GalacticSlackerHQ

Thoughts on President Obama’s comments today: 16.May.2013

Jody Harris — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:53:03 +0000

A couple of CNN Breaking News emails highlighting and commenting on the interesting points:

CNN Breaking News, 11:46 AM 16.May.2013

to textbreakingne.
President Obama says he has “complete confidence in Eric Holder” and that “he is an outstanding Attorney General.”

Holder has been under fire because the Justice Department obtained phone records of The Associated Press from 2012 as part of an investigation of classified leaks.

The president also said today he isnt apologizing for cracking down on leaks of classified information that can jeopardize U.S. troops and intelligence officers.

Obama called for consideration of a new “shield law” for the press. He added that he was unable to comment specifically on the Department of Justice’s secret subpoena of phone records of The Associated Press because of an ongoing investigation.

1) Holder has been under fire because the JD obtained phone records of AP journalists and reporter? What about Holder being under fire for the “Fast and Furious” ATF operation that force gun dealers to sell arms to known Mexican Cartel operators — and resulted in the deaths of US Border Patrol personnel and untold Mexican civilians? What about Holder’s wanton abuse of AFT licensed gun dealers? What about holder’s order to illegally demands records from licensed gun dealers? Holder has been a nightmare.

2) Obama called for consideration of a new law! Really!? A new law? The President a) refuses to enforce current laws, b) refuses to obey current laws, c) has already demanded a whole bookshelf full of unconstitutional laws, and d) would refuse to obey (b) or enforce (a) any new laws (c) that he wants to pass unless it was politically expedient for him to do so. No! No more laws! More laws are not the answer. Try obeying and enforcing existing laws.

CNN Breaking News, 1:29 PM 16.May.2013

to textbreakingne.
President Barack Obama will appoint Danny Werfel as the acting IRS commissioner, the White House announced.

The move comes a day after acting Commissioner Steven Miller was forced to resign amid a controversy over the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Werfel is currently the controller of the Office of Management and Budget.

“As we work to get to the bottom of what happened and restore confidence in the IRS, Danny has the experience and management ability necessary to lead the agency at this important time,” Obama said in a written statement.

1) Poor Commissioner Steven Miller. I guess someone has to be the fall guy. This is what comes of trying to make your boss happy some times.

2) Targeting of conservative groups — is anyone surprised?

3) I suspect the “bottom” is at the top — the very top.

Galactic Roundup 16.May.2013

Jody Harris — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:11:08 +0000

Print Your Gun Parts at Home, from Reason.com by J.D. Tuccille

In February, the techie gun-rights group Defense Distributed unveiled a 3D-printed lower receiver for an AR-15 rifle that withstood hundreds of rounds of fire. A YouTube video of the component in action was accompanied by the terse statement, “Does not fail from firing stresses. 600+ rounds.”

The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership, from Schneier on Security by Bruce Schneier

Our government collects a lot of information about us. Tax records, legal records, license records, records of government services received– it’s all in databases that are increasingly linked and correlated. Still, there’s a lot of personal information the government can’t collect. Either they’re prohibited by law from asking without probable cause and a judicial order, or they simply have no cost-effective way to collect it. But the government has figured out how to get around the laws, and collect personal data that has been historically denied to them: ask corporate America for it.

It’s no secret that we’re monitored continuously on the Internet. Some of the company names you know, such as Google and Facebook. Others hide in the background as you move about the Internet. There are browser plugins that show you who is tracking you. One Atlantic editor found 105 companies tracking him during one 36-hour period. Add data from your cell phone (who you talk to, your location), your credit cards (what you buy, from whom you buy it), and the dozens of other times you interact with a computer daily, we live in a surveillance state beyond the dreams of Orwell.

Three Ubuntu releases reach end of life, from LWN.net by jake

Three releases of Ubuntu reached their end of life on May 9, 2013, which means they will no longer receive updates of any kind. Users of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (“Hardy Heron”), Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Desktop (“Lucid Lynx”), andUbuntu 11.10 (“Oneiric Ocelot”) should upgrade.

J.P. Moreland on Intellectual Virtue, from Apologetics 315 by noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten)

“There is absolutely nothing wrong with admitting you don’t know something or that you’re currently inadequately equipped to think a topic through. What is unacceptable, however, is running from this fact and thereby giving up on intellectual and spiritual growth in the interest of avoiding embarrassment or possible rejection. We all need help in this area, and we should care enough about truth and reason to give that help. Even if we agree with one another’s conclusions, we need to dedicate ourselves for Christ’s sake to refusing to allow each other to reach those conclusions with poor argumentation and sloppy treatment of data.”

—J. P. Moreland

A Modest Gun-Safety Proposal, from Reason.com by Sheldon Richman

The problem with the advocates of “gun-safety” laws is that they don’t think big enough. They favor expanded background checks, greater monitoring of those stigmatized as “mentally ill,” and a ban on the manufacture of scary-looking semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. But we know these measures would not have prevented the horrible shootings that have occurred in recent years.

The 1999 Columbine massacre took place while bans on “assault weapons” and high-cap magazines were in place. The killer at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Adam Lanza, wouldn’t haven’t been stopped by a background check because he used his mother’s lawfully purchased guns. The shooter at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year, James Eagan Holmes, had no criminal record and bought his weapons legally. He reportedly had contact with so-called “mental-health professionals,” and some acquaintances thought he was weird, but this hardly sounds like grounds to take his guns away or detain him as likely to commit a massacre. Had he been unable to buy guns legally, he would have obtained them in the black market, which people have been doing since guns were invented. Same with Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson shooter who killed six people and wounded, among others, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Transparency and Accountability, from Schneier on Security by Bruce Schneier

As part of the fallout of the Boston bombings, we’re probably going to get some new laws that give the FBI additional investigative powers. As with the Patriot Act after 9/11, the debate over whether these new laws are helpful will be minimal, but the effects on civil liberties could be large. Even though most people are skeptical about sacrificing personal freedoms for security, it’s hard for politicians to say no to the FBI right now, and it’s politically expedient to demand that something be done.

If our leaders can’t say no — and there’s no reason to believe they can — there are two concepts that need to be part of any new counterterrorism laws, and investigative laws in general: transparency and accountability.

Long ago, we realized that simply trusting people and government agencies to always do the right thing doesn’t work, so we need to check up on them. In a democracy, transparency and accountability are how we do that. It’s how we ensure that we get both effective and cost-effective government. It’s how we prevent those we trust from abusing that trust, and protect ourselves when they do. And it’s especially important when security is concerned.

Prince of the Outback, from Reason.com by Andrew Heaton

Off the beaten path from Australia’s wildlife preserves and pristine beaches is a little-known country that has quietly prospered for 43 years. The Principality of Hutt River sits on 75 square kilometers of land five hours north of Perth in Western Australia. Its stark landscape is not unlike a stretch of Nebraska farmland, except for the occasional stray marsupial and the wild roadside melons, scattered like hundreds of abandoned softballs. The country’s stamps, passports, and currency all bear the likeness of its ruler, Prince Leonard.

Hutt River’s secession and heraldry are neither a political statement nor a publicity stunt. They resulted from one man’s determination to save his wheat farm from ruinous government mandates. In 1970, after fighting a losing battle to repeal a stifling wheat quota, Leonard Casley and several of his neighbors declared independence from Australia. “We seceded to protect our lands,” says Casley, “to stop our lands from being taken from us.”

For more than four decades the self-made monarch has matched wits with irritated bureaucrats and politicians. So far, he’s come out ahead.

The Free State Project Grows Up, from Reason.com by Garrett Quinn

In 2001 a Yale doctoral student named Jason Sorens published an essay in the small webzine The Libertarian Enterprise, lamenting the failure of libertarian efforts at the ballot box. “Nothing’s working,” he wrote, because libertarians are scattered. The only way to have a real impact, he argued, would be to concentrate thousands of libertarian activists in a state with a small population and an easily accessible government. Sorens settled on an ideal target of 20,000 people, an imaginary cluster of libertarians he christened the Free State Project.

Twelve years later, against all odds, Sorens’ peculiar dream is coming true. At press time, nearly 14,000 liberty lovers had pledged to move to New Hampshire once the Free State Project reaches its goal of 20,000 signatories. More than 1,100 of them, known as “pre-staters,” have already moved to Manchester, Concord, Nashua, and even the state’s rural northern region to prepare the ground for the coming influx of libertarians. These activists are penetrating New Hampshire’s political and judicial establishment, joining community organizations, befriending (and antagonizing) the locals, and generally making themselves at home in New England.

Obama administration won’t prosecute wind farms for killing thousands of endangered birds, from Wintery Knight by Wintery Knight

From Fox News. (H/T Melissa)

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation has found.

More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

FAIL! You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.

Jody Harris — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:11:52 +0000

tu quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation.

Though shalt not commit logical fallacies!

The most important reason to understand logical fallacies is to keep them out of our own arguments.

Another article on the IRS free speech assault

Jody Harris — Sun, 12 May 2013 14:33:06 +0000

How the IRS Targeted Tea Party Groups for Abuse
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/Articles/~3/Atfgg-wZeWk/how-the-irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-fo

IRS apologizes for flagging conservative groups for audits in 2012 election year

Jody Harris — Sun, 12 May 2013 14:31:59 +0000

Remember, it is not wrong because President Obama did it. This is just wrong. I know that there were allegations of this happening under President George W Bush. It would be wrong if the Great Ronald Reagan had done it. I am convinced that President Obama did this *because* it is wrong, though.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/irs-apologizes-for-flagging-conservative-groups-for-audits-in-2012-election-year/

FAIL! You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Jody Harris — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:08:47 +0000

ad hominem

You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Though shalt not commit logical fallacies!

The most important reason to understand logical fallacies is to keep them out of our own arguments.

Are you from Galilee too?

Jody Harris — Mon, 06 May 2013 19:29:15 +0000

Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” John 7:50-52 (ESV)

Are you a back-woods hick, too?

Sometimes I get frustrated by my friends and family who live in the various big cities around the country. I have nothing to add to any conversation because I am, quite simply, the stupid, uneducated country cousin. The fact that I live in the hinterlands is evidence enough that I cannot be educated or informed on any important matter. It is comforting to know that Nicodemus – the ONLY member of the Sanhedrin, as far as we know, who was given the wisdom to desperately seek out Jesus and interview him in person – was accused of being an ignorant hick because he defended Jesus’ legal right to a hearing. Those other slick, urbane and “civilized” leaders had no need to hear anything, they had already made up their minds.

Facts on “fighting crime”?

Jody Harris — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:54:35 +0000

Marco Tedaldi asked me:

Did you ever wonder why there are no big, colorful statistics on the positive impact on crime and crimefighting? I am constantly wondering… and also, why despite that a lot of money is thrown in that direction.

Is it really all about fighting crime?

I am ashamed to answer, “No, I had not thought of that.” But, we all should have!

Surveillance Cameras Are Not All That

Jody Harris — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:13:23 +0000

Surveillance Cameras Are Not All That: Cameras were a big help in Boston, but that doesn’t mean they are generally a good idea. by Steve Chapman, reason.com May 6, 2013.

Surveillance cameras were originally touted as a strong deterrent, scaring away bad guys fearful of being caught on tape. But these devices have a disappointing record in action. In some places, they noticeably reduce crime. In others, they have the same effect as a potted plant.

In the Boston bombings, the cameras utterly failed in their preventive function. Not only did the bombings occur; they occurred in perhaps the most heavily photographed spot in America that day. Besides the permanent video cameras in operation, hundreds of spectators with cellphones were eagerly capturing the scene.

The alleged killers could hardly have been unaware of their exposure. They obviously chose the finish of the marathon precisely because of all the people and lenses that would be there when the explosives detonated. They made no effort to conceal or disguise their faces to avoid being identified.

…

Putting video gear in areas that are obvious potential terrorist targets is one thing. Putting them on every corner of an entire city is another. Some places are enviably safe without surveillance, which means any cameras installed there should be color-coordinated, since they will be primarily decorative.

They will fall victim to the law of diminishing returns. If you put out a couple of mousetraps, you may catch some mice. If you put out dozens, you may not catch many more. The second 10,000 cameras won’t add nearly as much crime-fighting value as the first 10,000 — or possibly even the first 1,000.

Supporters may ask: What’s the harm? One drawback is that taxpayers are not composed of cash. Buying a camera costs money; so does maintaining it and monitoring the images it generates. A dollar spent on surveillance video is a dollar that can’t be spent on foot patrols, police training, DNA tests or streetlights.

Another is that cameras contribute greatly to the steady erosion of personal privacy. Americans are generally oblivious to this phenomenon because they are oblivious to the multitude of unblinking eyes watching them in the course of a day. If each of us had a little alarm that went off every time we came into camera range, we might be less agreeable to the monitoring.

Of course, the impact varies demographically. A typical middle-aged white male can count on being largely ignored by the cops watching live video feeds. In camera-rich Britain, it turns out, the eyes in the control room tend to focus on two groups: dark-skinned young males and fetching young females.

Cameras may also soften us up for even deeper intrusions. If video feeds are so great, why not add audio? If you can stand being watched whenever you leave home, surely you won’t mind if every word is heard as well. And how about a tiny drone hovering over your front door, round the clock — for the rest of your life?

Enthusiasts for electronic surveillance may say: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But there’s a reason people don’t live in glass houses.

Mailbox

Jody Harris — Mon, 06 May 2013 04:42:42 +0000

This is an image I captured last June, but never shared. I like it. This old mailbox reminds me that I’m in one of my favorite places.

Fortune cookies, 4.May.2013

Jody Harris — Sun, 05 May 2013 03:44:57 +0000

]]>

Some observations on Batman and Iron Man

Jody Harris — Sat, 04 May 2013 05:20:47 +0000

]]>

One year living with a Ford F150 SVT Raptor

Jody Harris — Thu, 02 May 2013 16:18:06 +0000

It has been one year since I took delivery of my 2012 Ford F150 SVT Raptor, Silver, Supercrew. I was very excited about it at the time because it was the first vehicle I have purchased since my 1992 Ford 150 FlaredSide (which I am keeping with all 278,000 miles).

Whenever I buy something expensive, I always dread the buyer’s remorse. “Did I pay too much for something I really did not need?” “Do I really need this?” “Will I regret buying this model?” It does not matter if it is a new phone, a new camera or a new car, I always wonder.

I can honestly say, after one year and 21,000 miles, “I love it!”

There are two things that have surprised me about it, though:

It is a monster! It is so easy to forget when you are driving it down the highway, with the family, just enjoying a Lincoln-smooth ride and you are driving a real monster.
It is a monster! It is so easy to forget that when you make that turn onto an unpaved, not-really-a-road and run comfortably at 60-70 mph, or jump the railroad tracks every time you get a chance, or make four extra turns just to cross the dry creek bed, that you are driving a purpose-built machine and you would never have done this in anything you have driven before — well not every time.

A thought on arguments, reasoning and fallacies

Jody Harris — Wed, 01 May 2013 15:57:52 +0000

In a conversation with my friend and pastor, Timothy, one of the potential dangers of fallacies raised it’s ugly head:

The problem with this is the last week on Slate or one of the other liberal sites, a woman was arguing for polygamy and incests. Everyone says never use the slippery slope, but by golly evidence seems to indicate when it comes to dealing with liberals, everything IS a slippery slope.

I made the case that the reasoning was correct, but the argument was poorly made because it relied on the slippery slope argument. I reworded the argument to avoid the fallacy. It made the argument valid, but also more wordy and slightly awkward. My point was, just because you have argued fallaciously does not mean that your reasoning is incorrect.

You also have to be aware of the “fallacy fallacy.”

Just because it looks like a fallacy to me does not make it a fallacy.
Just because my opponent has accused me of a fallacy does not mean that my reasoning is fallacious.
If my original argument is fallacious, it does not mean that my reasoning is wrong – it means I have argued it poorly. Bad arguments for good reasoning can and should be repaired.

FAIL! You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Jody Harris — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:09:09 +0000

slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Though shalt not commit logical fallacies!

The most important reason to understand logical fallacies is to keep them out of our own arguments.

Quote: On Music, Joe McNally

Jody Harris — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:27:52 +0000

I found this great quote about music in my daily reading this morning, Music On Location, Joe McNally’s blog:

Music intertwines readily, emotionally with life, and the lives of the musicians who play it. Music sees you through, and it opens your heart. Strains of certain songs are evocative of time and place. Others are a warp speed return to a specific event or memory.

This is certainly true of country music, which I don’t claim to be all that knowledgeable about, but certainly listen to. My life is richer because Johnny Cash, Lucinda Williams and Emmylou Harris picked up a guitar and stepped to a microphone.

- Joe McNally (30.July.2013 blog post)

Fortune cookies!

Jody Harris — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:29:25 +0000

I love fortune cookies! I know that a Calvinist kitten dies every time I read one, but I cannot help myself. My pastor and I often lunch at a Chinese restaurant, and we always chuckle and share our “fortunes” with each other.

‘W’ and Being Judged by History

Jody Harris — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:37:42 +0000

I have said several times over the past ten or so years, “History will be kind to George W. Bush (43rd President of the United States).” I just did not think that I would see history being kind to him in my lifetime.

CNN Breaking News (24.Apr.2013):

The view of George W. Bush’s presidency has improved with time, according to a CNN/ORC International Poll.

Forty-two percent now say his presidency was a success, up 11 points since a CNN poll in January 2009, during his final days in office. Fifty-five percent of those questioned say Bush’s presidency was a failure, down 13 percentage points since 2009.

Abraham Lincoln’s (16th President of the United States) contemporaries were very harsh to him, but history has vindicated him as a great leader during a terrible time. Was he the perfect President? No! Did he do his best to make the best of a horrible situation? Yes. Did he make more than his share of mistakes? Absolutely.

All of that is also true of George W. Bush (43). There are some terrible things attached to his legacy – perhaps the worst of all being the so-called “Patriot Act” – but he is a sinful human, like the rest of us, placed in a critical role at an epic juncture in history.

FAIL! You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

Jody Harris — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:11:54 +0000

the fallacy fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

Though shalt not commit logical fallacies!

The most important reason to understand logical fallacies is to keep them out of our own arguments.

FAIL! You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Jody Harris — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:03:19 +0000

appeal to emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.

Example: Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all.

Though shalt not commit logical fallacies!

The most important reason to understand logical fallacies is to keep them out of our own arguments.