Sunday, July 13, 2014

Math is hard for gun control nuts

Okay, the Washington Post is now officially just mailing it in. Here is the headline from the editorial board from the July 8 online edition:

Maybe Chicago’s death toll will help stop the madness on gun access
That’s right folks - if only you gun wielding Bible toting rable rousing rednecks would just see the light. Because you undereducated imbiciles from the south choose to keep your guns, the already unbelievable murder rate in Chicago will only increase!

Wait, say what??? If you read the op-ed, the board would have you believe that if you make it harder to get and keep a weapon legally in say, Vermont or Wyoming, it somehow increases the murder rate in Chicago. Isn’t that like the administration’s message - by lowering  the United States’ carbon emissions to economically crippling levels, it would magically reduce the carbon emissions in India and China.

Had the Post actually, you know, done some of that journalism thing - you know where the writer actually investigates the topic they are writing on - maybe they’d of found this nugget:

In Chicago, a city of 2.7 million people, fewer than 8,000 people are licensed to own a gun – less than 0.3%. The city’s gun-homicide rate is about 18 per 100,000. In Vermont, by contrast, where 42% of the population are gun owners, the rate of gun murders in 2010 was 0.3 per 100,000. So Chicago has a gun-homicide rate about 60 times Vermont’s, despite Vermonters being 150 times as likely to own a gun. To put that another way, in Chicago the ratio of the gun-homicide rate to the percentage of citizens who legally own guns is nine thousand times higher than it is in Vermont.
Oops, that’s gonna leave a mark. I swear the editorial board at the Post is sounding  more and more like the prime time line up of MSNBC. And you know how well that’s working out for them.

Obama and the anal Jihad

This just in!

Here is the headline from Breitbart:

Egyptian Cleric: Muslim Brotherhood Authorizes 'Anal Jihad' for Lonely Terrorists

And yes, it means exactly what you think it means. Here is the meat ahem, I mean root, or um, rather crux, yes, crux of the argument:

In televised remarks on Egypt's Al-Tahrir TV on June 26 and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute, cleric Mazhar Shahin told his viewers that members of the Muslim Brotherhood were engaging in homosexual anal sex acts as a way to "wage jihad in the name of Allah." It was a "new kind of jihad," he explained, where "they practice homosexuality with one another, thinking, wrongly, that this constitutes jihad for the sake of Allah." The acts are sanctioned if the jihadists are far from their wives.
I challenge all of my many Muslim reader to show me in the Quran exactly where it states that - just because you’re are on a business trip killing the infidels - you have permission, nay , the right to engage in sexual activity with your rather over friendly fellow Mujahideen. Go ahead I’ll wait…

<insert Jeopardy music here>

Ok, times up. I’d wager that the good o’l profit Muhammad never got around to prophesying about his one, or if he did, he probably gave it a prophetic frown.

But here’s the point. Apparently, this “activity” is running rampant in the ranks of the freedom caliphate creating warriors. So, rather than condemning them all to hell, Mazhar Shahin simply makes shit up out of whole cloth and says go ahead big boys, no ones gonna know what goes on behind the tent flaps!

Now who does that remind you of? You know, just making stuff up as you go along?

Oh yeah, President Obama the constitutional professor! You see just like Mazhar treating the Quran like a ‘living document’ -  meant to be interpreted depending on circumstance, Obambi sees the constitution as cumbersome and quaint, thus he can treat it like toilet paper when it suits him and tell us that the founders didn’t anticipate the complexities of today’s world. The final result is that when we choose to ignore the law, or apply the law inequitably, we become little more than a third world country. Put another way, by picking and choosing which laws his administration  will enforce, he creates a land not made up of laws but of executive whims, and those whims are not static, rather they are subject to change depending on the mood of the chief executive.

I’d submit to the president that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing regardless of the complexity of the world. And job number one was to write a document that, if applied properly, would throw your ass in jail for the constitutional abuses you’ve perpetrated over the last five and a half years.

I guess until we can get this guy out of office it’s party on in the foxhole!

10 minutes of unscripted Dennis Miller

In a world where you only watch a video that is 2 minutes or less I present for your perusal, 10 'well worth it minutes' with Dennis Miller. You will not be disappointed and if you don't laugh out loud 5 times I'll give you your money back.

Friday, July 4, 2014

Happy Birthday America!

Spend a few minutes with a perspective from someone not born in the United States.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Salon now has third graders writing for them

Apparently with a straight face Matt Bruenig over at Salon has some profound words to share that are so abjectly stupid that I thought I was reading the Onion instead. At Salon, this is what apparently passes for journalism today. Matt Bruenig’s wrote that - wait for it - in order to make up for racial intolerance and inequality we need to take money from white people and give it to black people. I hate to break this to you Matt but this already exists today - it’s called the US tax code (more on that later). Here’s Matt in all his unbridled glory:

Even if racism were wiped out tomorrow and equal treatment became the norm, it would never cease being the case that the average white person has more wealth than the average black person. We could equalize everything else in society, and racial wealth inequality–plus all of the political power disparities that accompany such a thing–would continue into perpetuity.
Sorry Matt, I gotta stop you right there. What your are saying is that playing field were suddenly leveled (something I believe to be the case already, but let’s let him go with it) that there is an inherent bias that capital somehow will seek out whites and stay with them in perpetuity? Say what? How does that even make sense? Ok, sorry for the interruption here’s more:

Thus, those actually serious about righting the wrongs of enslavement and Jim Crow apartheid must support more drastic leveling efforts. Beefed up anti-discrimination, which is both necessary and good, will not be enough. Ideally, we could work towards reparations in the form of redistributing wealth along racial lines. With that an unlikely possibility though, we can at least think about ways to redistribute wealth more generally from those with wealth to those without it, something that would have a similar, albeit more attenuated, effect as reparations given who the wealthy and non-wealthy happen to be.
Good god, Marx and Engle couldn’t have put it any better. It’s not like we haven’t tried to do this before with varying degree of failure. From the 10’s of millions who died in the great Bolshevik experiment that dominated the last century to the watered down version we now see in the EU. But Bruenig has a better idea. This is what I love about articles like this. Bruenig makes his premise straight from the heart, no need to do any background reading to find some support for his nonsense. No, like most liberals, Matt doesn’t need to be bothered by icky facts such as this doozy:

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers
You read that right folks, for every full time taxpaying worker there are 1.7 on the dole. So when Bruenig bitches about wealth redistribution and his infantile solution is simply take from those who have (namely  whites) and give to those who don’t (presumably blacks) you have to ask just how much is too much? Now some of you may argue that getting paid a salary is not the same as wealth and I agree. But in order to obtain wealth somebody’s gotta go to work. It has to start somewhere right?

But the real point is this. While I would agree that there are disparities between the amount of wealth between races, the first thing I would do is ask why. Is it, as Bruenig suggest that capital has some sort of built in discrimination against blacks? Or, as I suspect, does it have more to do with culture? For example, 72% of black families are raised by one parent. 95% of black murders are perpetrated by another black. The black communities are a shambles (mostly due to liberals trying to help them) and almost all of them are on some sort of government assistance. Perhaps these statistics have more to do with where capital resides and less to do with skin color.

Exit hypothesis: If we could somehow wave a magic wand and redistribute wealth in the manner Bruenig suggest, how long would it take the wealth to re-accumulate to basically where it is now. My guess is that capital moves to where those who are willing to work and take risks and away from those who make bad decisions like having children before you can properly care for them and out of wedlock. Just a thought.