Hmmm...

Not sure how I feel about this "lifetime ban" for making racist comments.

In a world full of stupid people, I am not sure we should reflexively behead every person who speaks heresy.  I know, I'm a white guy, so who gives a fuck what I think on this.  But still, to think that by punishing word crimes we can eliminate stupidity is stupidity.  Will there come a time when we can read a person's mind (please ignore Banaji and the IAT) and will we, at some point, ban someone for life for thinking racist thoughts?

Do we really need to create "coddled" classes - a group of people, whoever they may be, about whom a disparaging word cannot be spoken?  Do we really think that banning him for his speech will change his mind or the minds of anyone who might feel similarly?  Do we just create more backlash?  It seems another attempt to eliminate discrimination by discriminating.  YOU cannot say that about THEM?

Nope, not sure that this solves anything.

Huffington Hyperbole, take XXX

In keeping with the requirement that anything the HuffPost disagrees with is either startling, insane or ridiculous, here is another great one.

Point is, although Tucker Carlson is most often an idiot, in this case he is not wrong.  Oprah is one of a large group of women (including Arianna Huffington and the incredibly annoying Mika) who, either explicitly or by implication, find all things masculine abhorrent and wrong.  They celebrate the infinite perfection of the feminine perspective and give us, in some bizarre way, the gender-based version of affirmative action - the idea that centuries of male domination can only be balanced by decades of male emasculation.

I have to agree with Tucker; I am not sure our sons hearing about how their best path to a fulfilling life is to emulate such women is a good thing. As always, groups of humans can think of no better ways to elevate themselves than to denigrate others.  Clearly this more-evolved feminine sensibility is not above this rather base motive.

How about a nice big helping of STFU?

1.  Oh, Harry - shut the fuck up!  You are a whiny self-serving little piece of shit who considers those who do not kiss your ass to be domestic terrorists.  Cliven Bundy is an moron, but that does not mean you are not - you sound like kindred spirits to me.

2.  I used to like Jon Stewart- I appreciated his wit and how he could cut through others' BS.  Maybe I was wrong, but I used to think that he was an equal opportunity "heaper of scorn" on stupid people.  Seems lately, however, that he feels a great need to defend the Obama administration and democrats; that he has become obviously partisan and highly selective in his scorn and memory. Not only that, but rather than rational discourse, he has begun to fall into that trap of "I know I am, but what are you? Yea, but you guys did this!" Sets a low standard, don't you think?

Case in point was last night when his answer to every criticism of either himself or the administration was to show someone else doing the same thing or something equally as stupid.  He had The Artist formerly known as Cat Stevens at his rally but Hannity likes Ted Nugent!  So there!

This is sad, because I remember being a Bush critic for 8 years and every time I would remark something he was doing that seemed wrong (too many to enumerate), one of his supporters would say "But look at what Clinton did! Do you think Clinton was better?".  No, I did not.  Now I am an Obama critic and it really has not changed.  Same shit, different color.  If that's the best you can muster, then you have no argument and are dumb as a rock.  You have been hoodwinked into playing their game - a game where you cannot win, are not even on the field. 

If you or yours are fucking up, then you are fucking up.  The fact that others have fucked up before or are now does not absolve you of the crime of fucking up, too (lot of fucking in there).  The goal is not to see who can out fuck up the other - who fucked up worse - who fucked over who - at least I hope not.  I suppose the new way of dealing with kids in school when they misbehave is to let them be if others are doing so, too.  Maybe that is why so many of them are in the streets killing each other and us, too. "Sure I killed him, but at least I'm not like that guy that ate him, too!"

So, Jon - and sadly, you and Bill Maher are joined at the hip on this one - until you can look in the mirror or at the current administration and see that they are not always right, that their fuck-ups are fuck-ups and not absolved by those of others, and that your stupidity is not ameliorated by the stupidity of others, you, like Harry, should shut the fuck up.

Dark times, indeed!

Shocking!

So some female performer I have never heard of (Iggy Azalea - sounds like an STD) had to give up crowd surfing because "...her fans think it's fair game to sexually assault the rapper and try to slip their fingers into her body during the concerts."  Rapper - really - white chick?

Well no shit - you had to get a finger up the vagina to discover that falling into the crowd in those short skirts might lead to some pervert trying to finger you?  Really?  What the hell are kids learning these days?

Hell, I'm a dude and I would not, with 2 sets of u-trow (undertrowsers for you young 'uns), a cup, and a couple pairs of jeans on, fall into the crowd at a concert.  Truly surprised that more male and female performers who mingle with the crowd don't get their junk grabbed.

Yea, I know - not a firearms rant - but saw this and was absolutely shocked!

So which is it...?

You would have to be deaf or just awakening from a coma not to have heard about the record set in Chicago this past weekend; 8 dead, 44 wounded. Of course, as would be expected, a major rallying cry is, as usual, a need for more gun control, with comments that decry lax state and federal gun laws.  When a Mayor and police commissioner have no ideas, then the best strategy is to blame it on guns.

Now this is Chicago, which is really famous for two things and, in this case, neither of them is pizza or a baseball team; this has historically been the home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (and still is as it tries to resist change in the state of Illinois) and is also the undisputed murder capital of the world.  the sad commentary is that these records have co-existed for many years.  The only guns in the city were in the hands of the criminals and the ineffective police force.  Of course, the answer to this is always write another law that criminals will disobey.  In fact, I am sure that Rahm Emanual would say, just as Michael Bloomberg would suggest, that Chicago's problem is the rest of the countries fault, so the rest of the the country needs to have stricter gun laws.

So, to recap; draconian gun laws and rampant murder.

Of course, today new gun rights legislation was signed into law in Georgia - the "Safe Carry Protection Act".  Gun control factions are up in arms; Huffington is simply astounded as usual - the story gets top billing.  Colin Goddard is up in arms, completely flabbergasted.  Everytown for Gun Safety (or is it MAIG or Moms demanding something - the rebranding is so frequent, one never knows) is up in arms. So what terrible thing does this law do?  It allows licensed gun owners to carry their firearms into public places, including bars, nightclubs, schools, churches and government buildings (Churches, My God - Churches!). Oh, the tragedy! People who abide by the law, who have passed background checks, being treated like free citizens? Preposterous!

Please look at the data.  Exceedingly few crimes are committed by those who are capable of legally carrying a firearm - data suggest that permit holders are more law-abiding then the general population.  The only reason you might think otherwise is because each time one of those rare crimes happens, Goddard, Bloomberg, Sharpton, and every other worm crawls out to talk about it.  Be honest, Trayvon Martin was one black kid (and I will not review the merits of the prosecution of Zimmerman) - criminals in possession of guns kill many more each night, but Sharpton isn't smearing their blood all over this hands in agony. 

News flash; The places where these high-profile shootings occur - such as Columbine, Colin Goddard's Virgina Tech or Fort Hood TX - are places where a law-abiding person cannot carry.  Read that again - active shooters, multiple target events, carry is illegal.  Well, how the hell does that happen?  If laws prevent such shootings, how can this be?  Oh, it be - because making a law that says you cannot carry here does not deter those who want to kill. It only deters those who do not, who want to protect themselves.  If the laws work as advertised, why didn't Cho Seung-Hui spare Colin Goddard his injury and suffering, why didn't he wake up that day and think "Well I was going to shoot up campus today, but I just realized I am not allowed to carry there"?  Because, frankly, only an idiot would think that way (sorry Colin, Mike, and Al) and while Cho might have been crazy, he seemingly was not as stupid as you all seem to be.

Of all of them, Colin Goddard, the victim of a shooting by a criminal in a gun-free zone where the laws had no deterrent effect, must be the most clearly deluded.  One has to wonder if the career he has wandered into with Bloomberg (note, the new Everytown for Gun Safety is not his first gun control gig) as a function of his survivorship and lack of logic has somehow dulled his senses.

But here we are; which is it?  Chicago, the murder capital with a still-largely-disarmed law-abiding population (the new gun laws have barely taken effect) or Georgia, which allows its law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into those places where criminals may be more likely to strike?  Check out the data on murder (nah, you really don't need to). 

Every time a criminal commits a criminal act with a gun, the termites come out of the woodwork to stand on the dead bodies their laws created by herding people into pens for the slaughter.  No mention of the fact that the victims were disarmed law-abiding citizens or those who could have been protected by legally armed citizens.  Every time a new law passes that allows law-abiding gun owners to exercise their freedom they set off alarms that there will be gun fights in the streets.  No follow-up to show it has not happened. No follow-up to note that as gun rights and ownership have gone up, murder rates in those areas have gone down.

Every time one of you opens your mouth, you denigrate each and every one of us who abides by the law and carries a firearm.  You call us potential murderers every time you suggest that we cannot be trusted to carry our firearms into forbidden zones.

Colin, I am glad you survived, but that does not make you an expert on this.  It means you were one of the fortunate sheep who got out of the pen with his life when a wolf decided to kill.  You should know better.

What this means...

As usual, a liberal blog on Huffington Post is more focused on what people around the world think of the rights of Americans (Hijacked that word ;<)) than what those rights are.  It reflects the same tired idea that outlawing guns will eliminate violence (see recent knife attacks) or even eliminate gun violence. Of course, this blog goes on to cite all of the evidence for this idea - the tired old more guns more crime idea that is largely unsupported.  Of course, she does not acknowledge any data to the contrary.

The author goes on to chronicle where she was when various shootings, such as Columbine, Virginia Teach and others, occurred.  What is baffling to me is that the obvious fact that a gun in those places - in the hands of a defender - could have been useful totally escapes her.  This fairy tale world where people do not do anything bad if we take all the guns away (as if we can really ever do that).  We do not live on some piss-ant island, but share borders with countries across which drugs already flow freely - you think you could stop the flow of weapons into illegal hands?  In the end, what people like this do not realize is that wishing there were no guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is tantamount to wishing death on everyone who has ever used a gun to protect themselves.  You should say that clearly - if you have used a gun to defend yourself - even against a non-gun assault - this woman wishes you were dead. Now - say "Thank you Ma'am!"

Quite frankly, I do not care if people in other countries do not understand our rights or if your friend is scared she will be shot.  All sane people do not want to be shot and I know what my firearm is for - it is to protect me and my family (and any one else who might benefit from that action) from those who would harm us with knives, guns, fists or anything else.  If that never happens then you will never even know I am carrying a gun.

Perhaps you and all your friends could sit down and have a group hug with those people who might do us harm - convince them that what they are doing is wrong.  That is just as likely as convincing me to hand over my tools for self-defense.

This proves at least two things

This proves at least two things:

1.  No matter how many home runs you can hit, you can still be dumb as a rock and it likely only gets worse when you are 80 years old.  Sorry Hank - you're full of it on this one.

2.  Huffington Post is biased (no shocker there).  If a conservative had said that the BATFE or BLM are "jack-booted thugs", the headline would have used words like "preposterous" "insane" or "incredible".  In this case it is a simple statement "Hank Aaron Compares Obama's GOP Opposition To KKK" - no hyperbole at all. For instance, in a headline right above this they note "Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Bill... Again!"  Why didn't Hank earn at least an exclamation point?

So, in the end, criticising a black president is necessarily racist.  Great - glad to live in the good ol' US of A, you know, free speech and all, government of, by, and for and all that jazz.

Sports legends should stick to what they are good at.

Funny how...

...there is outrage at some misinformation and not at others.

My favorite news read, the Huffington Post, goes apoplectic that the Mississippi sex education curriculum says the homosexuality is illegal.

Yes - well where were they when it was discovered that the Common Core-approved text mis-describe the Second Amendment?

It is so easy to be outraged at dumb shit we disagree with and ignore the dumb shit that fits our agenda!

Freedom means we have to be appalled by both.

Ft. Hood? Yes, but...

Well, Huffington Post has it half right - maybe?

Indeed, part of the dilemma is that we do not know nearly enough about how the experiences of our warriors in our recent wars interact with other individual differences to result in tragedies such as the recent Ft. Hood shootings.  I will share one thing I do know; we are reaping what we sow when it comes to thinking that our only recourse in the current global climate is to send more and more young Americans to war over and over.  Are we so callous and foolish as to think this has no effect? We could talk for a long time about why this is so, how or whether these conflicts are different. We can look back through history at how our warriors have responded to war from WWII to Korea, to Viet Nam and our more current military adventures.  But that is perhaps a long topic best left for another day.

Suffice to say that, in this instance, the American public was fed slogans aimed at selling them on war and have now come to believe that slogans are the solution to any problem.  And in our zeal to avoid the remonstrations, indignities and disrespect heaped on our Viet Nam veterans, we were taught to tie yellow ribbons around trees, talk of "heroes", thanks them for their service, have fly-overs at NFL games, honor those heroes at every turn, make spectacles of reuniting returning warriors with their unsuspecting families.  All of which is great and makes us feel good about them, their performance, and most of all ourselves.  If you talk to many of these warriors they will tell you how disingenuous this all feels, how manipulative it feels, and that for all of this, none of "those people" know or care what the warriors went through. And, as with most feelings, once we are all warm and fuzzy and feeling good about ourselves for saying the right buzz-words, we quickly go back to our lives, feel our job is done. 

It is not!  These platitudes do not take the pain away from our warriors; many do not feel like heroes for having done the things we have tasked them with doing.  Such slogans and displays only assuage the guilt we feel for the tasks we handed them - tasks that many among us, including those who sought war, would not undertake themselves and may even find abhorrent.  Put your money where your mouth is; yellow ribbons and pats on the back and "Thank you for your service" will not heal the warriors' wounds; They have made an investment of their lives for us and we will have to make an investment in them for year to come.  Such displays are merely are our feeble and uncommitted way of dealing with our own guilt, not theirs.

A last point:  Does it take a rocket scientist (or behavioral scientist) to see how insulting it is to our military that we hand them a weapon when it is time to make war, to kill for us, but leave them defenseless on their own bases here in CONUS.  "We trust you to take this weapon and go kill the enemy, but we can;t trust you to carry one when you come back home".  You are good enough to kill for us, but not good enough to defend yourself here." It is precisely those who communicate this message who talk of heroes in such disingenuous terms; they are your heroes, but you do not trust them.

If that is what we truly believe then it only reveals that much more about our callous and shameful souls - that we really do not consider our soldiers to be part of us - they are tools to be pulled out when needed and put away, discarded and disregarded when we are done with them.