Please consider…

I’ve been lectured and spoken at.  I’ve been told I’m insensitive.  I’ve been told that I just don’t understand.  Donald Trump was elected president, and now people have all these feelings and I’m not taking them seriously.

Believe me, I do.  I understand that you are hurting and scared.  I completely get that.  My problem is not with your feelings themselves.  My problem is two-fold.  

First, and most important for my friends and family, my problem is that your fear and pain is based on lies.  You have been fed a diet of lies for months, and you believe them.  Indeed, why wouldn’t you?  It’s not like anyone has been denying them.  Indeed, much of the supposedly Conservative media (which obviously means something different than I thought it did a year ago), is engaging in the lies just as much as the “mainstream media.”

Second, and less important personally, but more important from a practical standpoint, your engagement in this very public hysteria is dangerous.  Because good and decent people like you believe the lies, too, bad and dangerous people have the moral cover to do horrible things.

You have been told for months that Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  You have been told that he is anti-immigrant and wants to deport all Hispanics and Muslims.  These are all lies.  Not one of them is true.

Is Donald Trump a racist?  No one thought so until recently - and there is no evidence that he is.  It has been said repeatedly in the last year, but those statements have no basis in fact.  He has been honored by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He fought to change the laws in a city where one of his properties exists so he could allow Blacks and Jews to patronize his club.  His lists of nominees for positions in his cabinet are replete with minorities.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist?  Again, no one thought so until recently.  The recent evidence of that is better, but still completely overblown and taken out of context.  He regularly insults women - specific women with whom he has a specific beef.  Surprise: he regularly insults men, too - specific men with whom he has a specific beef.  That’s not misogyny; it’s equality.  Moreover, he was the first to hire a woman to lead the construction of a skyscraper.  His campaign manager was the first woman ever to run a successful Presidential campaign.  He neither fears nor hates women.  If anything, he sees them as *actually equal* which means he also pulls no punches when dealing with them.

Is Trump a homophobe?  Once more, I say no, and that no one thought so until the Media started saying he was.  When the “transgender in the bathroom” issue blew up, Trump was busy making sure Trump Tower was open to transgender people while also attempting to address the very real concerns of parents.  He has been supportive of the LGBT community for a long time.  He was pro-choice until recently, and even now I suspect is only pro-Life-ish.  He has announced no plans to fight homosexual marriage.

Is Donald Trump anti-immigrant?  If so, someone should tell his wife.  Because she’s an immigrant, you see.  Legal and everything.  Someone should also tell all of those immigrant owned businesses he uses to provide supplies and labor for his various properties and businesses - obviously they missed the memo.

Does Donald Trump want to deport Hispanics?  Again, there are no facts that support this assertion.  The worst that Trump has said in that regard is that he wants to deport all illegal aliens.  Hey, guess what?  If you’re here illegally, you should be deported - because that’s the law.  You can ask the Native American tribes, the Chinese in the 13th century, and the Romans what allowing unchecked immigration of peoples who do not wish to integrate and assimilate into your culture can do to that culture.

Does Donald Trump want to deport all Muslims, or even stop their immigration? Again, there is no evidence of this.  The closest he came to that was saying we should not be importing people from a part of the world where a large number of them want to kill us without some way of making sure the ones we let in are not those who want to kill us.  This is not even controversial, except that the Media told you it was.  If you hadn’t noticed, there is a significant portion of the Muslim world that either actively wants us dead or supports those who do.  We owe them nothing, so why wouldn’t we wait on letting them in until we had some way to verify we weren’t importing terrorists?

Donald Trump is crude, yes.  He is vulgar - in the same way that many of your neighbors are vulgar.  He’s even common and low-class.  But he is not a monster.  He’s not going deport your cousin’s mother-in-law, provided that cousin’s mother-in-law is here legally.  Even if she’s not, it’s unlikely that he’s going to get around to deporting illegal aliens who aren’t causing trouble - there are enough who *are* causing trouble to keep ICE busy for years, I think.  He’s not going to throw Muslims into concentration camps.  He’s not going to start some purge of the Gays.  He’s not going to attempt to reinstitute slavery.  The very idea that he would do any of those is a lie perpetrated by the Media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans for political gain - people who are in fear are easier to lead.

Please stop believing the lie.

Which leads to the next point - why it is so important for you to stop believing the lie.  For the last six months or so, you’ve heard the drumbeat from the Clinton camp that Trump and his supporters are literally just like Hitler and Nazis.  We’re supposed to be violent, barely restrained animals who will turn on Blacks and Gays and women in a heartbeat.  Trump is going to lead a fascist government bent on complete domination of the people.  The Clinton campaign, with the help of the Media, has made people believe that for six months.

And what has been the result?  It hasn’t been Trump supporters starting riots.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters gleefully defacing others’ property and posting it on YouTube.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters beating Clinton supporters because of their political beliefs.  It has been exactly the opposite.

And, again, why wouldn’t it be?  You yourselves believe that Trump is equivalent to Hitler.  If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be afraid of his Presidency and you wouldn’t feel “invalidated” by his victory.  You might feel disappointed.  You might be concerned that his policies would hurt the country’s prestige or economy.  You would not fear for your literal safety, or believe that his victory said anything about people’s feelings for you and your pain in any way.  Only if you accept, somewhere in your psyche, that Trump = Hitler does any of that make sense.

And if your opponent is the actual equivalent of Hitler, does that not mean you are not only morally justified, but even morally required to oppose him and those who support him with violence?  If Trump is Hitler, how can anyone complain that people are rioting in protest, or even if some call for his assassination (yes, that has already happened- on CNN, which did not bother to repudiate the statement).

In 2008 and again in 2012, I thought someone who would be disastrous for the country was elected.  I stand by that assessment, and would be more than happy to point out the ways he absolutely was that.  Yet I and those like me did not engage in violence.  We did not pull Obama supporters out of their vehicles and beat them.  We did not riot and overturn police cars.  We didn’t ask that you validate our “feelings.”

We bowed our necks, set our shoulders, and continued on as best we could.

When you fail to do the same, you validate and even encourage the kind of behavior we have seen- an old man torn from his vehicle and beaten on camera to the chants of “he voted for Trump,” children *actually beaten* (as opposed to mocked) for supporting Trump, even a child tormented by his own mother - again, placed on YouTube with pride - for supporting Donald Trump.

Your child’s hispanic friend was mocked and told their family was going to be deported?  You mean children said mean things to another child?  Why, shut my mouth.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  I mean, I and those around me were *never* mocked for our names, or because our families weren’t as rich as others around us, or because we were socially awkward.  This is a brand new phenomenon which has only begun in the last 4 days!

I’m very sorry that mean people are saying mean things.  I’m very sorry that at some point in the past you were sexually assaulted, or that your parents brought you here illegally at the age of 6, or whatever bad thing happened to you.  I truly am - if you want to tell me about it and for me to extend my sympathy, I’ll be happy to brew up a cup of tea and sit with you on the couch.

But the public histrionics; the vociferous complaints of “I thought better of my country,” they are giving cover and even justification to those committing actual violence.  They are emboldening those who would truly overthrow our way of life - by installing their own choice for President over the justly elected nominee.

Please, I beg you: consider what you are saying.  Please stop believing and spreading the lies - lies so artfully concocted.  Those lies have very real consequences (not that you are lying - it’s not lying if you believe what you’re saying, but that the people who started them knew them to be lies) which are causing actual physical violence.

Please.

Lies, D*mn Lies, and Statistics

The SCOAMT has been bragging about his economic numbers since before the SOTU.  We were told that the economy grew at a 5% rate last year.  We’re regaled with stories about the improving job numbers.  Gas prices are down!

One of those is true.  For the moment.

Shortly after the State of the Union, those numbers were revised.  Whoops, not 5% growth in Q4.  Try about half that.

And then there are the jobs numbers.  Anyone paying attention knows that the numbers aren’t as rosy as the SCOAMT would have you believe.  Now the CEO of Gallup- the poling organization- has written an editorial calling the number a lie.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

The Protection Racket

For the record, let's state that what the SCOAMT did last night was tantamount to an imperial takeover.  Apparently, now, the President and not the Legislature or even Judiciary is the arbiter of what is and is not law.

I wish I could say I was surprised.  I am outraged.  But in a sense that's like being outraged at a scorpion for stinging.  I do not believe that his character would allow him to do anything else than what he did.  Malignant Narcissism is *going* to assert its power, especially after being told it's not so powerful after all.

However, I do have more outrage for the Media.  The MFM consensus seems to be this: "Barack Obama is protecting illegals."  Yes, that is their word of choice: "protecting."  It's odd to me that they would discuss the decision not to see justice done against law-breakers as "protecting."

Would they be so sanguine if he "protected" thieves in the same way?  Murders, arsonists, identity thieves, or even dead-beat dads?

Let's say the President had said this:  "Too many Americans must live in the shadows.  Their situation requires that they live outside our normal bounds of law, but it is not their fault.  Society and their history have forced them into these shadows.  It is their poverty, their lack of education, and their lack of opportunities- a lack reinforced by law and custom- which causes them to live on the outside.  So tonight I am declaring an amnesty for all thieves.  If not for their poverty and lack of other options, they would not steal your cars, your jewelry, or your money.  It is a failure of our system- a great moral failure- to hold them accountable for their past deeds.  So I am now offering complete amnesty for any past crimes and wiping the slate clean."

Would the MFM be speaking glowingly of him "protecting" the thieves?

Yet that is just what he has done.  Illegal aliens break laws all the time.  Setting aside the ones we might normally classify as "criminal"- those who have committed heinous crimes- even the most benign routinely commit fraud and identity theft.  They drive illegally and have no insurance- and they don't drive particularly well.  The most "deserving" illegal alien broke the law first by coming across our border illegally, and then repeatedly breaks the law any time they work, receive welfare benefits, or drive.

And what of those here legally?  What of low-income, low-skilled legal aliens or citizens?  It is they who will see most of the negative effects of this.  They are the ones who will face additional competition for already low-wage jobs.  It is they who will have to face waiting rooms- for Doctors who accept Medicaid, and for Hospital Emergency Rooms- filled to overflowing, even more than now, with the children of illegals.  It is these in our society- those most already in need of "protection" who the President just threw to the wolves.

Then we consider legal aliens, especially naturalized citizens.  If this is anything other than a strongly-expended middle digit toward them, I can't see what.  Legal aliens jumped through numerous hoops- even those on temporary visas.  They pay high fees for their residency.  They know that one misstep in regards to our laws- even one relatively benign- can get them sent back to their country of origin with no chance of ever returning legally.  Those who seek naturalization wait years and pay astronomical fees to do so.

Yet now they look at what this President has just done, and realize their foolishness.  Why obey the law, why pay all those fees?  They could have just come illegally and been saved all of that.

Yet it is the illegals who are being "protected."

Lamentations of Their Women:

CNN Cries over GOP Wave

So, continuing the leftist post-election trend going back to at least 2000 in Florida, CNN has decided that the only way the GOP won this election was through cheating.  How?  By violating campaign finance laws, in spirit if not in fact.

Their logic goes something like this: Campaign finance laws forbid specific candidate campaigns from coordinating with super-PACs and other non-candidate organizations.  "Someone" was tweeting what looked like poling data.  Since every Dick, Jane, and Harry wouldn't have been able to decode the tweet, it MUST be collusion.

Now they don't know who "Someone" was.  And by their own admission, they didn't find out before the accounts were deleted.  That would seem to be a hole in their case, but maybe that's just me.

Now, there are lots of problems with the whole article, so you should read it for yourself.  But I was taken by two things.  The first was the almost reflexive "they cheated!" reaction.

This article took some time to research.  The twitter accounts they reference were not widely known, so this wasn't something that was "general knowledge."  They had to have been looking for it.

Yet it is not Republicans who are known campaign finance law violators, unlike several prominent Democrats, the President among them (remember 2008 and not checking if donations were foreign?  Making a campaign speech on foreign soil?  Yeah- not legal.)

Projection, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.

The other thing that I noticed was they spend a whole lot of time saying, basically, "Those wascawy Wepubwicans!  They used Twitter effectivwy! That must be iweagle!"  And then, for support they go to leftists.

Case in point, this quote:

"It might not be legal.  It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

That comes from one Paul S. Ryan, cited as "senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center."

CNN references the Campaign Legal Center as "a nonpartisan organization," but, this being CNN, I figured I'd double-check their math.  If you follow that link above, it goes to the CLC's "Election Center."  Among their blurbs are "what the Court got wrong in [Citizen's United]," and bragging that their president played "an incredibly important role" as the "'personal lawyer' to comedian Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.'"

Does anyone seriously think that a center which sees being the "personal lawyer" for the Colbert Report and opposing Citizen's United is "nonpartisan?"  Seriously?

But the best part of that quote might be the idea that the FEC should have to rule on whether something is "explicitly" legal.  Umm... that's not how the law works.  Something is legal unless it is "explicitly" illegal.  Murder?  Explicitly illegal.  We don't have to ask if any given killing is "explicitly" legal.  It is legal (assumed innocent) until it is proven to be illegal.

This is how leftists work.  Does anyone seriously think we'd be hearing anything about this if it had been Democrats and they had won an historic majority?

Perhaps the best part is the end of the article, wherein CNN acknowledges that, yes, this is probably legal.  I'll leave with that quote (emphasis mine):

Despite the questionable nature of the Twitter communications, experts doubt the FEC will do much to act. Members of the commission have been deadlocked along party lines for years and attorneys for these groups often develop legal arguments before engaging in such practices to avoid acting outside the bounds of the law, Ryan said. 

"In many instances, we have very sophisticated political players with really good lawyers who know where the legal lines are and know where to push them to their client's advantage," he said.

A Miscarriage of Justice

A 17 year old young man is dead.  His family are emotionally wounded, perhaps shattered.  The man who killed him walks free; his conscience is the only punishment (outside of punishment of standing trial) he will receive- provided someone seeking vigilante justice does not kill him.

And none of that is a miscarriage of justice.  The miscarriage of justice is that he was tried in the first place.  The miscarriage of justice is that the young man's family was told their son was murdered, and that the murderer would be jailed.  The miscarriage of justice is that people today want the gunman dead.

I speak, of course, of the case of Florida v Zimmerman, in which George Zimmerman was prosecuted for acting in self defense.  A case in which the special prosecutor did not maintain the properly- even necessary- distance from the case and instead promised young Trayvon Martin's family "Justice for Trayvon."  A case in which a family court judge ran a criminal court in the manner of family court.  A case which should have ended with the Prosecution failed even to prove there was a crime, let alone that Zimmerman was guilty of it.

On that rainy night, George Zimmerman called the police.  His story- a story which has not changed materially since the night of the shooting- is that he exited his vehicle to check the street name and street numbers to better guide police to the correct location.  I do not believe it incredible that he also attempted to locate young Mr. Martin, but there is no proof of that. 

Zimmerman's story continues: after hanging up with police and realizing he had no sight of Martin, he moved to return to his vehicle.  At this point, he was confronted my Mr. Martin.  This was no 12 year old cherub, as the media would have you believe.  He was a 17 year old football player, nearing the prime of his physical life.  He was a thug who liked fighting, and in a series of texts would lament that an opponent had not bled enough.

We do not know the specifics of that conversation.  We do know it was brief.  We also know that it was brief because of how quickly it became physical.  Zimmerman maintains that Martin attacked him, punching him in the nose, and that he (Zimmerman) was too stunned to defend himself until he was on the ground being straddled by Martin.  Zimmerman claims it was at this point he cried for help, and continued to do so until Martin discovered Zimmerman's concealed weapon, whereupon Martin (says Zimmerman) said "You're going to die tonight."

Zimmerman grabbed his gun and fired one shot.  That shot was fatal.  Martin would have lost consciousness within seconds.  He would have been dead within a number of minutes which does not require two digits to count.

All of this is Zimmerman's story.  On the record.  Repeatedly.  Never once has any material claim he made changed.

But what did the evidence say?  What did officers believe?  Evidence showed that Zimmerman had a damaged face, and abrasions on the back of his head.  Evidence showed no outward signs of physical trauma to Martin except scraped knuckles (as may have occured when punching someone in the face), and the single gunshot wound.  When they interviewed him, officers believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.  He was arrested and interrogated that night; he submitted to both without counsel.  The next day, he walked the investigators through his version of events- on camera.

The police decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  The DA decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  Mr. Zimmerman was released.

That should have been the end of it.  As tragic as that tale was, it should have ended there.  But it was not to be.  For a variety of reasons- I personally believe because Barack Obama was flagging in the polls- the Media picked up the story.  They decided that the Hispanic Zimmerman must be a white guy.  They decided that Zimmerman must have racially profiled Martin, and edited the 911 call to prove their point.

Because of Rick Scott's cowardice, special prosecutor Angela Corey was assigned to the case.  Using deceptive, even criminal, prosecutorial practices, she indicted Mr. Zimmerman on a charge of 2nd Degree Murder- a charge which requires more than mere rage, it requires a "depraved state of mind."  Ms. Corey promised "Justice for Trayvon."

Now, the trial is over.  For those of us who followed the trial closely, it was a bizarre, frightening thing.  The prosecution seemed to believe it merely needed to provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's account was accurate, rather than proving the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt."  The judge made strange decisions- somehow Mr. Zimmerman's past was relevant, but texts from Mr. Martin's phone (showing above mentioned history of violence) were not.  Defense motions were denied almost out of hand.  The Defense methodically destroyed every assertion made by the prosecution.  State's witness after State's witness provided testimony which not only did not contradict Mr. Zimmerman's account, but bolstered it.

Zimmerman was, thankfully, acquitted.  He should never have been tried, but he was.  And now he should be free.  The story should end there.  But it doesn't.

The Media and so-called "intelligencia" would *still* have you believe that Zimmerman was "morally, if not criminally" responsible for the death of Mr. Martin.  And that's the kindest version.  Many believe he literally got away with murder.  The New Black Panther Party wants him dead.  NFL Players wished him dead.  Many are clamoring for Federal Charges.

Zimmerman may have been acquitted, but he will never be free.  He must live now in fear for his life, for the lives of his family and loved ones.  All because of a miscarriage of justice.

Another Round of "Spot the Media Bias"

Today's Guest is a post from NBC's "First Read."  "Obama vows to keep at gun control"

We'll take a look at two pull quotes, and see what we can see.

First up:

Speaking following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, whose country has been ravaged by gang violence supported in part by gun trafficking into Mexico, Obama vowed to return to the issue of gun control in the United States.

Okay, what does this paragraph want to tell us?  Oh, yes, there it is: Mexico has been ravaged by gang violence supported by gun trafficking.  So guns are bad.  What doesn't it want to tell us?  Two things pop up off the top of my head:

1) Guns are already illegal in Mexico.  Not only are guns illegal, even owning a bullet is illegal.  So tighter gun control is obviously not being particularly helpful there.

2) The man giving that speech was the one responsible for much of the "gun trafficking in Mexico."  Readers of this blog, and other Conservative blogs, have heard of Operation Fast and Furious- the scheme whereby Mexican drug games were given guns by our own government with no method of tracking.  Those same guns were used to murder over 300 Mexican citizens, and at least two American citizens.  The man in charge of that operation- or at least who should have been in charge and should be fired for incompetence if he didn't know about it- is Eric Holder.  His boss is Barack Obama.

Okay.  Second pull quote:

And in an article published Wednesday, the proposal’s Republican author, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, suggested that politics were afoot in many GOP senators’ decision to oppose the package.
“There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey told local newspaper editors.

What does this quote want to tell us?

Oh, GOP "political" obstruction.  Got it.

What doesn't it want to tell us?  Again, I've got two off the top of my head, feel free to add more in the comments.

1) While some GOP Senators may have opposed it simply because SCOAMT wanted it, a) that's actually a pretty good starting position, and b) that doesn't include all of those who were told in no uncertain terms that anything less than strong opposition would get them de-elected.

2) That there is any possibility that there could be actual policy objections to the law.  By casting GOP opposition to the law as "political," the reporter is able to ignore the possibility that there are any substantive objections to the law.

Once again, simply checking for bias shows the one-sided coverage rampant in the Media Complex.  These are all points which are germane to the debate, and they didn't take me any thought at all to remember.  An unbiased media, or a media who at least attempted to address their bias, would have included the points, at least as "by-the-ways."  NBC would rather you forget about them all together.

NBC - "Charity is Bad"

Apparently, to the intellectual vapor-weights at NBC, Government Welfare is good, but private charity is bad.  That is the only take-away I can get from this piece about the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion.  You see, since Texas is a low tax, low spending, low regulation state, most of the victims of the blast are having to *gasp* rely on relatives, friends, and their community to get back on their feet.

Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.

If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?

Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here.  Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West?  Charitable contributions are pouring in.  Even NBC acknowledges that.  No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out.  By way of example:

“I haven’t had any calls requesting assistance,” said Eva Cruz Hamby, who heads health services for McLennan County.

No.  Calls. For.  Assistance.

And somehow this is bad?

Of course it is.  If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business.  We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something.  Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.

In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care.  Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay.  Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same.  For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.

But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing.  Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.

This is Capitalism

And Corporations hate Capitalism

Some time ago, I cut my cable (well, for TV) and started using a service called "PlayOn" which allows me to watch internet TV.  It serves all my needs (I only watch OTA broadcasts for sports anyway) quite well.  However, many people do not like such services (PlayOn is not the only one), because they do not provide live TV.  If you want live TV, you're limited to what's available with your antenna, or you have to keep cable (or satellite, or whatever).

Or, rather, you did.

Let me introduce you to a cool company of which few (if any) of you have heard: Aero.  It seems the minds behind Aero were also rather distressed at the idea live sports were only available if you had cable, satellite, or if they were OTA in your area.  So they did something about it.  They capture the OTA signal, digitize it (well, it's already digital now- maybe I'll get into the irony of that later), and pipe it through the internet into your home.

Now, right-thinking, entrepreneurial types look at that idea and say, "Why didn't I think of that?"  The big Media Corporations look at it, and say "No!  Thou shalt not!"

At the root of their argument is the idea that they, and only they, should be allowed to transmit their content outside a given viewing area.  Their argument fails, unless they want to take PlayOn, AppleTV, GoogleTV, Hulu, and a host of other groups to court.  See, these other groups have been doing exactly what Aero will be doing, with the exception of sporting events and with the exception of "live," for quite some time.

Now, I don't want to get too far into the weeds about the legal argument here, but it is important background information.  In fact, the Media Corporations have made exactly this argument, and so far no court has agreed with them.  They don't have to broadcast OTA.  Given that they broadcast OTA, that content is "free."  The media company's only option (currently) is to stop broadcasting over the air.  They could move to a subscription only model.

However, Big Corporations are actually anti-capitalist.  Well, many Big Corps are.  Using Government interference, they force competitors out of business.  It's true all the time.  If you ever hear of GE or P&G or Exxon or whoever "supporting" new regulation, the reason is that regulation will be difficult for them to follow, but it will be impossible (or near enough so) for smaller competitors to follow.

And the same is true here.  News Corp is threatening to take all their content to subscription only.  That would be dumb, but it's their right (I like Bones; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.  I like NFL football; I don't like it enough to subscribe to cable for it.)  Most other companies, however, are threatening something much more ominous:

“If Aereo’s model is ultimately upheld,” Stifel Nicolaus analysts Christopher King and David Kaut wrote in a recent note, it could force “the broadcast/content companies to seek Congressional relief.”

Yes, you read that correctly: rather than compete with new services, rather than find some way to offer the same service at a price people are willing to pay, the media companies will "seek Congressional relief."  That is, they will seek to change the law in a way that benefits them and hurts its competition- not to mention consumers.

As of now, there is no legislation that I know of about this.  But it's something to keep an eye on.  Competition is good for consumers.  Big Corporations are not.

Nature Takes Its Course- CNN Money Astonished

CNN Money has an article today (probably "yesterday" by the time you read this) about Doctors increasingly seeking the dubious protection of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Most of the piece is largely fluff- all emotion and "analysis" without ever really touching on the subject.  I will leave the speculation of why that's so to others, but I think I have some hints.

Here's the first one:

Five years ago, Plantation, Fla.-based bankruptcy attorney David Langley didn't have a single doctor as a client. Since then he's handled at least six bankruptcy cases involving doctors. Two current clients -- an orthopedic surgeon and an OB/GYN -- also are in bankruptcy. 

Hmmm... What could possibly have happened between 5 years ago and today?  I got nothin'.

Now, don't pay attention to this, as it's a Red Herring:

The weak economy has taken a toll on doctors' revenue, as consumers cut back on office visits and lucrative elective procedures, said Guy, a bankruptcy attorney in Nashville with Frost Brown Todd LLC. 

Why do I say it's a Red Herring?  Because all of the actual doctors cited in the article are doctors not known for their "lucrative elective procedures."  Mentioned are: an orthopedic sugeon, an OB/GYN, an Oncologist, and "Primary doctors."  Not listed?  Cosmetic/Bariatric sugeons.  If "cut[ting] back on... lucrative elective procedures" had anything to do with it, don't you think people who specialize in "lucrative elective procedures" would be at the forefront of bankruptcy filings?

So, back to finding hints about why CNN Money might have written a piece which was largely "human interest" and very light on actual facts.

Hint number 2 is here:

Doctors also blame shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, drugs and other business necessities for making it harder to keep their practices afloat. 

I should note that in the linked article, those words "insurance reimbursements" (meant to make you think BlueCross, Aetna, and United are paying your doctor less) are a hyperlink to an article titled: "Medicare doctors' pay to be cut."  That article blames the (by then already) largely averted Sequester.  In reality, you can blame lower Medicare reimbursements on ObamaCare.

Wait, I said I wasn't going to speculate.  Whoops.

Beware the Trojan Horse

 Or... "Those aren't spending cuts, Jim."

Jim Kunhenn with the AP doesn't even realize his own bias.  Most people don't, but the AP would have you believe the are not biased, so it is important to realize they are.  It is also important to spot the bias before you fully read an article, so that you can know the author's starting position.

For instance, Jim gets this part right:

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs while still insisting on more taxes from the wealthy..."  

President SCOAMT's current plan does call for "reductions in growth."

But then he gets this part wrong:

"Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over 10 years."  

First off, the limits he's calling for (last time I heard, maybe the new proposal is different), are not "on the wealthy," but rather are on deductions that SCOAMT would you to to believe only the wealthy take.  I have discussed before that this is simply not accurate.  There is no deduction that only kicks in when you're a millionaire.  Rather, there are deductions that people who run their own businesses can take, and (on paper at least) many of the "wealthy" do run their own businesses.  The "Corporate Jet Deduction" is exactly the same deduction that small businesses get to take for their commercial trucks or vans.  It's the same deduction that an IT business gets to take for the computers it buys.

The first part is said because it sounds good for SCOAMT- that is, it makes him sound "reasonable"- and therefore attempts to paint any opposition to the President's proposal as "unreasonable."  The second part was said because it also sounds good for the President, it makes him sound like he out "for the little guy," and therefore any opposition must be out "for the rich."

So, now that we have the issue of his unacknowledged bias out of the way, we can proceed with the rest of the article.  Click over and read it, but here is the main highlight:

A key feature of the plan Obama now is submitting for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama's offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan will also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies.

By changing Chained CPI, the President a) gets to monkey (yet again) with the inflation numbers to hide actual inflation, and b) hurt Social Security recipients (the blame for which he would then lay at the feet of Republicans).  The sensible, reasonable way to "fix" Social Security is to cut the bureaucracy, and ruthlessly cut out anyone on SSDI who is capable of any work whatsoever.  I was laid up with back-pain so bad it made me immobile for most of a month recently- I still worked.  Not everyone can do that, but most people who are "disabled" aren't really- they could do work, they just couldn't work that construction job they've had their entire working lives.  It sucks, but that's not really the Government's job to fix.  Don't even get me started on people who are "disabled" because of depression.

Then note the changes to medicare- all in benefits (that is: payments to doctors and pharmacies).  Not even lip-service toward "waste, fraud, and abuse." 

This budget is designed to be a poison pill.  For the SCOAMT, it is a win-win-win.  If the Republicans uniformly (or nearly uniformly) oppose it, then he can blame the "obstructionist Republicans," for four more years.  If some Republicans oppose it, and others support it, he gets to further deepen the divide between the Conservative and Moderate factions of the Republican Party.  If Republicans agree, he gets to hasten the destruction of the political party he views as his enemy, and deepen the mistrust between Republican officials and grass-roots conservatives.

The only way Republicans have any chance of "winning" is not to play.  Remind people that Obama campaigned on 3:1 cuts to taxes, then moved the goal-posts to 2:1 cuts to taxes, and then moved them again to 1:1 cuts to taxes.  Tell people this is unacceptable; that the first might have been agreeable, but that you cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate in good faith.  Then point out- relentlessly- every chance you get that SCOAMT's cuts are all in services, he never once proposes to cut Government.

The rules of the current game are rigged.  Play a new game.

More, Please Part 2

Take a look at this article (I know, it's Rachel Maddow- think of it as opposition research).  Now, tell me the unnoticed bias which is just completely wrong.

Here, I'll highlight the specific paragraph:

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark "World Plumbing Day" and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

Found it?  Why is US Congress "commemorating" anything?  What business are "special awareness week(s)" or "Little League champions" of the Federal government?  If they so "clutter the floor," maybe we should just do without them?  If they're so much ceremonial fluff, why have them at all?

No, I appreciate this move by Ted Cruz.  More, please.  This is just more reinforcement to the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in our day-to-day lives.  I reject that premise completely.  It is not even partly true.  In a perfect world, I would never have to consider the Federal Government.  I could focus on my State and Local governments (places where a) my voice can really be heard and b) I can at least sort of pay attention to everything that is going on), and let the Federal Government get on with doing it's job.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has decided that I cannot do that.  Or, rather, that I cannot do that if I don't want more and more of my liberty stolen.  So I have to pay attention to this kind of crap.  Well, if I have to pay attention to it, then you'd better treat it seriously.  If it's not important enough to treat seriously, then don't do it.  Period.

I should also mention that I'm glad Ted Cruz does not seem to believe he is there to make best buddies with Harry Reid or (even) John McCain.  Rather he is there to represent the State of Texas and see to it that the Federal Government begins adhering to its actual Constitutionally granted authority.

An authority, I'll note, that includes not one word about "commemorating Multiple-Sclerosis Awareness Week" or anything similar.

Heretics Must Be Silenced

BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns."  That perfectly sums up the article.  But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out.  The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.

You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up."  Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation.  See, ABC said so, so it must be true.

But maybe we should make our own determination.  When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do.  So let's look at those proposals.

Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks."  Essentially this would do nothing.  Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole."  Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist.  If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check.  Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL.  Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway.  And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."

In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult.  They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally. 

Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size.  First, as the memo points out, this is just silly.  Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining.  That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare.  Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.

Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away.  What then?  Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it.  It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines.  If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.

Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons."  We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger.  "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary."  It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle.  Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15.  Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.

And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.

At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer.  Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves.  None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets.  None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used.  None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals. 

If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry.  That is the only option.

Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying.  Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it.  Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades.  This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns.  It is proven by how little coverage those events get.  It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year?  All three with 10+ victims?  Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).

Liberals want to take your guns.  They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright.  And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys.  Thus the article.

ABC is lying to you.  The White House is lying to you.  They do want you disarmed.  Don't believe different.

More Please

Politico has a story which is trying to highlight just how... uncouth Texas Senator Ted Cruz is.  Senators are positively dismayed that he's not "following the rules" and just playing the game of go along to get along.  Phrases like "unfair line of questioning" and "combative line of questioning."  Why, he's not playing like the Democrats are his friends!  How barbaric.

If I had any lingering qualms over electing Ted Cruz, this piece has gone a long way toward dispelling them.  It's about time Republicans quit pretending that Democrats were their friends.  Getting combative with Chuck Schumer on a Sunday TV Show?  More, please.  Strong questioning of cabinet nominees?  More please. 

“I made promises to the people of Texas that I would come to Washington to shake up the status quo, to fight for conservative principles and to lead a concerted and meaningful effort to end the unsustainable spending, deficits and debt that have been propagated, unfortunately, by members of both parties,” Cruz said.

More please.

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record,” Cruz wrote in an email.

More please.

“Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda,” Cruz told Emanuel in an unusual letter, calling the mayor’s efforts a “bullying campaign.”

More please.

On Thursday, Graham argued Cruz wasn’t being unfair to Hagel but that he feared the Texas Republican’s questions about the sources of the former Nebraska GOP senator’s income would create a new and difficult standard for future nominees.

More.  Please.

If this is enough to give sitting senators the vapors, maybe it's time we got all new senators.

More please.

And This is why Rick Perry Didn't Woo The Media

In Rick Perry's 2010 run against Bill White, he fairly scandalized the Texas Media by not once agreeing to sit down with the various Newspaper editorial boards to "seek their endorsement."  When asked about it, he said it was because he knew they weren't going to endorse him anyway, so why bother?  He was excoriated and ridiculed.  And won by (if I recall) ~7 percentage points.

And he was right to eschew the Texas Media, beyond what was absolutely necessary to get his message out.  Here's a contemporary example of what he was dealing with:
Headline: "Perry Ending Calif. Trip Empty Handed- So Far." 

It's also important to recognized that "So Far" is on a second line.  Note the tone of the headline (which is all most people will read or remember): "That loser Rick Perry who thought he could compete when to California to woo businesses and came back empty handed.  Ha!"

Never mind the fact that a business, even a small business, can't just decide to move in 3 days.  Small business people are exceptional, but they aren't miracle workers.  Larger companies take even longer just to make up their minds to move.

Never mind that Texas has already been successful in either wooing businesses away from California all together, or at least into expanding into Texas.

Never mind that apparently Rick Perry was in Governor Brown's head enough, that Brown thought he had to insult Rick Perry, instead of sticking up for his own state's business climate.

Now, all of that is of interest to me, here in Texas.  Why should it interest you outside of Texas? 

Texas is one of the most conservative States in the Nation.  We have plenty of doozies, but our local Democrats tend to be only flirting with insanity, rather than being actually insane.  Rick Perry himself was once a Democrat, back when "Conservative" and "Democrat" went together without hysterical laughter.  Our news organizations tend to reflect that.  Even the very liberal Dallas Morning News can't stomach some of the more blatant bias in, for instance, the New York Times.  If a Republican Governor in a Republican State knows that he can count on the State (and local) Media machines to be hostile, then it's time our national Republicans learned the lesson, too.

John Boehner: MSNBC is not your friend.
Mitch McConnel: The New York Times will never like you.
John McCain: ABC, CBS, and NBC will be glad to use you against other Republicans, but they will never, ever support you.

National Republicans need to take a page out of Rick Perry's book (actually, they need to take several, but one hopeless battle at a time) and start treating the National Media as the Hostile, if not outright Antagonistic actors they are.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Socrates' Cave

In Plato's Republic, he relates a (probably fictional) story about a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates postulates a set of prisoners bound in such a way that they had to face a wall on which shadows of the real world played out.  He first posited that those prisoners, raised thus from birth, would believe what they were seeing to be "the real world."  He further expounded on the difficulties if just one of those prisoners was let free, and then even compelled to see more and more of the real world.  Finally, he suggested what would happen if that prisoner, finally having acclimated to the world outside the cave, returned to that cave to try to educate the other prisoners.

The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good.  Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post.  I'll wait.

...
...
...

Good.  You're back.

I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding.  People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave.  The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position). 

Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large).  We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment.  At first it was painful and frustrating.  The world shouldn't work like this.  The world didn't work like this.  But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.

Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps.  The first are the prison guards.  They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round.  The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is.  They want people to remain ignorant.  I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives.  Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world.  Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.

The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge.  They know what the real world is.  However it happened, they are not in the cave.  Some of them escaped.  Others were never in the cave to begin with.  But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind.  They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons.  Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous.  Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how.  Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.

The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them.  They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy.  They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections.  They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are.  If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.

Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards.  They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on.  Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles.  They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil").  For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark. 

The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up.  They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people."  They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success."  They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.

New York Times, On Our Side?

Well, no, not really.  But even the blind squirrel, as they say, occasionally finds a nut.

First, the scenario:  A writer for the NYT, John Broder, took a test drive in a Tesla Model S Sedan.  The cost for this "family car" is $101,000.  He test drove the car from the suburbs of Washington, DC to Milford, CT.  Let's just say it did not go well.

Next, the analysis: This from the Washington Post.  WaPo writer Charles Lane points out the generous federal subsidies (read: taxpayer money) given to Tesla to build and market the Model S.  He points out other analyses where scientists are saying that the electric car is a non-starter, at least for now.

Now, my own take:

I'm actually a fan of the idea of an all electric car.  I don't give a rip about "peak oil" or "global warming."  I'm a tech-geek, and I think an all-electric car is just cool.  If we can add lasers, so much the better.

On the other hand, I also bow to reality.  The reality is that energy storage technology (whether batteries or fuel-cells) simply is not ready for a car that replaces how most people drive.

First, there's the cost.  Electric vehicles, from the Chevy Volt, to the Nissan Leaf, to the Tesla line, are much, much more expensive than their "conventional" counterparts.  I don't think I'd get to $101,000 total cost of ownership on my Toyota Camry in years.  And, let's be honest, in the same amount of time, an electric car would also increase it's total cost of ownership.  You have to pay for the electricity which would power your home-charger.  Unless you want to get home and not go anywhere until you get up to go to work in the morning, you'll have to buy a special charging station.  And that's on top of regular maintenance.  I don't know of an electric engine uses oil (I suspect it does), but I do know brake-pads are brake-pads, and they'll need to be replaced.  Same with parts of the suspension, tires, and so forth.

Second, there's the fact of American driving habits.  Now, maybe if you live in a great big city like NYC, it makes sense to have an electric vehicle.  If your total round trip is going to be 40 miles, you're fine.  For those of us who live in "fly-over country" they're just not practical.  My total commute is about 80 miles a day.  And that assumes I don't have to take any detours, or run any errands.  Certainly that's well within the range of a Tesla (~200 miles, or so), but, then we're back to that price tag.  It is not "well within the range" of a Volt or Leaf.  And that assumes the only places you'll be going are work and home, with the occasional grocery run. 

My parents live over 200 miles away, across the flats of Texas (they live near Abilene, I'm in the DFW Metroplex).  Between here and there is a whole lot of nothing.  The drive, at slightly-over-highway speed takes around 2.5 - 3 hours (thank you, Texas Legislature, for the higher speed-limits).  Using the "high performance" Tesla Model S as your baseline, and using their driving guidance, the trip would take between 3 and 4 hours, not including at least one stop to recharge the battery (about another hour).  What is now (for this Texan) a "Hey, let's go get dinner with my folks" turns into "gee, can we take the two days?  We'll have to do something with the dogs..."  And I'm hardly alone in that.

Now, back to that WaPo article.  Even that talks around some of the problems, and I've been basing my analysis on their rather generous (if still "disappointed") coverage.  Let's look at some quotes:

As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”

"Potential advantage" is scientist for "Pipe dream."

I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public. Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

To quote our illustrious Vice President: "That's a load of... stuff."  Consider exactly who got all those green energy subsidies, and to whom they donated.  Yeah, it was a scam from the beginning.  The fact that some Republicans bought into it (note he doesn't point out which Republicans.  Why do I think I will not find Jim Demint or Rand Paul's names on that list anywhere?) does mean it wasn't a scam; it means they got snookered, too.  That, or they were in on the scam.  Possibly both.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, he of the Nobel Prize in physics, epitomized the regnant blend of sanctimony and technocratic hubris. He once told journalist Michael Grunwald that photosynthesis is “too damn inefficient,” and that DOE might help correct that particular error of evolution.

This is the man behind the boondoggle.  Seriously, he believes that we can "correct" photosynthesis.

Electric cars will almost certainly not replace conventional, internal combustion engine vehicles any time in our lifetimes.  Certainly not in the United States.  Physics has said "no" just as physics said "no" to wind energy and solar energy.  It is time to stop wasting (taxpayer) time and (taxpayer) money on these things.

White House: "Rejoice. Unemployment has decreased to 7.9%!"

Down from 7.8%.

No, seriously.  The White House thinks this is an improvement.  Not just that it's an improvement, but that it is such an awesome improvement, they're worried that you'll get depressed when next month's number's aren't as good.

Don't believe me?  I almost can't believe it myself.  But here (Via Drew at the AoSHQ) is the proof:

According to Alan B. Krueger, the White House Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, this is an improvement although he again warned against looking too much at one month of statistics.

"Okay," you say, "but that's just that reporter's impression of what he said."

Fair enough.  Here's the direct quote:

“While more work remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal from the wounds inflicted by the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” Krueger said in a statement. “It is critical that we pursue the policies needed to build an economy that works for the middle class as we continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.”

Read that again: "Today's employment report {of ~150K jobs added, and U-3 increasing to 7.9% -DT} provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal..."

Ignore the "Blame Bush" rhetoric which follows that.  On what planet is job "growth" that is only roughly equal to population growth, and an increase in the Unemployment Rate "evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal?"  Remember when some Republican (I seriously can't remember if it was George Bush or John McCain) said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" when the crash started in 2008?  Do you remember how he was excoriated for the statement?  He was out of touch.  He was living in a fantasy land.

Yet, somehow, this statement is dead-on true, and completely grounded in reality.  I have neither seen nor heard a single "mainstream" media source that has expressed the least bit of incredulity at this statement.  Not.  One.

This is not merely a media that is supportive of this Administration.  It is a media which has decided to wage war against the American people as a propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

An Uncomfortable Truth

One of the rhetorical devices that the anti-gun nuts will use is that if you support the full-auto weapons ban, you must necessarily support the "Assault Weapon Ban."  Now, that argument has at least two problems with it.

First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different.  A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things.  Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.

Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place.  We'll come back to that later.

Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round.  (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing).  So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:

A Highly Deadly Semi-Automatic Rifle. In .22LR

Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:

A Nice, Safe Howitzer requires reloading between shots.

Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.

In that case this:

A .45 Revolver Fires a Big Bullet

is more dangerous than this:

NATO 5.56 is not much larger than .22 caliber.

Wait.  That can't be it...

No.  What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.

Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place.  Some people do.  I don't.

The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible.  The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal.  I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime.  But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.

Liberal Media Personalities: You Gun Owners Are Evil

See, if you own a gun, you support the Eeevil "Gun Lobby."  And the Gun Lobby must be opposed like the Nazis, and failing to do so is the same as failing to speak out against Democrats (like Bull Connor) during the 1960 Civil Rights debates.

I would set aside these two statements, because they're so stupid, but many will listen to them.  Even if these two particularly stupid statements don't persuade anyone, they're simply adding to a growing chorus designed to make you believe that a) guns are evil, b) gun owners are evil, and c) anyone who thinks otherwise is weird or defective.  Therefore they must be exposed and ridiculed.  They must also be refuted.

So let's take this "Nazi" thing, first.  Opposing gun ownership is being like the Nazis, not like opposing them.  For those of you not aware, just like every other tyrannical regime since the 19th Century, one of the first things the Nazis did was prohibit private ownership of firearms.  You see, the point of owning a gun is not to hunt, or shoot at paper targets, or at clay pidgeons.  The point of owning a gun is not even, primarily, to defend yourself, your family, or your home from robbers and theives.  The point of owning a gun is to have the means to oppose a tyrannical government.

So, when a tyrannical government wants to take power, the first thing it must do is to disarm the populace.  So far from opposing the "Gun Lobby" (read: "Gun Owners") being like opposing the Nazis, it is simply enabling those who would be Nazis, or any other kind of tyrant.  This is also why, yes, I should be allowed to own a howitzer.

Now, on the Civil Rights comment.  Again, would it surpise you to know the nation's first gun control laws were enacted (again, by Democrats) in the South to prevent the newly freed slaves from defending themselves from the likes of the (largely Democrat) KKK?  So, far from failing to oppose the gun lobby being akin to failing to oppose desegregation and Civil Rights, opposing the gun lobby is exactly like opposing the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

The simple fact is that no single item represents the Freedom of Man, and the fact that the People are Sovereign over their Government like The Gun.  An armed populace is one that does not need to fear its government.  An armed populace is one that is sovereign over its government.  Armed civilians are the employers and bosses of the military and the police.  Simply put, a disarmed populace is none of those things.

And only a tyrannical government would seek to disarm its populace.

Michael Moore: "Go Union!" History: "That's New."

Michael Moore is on twitter spewing against Michigan's Right To Work law, just passed by their legislature.  According to him it's some kind of travesty.  Never mind that every right to work state in the nation is doing better, economically, than Michigan right now.

So, on twitter, he claimed that anyone working on his next movie would have to be part of the union.  Well, that's his choice, really, but it would be a departure.  See, as recently as 2009 (the last time he made a movie), Michael Moore was avoiding using union labor wherever he could.

It's always so strange to me that these limousine liberals are all pro-union- right up until they see what union labor costs.