A crazy man killed some people yesterday. I don’t know why he thought he should murder total strangers, but I feel quite certain that he was insane. He killed some college students. He could have targeted children, or women, or Jews, or black people, brown people, old people, or redheads. He could have committed his crimes at a grade school, or a church, diner, theater, recruiting station, post office, or a shopping mall.
He could have strangled his victims, or blown them up with a bomb. He could have used poison, or a knife, or an automobile. He chose to use guns. But guns were not the reason for his crimes, just the method.
Obama wasted no time in politicizing this atrocity with a speech, long before the facts of this case were revealed.. He has yet to make a speech regarding the murder of police officers or the victims of murderous illegal immigrants.
We still have some freedoms left. One of those is the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, freedom has a price. There are millions of gun owners in this country. Most of them are law abiding. Some of them commit crimes.
Drunk drivers kill far more people each year than firearms, but nobody wants to outlaw cars. The cost of freedom for the law abiding is some shocking but statistically insignificant atrocities.
Freedom isn’t free. If you have a better way to stop atrocities and preserve my freedom I’d like to hear it.
Until then . . .
Hurricane Joaquin gained power as it bore down on the central Bahamas early Thursday, and forecasters said it was likely to grow into a major storm while following a path that would near the U.S. East Coast by the weekend.
Some minor damage was reported by Bahamas officials late Wednesday, and islanders rushed to prepare for storm surges and heavy rain from the approaching Joaquin. Authorities said the center was likely to pass near or over several islands during the night and Thursday.
Joaquin was a Category 3 storm with maximum sustained winds of 115 mph and hurricane strength winds extending 35 miles from the eye late Wednesday, the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami said. The center of the storm was about 170 miles east of the central Bahamas and moving southwest at 6 mph.
The storm was predicted to turn to the north and northwest toward the United States late Thursday or Friday, but forecasters were still gathering data trying to determine how it might affect the U.S.
Is it too much to ask that it would hit land right at the mouth of the Potomac river? Or the Hudson?
You don’t have to know what the truth is to know that she ain’t telling it.
Ever since she blasted Planned Parenthood in the second debate Carly Fiorina has been targeted by the Lamestream (Democrat) Media. First they said she lied about the PP video, then last week The Fact Checker at the Washington Post claimed she was lying about her personal story.
The latter claim drew quite a bit of negative reaction, so Glenn Kessler posted a reaction to the reaction wherein he claims that facts are subjective:
Our recent fact check on Carly Fiorina’s claim that she went “from secretary to CEO” generated heavy criticism from readers. The fact check was either a thoughtful analysis or shoddy hit piece — which is not an uncommon range of responses to our fact checks. But the brunt of reaction came from readers in the latter camp.
The majority of readers who responded via e-mail, social media and article comments particularly objected to the Three Pinocchio rating. They said her claim was factual — at most worth Two Pinocchios — because the two pieces of fact (that she did work as a secretary, that she did become a CEO) were, indeed, accurate.
Pinocchio ratings inherently are subjective, and we often find it difficult to reach a decision. (We frequently second-guess ourselves in the morning.) Our One Pinocchio rating may be another reader’s Three Pinocchio rating, and vice versa. So we aim for consistency in how we apply ratings. It is especially difficult to decide between a Two or a Three, since a Three is a tipping point that indicates a claim is mostly false as opposed to being half-true.
In our minds, the Fiorina case was similar. The “secretary to CEO” line is a central part of her campaign; it even merited its own Web site. She frequently pitched it as an “only-in-America” story. Yet her career really started after she earned her business degree and began working at AT&T as a sales representative. (Some readers, such as John Sexton of Breitbart, pointed to a line in a biography that “perhaps Fiorina’s first taste of business came when she worked for real estate broker Marcus & Millichap for a few months that year” as a sign that the secretary’s job is really the start of her career. But even if one accepts that, it does not mitigate the other advantages she had.)
At this point, we do not see a reason to change the rating. We are comfortable with the analytic process we used to reach the final result. We can certainly see the case for Two Pinocchios or even One, but believe that would not have been consistent with the way we had applied the Three Pinocchio rating in the past. If Obama got Three, then the thinking was that Fiorina deserved Three as well.
No rating is set in stone, and many readers have asked us to revise the rating. We generally revise ratings if we receive new information that changes our understanding of the facts. In this case, there is no new information — except maybe for the fact that many readers believe our reasoning is idiotic. But, as noted above, the rating appears consistent with how we have applied it previously. Thus, lacking additional information, we will retain the rating. We realize that will be disappointing to many who have complained.
The truth is NOT subjective. The media’s belief that truth is subjective helps explain this:
Rockin’ the maracas!
It’s 3 am and this is all I got.
I’m not gonna tell you what he said because if you were really interested you’d watch the video and if you’re not interested I’d be wasting my time. I will say that he didn’t say anything particularly new or shocking, nor did he look like a genius nor an idiot.
Trump was Trump. Those who like him will like the interview. Those who hate him will watch the interview so they can wallow in their hatred.
What was most notable about the interview was the tone of the interviewer. Scott Pelley was much tougher than Megyn Kelly. No member of the lamestream media would dare to question Barack Obama in such a confrontational manner. But I’m not defending Trump or complaining on his behalf – I wish the media would treat all candidates like that, especially Hillary Clinton.
Getting raked over the coals is good for politicians.
From “Ruminations on the 2016 Election” by The Z Man:
The 2016 election is driven in large part by the realization of the frogs that the gas has been on and the water is boiling. It may be too late to escape, but that does not mean they will not try. The appeal of Sanders and Trump is due, in part, to this realization. It’s also driven by the hysterics of the people in charge, who are largely responsible for the state of the nation.
That last part is what I described in the Trump Effect post. A wide swath of the public no longer trusts what they are being told by the people in charge. Most Americans now think the rich are looting the country. They may not be willing to have a boiled rope party just yet, but people on both sides are now listening to appeals that were considered off-limits not so long ago.
Trump’s plan to treat investment income as normal income is a great example. The day he made the comment, ambulances were sent to National Review headquarters because the entire staff fainted. The folks at the Wall Street Journal threatened severe retribution if the heretic was not brought to heal. Yet, many rank and file conserves think he is probably right. The reason for this is they intuitively sense the trouble lies in all of these sacred cows protected by their betters.
The point here is we have a public that is suddenly aware that the status quo cannot hold. Things have to change and they have to change fundamentally. The candidates who have shown that they get it are doing well, while the guys from party headquarters are floundering. This is true even though, on the one hand, Sanders is offering nonsense as a solution and on the other hand, Trump is not offering much of anything beyond making sport of the pearl clutchers.
That may sound comforting, but there’s no Reagan on the horizon and the current ruling elite is not going to be swayed by appeals to God and country. Tip O’Neil was wrong about most things and not the nicest guy, but he loved his country. The old party hands in the GOP may have looked down their nose at the actor turned politician, but they put the interests of their country first.
The current crop is a different sort of ruling class. Their only allegiances are to their class and the global financial elite that supports them. It’s why both parties rallied around the Iran deal, for example. Global players like Boeing, Halliburton and their bankers had pending deals with Iran. National security and long standing loyalties to allies in the region simply did not matter.
I got a bad feeling about this. You know that feeling when you know a storm is coming? It’s not here yet, but soon it will be. Historians often refer to “tipping points” where sudden, dramatic changes take place. When the pressure builds high enough, even a small event can trigger it.
Looking back in hindsight it is often easy to see the signs. The real trick is to see it coming. What worries me is I don’t see anybody trying to stop or avoid it. Some of them don’t think it could happen, while others seem to be eagerly seeking it.