.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, June 25, 2016

 

Passengers don't leave 50,000 ton ocean liners for wooden boats without motivation.


Brexit is a symptom, not the problem.

Within 24 hours of the Brexit victory its disruptive effects made many argue it was a mistake; that it would not be long before a repentant Britain was pushing its face against the cold glass doors of the Euro cafe, wistfully eyeing the delicacies now out of its foolish reach. Yet others have argued in the same breath it would be Europe with its face pressed against the glass, longing the other way round....

Douthat's observation it was a pre-existing crisis in the EU which brought about Brexit must be taken as central. Countries don't usually walk out on a good thing without a reason just as passengers don't leave 50,000 ton ocean liners for wooden boats without motivation.

Labels: , ,


Friday, June 24, 2016

 

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

Scott Adams on "gun control" from the Democrat and Republican perspectives.

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”


*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, June 20, 2016

 

You really can't blame Marteen for liking Hillary. She's just so damn likable.

Omar and I continued to have infrequent conversations over the next few years. I last saw him at a dinner at his father’s house in January. We talked about the presidential election and debated our views of the candidates that were running – he liked Hillary Clinton and I liked Bernie Sanders.

From the Washington Post.

Labels: ,


Sunday, June 19, 2016

 

Enough: After Orlando, We Must Defund Planned Parenthood and Rethink Gay Marriage Ruling

Last weekend, a 29-year-old Islamist radical slaughtered 49 innocent people at a gay nightclub in central Florida. In response, Congress must immediately strip taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood. This well-funded special interest group generously finances friendly legislators' campaigns, in exchange for which those politicians obstinately oppose any and all common sense restrictions on abortion -- regardless of strong public support for increased regulations. They are on the wrong side of history. The American people are horrified by Planned Parenthood's business model, which relies on the unregulated killing of unborn humans. This systematic extinguishing of human life fuels a culture of death in which Orlando shooter Omar Mateen marinated for nearly three decades. Planned Parenthood has contributed heavily to this morally-polluted environment, which devalues and dehumanizes innocent life, just like radical Islamism does.

There is a word for Planned Parenthood's role in this form of terrorism: complicity. Democrats in Congress must be held to account for their routine legislative defense of this organization, which should be stripped of all taxpayer funding as soon as possible. The pro-death atmosphere Cecile Richards' outfit helps create continues to put Americans at risk. Have we learned nothing from these acts of terrorism? An all-male Supreme Court may have ruled that abortion is a constitutionally-protected right, even though our founding document is silent on the issue, but that supposed "right" is killing us right now. Granted, cutting off public funding for Planned Parenthood may not have prevented what happened at the Pulse nightclub, and it may not stop future atrocities. But it we can save just one life, not to mention the countless lives targeted by abortionists, it will be worth it.
Read the whole thing.

This may be satire, but if we use the Obama frame of reference, it’s actually true. Islam hates the West, calls America “the Great Satan” because of our culture. American culture blankets the world. It’s a threat to Islamic culture because it threatens to seduce Islamic youth just as it has all over the world. It’s incredibly attractive. So Imams rail against the things that are the most visible features of modernism in the West: revealing clothing, alcohol, pop music, open sexuality in life and in all forms of entertainment, homosexuality, feminism, abortion. Then ask yourself who is largely responsible for creating the things that are most hated by devout Muslims. We find that those who ask “why do they hate us” really need only look in the mirror. To make Islam hate us less, we must cover-up, bring back prohibition, outlaw not just homosexuality but also sex outside of marriage, repeal the 19th amendment, and shut down Planned Parenthood. Oh, and also shut down Hollywood.

Labels: , , ,


Thursday, June 16, 2016

 

Obama Era Euphemisms about the Global War On Terror

Of course Obama has no intention of effectively waging a war on terror, unless he can target Bitter Clingers. But from PJ Media here's partial list.


Labels: , ,


 

Ten Commandments of Social Justice Warriors

10commandments

Labels:


 

If you're a Christian you're responsible for the massacre in Orlando

That Donald Trump has always been an open book and there’s absolutely no need of “opposition research” has always been clear to us. To put it all together in this slim volume should have been the work of a summer intern searching the Internet on a lazy afternoon. But we suspect that the Killer of Benghazi probably had scores of employees on the case because that’s how she rolls.

The real news from yesterday is that the Generalissimo of Liberalism – the NY Times – thinks that Christians are responsible for the massacre in Orlando.

“Omar Mateen shattered the tenuous, hard-fought sense of personal safety that many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have begun to feel as the movement for equality has made significant gains in recent years. His bullets and the blood he left behind that early morning were a reminder that in many corners of the country, gay and transgender people are still regarded as sinners and second-class citizens who should be scorned.

While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.”

Make no mistake, this is the way that the rest of the MSM thinks. This is what the people who bring you their funhouse-mirrors version of reality at ABCNBCCBSNPR and its local affiliates in cities and towns across the nation believe. Keep in mind the Prime Directive: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

Keep one other thing in mind, if Hillary Clinton is elected this is what she believes. And she and her fellow travelers will run the country. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you I don’t know what will.

Labels: , , , ,


Saturday, June 11, 2016

 

NY Times questions if the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation


The NY Times, which is known for sliming Republicans would have you believe that the FBI has 150 agents on the case of not be investigation Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business as a criminal act.

Noting that President Obama had officially endorsed Mrs. Clinton on Thursday, Mr. Trump added, “First time ever, by the way, a president of the United States endorsed somebody under criminal investigation.”

But that assertion also goes beyond the known facts. The FBI is investigating Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server, but agents have not yet interviewed her and it is not clear if she herself is a target of a criminal inquiry.

Apparently "reporter" Ashley Parker has not gotten the message the the FBI does not do security reviews, it conducts criminal investigations.

Labels:


 

Who is Donald Trump's base? Why is he popular? Why are people voting for him? Why do people like and support him?

As an immigrant to this country, I have always been amazed at the lack of understanding and cross-pollination that exists between small and big-town America. Few of my urban American-born IT coworkers have ever traveled the country by car as I do, on smaller roads through small towns and farms. The stories and photos I bring back makes them wonder as if they are from some forgotten Asian jungle - and perhaps reinforce their reasoning and resolve never to visit such backward places. But the people who live there are mostly honest folk - simply Americans. And, coming from another culture coming apart under the assault of globalization, it breaks my heart to speak to them and listen to their stories. I am of course, generalizing , but many really feel left behind : it seems in a multicultural America, bent on integrating the latest fashionable minority, and catering through main media channels, fashion, movies, art and politics to larger urban centers and their dwellers - there is little place left for the God-abiding, law-respecting, family-loving, hard-working individual that used to be called the common man and it's now called a bigot, gun-toting, racist, homophobic troglodyte. Who speaks for these guys among today's presidential candidates? You have one guess.

Labels:


 

Why the NeverTrump movement failed

Nolte gives 8 good reasons, here at two:


Because my aim here is to present analysis, I'm going to try and keep my personal feelings out of this. But as a proud former-member of the Working Class who comes from a Working Class family, and still lives among the Working Class (my neighbors are made up of Marines, electricians, and construction workers), I think it is fair to assume that I speak for many when I say that the unforgivable assaults on the decency, integrity, intelligence (and even the right to exist), of Trump's working class supporters only served to further breed an already-exploding resentment against the Republican Establishment, and by extension their preferred candidates.

In my 35 years of watching politics, I have never seen a political party's elites attack and demean millions of their own voters.
...
Even Bill Kristol's hand-picked third party savior is guilty of this.

Not only is this class supremacism morally illiterate, un-American, and wildly hypocritical (especially when you are accusing others of bigotry), tactically it is a suicide mission.
AND

Once #NeverTrump became an official hashtag and movement, all the principled criticisms of Trump (many of which are valid), were lost beneath what was #NeverTrump's oft-stated goal: to game the convention rules in order to disenfranchise The People's Choice.

Hey, I've heard all the arguments… The fuzzy math (which I'll get to) of Trump failing to achieve 50% support; the hale and hearty "delegate rules are delegate rules" pronouncements; the argument that we are not a direct democracy…

Sorry, no.

The Smart People laughing like Thurston Howell III at Trump for failing to grasp at why it was "perfectly valid" that he would win a state's primary and then lose that state's delegates, were also laughing at me and millions of other voters equally infuriated.

I've been following presidential politics since I was 14 years old. I'm no dummy. And I had no idea the GOP primary game was rigged in this way.

Rationalize all you want, the bottom line is that you cannot as a political party present and promote what looks like a public election for a nominee and then pull the rug out from under your own voters when it doesn't go your way.

"Ha ha! You didn't read the fine print," is not an argument.

It's a con.

Labels: , ,


 

We have a ruling elite that hates the societies that produce them.

Or the conference before the Visegrad 4 one or something like that. Lots of people earnestly talking about cooperation and Europe and stuff. Definitely the B team on display which was why I just scraped into an invite. Frances Coppolla and I did a panel, should Greece leave the euro? Which Frances has already talked about (my answer, Hell Yes, everyone should leave, it’s an idiot way to run a continent).

The interesting bit was how scary it was in fact. The groupthink is strong in this arena. There is no questioning of the goal, even if it’s not clearly delineated. That ever closer union is just assumed: how to bring it about being the only difference anyone has. I was the only truly eurosceptic person there and I wasn’t on the panel discussing eurosceptics for example (Frances is reasonable on this subject where I am not).

At one stage I pointed out that fiscal union simply was not going to happen. Europeans just are not going to allow 15-20% of GDP to be distributed through Brussels, which is what would be needed for the automatic stabilisers to operate properly so that the eurozone comes even close to being an optimal currency area. To do that really does mean German taxes paying Greek pensions.

It. Will. Not. Happen.

Not this century at least.

Everyone was shocked: how could you say such a thing? And anyway, we need to work out how to make this happen not think of why it cannot.

Labels: , , ,


 

Approved for All Audiences

Hollywood is under high pressure from various left-wing groups to bring its business fully in line with political correctness. After the Southern California ACLU claimed that the movie industry didn’t have enough female directors, no fewer than two federal agencies launched investigations into Tinseltown’s hiring practices. Blacks have threatened to boycott the Academy Awards if the Motion Picture Academy doesn’t start handing out Affirmative Action Oscars. And Twitter pests are pushing studios to make Captain America gay, Princess Elsa lesbian, and James Bond female.

In response, one of Hollywood’s top studios has now announced plans for a new tentpole picture scheduled for release next Kwaanza—a superhero extravaganza entitled Social Justice League of America: Age of Imaginary Problems. The blockbuster will be written and directed by Lena Dunham, who will also play the lead role of Cecily Shrillwine.

According to a studio press release, Shrillwine is a brilliant nuclear physicist who angrily quits MIT after a sexist professor evicts her from class merely because she doesn’t know any math. Shrillwine retires to her private laboratory hidden on the cliffs of Mount Grievance and there begins a series of secret experiments to determine exactly how little a person can contribute to society while still complaining about being underpaid.

Labels:


 

Google lies about manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton

Well, criminals always deny committing a crime.

On Thursday, news website SourceFed posted a video showing how results are manipulated. It explained that when users type "Hillary Clinton Ind" into Google, the top recommendations are "India" and "Indiana." When users type the same thing into competitors Bing or Yahoo!, the top result is "indictment," a word that does not appear anywhere in Google's recommendations. The disparity came in spite of the fact that "indictment" is searched on Google eight times more often than "Hillary Clinton India."


Thursday, June 09, 2016

 

The rationale for belonging to La Raza

A comment in the Wall Street Journal is a perfect illustration of why an ambitious attorney and judge would be part of La Raza Lawyer's Association.


The judge may not be a member of "bad" groups, because of ethics and professional, judicial employment reasons. Being a member of a legally distinct group is a technicality that the judge may trot out to explain away membership and still remain in bounds ethically.

HOWEVER, since 100% of the population infers that LR Lawyers is de facto LR membership, the desired effect is achieved. He is "one of us" for those who care about such matters.

It is extremely duplicitous, and in my book, it ought to be shunned in the highest judicial circles--at least the Senate could use that as a non-confirmation criteria.

Being a member of an ethnic affiliation group is not problematic per se. What becomes problematic is when the group "advocates", and even more so if the demographic is a sizable fraction of the population. The likelihood of a built-in conflict of interest increases dramatically with the size of the demographic.

Translation: if you're a member of KKK Lawyers Association but the group says it's not part of the "bad" KKK you send the message to racists that you care about their issues. If the KKK is some fringe group whose membership can meet in a phone both that's not a big issue. It becomes a big issue if a large part of the population is racist. Now your bigotry is amplified and justified by a lot of people. That how people get lynched and the murderers are never convicted.

Labels: ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?