We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, August 26. 2019
With thanks to Roger for filling in this past week. I love his contributions.
Gillette ‘Shifting Spotlight from Social Issues’ After Anti-Masculinity Ad Disaster
Are Your Sexual Preferences Transphobic?
'I'm Radioactive' - Journalist Jonathan Kaiman is one of the least famous, least powerful men to be brought down by the #MeToo movement. A year later, the fallout continues.
A sad, sad story
Hockey Stick Broken! “Scientist” Michael Mann Loses in Court, Forced to Pay Court Costs — Global Warming Hoax Hit Hardest
Pro-Hillary Academic Claims Google Manipulated Millions of Votes for Hillary in 2016
Decades of Intensifying Left-Wing Influence on High School Students
NYT and Democrat Bolsheviks echo Farrakhan: White people are devils
WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE WEST OWE TO MUSLIM MIGRANTS? For the British political and media elites, the answer is “everything."
Trump’s Greenland New Deal
Background checks for gun buyers are good policy, good politics for Trump
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
They screwed up and lost a ton. Their CEO didn't mind because he was promoting his SJW agenda. I doubt I'm not the only one who is done with them.
In response to the left's incessant bleating about racism and racists I keep hearing that racism is almost non-existent today. How blind does one have to be to realize that it's much worse and much more out in the open but the targets of the current racism are Jews and white people. In the fifties when racism against blacks was pretty open I don't remember any books written about "blackness" and it's various negative attributes and impacts on our society but there are many about "whiteness" today (eg. https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/whiteness). As for antisemitism, what former president or current "civil rights leader" would be caught dead on the same stage as a virulent antisemite like Farrakhan before 2000?
re Background checks for gun buyers are good policy, good politics for Trump
No. No. And more No.
While it may be good politics for Trump, this is bad policy for honest Americans. Background checks are a de facto registration because now our ruling masters know who is buying the gun.
Anyway, the 2nd Amendment says we have a right to keep and bear arms, period! There are no caveats in the Constitution that say you can only have a gun if you pass a background check.
I agree with you, of course, but the whining about "common sense" gun laws has been shown to be worthless by a liberal (since I don't know her actual political/social positions I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and not call her a leftist) in the Washington (com)Post no less: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Then there was the "fact checker" (again in the Washington (com)Post) who checked Marco Rubio's comment that no gun control proposal would have any effect on recent mass shootings (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/).
The cold, hard truth is that there is no law that will keep guns out of the hands of those criminally inclined. That fact alone makes the idea of any gun control laws of dubious value at best.
What the Democrats and far too many Republicans want is a bill for "background checks" (even though we already have that law) so they can sneak other stuff onto it. What other stuff? You ask. That is the point, we won't know until it is passed and we risk going to jail for enjoying our 2nd amendment rights.
Of course mass shootings are terrible. But penalizing honest gun owners won't fix it. This isn't about saving lives, if they wanted to save more lives they would fix phones so you couldn't use them while driving. Texting and talking on cell phones kills far more people than mass shootings do. If they wanted to save more lives we would enforce our border and immigration laws. Illegals kill far more people (10-20 times more) than mass shootings do. It is all a thinly disguised effort to unconstitutionally disarm Americans. Why??? They have a reason (they=the globalist).
Background checks: Yeah, on the surface background checks seem like a minor inconvenience to both buyers and sellers. But ultimately it doesn't work without full and complete gun and gun owner registration. This is a threat to freedom and should be a anathema to all of us.
I have a better idea, and I haven't seen this anywhere else. I live in Minnesota and I checked with my county sheriff's office and the county attorney on this. Failing a background check means the buyer is ineligible to own or possess a handgun or "assault rifle." Do you know what happens, at least in Minnesota, when a potential buyer fails a background check?
Nothing. Nothing. No interview by law enforcement, no watch list, no red flag list, nothing. How is this not stupid? Why are we doing background checks at all?
Again, not more laws, better enforcement of the reasonable existing laws.
I have a better idea too. We have over 10,000 gun laws on the books. Any one of these laws can trip up an innocent person who is merely exercising his constitutional rights. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that 99% of those gun laws are de facto unconstitutional if you interpret the 2nd amendment by the original intent. The idea is simple: exempt any citizen from any and all gun laws providing they broke no constitutional laws. Hard to explain fully but easy to understand. For example: New Jersey has strict gun laws. Let's say you live in another state and drive through New Jersey with your gun in the car. You get stopped, they find the gun, you will likely go to jail for years. BUT, providing you broke no constitutional law with that gun they must honor the 2nd amendment and let you go.
By the way; the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed by the states or other jurisdictions period. That is what the 2nd amendment says. It isn't wishy washy. The federal, state and lower governments cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, any arms. There is an often spoken belief that "some regulation is legal". It is not unless you come up with some 1984 alternative definition of "shall not be infringed".
Judge orders Johnson & Johnson to pay Oklahoma $572 million for fueling opioid crisis.
The legal system going after deep pocket companies is a bad idea. If I were the CEO of a drug company I think I would move out of the U.S. Also wouldn't it be wise at this point for drug companies to simply stop making the drugs that might get them bankrupted? What then?
An antidote for the Gillette muck. A wristwatch ad that celebrates masculinity (with a little help from Kipling)
Thanks for the link. Watched Mark Steyn at his channel read this poem yesterday and the back story about it. Good to see some things endure.
Uhhh...what if we actually prefer Roger's links and stoic remarks to Bird Dog's? Asking for a friend.