But wait!
Hillary Boyz?
"I got a crush on Hillary!
(I'm so ... GAG ME!)
Is it possible that the "Grown-Ups" actually decided that Hillary Tits were not the best criteria for a presidential election?
["My Mom Is A Republican!"]
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Lest We Forget: The Obama Girl
Crush On Obama - YouTube
But wait!
"I got a crush on Hillary!
(I'm so ... GAG ME!)
Is it possible that the "Grown-Ups" actually decided that Hillary Tits were not the best criteria for a presidential election?
["My Mom Is A Republican!"]
But wait!
"I got a crush on Hillary!
(I'm so ... GAG ME!)
Is it possible that the "Grown-Ups" actually decided that Hillary Tits were not the best criteria for a presidential election?
["My Mom Is A Republican!"]
Friday, January 13, 2017
Finally, it sinks in
The Virality Of Gun Violence | The Huffington Post:
The JAMA report focused on the societal causes of violence, focusing on gun violence, and concluded that demographic signifiers were one method of predicting victims of violence.
If the CDC had made the effort, perhaps they would still receive federal funding for firearms research. I note, however, that the CDC can still report anything they wish to about firearms injuries; they just don't get to use your federal tax dollars to tout their political bias.
Incidentally, for all the hullabaloo about the lack of government funding for gun research, I note that part of the funding for this substantial project came from the National Science Foundation, which also happens to be a government agency.Yes, there are 'other ways'. The CDC was busted *(lost its Federal funding for "Gun Violence" research) because it pursued an obvious bias in reporting on firearms injuries. It focused on the availability of guns with little or no information about how some societies suffered more (gun) violence than other societies. Its reporting was generally not balanced by providing information on how firearms ownership provided a benefit to private citizens in violent demographics. It may be that NSF has found a way to provide a more 'balanced' reportage.
Obviously, the lack of CDC support for gun research has created real gaps in the evidence about gun violence; perhaps there are other ways to skin the proverbial research cat.
The JAMA report focused on the societal causes of violence, focusing on gun violence, and concluded that demographic signifiers were one method of predicting victims of violence.
If the CDC had made the effort, perhaps they would still receive federal funding for firearms research. I note, however, that the CDC can still report anything they wish to about firearms injuries; they just don't get to use your federal tax dollars to tout their political bias.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Leave it to the Limeys ...
... to adore The HillaryBeast:
Hillary Clinton: The Guardian person of the year 2016 — News — The Guardian Nigeria:Cerebral, hardworking and hugely versed in the workings of government, not many people were as prepared to lead America as she was. Dignified in carriage, humble in spite of her great guts, thoughtful and very wise, she was the inevitable philosopher-queen. Her tenacity in public and in private lives is the stuff of legends. She withstood haranguing by the leading lights of the opposition party who did their best to cast her as corrupt and dishonest. She endured the humiliation of a troubled marriage and steeled her heart to save it. In the campaigns, she was held to standards sometimes humanly, but certainly manly impossible to meet. She not only discharged herself creditably, she captured the imagination of the world. That she lost to a man who is as comprehensive in his ignorance as he is relentless in his arrogance to put it on display underlines a certain rot in the heart of their society.
Funny, that's not the Hillary that I voted against.
Donald Trump owes her a great debt, however, for she's the only American who would have won him the Presidency by simply being the most despicable America candidate.
Money for Nothin'; Chicks For Free!
Universal Basic Income Is Our Best Weapon Against The Rising Far Right | The Huffington Post:
Um ... unemployed? And there is no "Societal Safety Net" already in place in Socialist Finland?
Well, that's really going to encourage the beneficiaries to go out and find a job.
Interesting, the comment that it has "... worked ... elsewhere...".
More interesting, there is no definition of the term "worked".
The bad thing about this kind of program is that it may constitute a "disincentive" to active job-seeking. No word on how the recipients of this milk from the societal teat were selected, but one hopes that priority is given to those who are unable to find work because of age or infirmity or lack of training in marketable skills, rather than a disinclination to get up in the morning and earn their daily bread.
And if lack of marketable skills, wouldn't it be useful to use this funding to support unemployed persons while they are actively engaged in training which might lead to employment? As in ... an incentive to learn to work?
That whole "no strings attached" thing stinks of Leftest Fantasies.
But then, this IS the Huffington Post, and that IS what they do best.
(Hat Tip: Codrea)
LONDON ― A groundbreaking pilot project launched this week in Finland. The government is going to give a randomly selected group of 2,000 unemployed citizens a monthly income of $587 with no strings attached and no need to report how they spend it. The project aims to test the feasibility of a program ― called basic income ― that’s worked in earlier pilot projects elsewhere in the world.
Um ... unemployed? And there is no "Societal Safety Net" already in place in Socialist Finland?
Well, that's really going to encourage the beneficiaries to go out and find a job.
Interesting, the comment that it has "... worked ... elsewhere...".
More interesting, there is no definition of the term "worked".
The bad thing about this kind of program is that it may constitute a "disincentive" to active job-seeking. No word on how the recipients of this milk from the societal teat were selected, but one hopes that priority is given to those who are unable to find work because of age or infirmity or lack of training in marketable skills, rather than a disinclination to get up in the morning and earn their daily bread.
And if lack of marketable skills, wouldn't it be useful to use this funding to support unemployed persons while they are actively engaged in training which might lead to employment? As in ... an incentive to learn to work?
That whole "no strings attached" thing stinks of Leftest Fantasies.
But then, this IS the Huffington Post, and that IS what they do best.
(Hat Tip: Codrea)
How Will We Survive (Another Liar) In The White House?
I don't know about you, but I grow tired of reading comments like this about President-Elect Trump:
How Will 'We' Survive A President Trump?:
(*cough* Bill "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" Clinton *cough*)
Ronald Reagan (for example) may have been one of the most effective leaders of the Modern Era, but I was embarrassed for him when he repeatedly fell back on the "I must have mis-spoken" mantra when he was cross-examined under sworn testimony during congressional hearings on the Iran/Contra controversy.
Obama?
A Short History of Phenomenal Presidential "Mis-Speaking":
The question is not whether we will ever elect a president who is not willing to lie with a straight face, but rather whether we would WANT to elect a president who cannot lie convincingly.
They're all Politicians, and by definition they are all not only liars, but CONSUMMATE liars!
In future years, when I rant about the lies told by President Trump (and I'm sure that I will), you need not remind me that the alternative would have been to to place a second lying-Clinton in the White House.
He was elected President over the Hillary-Beast because he was a better liar.
He couldn't have done it without her. And he knows it.
How Will 'We' Survive A President Trump?:
“There’s a whole generation of dead queer men and dead poor women of color who didn’t survive Reagan. There’s over a million dead Iraqis who didn’t survive Bush. There’s millions upon millions whose lives were destroyed by the muscular policing policies of Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher and Obama. Stop saying ‘we’ survived them. Stop ignoring all those dead, incarcerated and disenfranchised people.” — Dr. Shant Paradigm SmallsFrankly, I would be surprised to have elected a president who isn't a liar; we haven't elected one recently (with the possible exception of Eisenhower ... but I can't prove that) and we certainly managed to "survive" some proven liars.
(*cough* Bill "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" Clinton *cough*)
Ronald Reagan (for example) may have been one of the most effective leaders of the Modern Era, but I was embarrassed for him when he repeatedly fell back on the "I must have mis-spoken" mantra when he was cross-examined under sworn testimony during congressional hearings on the Iran/Contra controversy.
Obama?
A Short History of Phenomenal Presidential "Mis-Speaking":
The question is not whether we will ever elect a president who is not willing to lie with a straight face, but rather whether we would WANT to elect a president who cannot lie convincingly.
They're all Politicians, and by definition they are all not only liars, but CONSUMMATE liars!
In future years, when I rant about the lies told by President Trump (and I'm sure that I will), you need not remind me that the alternative would have been to to place a second lying-Clinton in the White House.
He was elected President over the Hillary-Beast because he was a better liar.
He couldn't have done it without her. And he knows it.
Are public libraries obsolete?
John Lott asks the question, and my answer is a resounding NO!
I'm a voracious reader of books, and I have 30 Banker Boxes (plus five book-cases more) of books by my favorite authors that I own. But I can't afford to buy as many books as I want to read, so I have formed the habit of requesting new books from my local (county) library which they do not have in stock.
They buy the books, notify me when they arrive, and I check them out to read. I'm often the First reader of these books; and I'm careful to only request books by "popular authors", so the county is not stocking books which are unlikely to be checked out by other readers.
And their accounting system keeps track of these requests, so they are aware of books which are likely to be checked out by other readers.
It's a good system for me; the library is publically funded (by my taxes) and I like that I encourage them to continue stocking new books as they become available.
But if new books are not ordered, the library is likely to be defunded over the years. It's important that libraries receive this kind of positive feedback, so they know they are actively serving an active readership.
I do not always read all of the books that I receive from my library.
For example, Vince Flynn died in 2013 and his series of books has been assumed by a new author. I do not like this author's style, so I will not be borrowing new Vince Flynn books from my library. Chances are that they will eventually discontinue the practice of automatically buying these books (and certainly I will not be requesting them), and that's A Good Thing.
When I stop checking out new Vince Flynn books, the library will eventually discover that the popularity has decreased, and they will stop buying these books because ... nobody wants to read them.
This has a positive feed-back effect, if on a small scale, and in my mind it's a good way for me to reflect the public opinion on which books my library should spend its funding on.
In the meantime, the article mentions that librarians are personally building the 'popularity' of Classic Books in order to provide statistics to keep them on the shelves. I think that's A Good Thing. I haven't yet read many recent classics but i will want to do so some day.
I've read some classic children's books on tape for my grandchildren, and even encourage family members to contribute to the project by asking them to read the parts of 'other characters' in the book. my children, and their children, enjoyed this "Books On Tape" project, especially because they begin to associate the readers' voices with the characters. (I recently read a short segment of an OZ book to my grandchildren, when my daughter brought them to visit me, and my daugher interrupted me to say that I "read the wrong characters' voice". I had read Brer Rabbit with a different dialect/ she later informed me that she and her brother (living with my divorced wife) use to go to sleep listening to the tapes that I had made for them.)
When Libraries budgets are cut, when they stop stocking classic books because nobody checks them out any more ... children lose the encouragement to READ, and appreciate, books which are older than they are.
What will our nation become when the libraries no longer stock Brer Rabbit books?
We'll soon find out, because my library has no copies of any "Uncle Remus" books by Joel Chandler Harris.
Is this anti-racist protest? If so, it's a sad commentary on America, because if we no longer make Historic Black Culture to be stocked, it's a loss to American Culture.
I'm a voracious reader of books, and I have 30 Banker Boxes (plus five book-cases more) of books by my favorite authors that I own. But I can't afford to buy as many books as I want to read, so I have formed the habit of requesting new books from my local (county) library which they do not have in stock.
They buy the books, notify me when they arrive, and I check them out to read. I'm often the First reader of these books; and I'm careful to only request books by "popular authors", so the county is not stocking books which are unlikely to be checked out by other readers.
And their accounting system keeps track of these requests, so they are aware of books which are likely to be checked out by other readers.
It's a good system for me; the library is publically funded (by my taxes) and I like that I encourage them to continue stocking new books as they become available.
But if new books are not ordered, the library is likely to be defunded over the years. It's important that libraries receive this kind of positive feedback, so they know they are actively serving an active readership.
I do not always read all of the books that I receive from my library.
For example, Vince Flynn died in 2013 and his series of books has been assumed by a new author. I do not like this author's style, so I will not be borrowing new Vince Flynn books from my library. Chances are that they will eventually discontinue the practice of automatically buying these books (and certainly I will not be requesting them), and that's A Good Thing.
When I stop checking out new Vince Flynn books, the library will eventually discover that the popularity has decreased, and they will stop buying these books because ... nobody wants to read them.
This has a positive feed-back effect, if on a small scale, and in my mind it's a good way for me to reflect the public opinion on which books my library should spend its funding on.
In the meantime, the article mentions that librarians are personally building the 'popularity' of Classic Books in order to provide statistics to keep them on the shelves. I think that's A Good Thing. I haven't yet read many recent classics but i will want to do so some day.
I've read some classic children's books on tape for my grandchildren, and even encourage family members to contribute to the project by asking them to read the parts of 'other characters' in the book. my children, and their children, enjoyed this "Books On Tape" project, especially because they begin to associate the readers' voices with the characters. (I recently read a short segment of an OZ book to my grandchildren, when my daughter brought them to visit me, and my daugher interrupted me to say that I "read the wrong characters' voice". I had read Brer Rabbit with a different dialect/ she later informed me that she and her brother (living with my divorced wife) use to go to sleep listening to the tapes that I had made for them.)
When Libraries budgets are cut, when they stop stocking classic books because nobody checks them out any more ... children lose the encouragement to READ, and appreciate, books which are older than they are.
What will our nation become when the libraries no longer stock Brer Rabbit books?
We'll soon find out, because my library has no copies of any "Uncle Remus" books by Joel Chandler Harris.
Is this anti-racist protest? If so, it's a sad commentary on America, because if we no longer make Historic Black Culture to be stocked, it's a loss to American Culture.
Sunday, January 08, 2017
"... situations like this are at least somewhat avoided ... "
.243 KABOOM due to Left Over Cleaning Patch - The Firearm Blog:
" ...So situations like this are at least somewhat avoided."
"Debunked"? Why?
I'm reading this news release from the NRA, and I don't know why the NRA is taking this approach:
NRA-ILA | 40 Percent Myth Further Debunked by Suspiciously-timed Harvard Report:
But that assumed factoid ignored:
Frankly, I'm resentful of the Federal Government's intrusion into the private sale of firearms. Why is the NRA so particular about reassuring folks that "ALL" firearms transactions are registered and monitored? Isn't the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution?
What purpose does it serve, to require Universal Background Checks?
The stated goal is to prevent sales to criminals. How would that work? Do thieves and murderers obey the law? I'm imagining a potential mass murderer agreeing to a background check during the purchase of a firearm, and ... uh, no. It's just not working for me. I figure that they just steal the guns. After all, they're criminals.
On the other hand, I can think of at least one good reason why universal background checks are "Not A Good Idea":
Registration.
I don't so much care about the added expense and inconvenience which Universal Background Checks imply (although that is a factor, at least), but why do these background checks require that the serial number of the firearm be part of the process?
The only reason I can think of is that this allows somebody to track the serial number of the gun; and the name (and other biographic information) of both the buyer and seller will be entered into a database somewhere.
Which is, of course, against the law unless deleted within a 'reasonable time period' (typically, one week if I'm not mistaken). And of course I believe that the information will be permanently deleted.
If that is true, why?
Why enter the information into a database if it's due to be deleted in a week? What's so magic about a 7-day time period? Who gets that information, and what do they do with it? Impermanent data has no value. I've been in the Data Processing business for most of my adult life, and I never saw any organization go to the bother of designing, building, maintaining and updating a database unless there is a reason for keeping a history into perpetuity.
(Oh, sure: "backup"; it's a standard DB feature. Right! And I'll still respect you in the morning!)
This makes no sense at all!
Of course, we are assured (by the federal government ... oh, THAT'S a reliable source!) that the data is deleted "Real Soon Now".
So why is it entered in the first place? They tell us that the information is only used to confirm that the buyer is not a felon, or a registered madman is trying to purchase a firearm.
I thought it over, turned it around in my mind, and I still can't figure out why a private transaction should be entered in a database.
Sure, 'they' tell us that the transaction is not actually recorded; it's just input so they can check it against their 'people who we don't think should have a gun' list.
But why do all the assurances mention that the transaction will be deleted in seven days?
Why delete it if it isn't entered? Can't they just check the buyer against the MadMen Database, without recording it?
Is it possible that "They" are lying to us??
"Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that 'they' aren't out to get me."
(also: The check is in the mail", and "of COURSE I'll still respect you in the morning!")
I am reassured. What possible reason can 'they' have to lie to me?
NRA-ILA | 40 Percent Myth Further Debunked by Suspiciously-timed Harvard Report:
This week saw the publication of survey data compiled by Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s Deborah Azrael, Matthew Miller, and Lisa Hepburn, that should finally lay to rest the long-debunked factoid that 40 percent of firearms sales occur without a background check.Who keeps track of how many firearms sales are conducted without a Background Check? And how do they do that? Wow, that's impressive: intuitive databases abound!
But that assumed factoid ignored:
Frankly, I'm resentful of the Federal Government's intrusion into the private sale of firearms. Why is the NRA so particular about reassuring folks that "ALL" firearms transactions are registered and monitored? Isn't the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution?
(Yes, I am ignoring the part about criminals and madmen, temporarily, for the purpose of discussion; where does it say "except for ...." in the Constitution? Some states are currently toying with the concept of restoring Second Amendment Rights to convicted felons; is this A Good idea, or not? How about restoring "Voting Rights" for convicted felons, which seem to be part of the same package deal? Isn't "suppression of civil liberties" part of penal retribution? Should it be?)
What purpose does it serve, to require Universal Background Checks?
The stated goal is to prevent sales to criminals. How would that work? Do thieves and murderers obey the law? I'm imagining a potential mass murderer agreeing to a background check during the purchase of a firearm, and ... uh, no. It's just not working for me. I figure that they just steal the guns. After all, they're criminals.
On the other hand, I can think of at least one good reason why universal background checks are "Not A Good Idea":
Registration.
I don't so much care about the added expense and inconvenience which Universal Background Checks imply (although that is a factor, at least), but why do these background checks require that the serial number of the firearm be part of the process?
The only reason I can think of is that this allows somebody to track the serial number of the gun; and the name (and other biographic information) of both the buyer and seller will be entered into a database somewhere.
Which is, of course, against the law unless deleted within a 'reasonable time period' (typically, one week if I'm not mistaken). And of course I believe that the information will be permanently deleted.
If that is true, why?
Why enter the information into a database if it's due to be deleted in a week? What's so magic about a 7-day time period? Who gets that information, and what do they do with it? Impermanent data has no value. I've been in the Data Processing business for most of my adult life, and I never saw any organization go to the bother of designing, building, maintaining and updating a database unless there is a reason for keeping a history into perpetuity.
(Oh, sure: "backup"; it's a standard DB feature. Right! And I'll still respect you in the morning!)
This makes no sense at all!
Of course, we are assured (by the federal government ... oh, THAT'S a reliable source!) that the data is deleted "Real Soon Now".
So why is it entered in the first place? They tell us that the information is only used to confirm that the buyer is not a felon, or a registered madman is trying to purchase a firearm.
(Is there a "MadMen Database" somewhere, and who maintains it or vets the data input to make sure than any 'non-madmen' are not erroneously included? What ... the "No-Fly List?" No, The Government would have no reason to conflate "Suspected, but not confirmed, terrorist" with "don't let this guy buy a gun".)
I thought it over, turned it around in my mind, and I still can't figure out why a private transaction should be entered in a database.
Sure, 'they' tell us that the transaction is not actually recorded; it's just input so they can check it against their 'people who we don't think should have a gun' list.
But why do all the assurances mention that the transaction will be deleted in seven days?
Why delete it if it isn't entered? Can't they just check the buyer against the MadMen Database, without recording it?
Is it possible that "They" are lying to us??
"Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that 'they' aren't out to get me."
(also: The check is in the mail", and "of COURSE I'll still respect you in the morning!")
I am reassured. What possible reason can 'they' have to lie to me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)