Archive for Mind Games

Income Inequality Insight

A request from a student doing research for an assignment got Patricia L. Dickson thinking: Liberals’ income inequality concerns built on false premise. The conclusion should not be surprising considering where all the noise about the issue is sourced.

I now realize that the issue of income inequality is based on a false premise. A premise is a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument – since the premise (proposition or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.

The false premise behind income inequality complaints is that income is distributed instead of earned.

In other words, employment and income is something like an entitlement such as a poverty program provides to the left. Income inequality allegations are really just about the idea that some people are cheating the system. Instead of looking to the government for their ‘income’ they use their own skills, education, and capabilities to get their own income and that is what is considered cheating by the left because the government has no control over what they get.

Another perspective on this is that the state of Nevada has now decided that fantasy football is gambling despite a federal court ruling. That means the state wants to control the income anyone might get by being sharp in building a fantasy football team. The battle that Uber and Lyft are fighting is also about government control over income. 

A false premise is a straw man and, it seems, easy to dress up so as to disappear in the background. Building an argument based on such a foundation lacks intellectual integrity and will result in collapse when the weight of the issue gets to be too much for the straw man to bear.

Leave a Comment

The nature of argument

John Hinderaker provides an example of one of the differences quite evident between sides in current political arguments. A Liberal Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel.

Liberals pursue many policies that cause people to die. They release felons from prison, or never incarcerate them in the first place; they make war on the police, causing murder rates to spike; they impede the ability of pharmaceutical companies to bring life-saving drugs to market; they drive up the cost of energy, exposing the poor to dangerous temperature extremes; they promote gun-free zones that turn innocent people into sitting ducks; they pursue weak foreign policies that cause many thousands to be killed by tyrants and terrorists.

These are just a few obvious examples. Yet conservatives don’t call liberals murderers. We extend them the presumption of good faith. We debate policy, we don’t assert that liberals are pro-death. But liberals are not similarly fair-minded. The latest case in point is Josh Marshall, proprietor of TPM, who tweeted:

The example provided is a Tweet from Josh Marshall that proclaims that anyone against gun control is “pro-massacre.” This is right in line with anyone questioning climate change alarmism as being a science denier or nearly any of the accusations about being a racist. It is ad hominem and it cannot be excused as “both sides do it” because the pattern in its use is quite lopsided. The question is: how can you solve any social issue when up against such a lack of intellectual integrity?

Leave a Comment

Is government on your side? For how long?

Jeffrey T. Brown says ‘Gun Control’ Is Actually Conservative Control and, in the process, explains a bit about the differing points of view of the role of government in society.

The casual taking of lives is a uniquely liberal phenomena. When people are trained to be victims, and that their “right” to take from others is both fair and commendable, it is only a matter of time before they take everything that belongs to another, including his life.

The fact is that liberals have already not only surrendered to servitude, they have embraced it. They have bought the lie that government is the solution, rather than the cause of nearly every problem which besets this country. They are fine with fewer rights, because they seem to think that the government they worship and depend upon would never turn on them when the money dries up or the issue becomes which priority a totalitarian regime will indulge: freebies to its supporters or its own self-preservation at the barrel of a gun. They see that same paternal government targeting their philosophical enemies, conservatives, and think that because they are politically aligned, it is perfectly fine that government targets some of its citizens. They don’t understand that a time will come when such a government doesn’t need liberals, either.

Gun control is purely and simply a political tool to achieve the disarmament of that portion of the populace that will not surrender to Marxists and fascists. The president wishes to politicize the deaths brought about by his culture, and that of his followers, to achieve total political domination through manipulation of the weak-minded. The left has no intention of being forever checked by those who preserve the America he has sought to overwhelm. The last breath of that America will occur when citizens can no longer forcefully resist the malfeasance of their own government. No one knows that better than a fundamentally transformative tyrant.

Of course, this view sees government as its own separate entity and that may be a question. The history and current experience with despotic regimes does tend to support the view, though.

Leave a Comment

Overstep. And stumble? Alarmists misstep

When someone doesn’t realize a high profile is probably not a good idea, it lends credence to the hypothesis that maybe they don’t know that what they are doing is not so good an idea either. The IGES RICO allegations provide An Instance of Warmist Corruption.

We have often written about the fact that the world’s governments pour billions of dollars annually into the global warming project, the object of which is to increase the powers of government. And yet governments, the main parties that stand to benefit from the warmists’ campaign, pretend that their money is somehow innocent, while any private entity that supports climate research is suspect.

Alarmist scientists have gone so far as to urge the Obama administration to prosecute criminally scientists who disagree with them. The premise for this proposed RICO investigation was that “corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters”–i.e., scientists who don’t buy the global warming hype–are deceiving the public for financial gain. This despicable effort, which we wrote about here, is led by Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University and several of his colleagues.

That inspired curiosity about Shukla’s own funding. The results, while incomplete, are striking. Shukla is remarkably well paid by George Mason, for a professor. His salary is currently around $314,000 a year. But that isn’t the half of it. Steve McIntyre writes that Shukla set up a “non-profit” entity, the Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc. (IGES), to which the federal government has funneled millions of dollars. IGES operates as a slush fund for Shukla and his family; not only is Shukla on the payroll, apparently double-dipping in violation of university regulations, but his wife and daughter also draw substantial income from the “non-profit.”

Generally, when you know that bringing attention to yourself might reveal problems, you avoid doing doing things that spark attention. The climate alarmists appear to be beyond this. That leads to wonder about just what blinds them so.

Leave a Comment

A look at causes for mass murder

The NFL is crowing about an entire month without the arrest of one of its players — but games this month are dressed in pink. And then there’s the NYT on 27 ways to be a modern man that David L. Burkhead fisks. From what Milo Yiannopoulos says, these ideas might be related to mass murders.

I might be a raging homo, but I still innately understand the male need to conquer, crush and win. Men need to express that dark, powerful part of themselves, or it can abruptly overflow. If it is suppressed, derided and ridiculed, it can show up without warning and with horrible consequences.

That’s why I’m so distressed that heterosexual men are being told, constantly, by the media and even in schools, that what they are is bad. This, I submit, is at least in part what’s driving the recent spate of shootings.

That doesn’t mean masculinity is “toxic.” What’s toxic is society’s attitudes towards men. Masculinity only becomes “toxic” when it is beaten down and suppressed and when men are told that what and who they are is defective. It becomes toxic when young boys are drugged in school because they don’t conform to feminine standards of behaviour.

In a sense, what happened yesterday was also a suicide. A spectacularly melodramatic suicide from a man in pain who wanted to hurt the world that had hurt him.

Denying essential human nature — that men can be powerful and dangerous and this should be harnessed for good — is a recipe for tragedy.

Or take a look at the Boy Scout Law and see which items have been weakened or eliminated.

Leave a Comment

Prosecute the deniers!

Russell Cook provides an example for comparison and contrast in methods of ‘debate’ when concluding that Those scientists who want to use RICO to prosecute AGW ‘deniers’ have a big problem. Names are listed with specific behaviors and citations. Detail is provided sufficient to make your eyes water.

At least it can be said I’ve never been accused of begging anyone to trust the assertions I make. Legions of pro-global warming people, including Pope Francis, President Obama, and nearly all of the mainstream media essentially beg us to trust them about the settled science, despite the existence of highly detailed climate assessments compiled by skeptic climate scientists. The egregious tragedy of this situation is that so many pro-global warming people have been blatantly misled about immoral “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” when no such evidence proving it exists, and when evidence is so easily found on how the accusation stems from one highly questionable source.

Begging for ‘trust me’ or an implicit assumption of a false reality abound on the other side of the argument. See for example Smart Grid Technology and Applications by Ekanayake et al that cites “Electric power systems throughout the world are facing radical change stimulated by the pressing need to decarbonise electricity supply” and uses a “consensus” to support its views. When alleging criminal activity, as in the RICO charges raises it to a whole ‘nother level.

Leave a Comment

Loving to hate: Google v Apple

Joe Wilcox asks: Is Android a dangerous monopoly? At issue is Google hate based on their being who they are.

the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department allegedly are beginning a joint investigation into Google’s Android licensing agreements. But I can explain what it means. Striping to the bones, from an antitrust perspective, there are two pivot points: Monopoly position and exclusive contracts. Then there is the broader regulatory agenda: Correcting (or preventing future) consumer harm.

Globally, Android is unquestionably a monopoly in the market for smartphones. However, its dominance in the United States is comparably muted by competition from iPhone. Based on smartphone subscribers, Android’s share was 51.4 percent for the three months ending July 31, 2015, according to comScore. iOS ranked second with 44.2 percent.

So the question: Are consumers robbed of choice that causes them harm? The answer relates to what I perceive as Google’s primary motivation for the current licensing arrangements. Android is a hugely fragmented operating system because Google doesn’t control platform updates. The company lets cellular carrier and manufacturing partners choose when, or if, to dispatch Android version updates. By the way, that demonstrates how much freedom licensees have—to control the experience for their customers, even if it hurts the platform they provide.

Apple presents competitive alternative from a unified base, as the majority of users typically adopt the newest and safest iOS version. Consumers have another attractive platform choice. By contrast, Android users get something less and quite possibly are harmed in the process. Fragmentation hinders choice and increases security risks presented by consumers running outdated Android versions and choosing to download apps from unmonitored sources (meaning not Google Play).

From that perspective—and a few commenters will blow brain aneurysms with this—it could be argued that Google causes more consumer harm by not imposing more control over Android with its licensees.

The question here is why the platform that imposes less control and provides more freedom of choice for both manufacturers and consumers is being subject to harassment while the platform that imposes a straight jacket is considered exemplary. That is characteristic of a leftist mentality: allowing the end user more choice among many options is harmful while restricting end user choice and option by an elite authority is considered good. This allegation of monopoly or whatnot stands in clear contradiction to the diversity in the market. But then, intellectual honesty is not a hallmark on the left. A ‘monopoly’ is constructed by ignoring such things as Amazon’s Kindle and the many manufacturers who make their own choices and tweaks to set their products apart from the competition. Android as fragmented is seen as “worse than bad” – a bug and not a feature. This appears to be one area where diversity is really bad and that brings up the point that the argument is made by those who aren’t very consistent in their thinking as the left generally considers diversity as super great.

That leads to the consideration NeoCon raised in More on facing “the truth”.

It’s not always—probably not even often—an easy or simple thing to comprehend the “truth” of events as they are happening. Doing so requires a host of elements: correct information, sound judgment, some knowledge of the past in order to put the present in context, and yes, the courage to face what you see even if it is a disillusioning departure from a previously held belief and/or hope.

It’s tough to sit back and examine our perceptions, especially if we are buried in a sea of emotion that is invisible to us that clouds our vision.

Leave a Comment

Ahmed’s Clock: dust is settling but child development ignorance remains

Paul Mirengoff highlights the idea that 14 year-old kid makes Obama his dupe.

Why would Mohamed bring the old device to school? I can think of only two plausible reasons: (1) to get credit from his teacher or (2) to cause a reaction by those who might fear the device posed a potential danger.

The first motive seems unlikely. From all that appears, there was no assignment that called on him to bring in a device.

Mohamed claims that he was encouraged by his father to bring the device to school to show off his skills to his engineering teacher. But taking apart an old clock would involve no engineering skill or inventiveness.

Obama, on the other hand, appears clearly to have overreacted. Bringing in part of an old time clock doesn’t merit an invitation to the White House. Obama should have had someone fact check this story before proclaiming Mohamed emblematic of what makes America great.

Some who initially sympathized with Mohamed have confessed error. Famous scientist Richard Dawkins, a leftist, said he “feels like a fool” for having been taken in by the hoax.

There remains one anomaly: “When the device started beeping in class.” The clock was a plug in the wall type and even then would need to have an alarm set and turned to make any noise so it wasn’t the clock that was beeping. Some critical data is missing in this story even after several days.

Keep in mind this is a 14 year old 9th grader. Yes, his dad was a middle east activist. Yes, it was a repackaged digital clock such as could easily be found in a thrift store or at a garage sale and not the work of engineering genius. A video that shows the kid waving a pencil type soldering iron around a surface mount component on some salvaged circuit board shows the lack of ‘chops’ in that area as well. But it is a 9th grade boy we are talking about: a young teenager just at the algebra stage. Pushing against authorities? Check. (with encouragement from his Dad, even, it appears). Taking nifty things apart? Check. Using existing stuff to make something that ‘looks cool’? Check.Tweaking teachers? Check.

At 14 years old, a home-brew clock effort would need careful guidance such as building a kit or following a projects cookbook recipe. See, for instance, the materials available for the Picaxe or the Arduino or the Rasberry Pi. These all require software and the code needed for a clock is surprisingly complex. A 9th grade is most likely to use the code provided in a kit or cookbook and maybe tweak it a bit.

The school personnel should know these things., It is their vocation, after all. That is what makes the over-reaction noteworthy. The President has children and he should have some feel for childhood intellectual development. But what Mirengoff illustrates as does the arrest of Ahmed, is the presumption that a child is just a small adult. That is perhaps problem number 1.

Leave a Comment

Breathless: finding confirmation of a belief – or so it seems.

The climate alarmists have, as a fundamental belief, that evil non-government corporations are in conspiracy to hide evidence of disaster and buying influence to deny the alarmist dogma. So when something is found that supports the belief, the reporting goes breathless in the affirmation of faith. Exxon Scientists Knew Fossil Fuels Caused Climate Change Back in 1977 is an example.

It’s a story reminiscent of the way Big Tobacco covered up the deadly effects of smoking. In the 1980s, Exxon spent millions of dollars on groundbreaking research which irrefutably showed how their products would change the climate. And then they buried it all.

The story is devastating in that Exxon is likely responsible for much of the anti-science climate denial rhetoric out there to this day. I just read the whole thing, and it’s made me incredibly angry.

A bit of education in both history and science might do a lot to quell that anger but anger tends to promote denial of reality rather than acceptance. Consider, for instance, that the issue in 1977 was global cooling, not global warming. Consider that the ‘greenhouse effect’ of CO2 was already well known. Consider the confusion and misdirection evident in using a photo showing “The Exxon Valdez spilled an estimated 10.8 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989” as an illustration for the post. Neglect the fact that windmills are killing more birds, by orders of magnitude, than oil spills have. Stop to think a minute about just what Exxon could gain by trying to suppress common knowledge or how it could think such an effort might be anything but futile.

Too much anger, too much breathlessness, too little intellectual integrity.

Leave a Comment

Ahmed’s clock

If there is any greater testament to failures in public schools, the recent saga of a 9th grader with a homebrew electronic clock should rank right up there.

I have to say, if I were a teacher and a student had a device that looked like this and started beeping during class, I’d be a little nervous too. Imagine how the Secret Service would react if it had been mailed to the White House: [Ed Driscoll]

A bomb has one major ingredient – the explosive. This is a mass of some chemical that can blow up. Do you see anything in the picture of Ahmed’s clock where there is any significant mass of something that could blow up? Or consider the Boston Bomber and his pressure cooker pots. Those were containers, like pipes with caps on each end, that could hold some explosive and provide a containment that could enhance the effect.

In this case, it was funny noises and perhaps some flashing LED’s and wires that caused the alarm. In microcontroller cook-books, making a beep and flashing a light are the first things you learn how to do. The biggest question is why Ahmed left the battery connected after the first period teacher told him he ought not show it to other teachers.

There is a lot of talk about wanting more students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM subjects). It is one thing for a pundit like Driscoll to be paranoid about anything electronic, but any high school teacher? and administrators? and cops? Avocational interests are fundamental to STEM pursuits and the Maker’s communities [see Makezine] show just how much of a need there is to share ideas, show off work results, and socialize with others of the same mind. That is why, perhaps, that community is all in a tizzy about Ahmed’s clock. It is yet another illustration of just what modern school systems, the establishment, thinks of geeks and nerds. It is fortunate for society that, so far, word about such atrocities as Ahmed’s clock get out and support for reason gets voiced.

Update: Here’s Dave Jone’s rant at EEVblog eevBLAB #14 – 14yo Hobbyist Arrested For Bringing DIY Clock To School and Hackaday explains why you should build a clock for social good this week. It should also be noted that the very quick invite to the White House appears to have a racial twinge – Ahmed was a victim of white privilege or something and had the appearance of a protected minority.

Update 2 – Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves. Yep: looks like the kid found an 80’s digital alarm clock and re-packaged it in a pencil case off Amazon. This rather fits with the idea of a precocious 9th grader out to tweak teachers. He shoulda’ been guided to more modern, microcontroller based, ideas and ongoing development of add-on features. Instead, the schools provided destructive feedback. Rather than encourage technical education and experimentation, the positive feedback was directed towards social disruption and disorder. Modern school systems in a nutshell.

Leave a Comment

A matter of integrity

Robert Sp[encer says “What disturbs people is not the Pope’s authority for his views but his seeming unawareness of opposing evidence”. He cites “On Pope Francis and Church Integrity,” by Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., Crisis.

we might say that the Pope’s positions are backed by scholarly opinions. The only trouble with this approach is that other scholars in both areas find evidence that the opposite views are more persuasive and valid. What disturbs people is not the Pope’s authority for his views but his seeming unawareness of opposing evidence.

To be in error on a matter of scientific opinion is, of course, not exactly heresy. It happens every day. Indeed, it is the nature of scientific method of testing and retesting. Likewise, to be wrong (or right) about earth warming is not a matter of faith.

But if the Church takes a position in the matters of, say, evolution, science, or economics that turns out, on further investigation, to be wrong or doubtful, it will seem untrustworthy also in areas over which it does claim competence. However tempting or popular to comment on, there are some things on which the Church should just avoid taking a stand.

Galileo provided a lesson and that case still impugns the integrity of the Church. Will they never learn? When the boundaries between politics, religion, and science become clouded, all lose.

Leave a Comment

Insanity, firearms edition

Chris Cox notes how Gun-phobics target tragedy – “Second Amendment opponents ignore the reason bullets fly.”

And it’s not just politicians who use this craven strategy. Anti-gun groups, such as Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, use it to advance their anti-gun agenda and even raise money. Immediately following a tragedy, they push emotional appeals to promote their cause and declare, “enough is enough.” Unfortunately, they offer no real solutions to the problems of violence in our communities — just the same rhetoric, devoid of common sense, logic or even the smallest connection to reality. In the case of expanded background checks, why would we expand something that is not working in the first place?

Irrationality driving an attempt to limit the rights to self defense. At the same time, another column castigates an elected official for denying rights to gays by refusing to sign marriage licenses.

Leave a Comment

Infantry strong. And distractions

Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.) takes up what tempers the steel of an infantry unit: “It is artificial to constrain the debate about women in the infantry to physical capabilities. This doesn’t address what holds an infantry unit together in the worst conditions humanity has to offer.”

the issue we’re now debating has to include a recognition of cohesion and the cost of sexual dynamics in a bare-knuckled brawl, amidst primeival mayhem, in which we expect the collective entity to persevere because it has a greater will and fighting spirit, and not because it is bigger, faster, or more agile. The championship team in virtually any professional sport may only coincidentally be the most physically talented, but it most assuredly will be the most cohesive. Why not appreciate the same ingredients in infantry units?

Finally, you may bet your future earnings that the current effort to integrate the infantry will not cease with a few extraordinary females, but will eventually accommodate a social engineering goal by changing standards. Think I am wrong? It’s already happening. Read the words and understand the goals of the current Secretary of the Navy (an arsonist in the fire department) and the Secretary of the Air Force, and examine what we now call “the Dempsey Rule.”

If I’m wrong, the cost may be denied opportunity to strong and impressive young women. If you’re wrong, our national security is shaken and there is a butcher’s bill to pay. Make your choice. The line forms on the left.

The one or the many? The question was put on the table in one of the later, PC, Star Trek movies in a different context. It is the question here as well in a more raw form. The basis is about the nature of humanity and trying to pretend it is something that it is not and using denial to try to make it so, anyway.

Leave a Comment

Doom! I tell ya’ – Doom

It is ‘oh so typical’ of modern ignorance. Danielle Nierenberg explains Here’s why industrial food is deceivingly cheap – “Food is seemingly cheaper and more convenient than ever before. However, what people don’t pay for at the cash register, they pay in healthcare costs and environmental consequences.”

The use of the word “industrial” is enough to raise suspicions. Then there’s the idea that people are living longer and healthier lives and the environment is cleaner than it has been in the past to realize that the base presumption is oxymoronic. Another issue on this ‘anti-industrial’ ethos is the disregard of the poor who benefit most from having inexpensive healthy food. The availability of cheap food is why starvation in the world today is nowhere near as desperate as it has been for most of human history.

Conventional agriculture isn’t cheap. From the use of artificial fertilizer and pesticides to the obesity epidemic, our current food system has a number of hidden costs to the natural environment and human health, far outweighing the benefits of cheap food.

“Agriculture is arguably the highest policy priority on today’s global political agenda, in recognition of its widespread impacts on food security, employment, climate change, human health, and severe environmental degradation,” says Alexander Müller, a leader of the TEEBAgFood project team. “I truly see this as being one of the most timely and important research initiatives in the field of sustainable agriculture.”

Step one of TEEBAgFood, already underway, is using a series of sector-specific, geographically widespread ‘feeder studies.’ These studies are assessing the misplaced environmental and social costs of different agricultural commodities–rice, livestock, palm oil, inland fisheries, maize, and agroforestry.

Next, the study will produce a Scientific and Economic Foundations Report, building the theoretical context of the connections between business, agriculture, food, and biodiversity and ecosystems. A Policies, Procedure, and Consumption Report will then present a variety of viable production systems and policies, adjusted for multiple socioeconomic contexts. Finally, a Synthesis Report, supported by complementary communication strategies, will communicate the key findings and recommendations.

It’s anthropogenic climate disaster all over again. Government money towards academics to produce ‘studies.’ Policies based on deceit and ideology. Propaganda campaigns to persuade the masses. It is top down with the elites, the in-crowd, the believers that are to be in charge of things. What is missing? How about bottom up decision making in many small decisions by individuals who vote with their self interest in mind?

Leave a Comment

Brady v NFL

John Dowd asks: Was Tom Brady ambushed? The issue is about clarity in rules and procedure that are especially important in sports.

Football, baseball, soccer and virtually every sport on the planet have one thing in common: They all have rules that are supposed to protect the integrity of the game. When rules get broken, everyone loses.

But when sports authorities don’t enforce their own rules with transparency and fairness, the integrity of the game is equally compromised. What’s happening today with the NFL undermines the concepts of integrity and fairness in the application of the rules and threatens to damage football’s credibility for years to come.

The NFL’s fundamental failure to conduct an expeditious, fair, honest and consistent approach to rules enforcement undermines the entire game. The league needs to reconsider its suspension of Tom Brady, and use this unfortunate episode as an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice to one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

This is particularly interesting in that the NFL is trying to maintain that its actions were all about the integrity of the game. They seem oblivious to the idea that the concept of integrity also applies to them.

Leave a Comment

Critical Race Theory

A comment on Dennis Prager, “The Left Only Sees White Evil.”

The devil works in obvious ways sometimes. Hating other individuals simply because of the color of their skin–even if you think that brings them “power” or “privilege”–is racism. But at least two generations of Americans have been taught the opposite, thanks to the far left dominance of the academy. Prager is sadly correct when he ascribes growing black-on-white racial hate crimes to the far left’s “victimhood” narrative, as well as his conclusion that more bloodshed is likely to come. — Instapundit

Only whites can be racist is a self contradictory concept upon which to base a rationalization for an ideology.

Leave a Comment

Implications: the war on weapons

It was just a matter of hours before prominent Democrats politicized a tragic on air shooting and that a “fired former journalist known on camera as “Bryce Williams” who murdered two of his former collegues on air with a Glock 19 9mm pistol this morning was a black, gay, racist fan of serial killers” (Bob Owens). The White House spokesman denied reality by claiming that gun violence was an emerging problem. Another story was about the fact that many gun related crimes were committed with stolen weapons. There are a few things about that as well. Gun Free Zone” Laws Are Arming Criminals explains the problem.

We’ve noticed a trend in recent months of law enforcement officers having their personal vehicles and professional vehicles alike targeted by gun and tactical gear thieves … Law enforcement agencies need to radically revisit the concept of leaving guns in their unattended vehicles. They are not alone, as their civilian counterparts are discovering that they have much the same issue

The vehicle thefts are not inevitable, but are the direct result of concealed carriers being forced to leave their personal protection firearms in their vehicles in order to attend events in certain public or private spaces where guns have been banned.

Criminals then wander through the parking lots outside these locations—at malls, outside stadiums, in parking garages, at businesses, and on city streets—and look for vehicles that match a likely target profile.

That means, despite a denial of the reality of the correlation between allowing citizens to arm themselves and crime, there is also the reduce to the absurd in the belief that more guns mean more gun related crimes and that many efforts to eliminate guns have implications and side effects. Gun free zones have been known a ‘free target zones’ and now it is becoming evident that they can be resources for the acquisition of firearms by theft.

As the panelists on Fox Five said of Juan Williams on one of these arguments: “He’s carrying more water than an Alhambra truck” in trying to defend against reality. Juan is not alone.

Leave a Comment

Marx and the evolution into the modern political conundrum

Scott S. Powell on The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party:

In a free society, extreme and derivative ideologies from the destructive legacy of Marx, Lenin, and the Frankfurt School can find some appeal to the alienated and disaffected. A constitutional republic like the United States should have sufficient strength to withstand most contradictions and absurdities held by a relatively small minority.

The problem today is threefold: the Left’s wholesale domination of much of the knowledge industry, a growing uninformed and disengaged electorate, and a failing two-party system. The normal process of checks and balances, which is made possible when compromise can be accomplished between the parties, simply no longer works. With the long march through the institutions having resulted in one of those parties no longer sharing much in the way of common ground — in terms of a philosophical heritage and values of liberty, private property, and limited government — compromise has become nearly impossible. The radicalization of the Democratic Party has so affected Congress and the current president as to render bipartisan solutions and reconciliation all but impossible.

In the end, what is important for Americans to realize is that the experiment with a left-wing president, like Barack Obama, is less an aberration than the logical outcome of the transformation of both the Democratic Party and the American culture.

The big question is whether the nation can survive and prosper if the culture remains fractured with a majority adrift from the heritage, morality and values of liberty and personal responsibility that are at the heart of the Declaration and the Constitution.

There is worry … and reason for that worry. Lloyd Marcus describes on the efforts to leverage the plaints of the “alienated and disaffected” as Generations of Stolen Black Dreams.

In response to my article, “Please Tell Black Lives Matter to Shut Up and Go Away,” a sincere black activist emailed asking me with what would I replace it? I asked him to explain. The bottom line of his lengthy passionate reply is “Negroes” are still not free in America. He says America has reneged on its promise of liberty and justice for all.

So what is Obama’s solution to fixing these problems plaguing blacks? He lets drug dealers who prey on urban youths out of jail, claiming their crime is non-violent. He has his DOJ bully police across America to back off urban thugs. Obama minion Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot. It’s only property.” Violent crime is up big-time in Chicago, New York and Baltimore.

Despite claims otherwise, America has not failed its poor. We have welfare and entitlement programs out the ying-yang; a huge chunk of America’s national debt.

Then there is the claim that America “systematically” and “institutionally” hinders opportunities for blacks. Hogwash! A black college professor friend heads a program offering blacks free college tuition. He has trouble finding applicants. This is a guy who worked his way through college and grad school. He was stunned when students thought having to pay their cell phone bill was a legitimate excuse for not purchasing the book and materials for his course.

Like formerly fat people who continue to see an obese person in the mirror, Democrats have ingrained in blacks that they are victims of an “eternally” racist America; despite glaring evidence proving otherwise.

Sadly, there are a large number of black Americans whose brains are entombed in a victim mindset; impenetrable by the truth. A prime example is the disgusting comments made by a black woman during a TV interview, expressing her support of a black youth. “He didn’t do no wrong. He just shot a cop.” This hateful woman is the equivalent of the KKK justifying killing blacks.

To my sincere black activist friend, I say we replace “Black Lives Matter” with “Tough Love.” Tell blacks to stop blaming whitey, seeking more doomed-to-fail government programs and voting for Democrats. Generations of black dreams have been stolen due to Democrats addicting blacks to government dependency

Today, liberals excuse irresponsible behavior, defending it with fancy intellectual sounding language. My late mom would simply say, “Stop acting stupid.”

Stop acting stupid black America. Stop acting stupid.

Yes, some are worried. But what to do when faced with such intransigence in denying reality? 

Leave a Comment

The climate front

The debate has turned to argument and then gone sour. Climate Statism: Science, Poverty, Free Speech at Issue by Paul Driessen offers a description and a call to action.

It appears the Climate Crisis Industry has too much invested in climate catastrophes: prestige, political power, billions of dollars in research and renewable energy grants, and the desire to control energy use, livelihoods, living standards and entire economies.

Instead of reasoned debate, they continue to predict manmade climate chaos, and engage in increasingly vicious and vitriolic attacks on replicable evidence-based science; on the scientific method that brought centuries of profound planetary and human progress; and on any scientists, scholars or ethicists who raise inconvenient questions or threaten alarmist views, policies and funding.

They are also waging war on capitalism … on hydrocarbon energy … on poor, minority, blue-collar and working class families – and on the most powerless, destitute, deprived, diseased families on Earth.

Equally unsettling, in league with Liberal-Progressive-Leftist politicians, activists and media, climate alarmists are also attacking the very idea of free speech and open, robust debate.

Tactics used to advance the Climate Crisis agenda are too numerous to recount here, but many are shameful, intolerable, dishonest and even lethal.

It is the rational and logical vs the ideological and religious, intellectual integrity vs deceit and dishonesty. The stakes are very high.

Leave a Comment

What happened to history?

“The problem, however, is that reasonable men may be rarer than ever these days, and the substance of history has been all too often distorted by an elite class which is driven by a pursuit of political agendas.” — Lincoln vs. Lee: How History is Distorted to Preserve Legends By William Sullivan

The radical efforts to erase some symbols of the civil war are based on an ignorance of history. A failure to learn from history is bad enough. Distorting history to suit one’s preferences takes it to another level of deceit and dishonesty.

Leave a Comment