She’s worked out stuff with Mom’s Demand Action to make sure that she can support their goals without supporting the organization openly.
Rob Mills
Deputy Regional Field Director, Claire McCaskill Campaign
[H/T to David Hardy.
Claire McCaskill is a U.S. Senator for Missouri.
Project Veritas bring us the video which conclusively shows this Democrat and her staff are being deliberately deceptive in an attempt to violate the rights of hundreds of millions of people.—Joe]
A civil society is dependent upon not having runaway hostile emotions. You might get angry with your spouse, a co-worker, a neighbor, a political party or, on a global scale, another nation. In most cases these are bursts of anger that, when put into the larger perspective its not worth severing the relationship or escalating the hostilities. Everyone is going to have a better life if the parties can freely interact to the mutual benefit of everyone. If there is no mutually beneficial interaction at the current time that doesn’t mean that there won’t be such need in the future.
For example, suppose your neighbor’s dog sometimes poops in your yard. If you escalate the situation and you end up not being on speaking terms it going to be tough to help each other when you need to cover your windows with plywood to protect against a hurricane.
This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t put a stop to the neighbor’s kid torturing your cat or you finding a new job and telling your boss he is a jerk when you leave. There are times when you must take action to protect yourself.
I would like to express this philosophy more succinctly and refer to it in the future as Huffman’s rule of social interaction:
Never burn bridges.
Wait until your enemy is crossing it and then use explosives.
Via email from Chet:
Interesting. He presents data indicating conservative media sources are totally dominating the viewership and engagement numbers.
He, at least partially, attributes this to the hostility of the political left to even minor disagreement while the political right recruits people who engage with them. The political left is driving people out to increase their purity and the right is accepting them. I can see that being a supportable hypothesis.
My fear is a recollection is of another famous leftist organization which raised to power then started to fade. They went violent in a big way. They destroyed shops, buildings, murdered people in riots. They even burned the assembly location of their legislature.
Our political left is currently repeatedly demonstrating their willingness to go violent when they don’t get their way and the election next month could be the spark that ignites them.
I don’t get it either. And I can’t understand why people don’t get their fill of horror from watching politics.
Rape is a big fucking deal in Conservative land. It is literally “the most horrific and obscene act imaginable.”
I’d rather you thought me a murderer than believed me a rapist. Ordinary people can imagine circumstances where they’d kill someone, and might have some sympathy for me if they thought I murdered someone.
…
There are literally zero circumstances where raping someone is a good idea. There’s just no justification for it. Even attempted rape puts you outside the tribe. It makes you a non-person. It makes you fair game for anyone to kill on sight.
“Why’d you shoot that guy 27 times in the face and pelvis?”
“Because he raped my sister and that was all the ammo I brought.”
“Oh, ok.”
That’s how rapists are viewed in Conservative land.
So when the Left starts shooting their mouths off about “Rape Culture,” we get bent out shape. When they conflate ordinary boorish behavior with rape, we lose our minds. Because branding a man a rapist is literally telling the rest of the world that he needs killing.
Yet they feel totally ok about deploying the “he’s a rapist!” charge with nothing in the way of evidence, and can’t understand why a decent man, who is married to a woman, who has daughters, who coaches a girls basketball team, might find it incredibly upsetting. They painted a target on his back. They told the world there is no crime he wouldn’t stoop to. They invited the world to kill him. They encouraged him to kill himself.
Sean D Sorrentino
Posted on Facebook October 3, 2018
[This directly relates to what Luke O’Neil thinks is “a good joke”.—Joe]
On Sunday morning Ariel Dumas, a writer for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, apologized for a good joke. Writing on Twitter, she explained that the experience of the Kavanaugh nomination had been hard for the country and for her personally.
…
It is uncertain if Dumas was forced to make a statement by her employers at CBS, or if she volunteered the apology on her own, but one thing that is 100 percent crystal clear is that she never should have found herself in the position in the first place. The joke she posted on Saturday—”Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”—was the latest target of the bad faith destruction machine of the right.
…
It’s another cruel irony that would no doubt also be lost on the humorless scolds on the right that it’s Dumas whose life they are now attempting to ruin. Soon after the joke was published, the wheels of the vexation and spite apparatus on the right who maintain constant vigilance for such alleged missteps from the “liberal media” went to work, broadcasting it far and wide as evidence of the sickness of the left.
Luke O’Neil
October 8, 2018
‘Late Show’ Writer Ariel Dumas Under Fire for Obvious ‘Joke’ About Brett Kavanaugh
[This is from someone of the same political party which just a month ago went ballistic when a political opponent used the phrase “monkey up”.
To think that it was “a good joke” that someone with a previously excellent personal reputation was publicly and repeatedly accused heinous crimes, which could not be supported, is evil.
Of course he also thinks Kathy Griffin holding up a realistic severed head of President Trump was good joke.
Hence it should come at no surprise he says this about people who exercise their right to keep and bear arms:
Almost anyone of any stature in media who dabbles in political humor has found themselves in this scenario by now. I’ve had a number of phony campaigns attempted against me at outlets I’ve written for over the years after comments I’ve made about gamers and gun fetishists were amplified in bad faith.
In addition to being evil, as Mike Cernovich tweeted, he is also lacking in self awareness.—Joe[
Serious question, if I punched McConnell in the face with, let’s say a huge dildo, until his face broke open and the fucking sentient turd working him from inside spilled out, how much prison time am I looking at? I’m willing to go up to 100 years.
Elizabeth Weitz @ebethisawesome
Tweeted on October 6, 2018
[Upon reading this my first thought was, “That will come up at your trial.”
Why are progressives so violent? Oh, now I remember. See also here.—Joe]
While there are civil rights rulings Judge Brett Kavanaugh made which are concerning, from the Second Amendment standpoint it would have been difficult to find someone better.
Two years ago I was not hopeful for a future which included the free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. The 2016 presidential election gave me a glimmer of hope. The Trump administration has not been nearly as good on this issue as some people hoped. One could even make the case from a legislative and regulatory view point it has been rather dismal. President Hillary Clinton would have been a catastrophe so by comparison so there is that. Our rights under Trump were being sous-vide. Under Clinton they would have been put in the crematorium.
Now Justice Kavanaugh is in a position to help say the final words on this vital issue. I hope those words will make a violent response to the infringement of our rights avoidable.
Via Davidwhitewolf:
“Kavanaugh” (a parody of Van Halen’s “Panama”) from r/The_Donald
A man in Florida has been arrested after he threatened to shoot senators who don’t support Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, authorities said.
The narrative against the political left which seems to be most effective in getting people to put distance between them is that they are crazy and violent. There is a lot of evidence to support than.
I want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because I believe he is much more likely to support the rule of law than a justice appointed by someone from the left. An advocate for Kavanaugh who advocates murder is counterproductive.
Update: Here is someone from the political left to illustrate my point:
Dr. Carol Christine Fair, an associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown said white GOP Senators deserve to die miserable deaths “while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.”
This wasn’t enough for Dr. Fair, she said once the white Republican Senators die miserable deaths, their corpses should be castrated and fed to pigs.
Because I think the meaning of the text of the Constitution should remain the same until it is properly changed by amendment, and that judges have a constitutional duty to invalidate laws that conflict with that meaning, I believe the President’s choice of Brett Kavanaugh—who is otherwise highly qualified—should be confirmed. If Democrats disagree they should specify the approach they think is better.
If their “judicial philosophy” is that a judge should simply reach all the outcomes that a progressive Democrat would like the Supreme Court to reach, they should candidly say so. If they believe that the precedents they like—like Roe v. Wade—are sacrosanct, but those they detest—like Citizens United—are to be discarded, they should identify how we know which precedents are binding and which are not.
Failing that, they too should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
Randy Barnett
The Case for Kavanaugh
October 1, 2018
[I agree.
H/T to David Hardy.—Joe]
There is absolutely nothing an accused person can present that would actually be considered exculpatory. Meanwhile, any and all evidence just reinforces the accuser’s trauma and truthfulness.
Ashe Schow
5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic
[Salem “witches”, the satanic panic of the 1980’s and 90’s, and others are discussed in the article.
It’s not a scholarly article but it’s good enough that you can see some common patterns that would have a low chance of false positives when broadly applied.
When Prophecy Fails also applies in many ways. Read my short synopsis of the book to get the gist of it.
The political left had a firmly believed prophecy that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. When that failed they made a series of new prophecies involving the evils of a President Trump administration and prophesized all the more fervently. One of the more memorable was the prediction by Nobel Economics Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on election night:
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
All the predictions about the various investigations of President Trump and his advisors will result in his impeachment have repeatedly been proven false. But evidence cannot convince them. These people are in a state of hysteria.
As long as the Five Conditions are met they will continue to remain in their irrational state and increase the passion with every prediction that is proved false:
Their numbers are growing smaller and while a good sign for the long term the short term consequences of the increased passion means there is also increased potential for violence.—Joe]
Young me reading history…”How did evil, tyrannical regimes exist like this within the last 100 years?”
Me in 2018 watching Democrats operate…”Oh.”
Cyberzen @JDBonnar
Tweeted on September 30, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Staunch conservatives who reported feeling highly anxious after the Pulse shooting were more likely than less anxious conservatives to favor gun laws by around 40 percentage points. Highly anxious conservatives were 20 percentage points more likely than low-anxiety conservatives to think the government can prevent shootings. Liberals, on the other hand, were already likely to support gun control and to believe that the government could be effective in preventing shootings, so anxiety was less likely to change their beliefs.
Overall, the University of Kansas researchers conclude, anxiety leads to “a marked decline in ideological division.” In other words: post-shooting anxiety seemed to close the gap between liberal and conservative beliefs on gun regulation.
It’s not clear how long this effect would last after the initial shooting, but it suggests that the days immediately following a shooting might be the time people feel most compelled to act on gun legislation.
Jane C. Hu
September 21, 2018
The best time to talk about gun control is right after a shooting
[The study paper is here.
I find this very telling.
Hu regards achieving a particular end is more important than means. She is advocating people take advantage of people in a highly emotional state rather than let cooler heads and time arrive at a more reasoned plan.
This is evil and it should be treated as such.—Joe]
Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Cancer does tend to spread if untreated. Growing into every nook in our society to impose their world view because their success in politics falls short of their over ambitious and impatient expectations. What’s the treatment for people like that?
Two can’t play their game as doing so would not align with many of our principles
Seeing the state of many states gun laws in the US, our “game” isn’t working either.
Basedgreaser
Comment posted in Northwest Firearms on the topic Gun Control: An Issue for Policymakers or Investors?
September 27, 2018
[I don’t have any good answers beyond voting for the best candidates, contacting your political representatives, and taking new shooters to the range.
My best hope lies with an originalist majority on SCOTUS. And I’m only moderately hopeful of that working.—Joe]
Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story.
Jennifer Granholm
September 23, 2018
CNN’s Jennifer Granholm Claims No Corroboration Actually Proves Claims Against Kavanaugh — Tucker Isn’t Buying It
[Context is important:
“Kavanaugh, Judge, Smith and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happening. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, said she doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said in the video.
“Right, and that actually corroborates Ford’s story which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified,” Granholm followed up.
Tucker Carlson commented, “Are you following this at home? See if you can track the reasoning here. When you are corroborating witnesses can’t corroborate your story, the one you say they can corroborate, your story has still been corroborated — maybe even more so so.”
So… In response to finding out that all of those who are claimed to be witness to an event report no recollection of the event this mental giant, Granholm, insists this supports the claim the event actually happened. The question I would have asked her is, “So, if all four people reported the event did happen would this mean the event did not happen?”
Of course, we know the answer. Logical thought processes are not something they care about. It may even be they are incapable of them. It may be they have a mental disorder. It may be that they are so used to a supportive media they know it doesn’t matter what they say as long as it supports the narrative. It may be that because it was someone from her “tribe” making the, almost certainly, false claim that there was no way she could comfortably side against the false claim.
Monday evening daughter Jaime and I were discussing the Kavanaugh situation and I arrived at the conclusion that the political left has realized their political future is over if Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS is confirmed. With that a near certainty, the risk of losing support via crazy, and even illegal, behavior is the better option. From the chaos generated they may be able to avoid near certain political extinction.
Tribal loyalties, even when they didn’t always match reality, were evolutionarily advantageous. That doesn’t meant they were useful in determining truth from falsity. Determination of truth, and even reality, is an extremely tough problem. Our brains only have approximations of knowing reality. It has only been since the dark ages that we have succeeded in formalizing processes, with extreme difficulty, and proteolyzing these processes which usually work. Most people do not follow these processes and in many cases actively reject them. It is relatively easy to support the claim that reason is just a thin veneer over the human brain.
I suspect her mind worked back from the conclusion she had reached and this was the best way of rationalizing the conclusion from the available evidence. I have found there is no guarantee smart people will think logically. Smart people are frequently just more creative in their rationalizations.
When in positions of power these people are extremely dangerous. These are the type of people who can and will find a rationalization to commit genocide.—Joe]
Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.
…
Were it otherwise, the First Amendment would prohibit the government from pressuring a newspaper to remove a speaker’s advertisement, but it would allow the government to bankrupt the speaker by pressuring its business partners to terminate their contracts. That absurd result has no foundation in the law.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
August 24, 2018
BRIEF OF [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[A short version of the context is:
A campaign by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on the National Rifle Association and similar groups is facing its first big legal test, with a federal judge expected to decide soon whether to allow a challenge to go forward.
Cuomo’s administration has asked Judge Thomas McAvoy of the U.S. Northern District of New York to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit by the NRA that claims the policy restricting financial activity with pro-gun organizations amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
The judge heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. The decision, whatever it may be, will have far-reaching ramifications for free-speech and gun rights, the limits of financial regulation and possibly even the 2020 presidential contest.
The case has prompted an unusual alliance. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union, despite its support for gun control, filed a friend of the court brief in defense of the free-speech rights of the NRA.
According to the ACLU what the state of New York is claiming is that since the state didn’t tell the NRA they couldn’t exercise their right to speech the NRA does not have a First Amendment claim to push in court. Nevermind that the state told banks and insurance companies they should “consider the risk to their reputations” if they did business with the NRA. Shortly after that they were slapped with fines costing them millions of dollars.
Governor Cuomo is exceedingly dimwitted if he believes the argument he is making. I’m wondering if his comprehension would improve if the banks and insurance companies were to refuse to do business with any entity which sold food or water which found its way to the governor or his family.—Joe]
And this is why we should still talk about killing Communists. Because human lives are more important than Communist lives.
Michael Z. Williamson
September 20, 2018
Why We Should Still Be Talking About Killing Communists
[Some people might argue this is overstated and oversimplified.
A more persuasive argument for me is there is a place for dramatic effect.—Joe]
What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.
Bill de Blasio
New York City Mayor
August 2017
[That explains a lot. He has more in common with Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin than John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Expect similar differences in outcomes as well.—Joe]
Most of the advantages of social life, especially in it’s more advanced forms which we call “civilization”, rest on the fact that the individual benefits from more knowledge than he is aware of. It might be said that civilization begins when the individual in pursuit of his ends can make use of more knowledge than he himself has acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess.
F. A. Hayek
The Constitution Of Liberty, Chp. 2, pg 73
[Via email from nvguyusa who goes on to say:
So basically, civilization rests on the sum of the experiences and knowledge of all persons. Some of that knowledge can be articulated (he goes on to make a point of scientific knowledge in particular), but some of it, such as the sum of customs, traditions, beliefs, various faiths, “community standards”, if you will, cannot be known by all – the knowledge is too fragmented and diffused among the population at large, The problem with “central planning”, “big government”, whatever you want to call it is that it relies on the assumption that everything can be know in and accounted for in advance. The stunning failure of usurious tax rates (and the behavioral changes undertaken to avoid same) puts the lie to this. The planners cannot even get basic revenue projections right because they cannot account for altered behavior in the face a of a (relatively) minor change; how the [string of vulgar Anglo-Saxonisms involving one’s maternal lineage] do they expect to plan the perfect society at large?
Only the naïve and willfully ignorance believe they can plan the perfect society at large. The rest are in it for the power and money.—Joe]