Welcome to Mr. Wilson’s World

Posted on by
Reply

It has been some time since I have found it in me to add some words to this blog. Not that I’m apologizing or performing some act of contrition for my tardiness. I merely view the frequency of my contributions as happening when they do. As is custom however, I am stirred most often to write when some subject prompts me. In this case, Mr. Wilson’s Gun has set my fingers to hunting and pecking at the keyboard.

As reported in the BBC Web pages:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22464360

Mr. Wilson has produced a ‘gun’.

For anyone who might be unaware, Mr. Wilson, unsurprisingly of Texas, has developed and produced a 3D print version of a pistol that is able to be fired and is producible by anyone with a 3D printer and the raw materials. Ammunition is eventually a requirement, I suspect available at one’s local firearms store.

Being an American, Mr. Wilson has apparently no moral or intellectual issues with the development and production of a firearm via 3D printing – and from the perspective of the technology used, neither do I. What is the difference between forging weapons components and producing them in plastic? Where my eyebrows raise and that bell sounding concern goes off in the back of my head, is in consideration of the distribution of the plans via the web.

Before anyone paints a picture of Mr. Wilson as some sort of amoral, intellectually bereft Neanderthal, let me just say this. From his perspective, the US’ 2nd amendment and his constitutional rights would suggest his moral and intellectual right to endeavour to build such a weapon do not constitute some dangerously illegal, amoral, or for that matter ill-conceived act. Moreover, he did seek the appropriate licensing to produce the ‘gun’. Still, his uploading the plans is another matter altogether.

While it may be a 2nd Amendment right to ‘bear arms’ in the US, this is not necessarily the case elsewhere. In fact, local regions might be quite annoyed by the notion of such plans being widely distributed. While ‘background’ checks may be an anathema to the US, they are not elsewhere. Mr. Wilson’s plans circumvent that annoying wrinkle quite neatly.

Now, let’s not thrust the full weight of blame upon this Texas College Student. If not him, someone else would have come up with the plan and performed the test. Even still, someone else would have uploaded the plans. Mr. Wilson was first (that we know of). Yet, herein lies a conundrum for nations everywhere – just how much of this ‘free’ information sharing is the right amount? Then, having the data really isn’t an issue until one attempts to ‘print’ a pistol.

Regardless Mr. Wilson has made us think, perhaps unthinkingly. His achievement, if it can be called that, has been to thumb his nose at global authorities – not those of his own country, he wisely covered his bum in that regard. No, Mr. Wilson flipped the bird to everyone else, everyone who frankly couldn’t bother him through any of ‘their’ laws. 100,000 downloads and counting.

Welcome to Mr. Wilson’s world.

Kind regards,

P.S. The US Government has since demanded that the plans be taken down – suggesting a breach of arms control regulations.

Related articles

Armchair: In response to “Should we feel sorry for soldiers”

Posted on by
2

Perhaps it is because I have served, and as such have a better insight into what soldiering is than the average civilian, that I take such offense to the vacuous, unsupportive, and morbidly daft commentary attempting to pass itself off as ‘insight’ or worse ‘humour’ regarding the plight of the soldier. In his article: “Should we feel sorry for soldiers?” the author of http://duhmerica.wordpress.com/, posits in this article that soldiers are not worthy of our sympathy.

He’s wrong of course. Yet, like many who are blessed with the privilege of free speech they forget, as Orwell said:

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

This may seem like hyperbole, so perhaps we can bring it down to earth a little.

The subject article states:

“When an 18 year-old child, and yes I sincerely mean “child”, chooses to join the military, they are fully aware of what that means.  It means they are willing to die for their country.

Joining the military and defending the country used to be a noble thing to do, but I think that has all changed now. 

We aren’t defending our country any more.  We are fighting invented battles to forward some bull shit politician’s agenda.  The Iraqis are free, big fucking deal.  Do you mean to tell me that Americans actually give a shit if Iraqis can vote?  Sure thing.” (http://duhmerica.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/should-we-feel-sorry-for-soldiers/ )

The flaw is obvious. It is not for the soldier to determine or validate policy. Soldiers are not broadly permitted the insight and opportunity to question orders. The military is an instrument of policy.

The last thing any nation needs is a highly trained, heavily armed, group of physically fit seventeen to twenty-five year olds deciding they don’t like the government’s policies. For reference, review the history of Pakistan from 1947 to the present. In fact, it is because of this we should be all the more sympathetic toward our soldiers and their plight.

Soldiers place their faith in the government and the population the government represents that they shall not be misused, placed in harm’s way without justification or cause, and considered solely in the context of  ‘their use’ rather than as the sons and daughters of the nation they clearly are. The use, in my view, of the callous statement ‘blood and treasure’ has been expressed to describe this value. It is a grossly inappropriate ‘Rumsfeldian’ expression.

Because we send our children to war we must place great care in the assurance we have that the war is just, the cause appropriate, and the need equal to the sacrifice.

The author of the article in ‘Duh America’ rightly takes umbrage with political decision-making and the value of conflicts waged overseas to the nation that originally committed the troops. These are valid concerns. Yet to throw one’s discontent with policy on the shoulders of the soldiers who are law-bound to enforce these policies is not only wrong but demonstrative of how little we value such service in today’s society. If we can so casually take away our sympathies from the soldier who gave his life in service, will it be a surprise when we casually deploy another soldier into harm’s way for purposes of dubious value.

Such views have become the fodder for a rather popular bumper sticker of late:

“If you can’t stand behind our troops, you are welcome to stand in front of them.”

Kind regards,

Related articles

Welcome to a petty Dukedom – Quebec’s latest language slight

Posted on by
1

Quebec, for those who are unaware or not familiar with Canadian provincial boundaries and establishments, is the province wherein the French originally settled during those ancient days when North America was the ‘New World’ and the European powers weren’t bent on getting along, but were engaged in a race for land with little care about where they might find it.

Quebec retains its ‘French’ character in that people in Quebec, by and large, speak French and are generally Catholic. Beyond this, one would not in any way confuse Quebec City for Paris. Not only is the people’s character decidedly different, there is a definite ‘Canadian-ness’ about ‘la Belle Province’.  For example, in my experience Quebecers are in the main, nice. Now, having said that, I must admit there are a number of people in Quebec who proclaim loudly and regularly that Quebec is nothing like the rest of Canada and indeed is unique, distinct, a separate nation altogether. (I shall leave my decidedly opposite views on this for another post.)

In the 13th of February edition of the National Post, a college student named Colin Standish had his article from the college paper at Laval University included in the august folded pages of the Post. His view outlines how the families of military personnel – the children – will be compelled to attend French Schools where formerly they were provided with the opportunity to attend school in their mother tongue.

Bill 14, the latest attempt by the petty politicians of the Parti Quebecois to further isolate Quebec from Canada through segregation and bigotry, removes the ability of these soldiers’ families to obtain education in the language of their choice.

It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court of Canada overturns this legislation, or more hopefully, that the Parti Quebecois recognises the slight they have flung at the families of soldiers serving their country – which includes Quebec. Though I suspect the former is more likely and further that the Parti-Quebecois will utilise the ill-conceived ‘Not-withstanding clause’ of our unnecessarily repatriated constitution to legitimise their insult.

Mr. Standish’s article may be found here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/colin-standish-quebec-language-law-takes-a-slap-at-families-of-canadian-military/

 

Kind regards,

Related articles

Marissa Mayer – “Cap’n there be rocks ahead!”

Posted on by
Reply
Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh in a screens...

“What do you mean by this! I’m in charge!” (Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh in a screenshot from the trailer for the film Mutiny on the Bounty.) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One can’t be truly inspired by Yahoo’s past performance and the new CEO Marissa Mayer, a turnaround executive, is expected to take a ship who’s seas behind were calmer and more profitable than those ahead.

She has marked her personal presence by having a baby and taking only a cursory time to recover, after which marching back to work to steer the helm of the corporate ship.  In what is viewed by some as a ‘Bligh-like’ edict she has banned telecommuting at Yahoo and expects the staff of the Internet company to quit their home offices for cube farms at regional and head offices.

Is she wrong?

What a magnificent ship! What makes it go? Car...

What a magnificent ship! What makes it go? Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson via Björn Brembs (Photo credit: dullhunk)

Well, despite painting her as an authoritarian harpy, press-ganging her employees into communal labour in row after row of heartless squares and antiseptic walls, she has a laudable goal. Her apparent desire is to increase efficiencies and innovation; yet, while sensible, it is perhaps dangerously short sighted in its potential impact upon staff – both remote and office denizens.

It is true that ‘Face-Time’ is important and even the most dedicated Telecommuter must bow to the notion that they cannot remain a disembodied voice at the end of a phone or a strangely distorted image during a videoconference. As well, telecommuting isn’t for everyone or every trade. Still, there are innumerable arguments encouraging telecommuting including fostering work life balance and the observations of the University of Texas, which demonstrates work at home personnel tend to work seven to ten hours longer than office staff.

Focusing on the more immediate matter though is Ms. Mayer’s leadership and the wisdom of taking away a benefit, which arguably benefits the company. True, time will tell. Yet, whether Marissa Mayer is to become Drake or Bligh is largely dependent upon the perception of her by, and her relations with, her staff.

Kind regards,

Related articles

The last conservative

Posted on by
Reply
DALIAN/CHINA, 11SEPT09 - Jon M. Huntsman Jr, U...

DALIAN/CHINA, 11SEPT09 – Jon M. Huntsman Jr, US Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, speaks during the Global Dimensions of China’s Domestic Growth session at The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Dalian, China 10-12 September 2009. Copyright World Economic Forum ( http://www.weforum.org /Natalie Behring) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The BBC’s ‘HARDtalk’ program, hosted by Steven Sackur presented former Republican nomination contender Jon Huntsman in a discussion about his political life and apparent disconnect with his own party. 

My friends at ‘Of Buckley and the Beatles,’ (http://ofbuckleyandbeatles.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/for-hes-a-jolly-good-fellow-jon-huntsman-named-visiting-fellow-by-harvard-university/), ever supporters of Mr. Huntsman, introduced me to the former Governor of Utah a while ago as he was taking his initial steps into the competition for the Republican nomination.

The interview with Sakur outlines Huntsman’s view that he is a Lincoln Republican, a member of the party of inclusiveness, a Roosevelt Republican a member of the party of conservation and a strong international presence steeped in negotiation, and of course as even to the mainstream he cannot be anything but a Reagan Republican able to manage the finances of the nation – even the revenue generating challenges.

Huntsman recognises the need for the closure of loopholes, tax reform, and ‘gun’ controls. His is a conservative view long forgotten by the management of the three right wing parties in the US: The Republicans, The Tea Party, and The Christian Right.

While Huntsman’s comparisons with erstwhile Presidents are a bit of self-promotion and hint at 2016, this is a good interview. Sakur is not a fluffy journalist whose punches are wrapped in pillows and silks. This is no Katie Couric ‘love in’. More often than not his are gloves clothed in barbed wire.

HARDTalk provides insight into Huntsman’s views, albeit briefly. Jon Huntsman is compelled to walk a fine line between reason and insanity, however he has clearly chosen reason.

The interview is downloadable as a podcast and depending upon your geography may be listened to or viewed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qzbx

Kind regards,

Related articles

“Everything will be ‘European’ this year darling!”

Posted on by
Reply
079 Capitol Hill United States Congress 1993

079 Capitol Hill United States Congress 1993 (Photo credit: David Holt London)

It’s the first quarter of 2013 and therefore it must be budget argument time. Washington has already taken the very EU step of kicking the November cuts discussion down the road. Now, the politicos from both sides are gathering wind to fight over the nickels and dimes of the ‘fiscal cliff’.

Forgetting this sword of Damocles was self-hung over the heads of Congress, the demands for ‘no-new-taxes’ and no tax rises will echo from the right. From the left, there shall be calls to ‘keep your hands off my healthcare!’

Tax reform is, according to the Republicans, not something to be picked at but tackled earnestly and in detail. Therefore, it can’t really be a part of these discussions. Cuts to services are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, then finding you’ve terminated the services of the doctor. So, cuts will be unwelcome topics of conversation.

Coming up, the great wind of immobility followed by the last minute agreement to push the date down the road, to trim a little here and there, and to promise to review the notions of tax reform ‘real soon now.’

Well my American friends, it’s good you are contemplating free trade with the EU – you’re beginning to act a lot like them…

Kind regards,

Related articles

Armchair: Science will save us; no, not likely

Posted on by
2
education

Education (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Science will solve the world’s problems. I don’t think so. While global warming is most definitely real and any number of illnesses carry away near countless thousands year after year, we cannot depend upon science alone to resolve these challenges.

‘Science’ both its funding and acceptance is the mantra of the latest of the desperate and disaffected – the academics. It is an answer, but not the answer. Nor is it the sole source of our salvation. Worse still, science has become a by-word for a philosophy of purported ‘rationality,’ which seeks to brand all other viewpoints irrational and invalid. Now, these are at the extremes of the debate and those whose sensibility resides more closely to the sensible centre see room for the hard sciences and the humanities. Yet, these are not the folks who get press. Science isn’t the answer.

People are the answer. Science is a series of disciplines. It is the people who make these disciplines valuable. These people need not ascribe to a particular faith or lack of it, or mode of thinking. The solution to global warming lies in the people and the application of their skills and imagination against a doubtless challenging problem. It lies in free thought, unencumbered by the rhetoric of the impassioned extreme. Solutions to our problems lay in the people not the process. True, recognition drives action and mule-like opposition under the veil of philosophy is counter productive – perhaps even criminal. Yet, bounding recklessly in the opposite direction is likewise dangerous, advancing a notion of legislated acceptance and state sponsored segregation.

Should we encourage the sciences then? Of course we should. We should provide all the necessary means we can to bring about improved literacy and understanding. Science and scientific capability are the result of strong educational programs giving people the ability to excel in areas that will bring solutions to problems – local or global.

What we cannot do, nor should we permit, is the hijacking of education by those who would treat it like the Latin liturgy of old – a means of segregating the privileged few from others – the ‘brights’ from the ‘dims’. Education is for all and its use cannot be prescribed; where it is, innovation is stifled and killed. Where the state dictates what is and is not acceptable knowledge, philosophy and thought, there is tyranny. Science is a tool. Education is the preventative. Use of education is the solution. Application is all.

Kind regards,

Related articles

Armchair: The ‘gun’ law

Posted on by
Reply
The AK-47 was first adopted in 1949 by the Sov...

The AK-47 was first adopted in 1949 by the Soviet Army. It fires the 7.62x39mm M43 round. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As an ex-military man I bristle every time I hear the word ‘gun’ used to describe a pistol, revolver, or rifle. A ‘gun’ is a piece of artillery. However, given the assortment of hand cannons available these days, I suppose that being pedantic about terminology is rather pointless.

So what about the US and other Western nations? What should they do about weaponry becoming available to those who clearly shouldn’t have access to a means of delivering lethal force? Someone who should not have had access to a firearm perpetrated the massacre of children and teachers at Sandy Hook. That really is the point of new legislation.

It is important from the onset It be clear that assault weapons, pistols, and revolvers are designed to kill people – not for hunting. They are tools and their purpose is killing human beings. The latter two have some value in personal protection, a valid use for a firearm. With this in mind, the Assault Rifle is a purposeless weapon in civilian hands. Anyone hunting with an AK 47 does so for the ‘look cool value’ of having one. Banana mags are manly. I’m not sure this means a responsible person should not have an assault rifle – though frankly I see no valid purpose beyond ‘having’. This is a dubious reason to possess a firearm.

The argument that it’s not the law-abiding people who shoot school children but the crazies and criminals has some validity. However, even the ‘mostly’ law abiding can slip; look at speeding statistics and DUIs. Yes, these are instances of breaking the law, however for the most part by people who for want of circumstantial discretion were law abiding the rest of the time and quite able to get government sanction to own and drive a car. Does this warrant taking away cars or limiting the capability of an automobile to reach beyond 60 mph? No, it means strong penalties for breaking the law and reasonable safety precautions built into cars to prevent fatalities. These are implemented in most places around the world. Drive drunk and you loose your license and may go to jail. You are certainly fined. Kill someone with your car – you will go to jail. These are sensible laws. What about firearms then?

Firearms Prohibited Trail Sign

Firearms Prohibited Trail Sign (Photo credit: Al_HikesAZ)

As the Sandy Hook incident was more about access to weapons by someone who shouldn’t have had such access – then tragically murdered his mother, children and teachers – the laws concerning access should be reviewed and the penalties strengthened. If you have a person in your house that is mentally ill and could reasonably do harm to themselves or others, then the owner of such weapons must be bound by law to secure them in a fashion that prevents such access. This should require the weapon being stored in a manner precluding it being used if any part of it is accessed, i.e.: the body of a weapon must be stored separately from the bolt or breech, the ammunition must likewise be separate from both. This would be a good practice in any case, but in situations where there is a practical danger of someone in the house misusing the weapon, (the mentally ill, children etc.) then the law should protect both the family and society by requiring such precautions. A failure to perform such mitigating practices resulting in harm should involve significant and punishing jail time.

Today, all weapons laws are reactive. This very likely is how it should stay. However, I understand fully why someone would want to take proactive steps by banning Assault Weapons and limiting magazine sizes. As well, it must be remembered that ‘law-abiding’ citizens are and remain circumstantially so. While it may be rare and unlikely, anyone can enter a situation where they feel compelled to break the law, either casually or deliberately. Or, it merely happens. Still, the reactive law is likely best as it is impossible to predict who will break the law. This impossibility is the very reason we have speed limits, weapons registration, and background checks.

I remain unconvinced that ‘want’ overrides ‘need’. That is to say, one may want an assault weapon, but I remain doubtful of the need to have one short of being a soldier or police officer. Despite this, I’m equally unconvinced that ‘banning’ weapons is an effective way of addressing this particular problem – that of Sandy Hook, which is after all the reason the US and other nations are looking hard at weapons law.

One thing that seems unlikely to change despite the ridiculous protesting and claims of ‘socialism’ which only demonstrate the sheer stupidity of many in the ‘Gun’ culture. This is weapons laws will remain post-event compensations for heinous acts. As such, they should be profoundly punishing for both the perpetrators and those who permit such activities to happen. If a parent fails to secure their weapons from children or even criminals and take reasonable precautions to prevent access under the law, then they are no less guilty of the crimes committed with those weapons. The chance of an accountant facing the possibility of ‘life without parole’ because he stored his modified M16 in a closet, and his kid used it to kill another, is a deterrent and not an unreasonable one. Certainly there are circumstances where even reasonable precautions can be breeched. Yet, the demonstrated effort and reasonable compliance with law must be evident to prevent ending up in the dock with whomever gained access to weapons through negligence.

While law should not prohibit ‘want’ it does have to weigh ‘need’. What does the society reasonably ‘need’? Does society need assault weapons and 30+ round magazines? Perhaps, perhaps not, certainly society does not need those who should not have access to fire arms getting it due to the unreasonable care of ‘gun owners,’ who due to their ‘right’ to bear arms do so over the right of others to life.

Kind regards,

Related articles

Our brothers’ keeper – Intervention in Mali

Posted on by
Reply

The least populated areas of Mali, the Northern desert regions are the lands taken by Islamist rebels/insurgents in the latest Islamist quest for hegemony in Africa. These disjointed efforts seeking to undermine sitting governments – some deserving of removal, some not, speaks to a strange discontent amongst Muslims in general. The dislike and refusal of autocratic rule seen in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria are unsurprising redresses against years of ‘emergency rule’ and ‘one-party’ domination. Yet, in Mali, opportunism rather than liberation is at the root of the strife.

French troops are on the ground and in the air, making life difficult for the thus far unopposed Islamist insurgency that has taken most towns in the North and now threatens some southern towns, even the capital. The Islamists’ well-known brand of ignorance and book burning has been trumpeted over the past year. The French have intervened with support from others and logistical support from the UK. No Americans as yet.

Is it right to intervene? Is this a case of Western fiddling in the affairs of Africa, and all to well known scenario usually ending in tears? It is right. While, intervening in civil wars is a dangerous business, Islamist fundamentalists are terrorists with a delusion of divine justification. These ignorance spreading, backward thinking murderers need opposing. In many cases the nation states faced with this pestilence are ill equipped to deal with them. Support from the West is both justified and appropriate.  True, great care must be taken on the part of Western nations to lean more toward the Libyan example rather than the Iraqi example of intervention, but nonetheless intervention is called for and support warranted.

While education and stability will one day blunt the Islamist ability to win support, until then opposition should not be unsupported. We are after all our brothers’ keeper.

Kind regards,

Related articles

The fiscal cliff

Posted on by
Reply
English: Grover Norquist at a political confer...

English: Grover Norquist at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. The author of right-wing failure?(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Grover Norquist has been at the heart of the undermining of the Republican Party. His no rise in taxes pledge was a seemingly easy commitment to make when the economy was good. Now, it is an albatross hanging dead from the neck of the party and tainting every decision with ideological constraint.

Through callous opportunism this policy was adopted by a vast number of conservatives so it would be ungracious to accuse Mr. Norquist of being the sole issuing authority of US right wing woe. This stasis in political thinking on the right is not his doing; he merely contributed.

Ending the constipation in the Republican Party will not come easily. In fact, the philosophical enema required will very likely be quite painful. Better to take it on now and hopefully recover in four years than to wait and attempt a cleaning during primaries. There is no reason to believe the primary process will bring clarity or agreement.

Republicans need to support taxing the rich – at a rate still under 40%. The alternative is very likely continued wandering in the wilderness.

Kind regards,

Related articles