I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it. – John R. Lott, Jr.
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”
There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:
In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”
The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”
John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”
The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”
Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]
There’s a thesis in popular conservative/libertarian culture that liberals (or at least the current flavor of liberal, the progressive) act(s) based on feelings more than facts, even if the facts deny their feelings. “Oh, those cute polar bears are dying in records numbers, due to global warming!” – even though recent data shows their populations have increased and so have the square footage of ice on which they live. Not to mention they are extremely dangerous to humans, cuteness aside. “If it just saves ONE life.” or “It’s for the children.”, facts aside are other feeling-based statements.
I cannot speak for all conservative libertarians, but, I have on occasion questioned my use and ownership of firearms, looking at how doing so affects my community, my family and myself. And I stuck to my principles. And didn’t buckle to ‘feelings’ about some whack-job shooting up a school by disarming myself.
I did the same process after the accident that killed my daughter. However, I ultimately didn’t give up my driver’s license, my vehicle, or insist others do the same “for the children”.
I see that as counterproductive, and unscientific.
h/t The View From North Central Idaho, John Lott
Free Thinker commented on a recent article on ‘the oppressed’, particularly women, and their reactions to it.
“Men are failing us”
Breda brought an utterly regrettable article to my attention via FaceBook some time ago that reminds me of many articles I’ve read elsewhere and of folks I’ve heard of speaking – claiming to represent the womens community or other “oppressed” communities – preaching the gospel of victimhood loud and proud. This particular special snowflake blurts forth:
“Where are our men? Why are they not protecting us?” Sanchez continued, her voice full of frustration. “Men are failing us. I feel as though we are not being protected.”
Perhaps Sanchez asks the wrong question. After decades of being told by the National Organization for Women and their fellow travelers that women are strong and intelligent individuals, worthy of respect and not needing the oppressive protection of men – just perhaps “Where are our men?” is the wrong question.
We’ve been told to go away. Repeatedly. That our services as protectors were neither required nor desired.
Is it any surprise that an awful lot of men went?
Gender politics has always amazed and confounded me. Obviously, women should have choices, not just accept conscription into wife/mother/caregiver/crone evolutionary status. Unless they choose that path.
I AM a product of my generation. A baby-boomer generation guy, raised in the 50’s/60’s. With largely traditional American values. Duty. Honor. Country. Stand when a women enters a room; hats are removed indoors; open doors for women and children; say “Yes ma’m and No sir – Please and Thank You”.
And treat women and girls with respect due their gender, as the potential carriers of life and less physically strong.
And as equals, as best one can. THAT’S my feminism. (Mine, too! – Guffaw)
Sadly, Feminism has taken the same path as the Democratic Party. In an effort to conscript more converts (more money for the cause) they have been compromised by the Progressive movement.
Feminists have become collectivists, thus eliminating part of their platform.
Women are strong – but guns are bad!
“God created Man, Col. Colt made them equal” Gender nouns aside, feminists need to get this, or they will lose the war against evil. Both men AND women. (end of thesis)
Thankfully, many women are embracing gun culture, in record numbers. It’s the card-carrying, N.O.W. member feminists that have the victimhood agenda. It’s all about raising awareness money for ‘the cause’, however ‘the cause’ is defined. Be it the feminists, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or The American Cancer Society. – Guffaw
If they win all the elections or cure cancer, they lose their power!
At NRO, Frank Miniter examines what the billionaires contributing to gun control groups hope to accomplish, and the playbook they’re using:
In a section labeled “Overall Messaging Guidance,” the guide gives its number-one “Key Messaging Principle”: “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It further explains this strategy by saying, “It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence in prevention by making that emotional connection.” Its second key principle is: “Tell stories with images and feelings.” The guide says, “Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” They realize they’ve lost the rational and empirical debates about what really stops gun violence and instead want the debate enflamed by emotion.
That’s ever the way, of course; you can’t win the argument with rational facts, so legislate by emotions.
Isn’t this the tack they take with virtually EVERYTHING? After all, it’s for the children!
(re: ‘offensive’ sports team names…)
Just call them the Redskin Potatoes. That way nobody gets hurt.
And no one gets to amputate the dictionary.
Light pink/tan people remain white.
By now you’ve likely seen the suggestion to drop Washington
from the name, because it’s too embarrassing too.
Hypocrisy though is no longer racist, according to The National Council for La Raza, speaking for the United Negro College Fund, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at a meeting of the Black Congressional Caucus. It remains improper to call mulattos mulatto.
This is cultural Marxism, an effort to control thought and language, by applying opprobrium, cultural taboos and using social constructs designed to pit classes against each other in a power struggle. It leads up to use of force justified by new law, to exercise political control over a population. It’s a very effective political technique and tearing at the fabric of America.
(from Page Nine #136 – Alan Korwin – the Uninvited Onbudsman)
On a similar bent, have you seen the TV commercials for a Blacks Only on-line dating site? Can you imagine the furor if there was a Whites Only dating site? THAT (of course) would be racist!
No wait, yes we do!
(reposted from Random Acts of Patriotism/asm826)
…it’s just another brick in the wall.
If it was my son, I would be willing to give up every swinging dick in Guantanamo to get him back. I get that part. But it’s not. And now the enemy knows what we will pay for a live American soldier. We will pay five for one. And we will negotiate.
1. Mohammad Fazl
One of the first detainees captured in Afghanistan to be transferred to Guantanamo — in January 2002 — Fazl is the Taliban’s former deputy minister of defense. He was one of the Taliban’s founding members, rising through the ranks to become Taliban Chief of Army Staff when it ruled Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch accuses Fazl of presiding over the mass killings of Afghanistan’s Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001.
2. Mohammad Nabi
The former chief of Taliban security in Qalat, the capital of Afghanistan’s southern Zabul Province.
3. Abdul Haq Wasiq
Also accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture during the Taliban’s time in power, the Taliban’s former deputy minister of intelligence is considered to have been at one time one of Mullah Omar’s closest confidants.
4. Mullah Norullah Nori
Nori was the senior Taliban commander in the strategic northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. He is considered to be one of the most high-ranking Taliban officials ever to be held in Guantanamo. He is also accused of being involved in the massacre of thousands Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001.
5. Khairullah Khairkhwa
The former Taliban governor of Heart Province, which borders Iran, Khairkhwa has also served as a military commander and a minister of the interior.
I get that part, too. (About willingness to give up those in Git’mo) I grieve for every soldier, sailor, Marine and others who gave all in service to this Nation. And those horribly wounded or held as prisoners-of-war. It must be horrible for them and their loved ones.
But every one who signs on for this kind of service understands the risks.
ASM826 is correct – do we want to change U.S. Policy and show weakness when the enemy only understands strength?
And since this story broke, it’s come out that Bergdahl’s father is a Muslim, AND, Bergdahl himself may have given aid and comfort to the Taliban, not been a prisoner! And there is evidence he renounced his U.S. Citizenship and walked away from his unit!
How many men died and were wounded trying to ‘save’ him? If the above allegations are indeed true, he should be placed in Fort Leavenworth and shot.
There’s been much ‘press’ lately with regard to sports team owners and figures expressing themselves, and being held accountable for their statements. Regular readers know I’ve little interest in sports, so if I get some details wrong
forgive me I don’t care!
- a team owner makes some statements about some players using politically incorrect language. This was thought to be a private conversation, but it was taped and the tape ‘leaked’. The owner has been lambasted in the media and forced by the parent organization to give up rights to be in the same geographic area as the team, and to renounce team ownership.
- another team player ‘came out of the closet’. A different player tweeted some disparaging comments about the newly outed player and has been called to account. He has apologized, and penalties are being applied.
- a couple of players have publicly displayed their religious views (one by openly praying before games) and both have been harshly criticized for being so open with their beliefs. It’s interesting to note that the religion in question is Christianity.
I know there have been many other such incidents – after all, many professional sports players are recruited out of high school, and haven’t finished college, and based on their status have money and fame thrust upon them. This unfortunately means in some cases they haven’t been properly educated in ethics, etiquette or how to interact properly in the public arena. They are as rock stars or kid TV stars turned adult.
And they have the rights to their opinions and their religions, even if we might disagree with them!
Of course, in this New World Order of political correctness, we’re not allowed to think that way. I understand the player who made disparaging remarks is being sent to mandatory sensitivity training!
Returned for Re-Grooving, indeed!
Their first album, “Waiting for the Electrician or Someone like Him” (1968) includes a satirical tale of the future based on the values of the psychedelic sixties. In particular, there is one track involving two police officers of the future traveling together in their patrol car. As part of their duties, they have to check to see if all of the citizens are “groovy.” If a citizen looks suspicious, the police would stop them, ask them some pointed questions to determine their grooviness, what drugs they were carrying, as well as to check their clothing and body paint. If the citizen wasn’t compliant, he/she would be “taken away for regrooving” which meant a massive reorientation to bring them up to date with the times. (from Tim Bryce’s blog, musing on the Firesign Theatre)
Yeah, not so much…
For the past several months, the U.S. Department of Justice has been pressuring banks to refuse service to businesses the DOJ is targeting politically, such as gun stores, in a program entitled Operation Choke Point.
Under the program, the DOJ, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is attempting to shut down various legal businesses, including firearm dealers, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia and pornography distributors, by coercing financial institutions to close the bank and merchant accounts associated with these businesses.
The businesses targeted follow a 2011 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation bulletin which lists all of the above legal activities and others as “merchant categories that have been associated with high-risk activity” involving “disreputable merchants.
This reminds me of when I first began working for TMCCC (in 1987). While we were investigating credit card fraud, if we found a merchant of a “questionable nature”, we were to contact the merchant division and see about having them shut down. Massage parlors, adult bookstores and bars with private dance rooms were common targets.
Suddenly, without warning, the prohibition against such businesses was quietly removed.
At least Mr. Holder is operating from a moral compass – one that points to Nazi Germany or La Cosa Nostra.
I suspect TMCCC decided free enterprise was a better agenda.
h/t Theo Spark, Info Wars
How DOES one measure a President’s greatness? Can we really compare John Adams to Millard Fillmore? Is it holding to the Constitutional base? Preserving the Union through extra-legal means? Being a good guy?
I remember as a kid being taught Washington was great because he was offered kingship and declined. And he was a great general who never told a lie. Of course, he wasn’t so great during the French and Indian War, and the whole Whiskey Rebellion thing.
Jefferson. One of my heroes. Governmental minimalist. Except, he too, took the reins and expanded governmental power. And, he was a nasty slave owner, like Washington. Of course, he did draft the 3/5 compromise, setting the stage for eventual emancipation of the slaves.
Lincoln. Preserved the Union! Through extra-legal means like suspending Habeus Corpus. Massacred Indians. Freed slaves in States over which he had no control.
Theodore Roosevelt. Rough Rider. Trust Buster. Progressive. Racist.
Franklin Roosevelt, his second cousin. Kept us in the Great Depression much longer than the rest of the World. Another Progressive. Locked up the Nisei. Military tribunals for combatants and civilians. Was elected FOUR times!
JFK. Didn’t duck. Daddy bought him the White House by dealing with Sam Giancana. Had style. Charisma.
Reagan. Likable. Snowed the Soviets into disbanding and taking down the wall. High taxes. Central American underground war stuff.
G.W. Bush. Also likeable. Kept us ‘safe’ after 911 with the War in Afghanistan and The PATRIOT Act.
You notice certain names are conspicuous by their absence…?
So what do YOU think?
Check out this chart. All of the numbers are adjusted for inflation.
It compares the kickoff of LBJ’s War On Poverty income stats to those of 2009. (And yeah, the Evil 1% somehow started doing a lot better in 2009 when Obama got elected. I wish I had those numbers on here.)
Everyone is doing better than they were. Granted, they would be doing better if LBJ had never been born, because trillions and trillions were wasted on redundant government programs rather than productive industry and services.
But seriously…. are the numbers on that chart something to get worked up over?
Go here to read the article from which these stats came.
Let’s move on.
Do you earn more than $34,000 per year?
Then you are in the Evil 1%. Yes. If you pull in 34K, you are in the top 1% of earners in the world. (The Whited Sepulcher)
I’m on medical disability and bring in way less than that.
‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks
Here’s a TV show I never watch, and have no interest in. I’ve seen snippets, and except for the family’s touching religiosity (like dining together and saying grace) I find it inane. It’s reportedly the most watched show on television!
Based on Mr. Robertson’s pronouncements, this is an area where he and I disagree.
Chick-fil-A president deletes tweet denouncing Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage
I’ve never been to a Chik-fil-A. There isn’t one nearby. I understand the food is exceptional (for fast food), the places are spotless, and, because of the company’s president’s predilections, it is closed on Sunday. They are rumored to have terrific biscuits.
The media was all over the Chik-fil-A story last Summer, and is now having a feeding frenzy over the Duck Dynasty story. How dare people hold opinions different from those promoted by the mainstream media?
This doesn’t mean I agree with the President of Chik-fil-A or Phil Robertson. But, I can make my own decisions with regard to my interaction with them! (or not).
AND, they have a right to express their opinions!!
If you disagree with the president of Chik-fil-A, so be it. If you choose not to patronize them, don’t. If Phil Robertson upsets you, don’t watch the show. Or watch it and yell at the TV – I don’t care!
Just don’t tell me what is politically-correct to buy or watch. I make my own decisions, thank you.