Saturday, September 26, 2015

Bye Bye Boehner (#RINOS)

John Boehner, the ineffective, compliant collaborator with all things Obama, will resign from Congress and the Speakership of the House, at the end of October.

It's about time.  Mitch McConnell should be next.  Pink slips for pinkos.  I like it.

I wrote about the Boehner problem almost two years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

Read it here.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Stogie's Band: A Couple of Jazz Tunes, Live Performance #Jazz

Here's a couple of songs my band is studying right now.  These recordings were made at our regular weekly practice.

All Right, Okay, You Win


If possible, listen with earphones, otherwise you can't hear the bass and get the full effect.

Update for Georgette:

I added some more songs.

Dreamsville (Practice Sesson)

Cute (Recital)

Corcovado (Practice Session)

Satin Doll (Recital)

Don't Get Around Much Anymore (Recital)

Embraceable You (Recital)

In a Mellow Tone (Recital)

Awful Angst and Angry Aggravation: The Musings and Meditations of a Stogiemeister

Ugh, lately I don't feel good writing about politics.  Politics is so dirty today, invested as it is in the personal destruction and persecution of conservative dissenters.  Often, politics brings out the worst in me.  It causes me to feel hatred sometimes, and I hate that ugly feeling.  Liberals hate our guts, and it is a challenge not to return the sentiment.

I especially dislike the "piling on" of popular-culture robots when some person makes a comment that is reviled, repudiated, repeated and reprinted, stoking enormous ideological hatred for the person who made the remark.  Often the remark is misinterpreted or taken out of context.  I have defended many victims of this phenomenon, and not only conservatives.  I have defended liberals as well, for the sake of justice and fair play.  See here, for instance.

In any case, Fall is in the air and I look forward to the holiday season.

I finished my last corporate tax return on September 15, and now have more time to practice playing bass.  I'd like to get in three hours a day, but one hour will do in a pinch.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Hunting the Wild Social Justice Warrior (#gamergate)

I just finished Vox Day's book about "Social Justice Warriors" -- what they are, what they do, why they do it and how to fight them.  The book is called "SJWs Always Lie."  You can buy the Kindle version from Amazon for around $10.

This is one of the best books I ever read about the left-right culture wars now raging through Western Civilization.  Vox Day describes predictable patterns in how leftist politicos attack normal people, and attempt to ruin the lives and careers of anyone who goes against "the Narrative" -- that is, whatever propaganda line a particular cell of crazies is pushing, e.g., men oppress women, white racism oppresses all non-whites, this or that is "racist," etc ad infinitum.  These Social Justice Warriors enthusiastically support radical feminism, abortion on demand, open borders, socialism, racial-norming, same sex marriage, transgender acceptance, and many other left-wing causes, and hate those who oppose them.  They regularly destroy the reputations and careers of non-SJWs merely to make examples of them, to create fear in the rest of society, to bully and intimidate outsiders into supporting the Narrative, or at the very least, into silence and non-opposition.

My last post, about the radical feminist Charlotte Proudman, is a textbook example of how SJWs work, and how they attack and destroy non-SJWs.  They do this, not only to support and push the Narrative, but to gain notoriety and respect from fellow SJWs.  They have zero sympathy for their victims, and are completely amoral and ruthless.  

SJWs try to infiltrate and eventually control various organizations and industries.  Vox Day has successfully fought them in the gaming and science fiction industry, but they have substantial control over major media and academia, as well as various left-leaning corporations.  The latter three are usually characterized by oppressive speech codes or "codes of behavior," in order to control the leftist narrative and have a means of identifying and punishing dissenters.   Free speech is still technically legal, but may result in social and professional ostracism, job loss, and a sullied reputation.

Vox Day gives several recent examples of careers destroyed or damaged by this modern-day version of the Red Guard.  He explains what to do and how to react if you become a target.  He explains strategies for defeating this evil movement, and yes, it can be defeated.  He's done it.

This valuable book is a must-read for all defenders of Western Civilization and freedom of speech, association and conscience.  I strongly recommend it.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Man-Hating British Barrister Emasculates British Lawyer for Praising Her Looks (#Proudman)

Bumpy Nose Barrister Charlotte Proudman
I saw this at The Other McCain:  a law partner in Britain connected on Linked-In with one Charlotte Proudman, a barrister (that's British for "attorney").  The law partner, one Alexander Carter Silk, had both a lapse in judgment and a lapse in taste, and remarked to Proudman that he found her Linked-In photo (see left) "stunning."

Proudman, being one of those aberrants known as feminists, then castigated Silk for his sexism.  Not satisfied with merely emasculating Silk privately, she then tacked his severed penis over her office law degree to be viewed as a grisly trophy by fellow man-hating lesbians (aka "feminists").  I speak figuratively, of course.  In lieu of brandishing a severed penis, she copied and pasted the private conversation on social media to publicly embarrass and shame Mr. Silk.  Not satisfied with that, she registered a formal complaint against him with the British version of the Bar Association.  Proudman was doing all she could to seriously damage a man's professional reputation and career for the crime (and error, IMHO) of finding her pretty.

Now if you were a male lawyer in London, would you wish to professionally associate with Ms. Proudman?  Or link to her on Linked-In, or refer clients to her, or hire her, or work with her in any capacity?  I think not.  Man-hating feminists are like faulty time-bombs, ready and able to blow up in your face when you are least expecting it.  Who needs that?  Better to just give her a wide berth, and I can assure you, many will.  This dumb broad merely shot herself in the foot, all for the moral vanity of playing "victim."  I suspect she hurt her own law career far more than she could ever hurt that of Silk.

As for Mr. Silk, his comment about Proudman's appearance as "stunning" was indeed foolhardy, considering today's hostile work environment for normal people.  However, his main guilt is in his poor taste.  The only thing "stunning" about Proudman's appearance is that huge bump on the side of her nose.  Perhaps she should mate with a pelican.  A gay one, to be sure.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Liberals Love Evil

I got into an online argument with a leftist who attacked me on FaceBook.  He had read this blog and called me a bigot for linking to a "racist, anti-Islamic website."  He could only have meant Pamela Geller's site.  All Geller does is print news items about the daily atrocities, social outrages and news of the Muslim world and of the Muslim immigrants.  Truth can't be "racist," except to morons like Franklin Delano RiehlButthead, or whatever his weird last name is.

So here we are, fourteen years down the road from 911, and leftist morons like FDR are incensed that anyone write the unvarnished truth about the world's vilest, most barbaric, violent and evil religion ever to oppress mankind.  Liberal/leftists are so full of love and tolerance for anyone who hates our guts and wants to kill us.  They love evil and rush to embrace it.

I would love to punch this a-hole in the mouth.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Supporters of the Confederate Flag: What the Flag Means to Us

A Southern Brother and Patriot
For the past three months or so, we have been told what the Confederate flag means to leftists, liberals and radical blacks.  They have preached their negative impressions from the rooftops, censoring, banning and banishing everything Confederate in their path.  To these people, the very sight of a Confederate flag means "I hate black people!  I'm against racial equality!  I want to bring back segregation, Jim Crow and poll taxes! Long live White Supremacy!"

Well thanks for explaining to us what's in our evil Southern hearts.  We would never have known what we are feeling without liberal-provided stereotypes and knee-jerk reactions to colored cloth.

Okay, enough B.S.  Now I will tell you what we REALLY feel about the Confederate flag, and why it fills our hearts with self-recognition, loyalty and pride.

We love and fly the Confederate flag to nonverbally state the following:

1.  The South is our country, a country within a country.  We are a people with a history of shared sacrifice, suffering and survival.  The flag says to us, "I belong to something greater than myself:  a nation, a people."  Our nationhood includes many Southern black brothers and sisters who also revere the Confederate flag.  Maybe they didn't read the liberal/leftist/Democrat talking points and are unaware of what they are supposed to believe.

2.  We reject the Northern version of history, that the North fought to free the slaves and the South fought to keep and expand slavery.  The war was a war of conquest based on the North's insistence on subjugating the South economically, and its desire to continue subjecting the South to high tariffs, unfair taxation for the benefit of the North at the expense of the South.

3.  We insist that the Southern states had a legal and moral right to secede from the Union, that "the consent of the governed" was the overriding factor and principle in the South's decision to secede.  The South no longer consented.

4.  We believe that the North's brutal invasion and conquest of the South was criminal in the extreme, naked aggression for the purpose of continuing to tax and rule the Southern states.  There was nothing honorable, legal, moral or right in the North's aggression.  We wholeheartedly condemn it.

5.  We will forever revere and honor our Confederate ancestors who fought for Southern Independence, and forever mourn what was lost at Appomattox -- the right to govern ourselves.

All of the above five points could be summarized as this:  "The South was right and the North was wrong!"  Or, alternatively, "We are Southern loyalists and we are still here!  Deal with it!"

As for the notion that we fly the flag to make liberal black people feel bad, well that's just not true.  Liberals, whether black or white, are just not so important to us to make us expend the energy.  Not that it takes much energy to offend a liberal.  Anyone can do it without hardly trying. Nevertheless, we'd rather sit on our porches and drink iced tea and smoke cigars.  Hating morons takes too much work and accomplishes nothing.

I suspect the current antagonism towards everything Confederate is borne of a worry that we the conquered may not forever wish to remain that way.  Disloyalty to the current mega-state cannot be tolerated.  All must think the same, vote the same, and behave the same.   Screw that.  Long live the South!

Friday, September 11, 2015

The Muslim Attack on America: Fourteen Years Later. Remembering the Heroes of Flight 93.

So today is the fourteenth anniversary of the Islamic attack on America.  On September 11, 2001, devout Muslims commandeered four commercial jet airliners and crashed two of them into the Twin Towers in New York City, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth was stopped by the passengers before reaching its target -- possibly the Congressional Building or the White House.

Los Gatos High School
The fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, was bound for Washington, D.C.  The plane's flight was delayed by half an hour, and so the passengers learned of the prior 911 attacks from telephone conversations with airlines personnel and family members.  Huddled in the back of the plane where the Muslim hijackers had moved them, the passengers decided to fight back and attempt to take control of the plane.  They charged the cockpit and the lone Muslim guard outside the cockpit door.  They did not succeed, but their attempt forced the hijackers to abort the mission, nose-diving the plane into a field in Pennsylvania.  There is no telling how many lives were saved and what terrible damage was prevented.

Todd Beamer was one of the heroic passengers.  He was the one who announced the start of the passenger rebellion with the words "Let's roll."

Todd Beamer and a fellow hero, Mark Bingham, were both graduates of Los Gatos High School in Los Gatos, California.  I think of Todd and Mark every Thursday in the summer, when I drive into downtown Los Gatos to attend my Big Band class and practice jazz with the Cats Swing Band (we named our band "the Cats" in reference to Los Gatos, which is Spanish for "the cats."  Los Gatos was named by early Spanish settlers who saw two wildcats fighting there.)  To get to the Los Gatos Recreation hall, I drive right by Los Gatos High School (home of the Los Gatos Wildcats, colors black and orange) on my right, and view its large, grassy lawns and lovely countryside appearance.  Two good, brave men went to school there, and were two of the 2,996 killed on that evil day.  Todd Beamer was from the Los Gatos High Class of 1987, and Mark Bingham was from the Class of 1988.

There is much nastiness of a political nature that I could discuss here today -- But I'll give it a rest.  No politics. Today I will just quietly remember Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham and the other passengers of Flight 93 who, faced with certain death, decided to go down fighting.  God bless them all, for their sacrifice and their inspiration.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Donald Trump's Worst Enemy: Himself. Wise Up, Donald!

Donald Trump
I have been supporting Donald Trump's candidacy over all others.  I like how he is bitch-slapping the GOP establishment, the go-along Vichy Republicans who are the willing bitches of the Democratic Party.  However, Trump has done himself no favors lately in making intemperate, tactless remarks against other candidates.

I am not referring to his description of Megyn Kelly as a bimbo -- a stupid remark, but not totally off target.  Kelly is more of an opportunist who would trade conservative principles for media fame and acclaim, and therefore not our friend.  I don't object to his description of Lindsey Graham, the wimpish do-nothing senator from South Carolina, as "a guy who couldn't get a job."  Graham is totally without substance or credibility as either a conservative or a Republican.  Again, not our friend.

However, this week Trump made disparaging remarks about Carly Fiorina's appearance, particularly, her face.  Fiorina didn't deserve that.  This was a "gratuitous insult" -- one that had no purpose, was not a reaction to something Fiorina said or did.  It was a cheap shot.

All "The Donald" accomplished was to make himself look like a boorish, tactless cad.  He wants to be the nominee, yet is supplying the Democrats with enormous ammunition to use against him.  Think of the numerous political ads they will run, quoting Trump's own words, to show him as a thoughtless bully with no sense of decorum or propriety -- or basic manners, for that matter.

So today, at long last, I am reevaluating my support for Donald Trump.  With his big mouth and lack of tact, I am beginning to think he cannot win the presidency.  My advice:  Shut up, Donald.  We know you have big gonads, now show us that you have a brain as well.

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War

One of the best, and yet most succinct essays on Abraham Lincoln's tyranny, is this:  The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War.  It was written by Michael Hutcheson at his blog, Snap Out of It America.  Michael has not updated his blog in well over a year, and I fear that his excellent essay will be lost or forgotten.  So I am reblogging it here in its entirety.

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.
In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”
Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.
For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.
Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he
  1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
  3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
  4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
  5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
  6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
  7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
  8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
  9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
  10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
  11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
  13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.
Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics.
The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians—this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children—civilians—white and black, slave and free alike—were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.
Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states—where he could not reach them—and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states—where he could have freed them at once.
The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.
The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.
In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

The Muslim Invasion of Europe (or "Refugees" for the Naive)

Muslim "Refugees" Invade Europe
There are tens of thousands of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe from Syria and elsewhere, allegedly to escape war and violence.  Apparently, Muslims, like Socialists, like to flee the hell-holes that their ideologies create.  However, whenever they have escaped to more enlightened locales, they then begin re-establishing the ideology from which they fled.

Some say the "refugees" look more like invaders than the poor, down trodden wretches we generally associate with the the term.  Invasion by immigration, and conquest by population replacement, are in the offing.  What we are witnessing is a successful strategy for Islam to conquer the west, by a slow and patient kind of subversion.  They are aided in this by liberal politicians who strike poses "welcoming the immigrants," because the highest point of enlightenment is to sacrifice one's own culture, language, customs and religions for decidedly inferior ones.  Let our grandchildren grow up in totalitarian hell-holes of poverty and oppression!  Their sacrifice is worth the opportunity to strike poses in the here and now, for fellow "enlightened" self-hating leftists, and the ecstasy that moral vanity brings.

The "refugees" should be turned back.  Let them enjoy the fruits of their sacred culture.  They have spent centuries building it, now let them enjoy it to the fullest.  We do not need this disruptive, violent and hostile culture in our midst.  See it for what it is, an invasion by hostiles, who come not to assimilate into our culture, but to replace it with theirs. It is a process known as stealth jihad.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

DEBUNKED: Stanford Paper Claims Right-to-Carry Increases Crime

The information below was part of an earlier post, but I consider it important enough to have a post of its own.

Leftists are pushing back hard on the belief that right-to-carry laws deter crime.  Some liberals and liberal institutions (like a professor at Stanford University) are publishing papers that say the opposite is true:  that more guns means more crime and violence.  See conclusions of the Stanford paper here.

Intuitively, the professor's claims do not make sense to me.  If criminals know that a neighborhood has guns, would they be less likely to do home invasions or burglaries?  If criminals know that there are right-to-carry laws in effect, would they be less likely to shoot up schools and theaters?  I would think so.  What makes less sense is that otherwise lawful citizens turn into criminals when they have ready access to guns.  Absolute bunk, but liberals will believe anything.

REBUTTALS:  I found two sites that rebut the Stanford study as sophomoric and biased.  No surprise there.  Read MORE JUNK, LESS SCIENCE: New Stanford “Working Paper” claims right-to-carry increases assaults by 33%

Also read:  Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Linked to Increase in Violent Crime -- a rebuttal.

If liberals throw the Stanford study at you in argument, refer them to the above links.  The Stanford study is superficial and highly biased.

More Twitter Fights With Leftists

Twitter fights can be fun and invigorating, but they do take a lot of time....waste a lot of time, perhaps.  Their only good comes in practicing debate with angry liberals, and in deflecting personal insults.  If you have a thin skin, twitter fights can help you grow a thicker one.  I am at a point where liberal insults don't bother me in the least.  It only shows how totally devoid the leftist mind is of any understanding or arguments, i.e. about politics, economics, climate change, taxation, history, religion or government.

Basically, liberals are ignoramuses who think their lack of knowledge is enlightenment.

Some interesting points that came out of this morning's twitter fight:

1. Gun Control -- Leftists are pushing back hard on the belief that more legal guns and open carry laws deter crime.  Some liberals and liberal institutions (like Stanford University) are publishing papers that say the opposite is true:  that more guns means more crime and violence.  The Stanford paper (as summarized by the Stanford News) is based on computer models.   The models, data and source documents are not available for study, but this really sounds bogus to me.  Any alleged increase in crime should be tied back to individuals who have abused right-to-carry laws, not computer models.  An anti-gun professor in an anti-gun, leftist environment has produced a paper that "proves" his biases.

Intuitively, the professor's claims do not make sense to me.  If criminals know that a neighborhood has guns, would they be less likely to do home invasions or burglaries?  If criminals know that there are right-to-carry laws in effect, would they be less likely to shoot up schools and theaters?  I would think so.  What makes less sense is that otherwise lawful citizens turn into criminals when they have ready access to guns.  Absolute bunk, but liberals will believe anything.

My chief antagonist, one Tam somebody, asked derisively if I doubted peer review and Stanford University.  I sent her a link that shows that "peer review" does very little to improve the quality of research papers.  So no, I am not impressed with peer review as it relates to research papers.  This shut her up for a while.

As for the paper being from Stanford University, so what?  Stanford is a hotbed of leftist thought and ideology.  I would expect the paper to be biased, just as so many "scholarly" papers on global warming have been.  Further, other researchers have reached the opposite conclusion.  The question is not yet decided in scholarly circles.

UPDATE:  I found two sites that rebut the Stanford study as sophomoric and biased.  No surprise there.  Read MORE JUNK, LESS SCIENCE: New Stanford “Working Paper” claims right-to-carry increases assaults by 33%

Also read:  Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Linked to Increase in Violent Crime -- a rebuttal.

2. The Rich and Taxes.  The rich pay way more than their fair share of taxes, yet liberals believe the opposite.  Liberals view corporations that keep earnings off-shore to be "traitors" and "tax evaders."  They want to tax the living shinola out of every corporation, then kill the stockholders and sell their bodies to rendering plants.  Just kidding about the rendering plants.

3.  The Military:  Weaker or Stronger?  Liberals have graphs and charts that prove anything they want, and insist that the military is very strong compared to other functions of government.  Maybe.  I hope so.  However, my general impression is that the military is quite a bit weaker since Obama took power; he has fired numerous generals and officers, for example, and overall military morale is lower.

4.  Black Lives Matter, a Hate Group?  Black Lives Matter members have lately been advocating murder of police officers and other whites, and eight cops have been murdered in the past nine days.  However, the liberal tweeters says there is no "direct evidence" that these calls for violence are responsible for the officers' deaths.  Maybe it's just a black thing that we wouldn't understand.  Lee Stranahan, however, thinks the group advocates killing cops.

I will be looking for more information about items 1, 3 & 4.  If you have any relevant links or comments, please let me know.