Impeach Obama

But much more importantly, DON’T RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT!

A second Republican congressman is suggesting that impeachment should be an option as President Barack Obama takes executive action to enact gun control measures. In an interview with Florida’s “The Shark Tank,” Florida Republican Trey Radel addressed Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman’s statement that he might seek impeachment if Obama goes forward with executive action to bring about gun control measures.

“All options should be on the table,” Radel responded.

Obama announced 23 executive actions during his Wednesday press conference.

Obama should be impeached, although there is no chance that the Democratic Senate would vote to remove him from office even if he barbecued the children he was using to sell his Second Amendment violations in the Rose Garden and ate them in front of the cameras.  But more importantly, he can’t continue his disarmament campaign against the American people if the government is in default.

I don’t expect the House Republicans to follow through on this, of course, they’ll cave a third time, just as they did before.  But if they actually intended to defend the American people against the metastasizing government in Washington, they would do so.

What part of “shall not be infringed” does the administration not understand?  It’s not just “Congress shall make no law”.  Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment means the Executive Branch is also barred from taking any actions whatsoever that limit the people’s right to bear arms.  There are no mental health exceptions; these 23 executive dictates collectively amount to straightforward unconstitutional dictatorship.

Empty words

Barack Obama attempted to unilaterally impose the following on Americans today:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal
agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check
system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly
relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
that may prevent states from making information available to the
background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4.
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals
prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not
slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law
enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual
before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to
federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run
background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14.
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease
Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15.
Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and
most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the
private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17.
Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal
law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement
authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

It isn’t law. It isn’t anything but the meaningless words of one man who seeks to disarm Americans.

Inside view of the next Treasury Secretary

Pseudo-Spengler used to work for Jack Lew:

“When Lew was a COO at Citigroup, I was strategist for a credit derivatives hedge fund that did a great deal of business with Citigroup. We created collateralized debt obligations out of credit default swaps written on junk-quality debt, and through the magic of structuring, turned the junk debt into AAA-rated bonds. Citigroup not only underwrote these bonds, but bought virtually all of them through its so-called structured investment vehicles (SIV’s). These are off-balance-sheet devices sanctioned by the deaf-dumb-and-blind monkeys at the regulatory agencies that allowed banks to lever up AAA-rated paper at a ratio of 70 to 1. That is, Citibank bought $70 of these phony AAAs with $1 of actual shareholders’ capital. Of course, the supposedly AAA-rated paper rubber-stamped by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s bore no more relation to a true AAA security than a Thai counterfeit Rolex bears to the real thing (in fact, the Thai Rolex holds up better under scrutiny — at least it will tell time). When the crisis hit, the price of these supposed AAA-rated bonds collapsed, leaving Citi with losses multiplied by the 70:1 leverage factor.

“That’s why Citigroup went bankrupt (or would have except for repeated federal bailouts). There was a daisy-chain between the hedge fund investment side run in part by Jack Lew, the structuring desk, and the structured investment vehicle. Citigroup took a fee for investing in hedge funds, took a fee for structuring the hedge funds’ investments, and also bought a great deal of the dodgiest product. We used to tell our counterparties at Citigroup that they were crazy to buy this garbage (in effect, we were short the phony AAA paper that Citigroup was buying with 70:1 leverage. And I told the whole world this was the case on CNBC.) One of the reasons I knew with certainty that the banking system would blow up in 2008 was that I knew in detail what Citigroup had bought on Jack Lew’s watch.

Perhaps those feigning outrage at Jackie Chan’s charge that the USA is the most corrupt nation on the planet should consider taking this sort of thing into account.

The real reason for the gun bans

“The first notable is that the two rates track closely, so that
whatever is driving changes in the one is likely (but not certainly)
driving changes in the other. The second remarkable feature is the
abrupt increase in the turbulent 1960s, and the subsequent decline as
the people responsible for these cultural excesses began to enter their
50s and 60s, and even to die off in the 2000s and 2010s. The percent in
2011 was the lowest on record.  I want to repeat that: The homicide rate in 2011 was the lowest on record since 1960.”

Now ask yourself this question.  Since homicides and firearm homicides have already been dropping for more than 20 years with or without the assault weapons ban, why are various government officials suddenly so desperate to disarm the American people?

Karl Denninger explains the mystery:  “The people on the left are telling you in plain English that if you disarm you will be slaughtered.  Exactly as occurred in Germany, in Rwanda, in Guatemala and in countless other parts of the world.  These people are not anti-gun.  They are only against you being able to defend yourself against them, and they intend to kill you if you first disarm and thus make it possible for them to do so.  That’s the history of the “anti-gun” people worldwide over the last 100 years and it is happening again right here, right now, today, in America.”

He is right too.  No one ever wants to believe that their elected officials or their fellow citizens literally want to kill them.  But considering how many times it has happened throughout human history, and how many times it happened in the 20th century alone, the American people would have to be blitheringly stupid to imagine that those attempting to disarm them are doing so for any reason except to be able to kill them at will.

That doesn’t mean they actively want to kill anyone today.  They merely want the option in case large quantities of people don’t fall in line with their demands.

So, buy a gun today.  Buy one for your friend who won’t get it until they can’t be legally acquired anymore.  And don’t let anyone take them from you, for any reason.

Obama bypasses Congress

The totalitarians don’t have the votes to disarm America, so they’re going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders.

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control,
Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the
administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last
month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Let’s see them try it.  If nothing else, it might put an end to the use of executive orders.  More likely, it will explode the last tattered vestiges of the veil that disguises the dictatorial nature of the ruling oligarchy in Washington DC.

And yes, I know Republicans have used executive orders too.  That’s because they’re part of the problem, not the solution.

Reddit and the Red Pill Challenge

Reddit has asked me to do what they call an Ask Me Anything interview with The Red Pill subreddit:

 Well it’s a new year and we’re starting off right. I’ve been in touch
with a lot of the prominent voices of the manosphere, and we’re still
working out particulars on a lot of these, but I’m posting the
annoucement right now because our AMA series is going to begin shortly,
and I don’t want anybody to miss them.  I’m going to put this list in the sidebar, and update it as more details arrive. Here’s our current schedule:

Date (EST)NameSite
1/15/13 10:00amVox DayAlpha Game
1/21/13 12:00pmRollo TomassiRational Male
1/28/13 12:00pmxsplatRandom Xpat Rantings
2/04/13 06:00pmRooshVRooshV , Return of Kings
2/13/13 11:00amRedpillwifeyAdventures in Red Pill Wifery

You can participate in the discussion here.  It kicks off at 10 AM Eastern, and keep in mind that although it is called Ask Me Anything, this probably isn’t the place for questions about economics, my latest book, my SFWA candidacy, or why AD should be the 2012 MVP.  And recall that it is called “Ask Me Anything”, not “I’ll Tell You Everything”.

A discourse on Euthyphro

Since this exchange concerning the classic dialogue took place on Chad Orzel’s blog more than four years ago, a lot of you never had the chance to read it.  I think it’s worth posting here in its entirety because it is very nearly a textbook example of the way half-educated midwits who can’t believe they are not smarter than their intellectual superiors behave.  Notice how at every step along the way, there are repeated attempts to disengage, attempts to avoid having to support the naked assertions without recanting them, pointless passive-aggressive shots, and in general, a consistent effort avoid dealing with the actual subject at hand.  And, in the end, the hapless midwit simply runs away, still clinging to his now-exposed assertions, appealing to others in the hopes that they will pat him on the head and tell him that he is still a smart and good boy.

This behavior is quite typical when dealing with the moderately intelligent.  They are so accustomed to being superior that they literally cannot grasp the idea that the thinking of the highly intelligent is as far beyond them as they are beyond those they regard as ignorant mouth-breathers.  Anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid and a bad thinker; the possibility that they are in over their heads despite their ability to even follow, much less address, the salient points genuinely does not occur to them.  This particular discourse began with a throwaway comment by one Jasper in reference to The Irrational Atheist.

[T]here’s no reason not to allow him to continue to maintain those
particular beliefs – although not necessarily the beliefs in the book
itself, most of which are a little sad, insofar as he genuinely appears
to think that he’s resolved the Euthyphro dilemma. (A clue: he hasn’t.)

As usual, nothing but safely general comments… because you can’t make
the specific case. Regarding Euthyphro, you’re about the 20th atheist
to claim this. And yet, every time I ask the person to explain
precisely how my resolution of the dilemma on either Christian or
Socrates’s own terms is mistaken, they fall silent. Every single time.
So, by all means, Jasper, please show how my resolutions of it are
flawed, as I always like to improve my arguments. Post your critique on
my blog or email it to me, I’ll post it in its entirety and we’ll see
how valid it is.

In seeking to resolve the dilemma, you state that At first
glance, this looks easy enough, as simply substituting “obedience” for
“the pious” will destroy the dilemma because it eliminates the tautology
posed. One can’t do this since it’s not right to simply substitute
whatever terms one likes and declare the problem solved. Later in the argument, you then say: At
this point we can reach three conclusions: 1. The Euthyphro “dilemma”
is defeated by shifting the focus from “the pious” to “obedience,”
therefore it is an inappropriate criticism of Christian morality that is
founded on obedience to God’s Will. So this point is based on you doing something that you have previously declared is not allowed.

You also state that it can only be considered a genuine problem
for those who insist that a fixed principle cannot be arbitrary. In
other words, for those paying absolutely no attention to reality. There
are a panoply of fixed variables which, if they were different than they
are, would radically alter the reality of our universe. Here you
conflate moral principles with physical variables; but they are not the
same, and consequently this point is irrelevant.

You finally state that The section about disagreement between gods
regarding the pious and impious does not apply to a monotheistic god or
a Supreme God who rules over other, lesser gods and deines their
morality for them. Socrates and Euthyphro agree in the course of the dialogue to discuss that “what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious” – in all respects, a situation identical to being under a monotheistic god. So this point is irrelevant.

The rest of your refutation rests on a misunderstanding of what
actually constitutes the Euthyphro dilemma. You focus obsessively on a
literal translation of the language, rather than attempting to
understand the underlying argument. In modern terms, this is phrased as:
Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it
because it is moral? You simply don’t address this at all in your
supposed refutation, as far as I can see; I may be missing the point
entirely, but in that case you have not managed to convey your argument
well. You may then say that you are not prepared to compromise your
writing in order to make yourself understood; but then why did you
bother to write in the first place?

Jasper, thank you very much for presenting your response to my critique
of the Euthyphro “Dilemma”. In summary, yes, you did miss the point, in
fact, you managed to successfully miss the point on all four issues you
raised. As promised, I will explain this in whatever detail is
necessary on the blog tomorrow, so please consider stopping by.

Vox: if that’s the case, I’ll withdraw my points, so there’s no need to
post them on your blog. Since you accuse nearly everybody that disagrees
with you of missing the point, your only problem is that you appear to
be unable to communicate fairly simple points, which I would have
thought was a pretty crippling problem for a writer.

Incidentally, why are you not prepared to address my response on this blog? It’s all very Sun Tzu, but a little bit childish.

“Vox: if that’s the case, I’ll withdraw my points, so there’s no need to post them on your blog.”

Please tell me you’re kidding. You don’t seriously expect me to
believe that you’re willing to just take my word that your critique is
flawed after you’ve informed us how my arguments are mostly sad and my
Euthyphro refutation is a failure?

“Since you accuse nearly everybody that disagrees with you of
missing the point, your only problem is that you appear to be unable to
communicate fairly simple points, which I would have thought was a
pretty crippling problem for a writer.”

I don’t accuse anyone of anything I can’t demonstrate. I don’t
pretend to be a particularly good writer, so fortunately, it’s merely a
pasttime. Perhaps if I really concentrate and write really well, I’ll
be able to demonstrate why the Euthyphro refutations are solid.

“Incidentally, why are you not prepared to address my response on this blog? It’s all very Sun Tzu, but a little bit childish.”

I’ll post it here too if you like. I just assumed that no one would
see it if I post it here tomorrow.

You didn’t say that my critique was flawed, you said that I’d
completely missed the point of your argument. If I’ve missed the point
of your argument, that means that my critique is not of your argument.
Nobody knows your argument better than you, so why wouldn’t I take your
word on it?

Since we’ve already established that you can’t convey relatively
simple points, why on earth do you think you’re “demonstration” will be
any more comprehensible than your original text? There are two
possibilities here – either you’re a poor thinker or a poor writer –
but in either case, why would anybody read your work?

“In seeking to resolve the dilemma, you state that “At first
glance, this looks easy enough, as simply substituting “obedience” for
“the pious” will destroy the dilemma because it eliminates the tautology
posed. One can’t do this since it’s not right to simply substitute
whatever terms one likes and declare the problem solved.” Later in the
argument, you then say: “At this point we can reach three conclusions:
1. The Euthyphro “dilemma” is defeated by shifting the focus from “the
pious” to “obedience,” therefore it is an inappropriate criticism of
Christian morality that is founded on obedience to God’s Will.” So this
point is based on you doing something that you have previously declared
is not allowed.”

You’re skipping over the extremely relevant section wherein I
distinguish between refuting the Euthyphro dilemma on its own terms and
refuting its mistaken application to Christian morality because the
definition of that morality precludes the second horn of the dilemma.
Ergo, no tautology and no dilemma. One cannot simply change Socrates’s
definitions and claim to be attacking the dilemma on its own terms,
while on the other hand, one cannot apply the dilemma to a specific morality such as the Christian moral standard without
first changing those definitions.

“You also state that it can only be considered a genuine problem
for those who insist that a fixed principle cannot be arbitrary. In
other words, for those paying absolutely no attention to reality. There
are a panoply of fixed variables which, if they were different than they
are, would radically alter the reality of our universe. Here you
conflate moral principles with physical variables; but they are not the
same, and consequently this point is irrelevant.”

Conflate? Combine into one? Not at all. You’re forgetting the
rather obvious fact that whereas the necessary physical variables of
this universe are fixed, moral principles vary even within it.
Therefore, it is a massive logical error on multiple levels to assume
that in the universe next door, moral principles must be the same as
they are in this universe, while physical variables are assumed to be
different. In fact, given the competing moral principles currently on
offer in this universe, one couldn’t possibly even say which of them
must be the fixed ones next door.

“You finally state that The section about disagreement between gods
regarding the pious and impious does not apply to a monotheistic god or
a Supreme God who rules over other, lesser gods and deines their
morality for them. Socrates and Euthyphro agree in the course of the
dialogue to discuss that “what all the gods love is pious and holy, and
the opposite which they all hate, impious” – in all respects, a
situation identical to being under a monotheistic god. So this point is
irrelevant.”

You’re incorrect. If you read the dialogue more closely, you will
see that the situations are not identical because in the one case, the
net result of “what all the gods love” is a drastically restricted set of
polytheistic divine preferences reduced to the lowest common denominator,
whereas in the monotheistic case, the preferences are singular and exercised in full.
For example, Athena’s love for Athens would have to be excised in the former
case, but retained were she the sole god in the latter one.

“The rest of your refutation rests on a misunderstanding of what
actually constitutes the Euthyphro dilemma. You focus obsessively on a
literal translation of the language, rather than attempting to
understand the underlying argument. In modern terms, this is phrased as:
Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it
because it is moral? You simply don’t address this at all in your
supposed refutation, as far as I can see; I may be missing the point
entirely, but in that case you have not managed to convey your argument
well.”

This is a false statement based on intellectual laziness. There is
no “underlying argument”, Socrates makes a specific and detailed
argument which contains various assertions and assumptions along the way, and as I
have shown, some of them are not logically justifiable. Now, if you want an
answer to what you describe as the modern terms, it is that something
is moral because god commands it. God’s game, god’s rules. Now, you
can still argue that God doesn’t exist or that his rules are imperfectly
understood by Man, but that’s a tangential subject that cannot be
reasonably used to defend the dilemma.

I think we’ll have a problem with continuing the dialogue. It seems
fairly clear that – whether I have missed your points or not – you
genuinely don’t understand either my comments or – more worryingly – the
Euthyphro dilemma itself.

For example, your response to my first point appears to be completely
unrelated to the point that I’ve actually made – which was that you
said “one could defeat it by doing X, but obviously one can’t do X” and
then later said “by doing X, I’ve defeated the argument.” On the
“drastically reduced” set of preferences – it’s irrelevant to the
discussion. If there’s only one thing on the menu of divine command, it
still poses exactly the same problem for theists. On the “variable
morals”: well, you’re the one arguing that there is in fact only one set
of fixed morals in this universe (your god’s) – and since some physical
variables in this universe do vary depending on context, it seems that
your point is defeated on both sides. To be brutally honest, though,
your writing is poor enough that it’s possible that even you’re not sure
what your argument is.

Euthyphro stands. If you honestly don’t see that, there isn’t really
anywhere for the discussion to go – we can just leave it here and other
readers can decide for themselves. 

If you want an answer to what you describe as the modern terms,
it is that something is moral because god commands it. God’s game, god’s
rules.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum! It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

 “I think we’ll have a problem with continuing the dialogue. It
seems fairly clear that – whether I have missed your points or not – you
genuinely don’t understand either my comments or – more worryingly –
the Euthyphro dilemma itself.”


Actually, Jasper, you omitted what has become the most obvious
conclusion, which is that you’re simply not very intelligent. The fact
that you are having trouble understanding this doesn’t mean everyone is.
But do keep making those little passive-aggressive statements, I’m
sure they’re very convincing.

“For example, your response to my first point appears to be
completely unrelated to the point that I’ve actually made – which was
that you said “one could defeat it by doing X, but obviously one can’t
do X” and then later said “by doing X, I’ve defeated the argument.””

It’s not unrelated and I didn’t write “by doing X, I’ve defeated the
argument”, I wrote “The Euthyphro “dilemma” is defeated by shifting the
focus from “the pious” to “obedience,” therefore it is an inappropriate
criticism of Christian morality that is founded on obedience to God’s
Will”. It is not only appropriate to amend the relevant terms in order
to correspond with a religion that differs from the original, it is
necessary. You are clearly having problems understanding the
distinction between refuting the dilemma on its own terms and explaining
why the dilemma can’t successfully be applied to Christian morality.
Christian morality != “the pious” or “what God loves”.

“On the “drastically reduced” set of preferences – it’s irrelevant
to the discussion. If there’s only one thing on the menu of divine
command, it still poses exactly the same problem for theists.”

No, it isn’t because the second horn of the dilemma depends upon
this “irrelevancy”. You clearly haven’t read the dialogue closely
enough. Socrates even admits that he is amending his original
definition because he has to narrow it so closely that all individual
preferences are removed in order to maintain the viability of his
argument. This is why the second horn could be a problem for
polytheists, (although it really shouldn’t, due to the bait-and-switch
on Socrates’s part), but it is no problem for monotheists or those who
worship one supreme God.

“On the “variable morals”: well, you’re the one arguing that there
is in fact only one set of fixed morals in this universe (your god’s) –
and since some physical variables in this universe do vary depending on
context, it seems that your point is defeated on both sides. To be
brutally honest, though, your writing is poor enough that it’s possible
that even you’re not sure what your argument is.”

You’re dancing to avoid the obvious. Physical constants are assumed
to vary from universe to universe. There is absolutely no logical
reason to declare that moral principles could not vary as well, whether
the Creator God is the same in both universes or not.

“Euthyphro stands…. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.”

It doesn’t stand in either modern or Greek terms. Do you also find
William of Ockham’s logic to be funny and sad, given that he reached
precisely the same conclusion I did?

Where do you go with these kinds of discussions, when somebody misses
the point of a basic philosophical argument so completely – and defends
himself by accusing everybody who disagrees with him of missing the
point? I begin to see what you were getting at in your original post…

Perhaps, after reading this, one will better understand why I am so often forced to tell people that they are missing a relevant point. Now, perhaps it is because I am a bad thinker, or because I am a bad writer and my points are so often insufficiently clear. Or, alternatively, perhaps Most People Are Idiots.
I leave it to you to decide which explanation is more strongly supported by the documentary and scientific evidence.

Hence the nerves

A little math should help put things in perspective for those who are convinced that the gun owners of America can’t possibly stand up to the military might that is under the control of the federal government:

In November a record 2 million guns were sold in America.  This was followed up by another record in December.  2.7 million guns were sold in America in the last month of 2012…. There are 2.29 active members in the Chinese Army. There are 1.13 active members in the Indian Army.

The U.S. Army has 561,984 active personnel.  Keep in mind that 600,000 men armed with rifles were sufficient to dissuade the 16 million-strong German Heer from attacking Switzerland.

Are all of those 4.7 million new guns bought by people willing to kill in order to protect their God-given liberties?  No.  But many, perhaps even most, were.  And that is why the current media drums being pounded for gun control are going to dwindle away to silence again soon.

The first shots are fired

However, at the moment, it’s not violence, merely very loud political protest:

Rifle shots were fired early Monday into the Athens offices of Greece’s conservative party, which leads the fragile coalition government, causing no injuries but intensifying a wave of political violence in the debt-wracked country. 

Remember, the US is actually worse off than Greece, by some financial measures.  The only significant difference is that Greece can’t print money because the ECB won’t permit it, while the US can’t print money because the Fed won’t permit it.

I suspect these are the first shots to be fired in the great wave of political dissolution that is about to sweep over the world.

Attn: SFWA members

First, I have nominated two works for the 2012 Nebula award.  If you have not yet read The Apocalypse Codex by Charles Stross or Wool 5: The Stranded by Hugh Howey, I recommend you do so and consider adding your own nomination.

Second, if you are an author or a publisher and wish me to consider nominating one of your 2012-eligible works, feel free to query me by email.  Please note that I do most of my reading electronically and prefer either epub or mobi format.  I don’t read PDF or DRM-protected files and I don’t wish to be sent printed material.

Third, if you wish to read A THRONE OF BONES for the purposes of considering a Nebula nomination, I have uploaded a zipfile to the Novel 2012 repository in the SFWA Forum containing both epub and mobi formats which you can download.  Please note that your Forum login and password will be required to download the file.
 
UPDATE: John Scalzi announced today that he will not be seeking a fourth term as SFWA President.  One can only conclude that he heard the news of my candidacy and was afraid to face me in the scheduled series of debates on CNN, MSNBC, and the Book Channel.