Chris Johnson

Yes, it does call into question the accuracy of my statistics.

I do make mistakes. This is one of the reasons I often put citations in my articles. That is so you can check my work.

It is also why I put my math in documents. I don’t just give you a number. I tell you how I got to that number. I.e. I show my work.

$$\mathrm{P(A)}=\frac{f}{N}$$

Where P(A) is the probability of an event (A) occurring, f the frequency of the event, and N is the total number of occurrences.

So if there is a 1 in 5 chance, the probability is $\frac{1}{5}=0.200$.

The probability of events A and B happens is $\mathrm{P(A\; and\; B)}=\mathrm{P(A)}\times \mathrm{P(B)}$.

Using De Morgan’s Law, we know that NOT (A or B) is equal to NOT A and NOT B. When addressing the question of rape, we are looking for the probability of a woman NOT being raped in year 1 AND of not being raped in years 2, and so forth. This if the probability of being raped is 1 in 4 while in collage, that means that we have NOT(P(rape(y1)) or P(rape(y2)) or P(rape(y3)) or P(rape(y4)) = 3/4 = 0.75. Y1 through y4 represent years at collage. We are assuming a four-year collage.

P(rape(yN)) is fixed at some value, for the sake of argument and ease of calculation.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathrm{P(rape(Y))}}^4& =& 0.75\\ \mathrm{P(rape(Y))}& =& \sqrt[4]{0.75}\\ \mathrm{P(rape(Y))}& =& 0.930604859\end{array}$$

Now that we know what the probability of a woman not being raped, per year, while in collage. We can restate it as the probability of a woman being raped. That is simply $1–0.930604859$ or 0.06939514. Converting to a percentage, that gives us a 6.94% chance of a woman being raped per year at collage.

We want to convert this to per capita using 100K. This is simply multiplying the percentage by 100,000 which gives us 6939 per 100,000 women attending collage.

You can verify the formulas used at —How To Calculate Probability: Formula, Examples and Steps, Indeed Career Guide, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024).

So what about the other direction? I used two sources. One was found using “rapes per capita by state” and the other was “rapes per capita by country”. The value given for rapes per capita by states for the US was 40 per 100k. The per country gave us 41.77 per 100k. This being close enough to 40 that I choose to use the 40 per 100k as being “good enough”.
—Rape Statistics by Country 2024, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024)

Using 40/100000 gives us $\mathrm{P(rape(Y))}=0.0004$. This gives the probability of not being raped as $0.9996$. Using our formula for multiple occurrences and using a 50-year span, we get ${0.9996}^{50}=0.9802$. This means that the probability of a woman being raped over the course of 50 years is 0.0198 or 1.98%.

As Elrod stated, this all depends on your definition of rape. Definitions matter. As an example, in some countries, like the UK, it is not a murder unless the person is convicted of murder. So, again as Elrod said, a man with 6 bullet holes in the back of his head is just a dead person, not a murder victim, until and unless a person is convicted of the crime.

Rape is much the same. Different places have different definitions. In particular, the US statistics I used were “forcible rape”. This has a better definition than just the word “rape”.

All of the above is just to get to the following paragraph.

I struggle with dyslexia. The result of this is that once I type a word, it always looks correct to me. Or almost always. Spell checkers go a long way to fixing simple misspellings. I have to work to misspell a word.

I also pay for a plugin called LanguageTool. This does grammar analysis as well. Unfortunately, if the word I am using is grammatical correct, LanguageTool often does not catch my errors.

In the course of an article, I will expect between 10 and 100 error corrections. I apologize for those that get through.

Here is a word that I hope you do not struggle with, sweet and sweat. One of those words means a nice thing to eat, filled with yummy sugar like flavor. The other is what happens when you exercise.

I don’t think you want me to give you a sweat tart on Halloween.

I believe I have that correct, I would have to look up the word in a dictionary in order to double-check it.

So please, if I make a mistake, call me on it. If I don’t give you the references, it is likely because I didn’t bother to click the buttons to make a citation, I was lazy. Call me on it.

This dude looks relaxed and laid back as he takes the Bronze. What is spectacular, in this picture, is that he doesn’t look like a cyborg. No fancy gizmos, nothing except ear plugs and prescription glasses.

Why is some random ex-cop from Turkey taking a bronze in a shooting competition? The top four slots should all be Americans.

USA! USA! USA! Rah rah rah.

How many of you have precession air guns? I have one. And it isn’t great. If I had a few hundred to spend on a good air-rifle, I have enough to spend on a good rifle.

My guess is that air-pistol and air-rifle competition just isn’t that popular in the states. We have young children competing in shooting sports. Often times starting with their parents’ firearms.

Those that are superb get sponsorships and are soon professionals, which means they don’t qualify for the Olympics.

Since they added snowboarding to the Winter Olympics, maybe we can hope they will add Three Gun or one of the other standard shooting sports. At that point, I would expect to see more American’s taking medals. Until then, I’m going to laugh at the people who think that a guy shooting with limit equipment is something unheard of.

Then I’m going to the range and putting a few hundred rounds down range. A mix of 9mm, 0.45.

I just do not get it. At least that’s what I keep saying. That isn’t as true as it used to be, but I still don’t thoroughly understand it.

We run risk assessments all the time. Most people do a shitty job of it. They conflate probability of occurring with the amount put at risk.

As an example, consider the following bet, “I will bet you this $10 bill at a 3:1 payout.” That means I will get back $30 if I win, and I will forfeit my $10 bet if I lose.

If you can afford to lose $10, you might take that bet.

Now, let’s say that you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning. Over the course of 8 games, you will win 2 times for $60. You will have bet $80. The house walks away with $20.

This is how casinos make their money. It is not always this obvious, but it is the same thing.

Now consider a second type of bet, one where you are betting $10 on the flip of a coin against $10. The odds and the payout are a match. Over an extended number of plays, you will come out even.

Would you be willing to bet $100 on the flip of a coin? $1000? $100,000? Your life?

This is risk assessment. It is looking at both the probability of the event taking place and the “cost” of the event.
Read More

From Miguel’s substack, with permission.

At least from the regular Venezuelans.

At this writing, the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela are in the can and Maduro seems to have “secured” his re-election. Protest about the fraud committed did happen, and the government was swift arresting over 1,500 so far who are slotted to go to prison ipso facto without pretty much legal niceties, plus also announced that other thousands of so members of the “Opposition” and protesters are pre-approved to be also arrested and given free “vacations.”

So, what happened to what used to be Latin America’s most vibrant and stable Democracy? What led to Venezuela becoming just another Communist dictatorship? I am going to try to give you a short explanation and for that, let’s begin to kill misconceptions.

Number one: In the 203 years of existence, Venezuela was a democracy (of sorts) for only 3 decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s. Before that and thereafter, the country was run by Caudillos (Strong Men) who fought, bullshitted or bullied themselves into the Presidency. Democracy was a short-lived experiment that was eventually was used by the Left to vote itself into the power they could not obtain by the traditional revolutionary methods of the 50s. Were there elections during those old times? Yes, but again, they were either vaudeville show elections except in one case where the elected President was kicked out by a revolutionary Leninist coalition who were themselves promptly removed by the Military which took over the control of the nation and kept it.

So, the historical DNA of the country is firmly programmed to accept Caudillos and a central government directing every aspect of your life. And with that comes the sad fact that such government will implement and use whatever force and persuasion it requires to remain in power. Scaring and programming people into submission is standard operational procedure: “Violence doesn’t solve anything” and “If you defy the “law”, we will use violence upon you and yours” are not contradictory terms in Venezuela or the rest of Latin America, they are just facts of life we learned to live with.

Number two: I don’t recall when exactly, but in the very late 1980s or early 1990s, there was an article in a major newspaper in Venezuela proudly announcing that the biggest employer in the country was officially the government. More than half of working Venezuelans derived their income to feed their families from the people in power, and that meant voting against the government meant voting against your wallet, voting against keeping your kids fed and a roof above your family and medication for grandma. Politics no longer was about ethereal principles like “Freedom” but real issues like having a job and not going hungry. And even if you were not on the Country’s payroll, more than likely you would be providing goods and services to those who were or to the government companies themselves. And people not only will they not fight against the government, but they will also gladly denounce to the proper intelligence authorities if they suspect anybody wants to do something against their security. Yes, they will snitch you at Warp 5 and have zero remorse about it because you are messing with their lives.

Number three: Historically, Venezuela always had Caudillos that promised radical changes in our way of living, swearing they would improve them. People would throw support at them, but most ended up failures, and a very few were successful, only for the new man in the Presidential Chair to become just another version of the previous occupant. “Mismo musiu con diferente cachimbo” is an old Venezuelan saying roughly translated to: same guy with a different pipe AKA Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. People eventually get tired of broken promises, so when somebody comes along with visions of wealth and prosperity if you join him, the recently burned just ignore them. It takes time, usually almost a generation, to get a fresh crop of hopeful idiots to support a “change” that could end up in a successful transfer of power. The Left tried to get in the hard way in the early 1960s after the transition from a military regime to Democracy and failed because both people were sick of the instability, Castro had shown his colors, and true Democracy was the newest-coolest product in the market for Venezuela. But The Left knows how to play the long game and started to infiltrate universities and the Media with their “light version” of themselves (Me a Communist? Never! I believe in social change and equality like a good Christian!”) but never lost track of the country’s DNA and hence comes Comandante Hugo Chavez and his coup attempt.

The coup failed… and not. Long story short: by the mid-1990s, thanks to a combination of corrupt practices, economic downturns and a very successful long-term campaign to undermine the country’s morale, people were once again ready for a “change” in the hands of a Caudillo. What the failed coup gave Chavez was a constant mention in the Media that amazingly fast went from negative for the people who got killed, to “we understand why he did it” to “Maybe he is the change we need” and people simply agreed with what been planted all along in their minds for many decades.

And not only did they vote Chavez into power but voted to give him more power: He was able to dispose of the Supreme Court by popular vote. The same vote gave him the OK to change the constitution, control of the Election Council and grant himself re-elections for as long as he wanted. I laugh when I hear people now complain about how it was possible that Maduro rigged the elections, since Venezuela’s elections have been worse than a rigged reality-tv show before the Millennium kicked in.

The above is a very simplified summary, and I am going to condense it even more: If the government feeds me and can kill me without consequence, why should I try to depose it to install a new set of assholes that probably won’t do any better?

One last thing:

“You can vote your way into socialism, but you’re going to have to shoot your way out.”

We know this is true. They are willing to kill to remain in power, and killing is the only way to remove them. But then you read this:

Just a couple of reminders: Peaceful demonstrations only work if the targets of those demonstrations are moral and scrupulous people.
The Left mastered the “peaceful demonstrations” and knows its weaknesses.

Until I see the stacks of pro-government bodies piled high on the streets of Caracas, I won’t believe that change is actually happening. And I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

— Miguel Gonzalez © 2024.

Almost everybody has seen the iconic image of Che Guevara. Looking heroic with his beret and unkempt look. His eyes looking off into the distance.

That symbolism is not welcome in my home or in my spaces. If somebody were to wear something with his likeness in my presence, I would leave if it wasn’t my space, or tell them to remove the offensive article or leave my space.

To quote Wikipedia:

You have to carefully parse those words to understand what it actually means. Note, I’m not a historian, just somebody that studies history.

So what are the “social reforms” mentioned? Social reforms might not sound all that bad.

This was “decree 900”, also known as the “Agrarian Reform Law”. This law took land from landowners, if the state felt that the landowners were not using the land. This is also known as “stealing”. In exchange for the forced sale of their land, the landowners were given “government bonds.”
Read More

If you are reading this, you are part of the 1% richest people in the world.

I can confidently say that because there are so many people living in object poverty. Not poverty as defined by the government, but actual poverty.

The government likes to define poverty in relative terms. This means that when you are part of a rich society, you can be “below the poverty line” and still be richer than most of the world’s population could ever dream of becoming.

If you are reading this, you have a device capable of connecting to the Internet, that makes you wealthy.

But wealth is not just money, it is also goods. I do not consider myself or my family to be well-off. We struggle to pay our monthly bills, we struggle to support our children’s quest for a collage education. It feels like we are always just one paycheck from disaster.

Read More

For my wife:

The state is constantly looking for weasel words in Supreme Court opinions to further their arrogant subjugation of their subjects. We see this in how they misconstrued the language of —How To Calculate Probability: Formula, Examples and Steps, Indeed Career Guide, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024) to claim that the Second Amendment only protects militias.

We see this when they misconstrue —Rape Statistics by Country 2024, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024) to mean that “presumptively constitutional” means that any infringement is constitutional.

We see this when they misconstrue Missing citations for 75DAVPP7 to mean that anyplace can be designated as a “sensitive location” where infringements are required. Like defining all of Times Square as a sensitive place.

The state is constantly looking for any words that could be taken to mean that infringement is allowed.

Missing citations for UETRMP2L has far too many weasel words for the state to latch onto. Bad facts make for bad laws.

Schoenthal v. Raoul in Chicago shows exactly this.

After Rahimi was issued, the state in every case rushed to bring that opinion into their arguments. Not because their case had anything to do with individuals found to be credible threat of physical violence to another who had a court of law issue a domestic violence restraining order against them, but because they wanted to use the weasel words.

In Schoenthal the state wanted a status hearing to set a supplemental briefing schedule. This is the official way to get more arguments before the court, regardless of the current status of the case.

The state says it is a joint motion. This is true in fact, but not in spirit.

The state wants to brief the court regarding how wonderful Rahimi is for their case. The plaintiffs (good guys) just want equal time, if the court allows the state to submit additional arguments.

The judge said “No”.

Now, the language the state is trying so hard to get into the record is suggest a law trapped in amber Missing citations for UETRMP2L. This is where the Supreme Court explained how to do regulation matching. The state latches on to “it doesn’t have to be an exact match, so our horrible, not even close, matches should be allowed.”

So the state made a second motion to brief Rahimi to the court. This time they included the language they felt would save their case.

The judge said “no” a second time.

So the state, instead of requesting permission to brief the court on Rahimi, submitted a notice of supplemental authority regarding Rahimi. This was not the simple, “We wish to bring to the court’s attention that Rahimi was decided, no, this was a short brief with the state’s arguments.

Therefore, the court said “no” again, a bit more forcibly.

Me or your lying eyes?

For the last four years, the only time I heard about Kamala was when she had messed up, again. It is a feature of her actions, she messes up.

She was assigned to close the border. Joe used Obama’s term, “Tsar”. As in “Border Tsar.”

Today, I’m being told, “Kamala was never the border tsar. That’s just a Trump lie.”

This is where we are today.

As one X pundit put it, “How have you explained the ‘fine people hoax?'” The consensus was that it wasn’t worth the time or effort. That even if you did manage to get them to acknowledge it is a hoax, within a couple of weeks, they will have forgotten.

This is getting crazy.

Aside, there are two cases pending articles. I’m working on them.

I do not have many friends. It is difficult for me to reach out to my friends to keep in touch with them. Since I work from home, I’m not forced to interact with co-workers. So, few friends.

Note, I use the word “friend” to mean “friend”, not somebody that I work with or classmates. A friend is a friend.

When I left the horrid state of Maryland for the green, green hills of NH, I wasn’t leaving friends behind. My friend and mentor had died a few years earlier. With my kids graduated, there was nothing holding me there.

For six months I lived near the Vermont border while commuting 80+ miles to just outside the inner beltway of Boston. I did that commute 4.5 days a week. On Friday, I left work in Boston and drove back to my family in PA. On Sunday, I drove back to NH.

I was staying with a family as a boarder. I had met her in an online game. We had become online friends. When she got married, Allyson did it for her.

During the months, I became friends with her. She, and her husband, were conservatives. They had the same sort of beliefs that I had. I had many enjoyable conversations with her.

Note, the husband is currently in the “special prison” for those special prisoners who wouldn’t survive in gen pop. I was more than willing to help put him there.

Regardless, we were friends. I helped her when I could. When they lost their house a few years later (husband’s fault), we opened our home to them. When he was kicked out, we continued to support her.

There was many a rainy day that I worked on her car because we were all short on money.

She ate at our table, shared in our lives. She was here for Christmas and for other holidays.

A true friend.

I do not talk to her anymore. Not at all.

There is a part of the abortion argument that flat out escapes me. It is how so many women think that because the federal government is no longer blocking anti-abortion laws, that they are at a considerable risk.

My friend is a few months older than I am. She isn’t going to get pregnant. It isn’t going to happen. Having access to an abortion is meaningless to her.

What about her daughters? One daughter is happy making babies with her husband. The other daughter is happy being an Aunt. That one can’t think of a man sexually, see not above about her step-father being in the special prison.

Nether of her daughters is at risk of an unintended pregnancy. So why is abortion so important to her?

My youngest is also very upset that the federal government is blocked from blocking anti-abortion legislation. She considers it to be part of “woman’s health”.

It is essential to understand, abortions are not banned in this state.

Roe v. Wade found that women had a right to abortions under because they had a right to privacy. Because they had a right to privacy, what happened between the woman and her doctor was none of your business. Thus, abortions are a right under a woman’s right to medical privacy.

Dobbs said, “No. There is no right to abortion hidden in the Constitution. The plain text of the Fourth Amendment does not implicate the conduct in question. There is nothing in this Nation’s historical tradition of regulations that is similar to ‘right to abortion'”.

Having made the statement, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question to the states.

Some states had laws that instantly went into effect, banning abortions. Other states enshrined abortion “rights” into their laws. Still, other states didn’t do a damn thing.

But the Dobbs case broke my friend.

She blamed Trump, personally, for strangers in other states having restricted access to abortions. Having decided that Trump was “evil,” she then dove into the Kool-Aid and drank all that she could and more.

She went from “there is no evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone” to “Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault and is not qualified to be on the Court.”

It happened in the course of a few days.

She went from “Thomas is a great justice.” to “Justice is a political hack, he is slimy, in the pocket of the wealthy.”

Her mind broke. It broke because it was so obvious to her, that Dobbs was decided incorrectly, that the only possible reason was corruption or malfeasance.

If the justices on the Supreme Court, whom she trusted, whom she respected, could betray her, then what else are they betraying.

Currently, she is of the “vote not Trump.” There is not a single thing that Trump did as president that she respects. All of it was destroyed, for her, with that one opinion.

I believe that I am willing to question just about anything. There are some things which are locked in stone. Not because “they” told me to believe that way, but because I did my research and in that research grounded my opinions.

I like to believe that I am moral. I have a moral code which I follow. Part of that code is to be willing to question my moral code and my opinions, to be able to separate facts from opinions, truth from wishful thinking.

My friend is lost. I do not expect her to ever recover. I will pray for her and hope she finds happyness in her new status as a subject of the state.