Month: July 2012

Friday Quote – Penn Jillette

July 13, 2012 / / 0 Comments

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color

Penn Jillette

I don’t know if this is an original quote from Penn, or just a pithy comment for atheists. Either way, I liked it when I heard Penn say it on his latest Sunday School podcast. Atheism is not a different kind of faith, but is the absence of faith. Faith is believing that the universe works because that’s the way a deity or deities decided. Atheism says the universe works because of specified principles that we can prove through experimentation. Faith says that the future can be divined through cryptic prophecies that are often retrofitted after the events occur. Science actually predicts the existence of phenomena from the sub-atomic to the galactic in size and scope.

Like many atheists, I do not deny that there may be a God(s). I don’t know if there is a deity or not. All I know is that I don’t have any good, reliable, repeatable evidence for the existence of a deity. And that is one of the reasons that I am an atheist.

Gun Rights Policy Conference 2012

July 12, 2012 / / 0 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation wisely decided to hold the GRPC this year in Orlando. Details here. I will definitely be attending on Saturday and Sunday (Sept. 29 & 30). Friday may be more problematic because it’s the last day of the fiscal year. Right now, I’m still planning to be there. To say that I’m excited to be going is kind of like saying the Mongols dabbled in real estate.

Friday Quote – Marko Kloos

July 7, 2012 / / 0 Comments

Okay, this one is a day late. So sue me.

“You’re not the better human by not fighting back. You’re not the better human for choosing to have no claws or teeth. You’re not the better human for delegating responsibility your personal safety to some underpaid guy or girl with a tin badge. And you damn sure don’t get to claim a halo for your attitude.”

Marko

This quote made the circles around the gun blogs a few months ago. Like many of them, Marko managed to perfectly sum up my feelings towards many of the “violence is not the answer” crowd. There is a big difference between avoiding violence and refusing to do violence. As I said in my previous post, I try to avoid escalating a conflict to the point of physical violence and attempt to deescalate if it looks like the altercation is going that way. That said, I’m always prepared to do violence in the protection of myself or my loved ones. Heck, even some of my acquaintances.

Refusing to do violence when attacked is rewarding the predator by making his job easier. Surrendering of liberty, by abrogating the responsibilities that come with liberty, means that even those of the populace willing to take up that responsibility will be forced to give up their liberty.

Is it enlightened to not want to do violence to another? Yes. Should we take steps to avoid violence? Yes, when possible. Will there come times when violence is the answer? Yes.

Hat tip: Say Uncle

Verbal De-Escalaltion and the Concealed Carry Holder

July 5, 2012 / / 1 Comment

When I look at the differences of how I handled situations before I started carrying and now, the biggest is that I let some annoyances slide. Things that would have before got me into a rage, I just ignore or shrug off. Why? Because now I can’t afford to let things escalate into a confrontation that might become physical. Among the gun blogs, it’s often speculated on why anti-gunners seem prone to threaten or commit violence against their opponents. One theory is that they aren’t regularly carrying something that can cause immediate and irrevocable harm to another, and therefore, have lost respect for the power of violence. I refuse to engage in petty arguments not because I have a gun and can make anyone back down with my violence, but because if I have to do violence, it will not end well for anyone, including myself (see: Zimmerman, George).

The most recent Practical Defense, one of the myriad of podcasts I listen to regularly, was on verbal deescalation. Please give it a listen. The normal host, Alex Haddox, was “rebroadcasting” a podcast from Britain by Iain Abernathy. Being able to stop an altercation from becoming physical – and possibly lethal – should be extremely important to anyone who regularly carries a firearm.

Somethings I picked up from the podcast:

  1. Some situations can’t be verbally deescalated. Criminals and non-reasoning individuals (such as those under the influence and belligerent) should be dealt with by retreat or defense. Keeping your situational awareness may help in avoiding and/or recognizing these individuals.
  2. LEAPS – Listen, Empathize, Ask, Paraphrase, and Summarize; this was surprisingly similar to what I was taught at McDonald’s to “recover” a customer who had a bad experience. Make sure to use “I” statements instead of “You” statement (i.e., “I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding what you just said.” instead, “You’re not making yourself clear.”)
  3. Even when deescalating, be prepared for violence. Even after everything seems resolved don’t let your guard down.

If you listen to podcasts, I highly recommend Practical Defense. If you don’t learn something new with each podcast, then you should go back and re-listen because you missed something. Even on subjects I thought I was proficient, Alex still manages to give me either new techniques or new perspectives.

Short-term vs. Long-Term vs. Historical Reaction to Obamacare Decision

July 2, 2012 / / 1 Comment

On my way home, I like to listen to the Squirrel Report podcast. It’s usually pretty funny and informative, and I really like the combination of Breda, Jay, Weer’d, and Alan. For their June 28 show, they also had Borepatch on as a guest host. The first hour was dominated by the Obamacare decision. Understandable, since that was perhaps the most dominating story of the day.

Borepatch was making some very cogent arguments on how Chief Justice Roberts used the Obamacare decision to put the Democrats in a bad position. Here’s his blogpost laying out some of his arguments. Not necessarily in the short-term, but in the longer term of when the provisions of Obamacare really start to kick in. In terms of the politics, I think Borepatch is spot-on. I disagree with Borepatch on his seeming admiration of Chief Justice Roberts.

Here’s my issue: when dealing with Supreme Court decisions, you can’t just look at it in the prism of the next year, the next five years, or even the next ten years. Judges, by their training and nature, are loathe to overturn precedent. The heart of the arguments against Obamacare, namely the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause, has its heart in a 1942 Supreme Court case. If Borepatch’s analysis is correct, then Roberts played a Supreme Court decision for present-day politics, and that absolutely disgusts me.