Don't Distract Us From Gun Control!!!

"When are we going to ban guns!" //RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

Stop trying to distract us from doing what we must! Yes, don't distract us...

• Don't distract us with the fact that video games desensitize kids... video game industry studies say that's not true.

• Don't distract us with the fact that Hollywood promotes gun violence as cool or that Hollywood movies en mass teach us gun violence is how heroes solve their problems... that's just escapism... a fantasy of what you wish you could do, no one would act on that.

• Don't distract us with the fact that progressives actively encourage a belief in "triggers" and justify irrational and often times violent behaviors when they feel "triggered"... that only applies to bad triggers.

• Don't distract us with the fact the liberal media makes these impotent fucks famous... giving them their one shining moment in life.

• Don't distract us with the fact that social media companies do nothing to stop people using their platforms to spew the darkest parts of their souls at each other... encouraging suicide, murder, hate, bullying others, spreading lies.

• Don't distract us with the fact Hollywood and the media and "influencers" create fake impossible standards of comparison which average people can't meet, causing depression and self-loathing or that Hollywood and the media push nihilistic narcissism as normal... the very formula for dehumanizing others. We're all antiheroes now.

• Don't distract us with the fact that modern liberalism has undermined all the institutions that used to support broken people... fathers, priest, scouts... all gone. The state doesn't judge, love the state.

• Don't distract us with the fact that liberals divide the world into good and evil, divinity and heresy, those to be loved regardless of their crimes and those to be hated regardless of their virtues, and then it threatens all sorts of nasty cancelling, re-education and forced submission upon those it does not like... that's just rhetoric, nothing to feed paranoia there.

• Don't distract us with the fact the liberal media pushes the idea that loners are evil, violent and dangerous, that couldn't possibly isolate people, and making someone an outcast can't have any connection to people turning to violence.

• Don't distract us with the fact that schools combating bullying has becomes a means of bullying those who aren't popular.

• Don't distract us with the fact leftists divide the world into hateful camps of victims all whining about the world oppressing everyone and everything and being the root cause of their own personal failures and flaws... it's the fault of nebulous forces that control our lives.

• Don't distract us with the fact that liberal mental health advocates have prevented us from treating people who need it.

• Don't distract us with the fact the calls for gun control are just for show. It's the safest bit of outrage a Democratic politician can engage in because it will never actually happen. It's a freebie, a chance to signal your virtue and work people up when they feel impotent and make a complex debate stupid. Funny how Obama, who's attacking the gun lobby today, never cared to act when he had the power, isn't it?

• Don't distract us with the fact you're trying to distract from all of this by blaming an inanimate object. There are 250 million guns in the US and only a handful get used in crimes. The gun is not the problem. The trigger-ed man is the problem, the nihilistic narcissist who's been taught that killing is a cool solution to what bothers him and whose soft brain has been rotted by having killed millions of digital people for a decade, who's never seen a priest or been a scout or had a real dad, who can't be touched by the police until he acts, who got ostracized at a school which did not care so long as he didn't draw a picture of a gun, and who's kept on edge with calls to hate and division.

Your outrage is bullshit, hypocrites. As leftist NBA coach Steve Kerr bleated so proudly, while beautifully hitting the table as part of his act: when are we going to do something?! I don't know, Steve, when will we? I'm willing to fix everything above. Why aren't you?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

22 Versus 1

There's a point I keep wanting to make which just happens to have come up again last night. It's the idea that if a number of women accuse a man of harassment, then it must be true because they can't all be lying. It's rotten logic, but the feminist left pushes it.

The specific issue this time comes up in the context of NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson. He's been accused of sexual harassment by 22 women who were hired over a several year span to give him professional massages. They tried to have him charged criminally and several prosecutors in Texas refused to pursue the cases. With that failing, all 22 have sued him civilly. Last night, Watson's attorney was asked on HBO why we should believe "one man over 22 women." Of course, leftist feminists were hallelujahing all day about this, but the truth is, this is a crap argument.

Why?

Here's the thing: if you believe that 22 people won't lie about the same thing, then this argument makes perfect sense. But anyone who thinks that is a fool.

Let's start with this:  would 22 people lie about a thing? The left likes to think that massive numbers of cops will lie about a suspect's guilt, so yes.  So why are cops different than 22 masseuses? The left believes millions of Americans lie about being racist. They believe all men lie about being rapists. They believe corporations lie about everything. Why would 22 masseuses be different? Mainly because the left <i>wants</i> to believe this.  That's it.  They want to believe criminals too and I can tell you, having done criminal work, <i>every</i> criminal lies. Every one.  It's part of who they are.

But would a woman lie something like <i>THIS</i>? Sexual harassment?  Of course.  First, I'm not sexist enough to think that women are incapable of lying and I'm not Victorian enough to think they are unwilling.  Women lie, just like men.  Feminists dogma doesn't accept that, but it's true.  But would they actually lie about sexual violence?  Yup.  What proof do I have?  How's this:  depending on who you believe, <u>up to 25% or rape claims are false</u>. There were 127,000 reported rape claims last year, that means 32,000 women lied about being raped last year. Even feminist literature admits that 2% of rape claims are false, meaning 2,500 women lied about being raped last year. Is it really hard to believe that 22 women lied about something less than "rape-rape" (as Whoopie famously said)?

"By why would they lie? What could be their motive?!" squeal the leftist journalists. Money. These women sued for money. I have worked on several large cases in my life (like Fen-Phen defense). And while many people were very badly hurt (or even died) there were also millions of claims by people who simply never took the drugs or felt no effect but claimed all kinds of fake injuries. They lied.  Where money is on the table, all bets are off.  My neighbor uses a wheelchair when he sees disability or his doctor, but never uses it around the neighborhood.  He's lying.

But what are the chances they are "all" liars? High actually. It's called adverse selection. Adverse selection means that people who can exploit an opportunity will seek out those opportunities. See, the idea promoted by the phrasing ("how can they <i>all</i> lie") is that it would be an impossible coincidence that every woman involved is lying.  But that's misleading. Watson had over 90 masseuses. These 22 are the ones who sued. Around 70 did not. They denied seeing anything like these women claimed. So a more accurate question is not "how can they <i>all</i> be lying" but "how can 22 out of 90 women be lying?"  In that regard, note the interesting coincidence that 22/90 works out to 24%... the same number who lie about rape.

Moreover, most of these women did not claim what you might think. While the case is being sold by the media as Watson forcing himself on these women, what most are actually alleging is that he propositioned them. That's not a crime except in feminist circles. That's why the prosecutors refused to prosecute, because asking someone for sex is not a crime.  Nor does it support claims of improper touching. What they've done is tried to support the one or two genuine claims of improper touching with 20 or so bullship claims of "he asked me out."  Suddenly, the "how can 22 women be lying" argument seems a little dishonest, doesn't it?  Not to mention, we're down to "why would a couple women out of 90 lie?"  See why this argument is crap?

It gets worse.

There's a ringleader. These women were found by an attorney who tried to shake down Watson and has waged this campaign in the newspapers rather than the courts. In fact, when Watson's attorney was asked why we shouldn't "believe 22 women", her answer was that the attorney had orchestrated it. This is the reason the rules of ethics actually forbid attorneys to solicit lawsuits, because unscrupulous attorneys will talk people into joining suits for a quick shakedown.

And for those who think attorneys can't coordinate witnesses, one the biggest problems preventing the legal system from disciplining cops for decades used to be that they would all get the same attorney who would keep them from breaking ranks. This is part of the "blue wall of silence" which courts finally ruled was obstructive of justice. Yet, here, leftist feminists think nothing of a single attorney coordinating these women -- women whose interests are actually adverse when it comes to (1) weeding out lying hangers-on and (2) dividing Watson's resources if they win, meaning it's actually unethical for the attorney to represent them all together.

Do you see the problem?

This is the same crap the left has been using for all sorts of identity politics arguments. Whenever you hear someone argue "how could so many people be lying," the reality is they probably are, especially when these same people refuse to allow the accused to make the same argument... or defend themselves (see Duke rape case). Think about all the hundreds of totally false sexual harassment claims made against every Republican nominee. Think about the pathetic evidence the left accepts in those cases: "she told her best friend who would never ever ever lie for her about it two weeks ago"). So if a liar repeats the lie, that's proof it's true? And if many people repeat it, that's proof of truth? A lie is a lie no matter how many millions of people believe it.  Or think about "so many scientists say global cooling warming change is real"!  So?  Believe does not create truth.  Etc. Etc.

Don't fall for this.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Overturning Roe Means

I've gotten several emails (three actually) asking me to talk about what overturning Roe will mean. So here goes.

Let's start with the legal part first because that's causing the most confusion.

Whatever your views on abortion, Roe was a terrible legal decision. It was premised on nothing more than the desire of the court to find a new right. They relied on social science data and politics in the decision, rather than legal precedent, and they invented the right not from anything written in the constitution itself (like "Congress shall not...") but from the "penumbra" of the constitution -- the glow of the whole thing. It's true. Not making that up. Total bullship, legally speaking.

So what happens if they strike Roe down? Does abortion become legal or illegal? Yes, but not like you think.

What Roe does now is create a legal right to abortion requiring that it remain legal to some extent. That means the states and/or Congress cannot flat out ban it. To what extent it can be blocked or regulated is what all the cases since Roe have been about. You can do this, but not that, etc. etc. If you remove Roe, that right disappears and abortion becomes a question for the legislature. Until the legislature speaks, however, it actually becomes legal because things are not presumptively outlawed in our system until they are made illegal.

But then it can be made illegal, right? Sure.

Buuuut, if you want to know how this plays out, it's not going to be made illegal. First, there are only a couple southern states which will actually ban abortion. I count Mississippi and Alabama. Georgia and Texas (maybe a couple more) will probably add some regulations, but that's about it. Places like California and Maryland, on the other hand, will allow abortion on demand until birth. Most every other state will most likely pass laws keeping things as they are right now. So expect illegal in two states, legal in 48 with a couple SUPER legal. As for the people in the illegal states, they will be able to travel to any number of other states to get the procedure done. Stopping them will violation equal protection laws. So realistically, no one will be stopped.

Then it gets ugly. The next time the Democrats hold the Congress and the White House (like now), they will be able to pass an abortion law that prevents the states from passing their own laws -- undoing every state's laws. When Congress speaks, the states cannot. What will they pass? Well, odds are good they would pass the California version of unrestricted abortion on demand and impose it on every state. Is there a valid 10th Amendment argument against allowing that? No.

Could Republicans ban it if they got the White House and Congress? Possibly but I doubt it. The government cannot just ban things, and there are several rights in the constitution which I doubt they can overcome. They can try though.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ug

So I'm looking at the upcoming election and I'm thinking, things are going surprisingly well. Biden's administration has destroyed the economy, as their policies inevitably would, and people are pissed. The left's pro-criminal policies have been exposed so badly that even the liberals are thinking of voting to the right to keep from getting robbed or raped. In fact, we're looking at a rightward sweep probably larger than anything we've seen since Reagan changed the country.

Hispanics are drifting right both for economic reasons and because they don't like the Democratic embrace of communism and they don't like having a neutered language pushed on them by liberal race-baiting whites. This could potentially allow the GOP to attain permanent majority status. Blacks are even turning on the Democrats, and that's like your mom saying she doesn't love you anymore.

The wokes are going broke. GOP governors are doing well. Democratic governors are getting buried in the consequences of their actions. The GOP smartly has been working to get their whackadoddle problem under control and the Trumpatics, the vaxxers, and the Russian agents are all being shoved out. At the same time, the left is embracing crazier and crazier ideas which are turning off anyone not part of the problem.

Wow. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah. The Supreme Court. There is a leaked draft decision under which the conservative justices of the court apparently intend to overturn Roe v. Wade. Shoot me now. This is an invitation to a whole different set of crazies to compete to make the GOP as unelectable as possible. Congratulations, Mr. Biden, your opponents are about to morph into a f**** cult. This is what destroyed the GOP in Colorado... and Virginia. It gave the suburbs to the left. It's what made the national brand toxic in the 2000s. And. we're. about. to. do. it. again. Paging Rick Santorum.

Good times.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...