Saturday, September 21, 2019

California’s touted background checks yielded ZERO impact on gun deaths

Comment:

A LEFT-WING source has this finding of fact. ( Guaranteed to be ignored by those who stress feelings over facts. )   Why would anyone want a new law which does not work? Just to feel better about the situation?  Why not solve it?  Perhaps because it is considered unsolvable?  But what if that is wrong?

Hitler burned books



... Democrats throw them into the dumpster...

Because they are so much better...



Electricity consumption

While researching that Climate 2 thing, I came across a bit of info here that may be worth mentioning.

It isn't about Climate 2, it is about how much electricity the USA uses.  Here's a snippet:

source
How much is that in one day?

Divide 3.9 billion by 365 gives about 10.7 million megawatts hours per day.  How much per hour?

About 450k megawatts hours per hour.  A gigawatt-hr is 1000 megawatt-hr.  About 450 gigawatt-hr per hr.  That means about 450 gigawatt-hr size plants could serve the USA.  A little over 1 gigawatt-hr per million citizens.

What does all that mean?  In order to replace all the coal-fired plants with molten-salt reactors, you'd spend maybe half-trillion.  That puts the ridiculous rhetoric of the thought-challenged Democrats into perspective.  

Incidentally, that is the DEVELOPMENT price of just one molten-salt reactor.  Once developed, they will be a lot cheaper.

But we don't need to spend anything at all since there is no AGW.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Comment:

What is so bad about the economy that we already have that makes it need to be overhauled?  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it.  Perhaps there is one thing--- too much influence of the left. 

There's plenty wrong with this leftist culture.  Perhaps we should overhaul that instead.


UK police seize computers of skeptic blogger in England

Re-posted,

9.21.19:

10:20 am:

Somebody wants to draw attention to this for some reason.  Not into mind-reading though.  There are limitations to this kind of thing.

6:00 am:

Here's another oldie that came as a result of the new Feedback feature.

This event plus what I've heard about the confiscation of not only guns but also KNIVES, leads me to believe that the UK is no longer a free country.  Maybe it never really was.  After all, America separated from the UK in 1776.  A warning to America, though.  If you think the UK is free, you are mistaken.

By the way, the link below is no longer good.  I tried to trace where the story was, but time is limited, and I ran out of time.

12.15.11:

Watts Up With That?

quote:
The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized

Comment:

Welcome to 1984.   He's committed a thoughtcrime, and we can't have any of that.

Forget Texas going blue, Minnesota will go red

Updated,

9.21.19:

The first year of Mary Tyler Moore has an episode in which the word "gay" was used correctly.  This episode was 1970.  That tells you about the time when the current incorrect usage came into being.  It was probably several years later that the incorrect usage began.  Maybe after Saigon fell.  That's when the lefties made some big strides.

9.15.19:

Comment:

This story shows why.  Who would vote for a trashy society over a nicer one?



Contrast the above story with the theme song of the Mary Tyler Moore show.  It featured the same nice society that once existed there.  Maybe the younger generation doesn't believe it, but there is no excuse for the older folks to forget what it was once like.  It could be like that again.


Feedback archived post 9.21.19

This post will become a featured post.  It will be displayed continually on the left sidebar near the top.

The point of this post is to show trending posts and to respond to them.  The response is mine.  I will comment.  You will vote by clicking on a post.  This gives a tally that will show which one is the most popular.

Each day I will update this post.  That is the plan for now.  If it succeeds, it will become permanent.  For now, let's call it an experiment.

Updated:

9.21.19, 6:30 am cdt:

An oldie update this morning.  Traffic is light, and I'm going to have to do some stuff.  Perhaps more can be posted later today.

Daily Update:

The oldies have a lot of broken links now...  It is probably too much to expect that the old links will last forever.  Especially youtube videos.



9.20.19, 6 am cdt:

For the time being, the commentary will be placed at the top of this post.  It becomes less and less readable the longer the post gets.  Therefore, new material will be placed at the top.  In order to review what was posted previously, just read beyond the double line.

The post about Texas not going blue is having some staying power.   Or is it about Minnesota going red?  Thinking big is supposed to be the Texan way, so let's think big, and positive.

Commenting policy got a few more clicks.  Nope.  If I were to allow anonymous comments, this could turn into a slugfest.  Or somebody could get abusive while knowing their comment would not be published.  I don't care for the abuse.  I don't need the aggravation.



=====================================================================

9.17.19:  As of this writing, the weekly post winner is about Texas not going blue.  As for the month, it is the one about Judge Judy.  The one about Judge Judy is one of the top ten all time posts.  Still going strong!

9.18.19, 6:35 cdt:   The leaderboard will change from time to time, but as of now, it is the same as yesterday.

It occurred to me that if I update this daily, the post will get too long eventually.  Therefore, there will be a new update post for each week.  Maybe I do that on a weekend.  Don't know if Sat or Sun will be best yet.

9.19.19: 10 am cdt:

Same as yesterday.  This could get boring.  There is no blogger gadget for daily audience, so I have to make that up here.  So for the 24 hour period, it is :  Judge Judy.  This blog cannot be about Judge Judy.   

Commenting policy has gotten a few clicks on a steady basis.  The reason for the policy is that nobody will comment here anonymously.  That's not going to change.  That's why this feedback is set up because very few want to comment here.  I get a comment once in a blue moon.  I have tried other ways, including this for interaction.  At least this is a way to interact anonymously.  That's as far as I will go.

Daily update:

There are clicks on my other pages.  A few clicks about the land, free advertising,  and how to navigate the blog.

Those are self-explanatory.  I cannot read minds, so without a response, what I am supposed to say?


Friday, September 20, 2019

Sweden former prime minister: "Socialism only destroys"

Saw this one on the Bongino video.

Here's a pic:

Episode 1071
It says something that the lefties like to make false comparisons like this.   This is what you get with lefties---as a rule.

Perhaps if enough people "get it", these guys can go to the ash heap of history like the "Evil Empire" did.


Feelings over facts, not good

Comment:

Uninformed decision-making is not what we should want for our country.

She isn't competent enough to be a White House janitor, much less the POTUS.



If you really "ban all the things", then ....

Comment:

How about banning the Democrat Party?



Thursday, September 19, 2019

Judge Blocks Collyfornia Law

Comment:

People have forgotten about the National Popular Vote Compact.  That makes this injunction significant.  If the law is not overturned, and the Vote Compact is successfully implemented, then there will no longer be free elections in the United States.

It is a brazen attempt to rig elections permanently in favor of the Democrats.

Why?  If you can ban a candidate from the ballot in just one state, the chances of winning the popular vote is greatly diminished.  All kinds of "reasons" can be given for banning a candidate.  There would be no way that a opposition party could win.  That's the real point.

The Compact seems to be stalled right now, but people need to keep an eye on this.

About Hate

Reposted from 2.5.11:


9.19.19:

This is a post from the early days of the blog.  Somebody seems to have clicked on it, so I offer a brief comment.

The comment is that it is easy to lose sight of the fact that a lot of what a person does is not obvious to himself/herself.   Therefore, hypocrisy is always possible.

I find that I DO label the left, and yes I consider them an enemy.  To me this is justified because they act as if those who disagree with them are the enemy.  Yet, I do not consider that to be hatred on my part.

I would just as soon go about my business without having to get involved in the troubles.  But troubles can come your way regardless of how you may be trying to avoid them.

Am I being a hypocrite?  I hope not.  But if someone hates my guts I think that it is wise to prepare to defend myself.


2.5.11:

I was reading something on ThinkProgress site which accused Rush Limbaugh of
doing Hate Radio. It brought to mind something I was thinking about recently
in reference to hate, so I thought I would blog some thoughts about the
subject.

It is interesting that this site accuses Limbaugh of hate radio. When I
went to the comment section, I didn't see comments reflective of anything
like understanding or peaceable disagreement. What I saw was exactly what
was being condemned by the use of the term. Does that make ThinkProgress a
hate site?

I guess it all depends. Whatever gins up a feeling inside of you just might
be called hateful. But does that make it a hate site? Hatred is a choice.
You don't have to hate anybody. What you choose to hate is your own business.
Likewise, you can't blame nor control what anybody else feels or does either.
It is interesting that that ThinkProgress seems to be trying to hold Limbaugh
responsible for what someone else may be feeling.

This is not to deny that someone may try to incite a feeling in another person.

Yet, Limbaugh doesn't rely upon emotion. He has even downgraded that, and
at the same time, he claims that those on the left rely upon this. But can
you hate for logical reasons? Let's examine that one. Let's say you can
give a hundred reasons why someone is bad. Each of those reasons have rock
solid evidence and reasoning behind it. But should that be a reason to
hate? No. I think you would, if you were to rely on reason, that in order
to incite hatred by reason, you would have to use reason why someone should
be hated. I have never heard anything like that from Limbaugh.

I do not trust ideology because there is a tendency to treat people who don't
agree as the other. This occurs so frequently that I wonder if the entire
population is being influenced to mistrust and to "hate" each other. By
doing so, an entire population can be ruled over by the divide and conquer
principle.

Limbaugh does tend towards ideology. He does go after the other, who he
calls liberals and moderates. If you want to consider that as hate, then
there it is. But those like ThinkProgress are no better. They use terms
that identify the other as well.

How do you avoid clumping people up as the other, thus dehumanizing them?
It is not easy. People like fellowship. To be part of something bigger
than themselves. It is in so doing that is easy to clump anyone outside
of this as the other. You can't tell people not to join up with what they
believe in. So, it is something of a dilemma.

I think that in order to avoid hatred, you have to subscribe to the ethics
of non hatred. The ethics of non hatred means that you recognize that hatred
is your own responsibility and no one can make you hate anybody else, no
matter what they may do to you or say to you.

If there is an ethic of non hatred, is there a corresponding ethic of hatred?
I don't know. To have an ethic, it implies a choice. If you have no choice,
how can there be an ethic to violate or adhere to? To hate another, one
has to say that they have no choice but to hate. How can that be ethical?

If an ethic of hatred exists, would it have anything to do with reason?
No, I dont' think so.

The ethics of hatred implies that reason has nothing to do with hatred.
For if it did, reason would advocate hatred if the logic and evidence
supported it. If we examine it closely, reason could never advocate hatred.
Reason can only advocate self preservation if it is to remain reason. If
it goes beyond that, it stops being reason.

In addition, I think there is always that something more that you don't
know about. Whatever appears hateful may have some mitigating circumstance
about it. Therefore, I think to hate means to close one's mind to the
truth. The truth is that the one who is hating may be mistaken. If one
believes in following the path of reason, one cannot have an ethic of
hatred, but the opposite.

Another thought comes to mind. Who is to police ethics of non hatred?
I think the answer is you have to do it for yourself. Only you know if
you hate or not. I don't think it would be wise to leave that in the
hands of others, especially an authority figure.

A fair question

Comment

Every day seems to bring a new low for those on the left.

It has been a long accepted practice to speak "off the record".  But not anymore.

But it is OKAY for the left to keep secrets.  Their opponents do not get the same courtesy.

What is so great about leftism that would make it so popular?  No scruples, no standards, and no truth.




Ronald Reagan: "Government is the problem"

Comment:

Was it Einstein who said that the mind that created the problem can't be the one that solves it?

If there's too much corruption, then who created it?  Warren may not have created it, but her party did.



Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Know your enemy

Comment:

Glenn Reynolds asks:  "When will they pay attention to the solution that actually works?"  The answer is probably "never".  It isn't about solutions.  It is about attacking our way of life.  It is about reducing civilization down to its most primitive level.  There are those who will deny this, but those who do are either kidding themselves, or the rest of us, or both.


Self-help is the answer.

Update:

9.18.19:

I spotted her for a fake as soon as I became familiar with her.  She didn't deserve any respect.

8.4.19:

That's why I don't like Marianne Williamson.

She is supposed to be about self-help, but here she is advocating government action.  She is not what she appears to be.

Instead of disarming everybody, she should be advocating ways that people could help themselves when there is an active shooter.

The government cannot be everywhere all the time.  Even if it could, you shouldn't want
that for our country.  It is bad enough already.


Patton's Weather Prayer

Comment:

You may notice the similarity to the anti-corruption prayer that is now a part of the heading to this blog.  I stole it.  Hopefully, nobody will mind.


Monday, September 16, 2019

Democrats reject "red flag" amendment so that law enforcement cannot target gang databases

Comment:

Dan Bongino just kills them every day.  The nugget here is at about 36 minutes into an hour long video.

That's why I'm here.  To find this stuff and to tell you about it.  By the way, YouTube is suspiciously slow when playing Bongino's videos lately.  Could it be...?  nah!  They wouldn't do that.  /sarc



Gun Control Politics


Updated:

9.16.19:

Universal background checks, or they won't support any bill.  What it looks like is a poison pill that Trump must swallow in order to avoid blame that originates from the left.

It's an empty threat.  Supposedly, a lot of "moderates" will abandon Trump over the issue.  Oh, and they will pat him on the back and call him a good boy if he signs off on it.  This is the kind of thing that the usual "squish" does---curry favor with opponents that will never support him.  If Trump goes "squishy", then he is dead meat.  The Dems know this, so that's why they are pushing this so hard.




9.15.19:

Comment:

This article from the Hill breaks down the support in the Senate for some kind of bill.  Looks like a lot depends upon what Trump will support.

A successful bill will need 60 votes in the Senate, and Trump's signature.

Democrats are not likely to support anything that might pass.  Just my opinion here.  This is pure politics, and has nothing to do with actually solving any problem.

More gun-control won't stop bad guys from getting guns and committing mass murders.  It has happened elsewhere in the world where there is gun-control.

The best way to stop these attacks is to harden the targets.  This was confirmed by one of the attackers in his manifesto.  The El Paso shooter said that he would attack only soft targets.  So why not take that seriously and do something that will actually work?  The answer:  it's all about politics, not about saving lives nor solving problems.


What the ....?!

Comment:

This looks like stuff you could have read in the Cold War days with respect to the Soviet Union.  How people there could get into a lot of trouble just because somebody denounced you for something or other.  It is supposed to be why we were fighting the Cold War.  Now it seems to be happening here.

Democrats are Bolsheviks.  Stalinists.  Barbarians.  


Those cats are cool

Comment

Comic relief. 




Captain Obvious approaches

Comment:

There is no desire here to be too critical, as it is a good thing that they are doing this.  However, the Scooter Libbey maneuver should have been obvious from the get-go.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Trump wants to expand GOP electoral map by making a play for New Mexico, other blue states

Comment:

He has a shot because he's not the typical GOP kind of guy.  Every analysis seems to equate Trump with the GOP, but the GOP really doesn't like him.

That fact has its pluses and minuses.  For a Democrat, it shouldn't be that hard to support Trump.  Just look at who he may be running against.