that allows such sharing; and (b) it does not matter what proporton of content on a service is content desribed in that subsection." [emphasis mine]

Interpretation: For services that are like or could be like, say, Facebook or X, they can be regulated under this law.  Doesn't matter if you have content sharing turned on or off; or if, out of everything you have on your server, you have only one small file shared.  It's enough.

Part 3, Chapter 1, Part 5, Subsection 7 "Chapter 7 is about the interpretation of this Part, and it inclues definitions of the following key terms: 'illegal contant,' 'terrorism content,' 'CSEA content' and 'priority illegal content' (see section 52); 'Primary priority content that is harmful to children,' 'priority content that is harmful to children,' and 'content that is harmful to children' (see section 53); 'priority content that is harmful to adults' and 'content that is harmful to adults' (see section 54); "

For "illegal content" &c, the only one I have to look up is "CSEA content" (it's not defined in section 52, either,) but I can see censoring such content, and that's the sort of thing a provider should be jumping on, and a censor bot should be flagging for a human operator to verify and delete or not, depending.  So I can see all of that.

Section 53 defines what each bracket of "harmful to children" is, but does not describe what "harmful to children" itself means.  Wonder if it's described somewhere else?  If not, that leaves an awful lot of open territory.  Stay tuned...  Subsection (3) - " 'Priority content that is harmful to children' meanscontent of a description designated in regulations mae by the Secretary of State as priority content that is harmful to children."  I wonder how much I'd have to dig to resolve this tautology, because defining something as itself is just stupid.  Likewise subsection (4) " 'Content that is harmful to children' means (a) primary priority content that is harmful to children, (b) priority content that is harmful to children, or (c) content, not whting paragtaph (a) or (b), of a kind which presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the United Kingdom."  Good as it goes - but, again, what's "harm?"

Section 54 - "Content that is harmful to adults" - is similarly tautological.  What's "harm?"

Section 150 - "Harmful Communications Offence (1) A person commits an offence if (a) the person sends a message (see section 153), (b) at the time of sending the message - (i) there was a real & substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience, and (ii) the person intended to cause harm to a likely audiance, and (c) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message."

So we have to prove (or disprove!) state of mind at a point in the past, prove (or disprove) a question of intent, and prove (or disprove) justification for the content (this last is probably the easiest of the three to do.)  However, we're back to "causing harm" again - I've been thumbing through the instances where "harm" appears as a word or part of a word in this mess, and the title of this section is the 222d occurrence of "harm."  I am still looking for a proper definition, instead of the tautology originally offered...

Finaly!  Subsecton (4) - " 'Harm' means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress."  Goody.  I have problems with this (at the 226th occurrence of "harm," by the way...):

1) It's a horribly nebulous term.  What could cause 99 men to go to bits wouldn't even faze me.   Perhaps 999 men - I'm pretty unflappable, anymore.

2) This is a horribly nebulous definition in general.

3) What is "serious distress?"

4) We're dealing with a population that goes all to bits if you use the wrong fucking pronouns to refer to them.  What else would cause these thin-skinned wastes of space to go pieces?  

(Disclaimer - if you haven't figured out by now that I am not politically correct, or whatever term they're using these days, you haven't been paying attention.  That's a "you" problem.  Deal with it however you see fit, but I won't censor myself to protect fragile sensibilities, I'm going to keep saying - roughly - what I think.  I do tone it down just a bit...)

Were I in charge of, say, X; here's how I'd respond to such a bill: "Gentlemen, I have received your law, and I have given it the attention it deserved.  Having just swept the ashes into the bin, allow me to reply.  Your desire for censorship is a "you" problem, we serve the whole world.  You want Great Britain censored, you do it.  We will continue to jump on illegal content, and we are accelerating efforts to do so.  However, what you consider "offensive" doesn't even flick the needle on my offence meter, and I'm not going to expect people to put themselves in your place to enforce a vague law, rife with tautologies and nebulous critical definitions. Enforcing this will therefore be your problem.  Anyone you send to arrest any of my personnel shall themselves be subject to arrest for kidnapping, or at least liable to grievious bodily injury during the attempt to execute such a warrant.  And we will vigorously fund their defence.  Love, kisses, and fuck you very much.  Have a nice day."

Here's another fun one - Section 151, Subsection 1(c) - "A person commits an offence if - ... (c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information i it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physica harm to a likely audience ..."  How are we defining "non-trivial," and just how nebulous will this end up being?  "non-trivial" is anawfully slippery term to use in law, where definitions should be objectively quantifiable.

Section 154, Subsection (3) - "Proceedings for an offence committed under section 150, 151, or 152 outside the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, at any place in England and Wales."  Oh, really?  So, you're telling me you suddenly have global jurisdiction for the purposes of "offensive content?"

Section 156, adding Section 66!, (1)(a) - "A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person's genitals to another person (B) commits an offence of - (a) A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress, or humiliation."

Now, I'll admit that some things are the responsibility of the provider to strike quickly - and I already covered that (illegal content &c.)  However, it is impossible to determine exactly what people will find "offensive" and/or just how "offensive" they'll find it to be, and this is the sort of law that is going to lead to a patchwork of such laws from various countries, making the content filtering by nation resemble a crazy quilt.  This is the #1 reason why Meta, X, et al should not do country-level filtering - let the countries do it their damn selves.  Akin to the "Great Firewall of China," any country that wants content (of whatever sort) censored can take such responsibility upon themselves, so their people know who they can get mad at. And having a crazy quilt of routing tables gets needlessly complex - having each nation establish its own censorship 1) puts it in the right place (if any place can be said to be "right" for censorship,) and 2) makes administration so much easier for all concerned (especially since each nation can add sites and suchlike to its own routing tables to block, and they don't have to bother service providers.)

This law is horribly written, it's unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) vague, it puts the subjective burden upon the provider, it assigns worldwide jurisdiction to the United Kingdom (which won't fly,) and it's illogical (reading it made my migraine much worse!)

And its passage will only encourage more of this sort of nonsense, unfortunately.  After all, as I've long said - "Nothing has legs like a bad idea."

Red Flag Laws Done Right

               So much going on around about "Red Flag" laws.  "Oh, they're for your safety."  "Oh, they're for the safety of society."  "Oh, they're just a safety measure."

              Bullshit.

              The reason I say so?  If they're so concerned about the person being a "threat," they only remove a tool that may be used to exercise that threat.  Just one sort of tool, out of many.  Just one prepared tool, against so many that may be improvised by anyone who paid attention in high school chemistry and who took shop courses (id est, pretty much anyone with a reasonably well-rounded education.)

              If the person is such a threat, then the efforts should be focused on the person, yes?  Seal up the house, and take the person in for a 72- or 96-hour psych hold and eval, then decide what to do with/about him.  Decide if the person really is a threat, and handle him accordingly.

              Now, if I were in charge of such things, here’s how I’d structure a “Red Flag” law.  This would (I think) maintain the rights of the accused, preserve due process, and handle any threats at their source:

 

1)      The complaint is made.  This must be done by someone who knows you personally resaonably well – not your kid’s teacher (who may have never met you,) unless there are clear signs of abuse; or a cop who met you in passing and who has only interacted with you for two minutes with you giving no outward “danger signs,” or anyone like that.  A relative, or a (mental) health practitioner you consult regularly, or someone with at least an undergrad psych degree – someone with either the knowledge or experience to properly make such a judgement upon an individual.

2)      A court date is scheduled.

3)      You are advised of such court date – a minimum of three calendar days in advance, and a maximum of seven calendar days in advance (you must be given an opportunity to prepare a defense, but the assumption is that we must move relatively quickly on this.)

4)      At your court appearance, you face your accuser, who must articulate his concerns against you.  Failure of the accuser to appear nullifies the order with prejudice, and the records so marked. 

a.       You are given the opportunity to defend yourself, in the presence of a judge and a psychologist or psychiatrist (a masters-level practitioner in abnormal psychology at a minimum,) since most judges do not hold psychology degrees, and are therefore not fit judges of the mind.  (If a judge does hold a masters-level psych degree, then that single judge will do.)

b.       No attorneys are present.  You are defending your mind, not your legal status.  You will be doing so directly.  Yes, it will be stressful – that is the point.  Induced stress will be part and parcel of the psychological evaluation.

c.       You will have the opportunity to examine your “accuser’s” position against you.  You will have the opportunity to question your accuser.  This is proper, and a preservation of your rights under the Constitution – just as this whole process will be.  And if your accuser can’t be bothered to show up, then you’re obviously not enough of a problem to worry about.

5)       

a.       Your home will be guarded while you are having your evaluation, if it is ordered.

b.       The default position on this initial process will be the issuance of a 72- or 96-hour psychological evaluation hold, unless you can prove you don’t need one.  If you can prove you don’t need one, or the evaluation shows that you are stable, your home and contents will be returned to you in the condition in which you left it, all property intact.

c.       If the result of such evaluation is that a precautionary hold is ordered, or a period of observation is ordered, then it is time to hold property.  Anything that may be used to attack another is therefore inventoried as to kind, quantity, and condition (a written list and a photographic record of condition is made as the property is amassed,) and a permanent copy of such is given to the citizen (id est, a copy on optical media, such as a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM.  Some format that may not be altered.)  Such record is to be identical to the “official” record maintained by the Sheriff’s Department.

d.       Any property taken is to be properly stored, in such manner as it will not be damaged by handling, other property, or the environment, for an indefinite period of time.  A copy of the inventory of such property is to be kept with the property.

e.       It is understood that one may not remove all threats from a given home, there are too many ways to make various weapons to be had, if one knows how.  But, anything with a primary purpose of being used “as a weapon” (which, sadly, includes firearms,) or a major secondary use as a weapon (including things like field knives, baseball bats – if one is not on a team – collected martial arts weaponry, collections of WWII war materiel, &c) can be taken and held.

6)      Every six months, the order shall be reviewed in court.  The same procedure is to be followed as the original order, with the exception of the “psych hold” no longer being a major potential outcome of the proceedings.  However, the original complainant must still appear, must still articulate his concerns (if they are still present,) and must still be made to defend his position on such.  Or, he may state that there are no longer any concerns, and that the order may be lifted.

a.       The default position on review is that the order is to be lifted, unless it can be proven that the order should be maintained.

b.       If/when the order is to be lifted, the Sheriff’s department has ninety-six hours (four calendar days) to return the citizen’s property to them, in the condition in which it was taken.  Any property that is damaged (relative to the condition recorded when the property was taken) the Sheriff’s department has two weeks to make the citizen whole (but without undue delay.  The two weeks is to allow a chance to find uncommon items – common items are to be replaced immediately.  If items cannot be located, the price of the item – when new – shall be reimbursed.)

7)      At every stage, both the accuser and accused may bring witnesses to support their position.

8)      At every stage, both the accuser and accused are aware of what is happening.

9)      The accuser is not permitted to make his accusation anonymously  Doing so nullifies the accusation.

 

Discuss

 

Coronavirus, or the 2020 Election?

Found this one hiding in the buffer.  Enjoy...

 

 Which is more contentious?

Why is it so important that absolutely everyone be vaccinated against a disease with an aggregate 99.97% survival rate (99.995% under 60?)

Why is it so important that everyone be vaccinated - even if they've already had the disease and have immunities against it - immunities which have been proven in studies to be better than the "leaky" vaccine?  (Reinfection rates are considerably lower than breakthrough infection rate.  Israeli studies - here's one[1] -  show reinfection rates to be effectively zero.  The Cleveland Clinic[2] found no logical reason to vaccinate those who had previously been infected with COVID-19.)

The government decries vaccine hesitancy, but doesn't realise that it itselc causes vaccine hesitancy.[3, 4]

The vaccine makers didn't help their cause any, either.[5] (N.B. - It's since come out that, "the information is online."  Well, then, put a smaller piece of paper in with a statement to that effect, instead of a child's bedsheet left blank!  It's not that difficult to do, y'know?)

Our mentally soi-distant feckless leader Biden:
- Prior to getting elected: "Does not trust Trump to deliver a safe vaccine."[6, 7]  Now: "Everybody get vaccinated." (Read the papers)
- Before: "There will be no Federal vaccine mandates."[8]  Now: Read the papers.
- Acting like a drug pusher, rolling out boosters before anyone really even knows they're necessary [9, 10]
- And I'm sure much more I really don't feel like looking up at the moment (I have other things to do.)

And, of course, we're constantly being exhorted to "follow the science."  Um, okeh.  I have been "following the science."  I've studied SARS-CoV-2 enough that I can discuss it intelligently with medical doctors, on their level.  And you want to know one of the solid conclusions that we've all reached?  The Federal government, the CDC, and Fauci don't know what the Hell they're doing.  Some tips:

- Soap works.  Use it.  I know they say twenty seconds - foodservice says 30 seconds.  The extra ten seconds won't kill you (hey - as a first aider, I was taught to scrub for a full minute.  Deal.)  Soap works better than the alcohol hand sanitizers, and it doesn't burn those little cuts, either.
- Physical distancing?  Useless.  If you were to do 30 feet (10m) or so, maybe.  6 feet?  May as well just stand right next to him (and either the masks STOP particles or they DON'T.  If you're wearing a cloth mask, I'm willing to bet they DON'T.  Woven materials is an ineffective filter, and the pore size is just too damn big.) [11, 12]
- Gee whiz.  The science, once again, agrees with what I knew intuitively - that the cloth masks everyone is going about wearing border on useless.[13]  (N.B. - The minimal filtering effect offered by these masks can probably be considered negated by people fiddling around with their masks and with poor fitment.)

[1] Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Natural Immunity to Vaccine-Induced Immunity: Reinfections Versus Breakthrough Infections: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously-Infected Individuals: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
[3] Speaking of Big Buts, the Unethical Quite of the Month: Dr. Anthony Fauci :https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/08/25/speaking-of-big-buts-unethical-quote-of-the-month-dr-anthony-fauci/
[4] "They're Experimenting On Us" - Why Black New Yorkers Don't Trust the Vaccine: http://stateofthenation.co/?p=79083 (It's not just black New Yorkers - the vaccine rollout has been the biggest drug study in history - that has been and probably will ever be.  They've talked billions into taking part.  Because you do know that these vaccines are, technically, still in study period, right?  The only one that has gotten FDA approval, I believe, is still not available in the United States...
[5] YouTube Video of Pharmacist Breaking Out Package Insert of Johnson & Johnson SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v6DJIS0zd4
[6] "Biden Does Not Trust Trump to Deliver Safe Vaccine": https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-does-not-trust-trump-to-deliver-a-safe-vaccine
[7] "Biden Says Americans Can't Trust Trump on Vaccines": https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/16/us/trump-vs-biden
[8] FLASHBACK: President-Elect Joe Biden Was Against Vaccine Mandates: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/09/09/flashback-biden-was-against-vaccine-mandates-when-he-was-running-for-president-n2595631
[9] FDA Officials Said Americans Don't Need Booster.  Biden Went Ahead with One Anyway: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/09/13/fda-officials-said-americans-dont-need-a-booster-biden-went-ahead-with-one-anyway-n2595784?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1
[10] FDA Experts Among Group Opposing Booster Shot Plan: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-coronavirus-pandemic-science--38544e89b9dba06d49a800189c3ed42d
[11] Understanding Particle Size Aerosol-Based Transmission:https://www.4cconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/COVID-19-Transmission-Paper-updated.pdf
[12] Pathway is Important, Not Distance: https://www.4cconference.com/understanding-particle-size-and-aerosol-based-transmission-of-covid-19/
[13] American Association of Physicians & Surgeons - Mask Facts: https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

Climate Alarmism

                No, Henny Penny, the sky is not falling – and if it were, there’s not a damned thing you could do about it anyhow, because it wouldn’t be your fault.

               Awright everybody, I’m getting sick and damned tired of hearing about how we need to “reduce our carbon footprint” and all the plans for “carbon sequestration” and reduction of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and how we’re “killing the planet.”  Let’s get a few things out in the open, shall we?

-      -    The planet’s climate is cyclic.  Ice ages and hot periods alternate, and that’s been going on for eons.  It will continue on, until Sol explodes and Terra no longer exists.

-       -   The planet’s climate is driven by solar cycles.  Specifically, sunspot cycles.  I’m not saying that anthropogenic atmospheric global warming isn’t happening – but I will categorically state that we do not have anywhere near as great an effect as we’re being told we have.  At least, not in terms of carbon.  More on that in a bit.

-        -  Carbon dioxide may be a greenhouse gas, but its concentration in the atmosphere is measured it parts per million.  And, typically, less than 1,000 ppm.  Just for perspective, 1% concentration = 10,000 ppm.  Chew on that.  Then consider there have been whole epochs in Terran history where the proportion of CO₂ has been much higher in the atmosphere, but the global mean temperatures have been lower.  I’ll get to that in a bit, too.

-        -  Now, everyone wants us to cut CO­₂.  This is flawed thinking.  Why?  Carbon dioxide is what plants live on.  This means that there will be less CO₂ available for plants to perform photosynthesis with, so less to make oxygen output with, less food (produce) to grow, and less feed to grow food (livestock.)  Think there may be an agenda at work?  Chew on it for a bit.

-        -  You know what the bigger driver of heat retention – at least, in the atmosphere – is?  Water vapour.  That’s right – good ol’ H₂­O.  Humidity.  Cloud cover.  But, we can’t live without at least some humidity in the atmosphere – so what can be done?  I think that perhaps some windtraps could be set up to catch water from the air in regions of very high humidity.  But, we can’t get rid of it all – we’re just evolved to live with some humidity in the air, and we don’t want the entire planet to look like the Sahara now, do we?

-        -  Now, earlier, I said that atmospheric anthropogenic global warming wasn’t happening – at least, not to the degree we’re being told (the sky is most definitely not falling.  We don’t need to eat lab-grown “meet” cultured from “immortalized” (cancer) cells.  And don’t get me started on plant-based synthetic meat – if you want to eat a hamburger, just eat the damned hamburger.  And get your wooden imposters in the produce section where they belong!  However, there is much heat retention at the Terran surface that is anthropogenic in nature.  All this blacktop pavement, and all the asphalt shingles and dark composition rooftops all do a wonderful job of retaining heat (concrete pavement retains much less – yes, it still get hot to the touch, but it doesn’t retain anywhere near as much heat energy as asphalt does.)  All these roads, and all these roofs?  They cause a lot of heat to be retained at the surface – and there is your anthropogenic global warming!  All the new construction, and all the new roads?  Just add to it.

So, then, what can be done?  How can we resolve this?

-        -  Definitely need to plant more trees and greenery.  Not just for the other half of the respiration cycle, and not just for food purposes, but because it helps to increase the albedo of the planet’s surface, reflecting more heat away, and therefore helping to lower global mean temperatures.

-        -  Change pavement being used.  More cement, less asphalt.  We’ll have to figure out another way to use petroleum bottoms, or just store them somewhere like we do with radioactive waste (don’t throw it away – future generations may figure out a use for them.  But, put them where they won’t cause any trouble at present.)

-        -  Perhaps we could stand to reduce CO₂ emissions, but not to the extreme that the alarmists want us to reach, and “net zero” may not be strictly necessary.  We need to plant more greenery, which will make “net zero” easier to reach – because plants must be included in the figures.  And CO₂ is what plants eat.  And, it’s what they use to make oxygen for us.  Net zero isn’t the greatest idea we’ve ever come up with, we need to make sure we can keep plants in the equation, and any excessive industrial or anthropogenic CO₂ emissions can be made up for by planting greenspaces – which we damned well should be doing anyhow.

-        -  Change roofing materials.  Instead of composition, asphalt shingles, and tarpaper; come up with a suitable replacement for tarpaper that is lighter in colour (very heavily waxed Kraft?) and use slate instead?  Or figure out how to lighten the colour of shingles – significantly.

-        -  Set up windtraps and dew catchers in more humid regions of the world.  We don’t want to change the climate of these regions, we just want to reduce the humidity a bit – say, by 10% rh or so?  This should help bring the global mean temperatures down just a touch.

Anybody out there have any other ideas?  This is a topic I’d love to discuss – but please, no leftist yakking points that are impractical to respond to, unlikely to consider, and really aren’t anything more than mere talking points anyhow.  I have yet to hear anything come out of an environmentalist’s mouth that was a practical, defensive position that had a logical and realistic basis and approach to at least one facet of the problem.  If you can come up with something that you can actually defend in a rational manner, let’s kick it around a bit and see what happens!