jEFFSTANA on January 4th, 2013


Sam Harris discusses firearms as a viable defensive choice in 21st century America in his post on Jan 3 2013.

Some background: I too enjoy shooting sports and have been trained and licensed in the legal use of handguns for self defense. That said, I believe Sam Harris overreaches in his promotion of lethal force as deterrence to violence, in his most recent writing. Still, his is a more honest discussion than many editorials on either side of the issue, following the various national calamities of gun play, and deserves a read.

Mr. Harris’ comments reflect his experience with death threats precipitated by his controversial publications. Sam cannot be blamed for arming-up in response to bad intentions pointed his way — yet projecting a similar need among others, who live a less notorious life-style, strikes me as excessive.

I particularly question his dismissal of efforts to ban high capacity magazines. Equating multiple lo-cap magazines as equal in force to hi-cap single fill clips, begs the question. He seems to allow unbalanced killers the calm to dexterously swap cartridge clips — while suffering within a blinding craze of destruction. And speaking for the well-armed citizen, what would be a thoughtful situation demanding a hi-capacity response? A wild Indian raid? Perhaps a Zombie attack? Where outside of actual warfare, does massive fire power following a pull of a trigger, offer other than liability to innocent bystanders.

While Sam offers statistics which purport a relative low-risk from death-by-lunatic, he oddly follows this conclusion with an argument in favor of the introduction of weapons in schools as a deterrence from attacks by madmen. Before we implement such defensive protocol, perhaps we could talk to a few seasoned teachers, who confront teenage angst daily. Let’s see if they favor introducing lethal alternatives into the soup of childhood hormones. Not likely, and certainly not conducive to a calm learning environment.

I begin to wonder whether controversy is the goal rather than the byproduct of Sam Harris’ brilliant essays.

Tags: , ,

jEFFSTANA on September 30th, 2012


I was feeling my oats, so had the emotional stamina to check out one crazy fella Dean Chambers, this weeks right-wing crush at “UnSkewedPoll“. When reality bites, folks who can’t handle the truth, resort to making stuff up. This grifter simply cuts the numbers until his conclusions meet conservative expectations. Let me speak of something I know a bit about, something I like to call the “Internet shell game“. If you haven’t been nicked by this before, consider yourself lucky. Here’s how it works…

The scammer registers multiple website names, say… “” & ““. The swindler first advertises a product heavily, then touts the same product on the review site he created! This scheme is best exemplified by my favorite quotation: “Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.”

Here’s Mr. Chambers’ hard work uncovered by – Matt Zopfi in the comments section at The Examiner on Sept. 19 2012.

I love how you cite your own articles on your website. This is really over the top especially after you said – “The UnSkewed Average of polls released today shows Romney with a 7.8 percent lead.” YOU CITE YOUR OWN WEBSITE. This isn’t “reporting” and you calling yourself a journalist is laughable at best.

Registered through:, LLC (
Created on: 28-Aug-12.
Expires on: 28-Aug-13.
Last Updated on: 15-Sep-12.

Administrative Contact:
Chambers, D. M. Ross
Q Star Productions.
47 Blueberry Lane.
East Falmouth, Massachusetts 02536.
United States
(508) 566-5747

Delusions of this sort have been sold to gullible marks since time memorial by religious institutions, among others. And like those con jobs, if it gives peace of mind in the present, perhaps it serves some purpose. But in the end, dead is dead. So goes the Romney campaign.

Tags: , ,

jEFFSTANA on August 6th, 2012


When you reside in Arizona, firearms are part of the culture. Hunting, recreational shooting and cowboy reenactments are casual events. Reloading, gunsmithing and even lead smelting are not uncommon past times. Concealed carry with permit is legal, as well as something we call “Constitutional Carry”, a more controversial state wide right to carry a concealed weapon without prior instruction, requiring no permit. And although the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is home to over 3 million citizens, the Wild West is alive and well, since open carry has always been legal without permit in this desert Southwest state. Arizona is also home to a world class Gun Manufacturer: Sturm,Ruger & Co.

With all that said, it is time to buck a trend and speak about gun regulation. Outlawing additional classes of weapons would be ineffectual and erode respect for authority. However, I believe registration and licensing of Weapons of Mass Murder (WMM), to be a sound policy and a worthy assistance to police interdiction, for exactly the reasons many find it offensive. It would help in the rapid identification of (WMM) owned by persons of interest in a civil disturbance.

Arguments for anonymous ownership of WMM, as deterrence from a tyrannical government are a ludicrous claim. Which hand held weapon is a legitimate defense against cruise missiles, predator drones or Apache helicopters? Why is ownership of fully-automatic weapons restricted? The answer is fear of wholesale massacre during civil disturbance or criminal activity. Yet with the ever burgeoning population of the US, the law of large numbers has made the fear of human slaughter by the hands of maniacs a growing problem. It is no coincidence that the Mafia wars of the 20s and 30s occurred in the populated Midwest and led to the outlawing of automatics.

Outlawing weapons is contrary to the American way and a surefire means to promote a criminal black market. But with growing population and prosperity in this country, I find it reasonable to suggest renewable licensing for large capacity magazines and WMM. Tracking ownership will never stop all carnage, but it might deter a borderline crazy who must face examination before making a purchase. Registration of WMM would not prohibit ownership of such weapons by law abiding citizens. But unregulated ownership of WMM is neither warranted for self defense nor sport hunting and should be classified alongside fully-automatic weapons in a sane society.

I further maintain that the NRA, the most vocal advocate for unrestricted gun ownership, has become a lobbyist for weapons manufacturers and no longer speaks for sportsmen. How else can one explain NRA advocacy against legislation to coordination lists of known terrorists with background checks before the purchase of weapons. The link is from the NRA website, and I maintain their response is pure legal bull. If the real argument against database sharing was for the protection of law-abiding citizens, then the NRA could help craft the language for a more acceptable bill. Instead they choose to obstruct and oppose attempts to secure a citizenry from terror. Why? Because for them, any restriction placed on firearms sales is automatically wrong-headed from their point of view. They are shills for weapons manufacturers. This is but another example of money buying power, with potentially lethal results.

Tags: , , ,

jEFFSTANA on August 6th, 2012


The Federal Government is taking heat for allegedly restricting religious freedoms, specifically by mandating treatment concerning women’s healthcare by insurance carriers. Today, conflict exists concerning contraception and abortion, both legal procedures, and whether women should be guaranteed rights to these medical practices under the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act. Some think for-profit taxable businesses owned by religious institutions should be allowed to exclude healthcare practices which conflict with the religious doctrine of the parent institute.

Beyond arguing for the general welfare of the people, the Obama Administration maintains that incorporation provides protection for the holder of US charter, and thus, the corporation must comply with all the laws of the land, including those mandating the common good of its citizens, as determined by the government. Religious institutions may dictate to their members, only where they do not enjoy the umbrella of limited liability protection afforded business entities.

For comparison, let us look at some earlier history pitting religious belief vs. secular law:

In 1862 Lincoln signed an Anti-Bigamist Law. It lacked teeth, due to another pressing drama called the Civil War. Then in 1882 an Anti-Polygamy Act was passed, making polygamy a felony. It gained traction, since the territory of Utah (polygamist central), was seeking entry into the Union. Big money was on the table.

In 1890 the Mormon Church lost their case vs the US in the Supreme Court and the Feds dis-incorporated the polygamist Church. The LDS quickly followed with the “1890 Manifesto“, disavowing polygamy. No tax-free institution, no treasure chest for the Elders to store bucks.

Back on the ranch, Miles Romney (Brother Mitt’s great-grandfather) fled with his three wives to Mexico, and continued their polygamist lifestyle with 2300 other Mormon polygamists. They settled and received land grants from the Mexican President Porfirio Diaz. Mitt Romney’s father, George S. Romney was born in Chihuahua Mexico in 1907. The Mexican revolution of 1912 (viva Zapata) forced many of these “cut-n-runners” back to the US, and Mitt’s grandparents capitulated on polygamy. Money and political stability in the US probably had nothing to do with it.

So specifically: Was it was wrong for the Federal Government to outlaw polygamy in 1882? Or does the common good of the people trump religious dogma?

Tags: , , , , , ,

jEFFSTANA on June 20th, 2012


Not so long ago a friend posted a video of a Randian fellow bloviating about trouble in America. How moving. His haughty theme could be summarized as: “A healthy civilization, is where you work hard and things just get better.” His counter melody might have been: “The problem is most folk are just lazy.” What a prick.

That things are not improving economically in the U.S., is but a logical progression of the current American model of consumer Capitalism, which took off like a cat-on-fire after WWII. Steady market growth and capital expenditure requires an expanding body of buyers and unending purchase, in order build wealth for the merchant class. But how many TVs, microwaves and treadmills does any one household really need? Big business moved jobs creating these goods to India, Pakistan, Indonesia and China, which helped sustain U.S. growth initially, by lowering the cost to own this junk while maximizing profits; but in the long run, this self-serving off shore move exasperated the problem of necessary demand; shrinking the pool of warm bodies able to afford this stuff.

As growth tapered off at the end of the 20th century, consumerism extended its casino-like run of success by removing the barriers to obtaining credit. That is, folks who once could not afford to buy the crap advertised by commercial media channels, now had the approval of the financial class to dig themselves into deep, deep debt. Wallow in debt, they were told. Worry about today. Forget about tomorrow. It is an advertising mantra which feeds on itself. This pedal-to-the-metal philosophy produced sky-rocketing real-estate prices at the beginning of the 21st century and left a glut of unsold homes in its wake, while appraisal values rocketed beyond the range of most buyers.

The housing bubble which burst near the end of the reign of the first MBA President of the United States, George W Bush, was the flashpoint emphasizing the trouble with gratuitous spending and the supply-side model of macroeconomics. The little man glimpsed behind the curtain, pushing paper profits, became the poster boy for a pyramid scheme of rampant consumerism. An unregulated marketplace will race toward a vanishing point where few remaining suckers have the means to purchase enough product to sustain supply-side growth and produce a rising curve of good times. The young Occupy Wall Street picketers haven’t yet been fully assimilated into this consumer mold. They are not completely addicted to burning money they don’t yet have to spend. Living on mommy and daddies bucks, provides a valuable perspective, illuminating the faults with our current consumer model. These young adults are unprepared financially to live just for the day, as the paradigm demands.

Recent attempts to reduce tax liability on the upper crust, is but the latest political effort to sell an unbalanced economic program to a democratic society. This scheme insists on a reduction in wealth among the working class, while bolstering the lavish lifestyle of the rich and famous. Truly it is the beginning of the end in the run up to the next socioeconomic revolution. A preface to a turmoil which will lead to a post communistic-capitalistic society — whatever that may look like. What it won’t attend is an unsustainable consumer model, in a globally warming environment.

Tags: ,