What the MSM Reports

More than half firearm deaths are suicides - CNN.com

I don't have time to go do any research, but a couple of things come to mind as I read this.

1). How many deaths are caused by smoking, fatty foods, alcohol, falls and our old favorite, car accidents? So should we outlaw those things?

2). So where would the person writing this article be on the "right to die"? I'd guess they would be very much in favor of it -- Dr assisted suicide and all that. I don't like to see society "making suicide easy", by saying "just go into your doctor and he will help you". Because down that path it isn't very far to "our best advice is to kill yourself". It just seems odd to me to see an anti-gun person saying that a constitutional right has to be given up "because some might kill themselves".

3). I suspect the "gun homes are more likely..." has a causality problem. Folks that have guns to protect their home and family are more "responsible". In cultures where people take responsibility, suicide rates are higher -- Japan, China, etc ... "face is lost" and they feel like "suicide is the only way out". I disagree with the choice, but making taking responsibility illegal isn't going to fix it, and most likely will make it worse. The Scandinavian countries have worked hard to remove personal responsiblity from life, and they are plagued with a very high suicide rate -- and I'd bet it isn't predominately from guns.

Wesley Clark Doesn't Like McCain's Experience

McCain campaign: Clark's comments 'sad' - CNN.com

One has to be Democrat to think like this. McCain doesn't have enough experience? But he is an adviser to Obama? Huh? Wouldn't someone that had a couple shreds of rationality in their brain think that "hmm, maybe "experience" isn't what I want to call attention to". Nope, doesn't even register in a Democrat brain. No matter what experience a Republican has, it is "bad", no matter how much experience a Democrat might lack, it is certainly not a problem.

That is pretty much ideologue in a nutshell, and the kind of thinking that drives the ideological MSM every day.

North Korea and Iran

Power Line: North Korea and Iran in the News

I'm not going to go dig back in the blog right now, but I'm pretty sure that the MSM and a bunch of Democrats wanted Bush to do "bi-lateral talks" with N Korea as opposed to pushing them into 6-party regional talks. No matter, the MSM and the Democrats seem to find "anti-Bush" to be way more important than "pro-American".

While I'm never going to say "trust N Korea" until they have some sort of elections and openness, it seems very hard to argue that them blowing up a nuclear cooling tower, and at least having SOME level of inspections and agreements would be "progress" if it were not during the Bush administration. Just wait until BO gets in, I suspect we will see a mass MSM pants wetting over way less progress than this if it can somehow be linked to BO. The sad part is I suspect that BO "progress" is likely to be a lot like Jimmuh Carter "progress", which just means "we got snookered, and the future is MUCH less safe" (not the current "fake less safe").

While President, Jimmuh handed Iran over to the Mullahs and then gave us the "Jimmy Carter Desert Classic" military action, a textbook of a Democrat military action. Only Americans die, they just run into each other, they don't even engage the enemy, the only outcome is a vast (justifiable) reduction in the world view of US capability. As a private citizen Jimmuh went over and schmoozed with Kim Jung Ill, gave away the store and allowed N Korea to get a bunch of stuff from us PLUS continue their nuclear program. Oh, Slick Willie was actually supposed to be president then, but nobody seems to hold him responsible for that debacle. I suppose he was "busy" ... he really needed a desk set with sort of a "Trumanesque sign" that says "The Stain Starts Here", but I digress.

So rather than have anything reasonable to say about N Korea, it seems that the MSM has decided it is a good idea to come up with a fake Iran invasion as a way to control a couple of news cycles. Nice of them to be so helpful-if it is a complete fantasy (seems the most likely), then the reporting just gets folks feeling more worried about oil, the economy and such. MSM / Democrat win. If there IS any truth to it, then it just helps remove some potential elements of surprise, potentially gets some CIA folks caught and killed. ANOTHER MSM win ... help out the Iranians, kill some more CIA folks (which they generally hate unless they can be used to fake something out to make Bush look bad), either stop or reduce the chances of success for a military operation.

Now one might think that there COULD be a downside. What if the Iranians actually are closer to a nuke than most folks know, and they get one off at Israel and start WWIII? Well, as long as they do it "soon" (and the MSM will try to extend that definition as long as possible), then that is OK as well. "Bush did it" ... "Bush made us less safe". That would actually be the BEST from an MSM / Democrat POV. With progress in Iraq and N Korea walking away from the nuclear button, some non-sheep might get the odd idea that maybe some of this seems strangely like "more safe"? Can't have that. Iran is the hardest nut to crack, very important to keep progress from happening there.

What Is Wrong With Gun Control?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - How Gun Control Lost

Nice little summary ... the stats and more facts in the article, but the basic answer:

1). It doesn't work -- Increasing control of guns has never been demonstrated to reduce gun crime. Duh? How many criminals care that the gun they are using is illegal? Anyone ever notice that drugs are illegal as well?

2). Turns out the founders enumerated and INDIVIDUAL right because they wanted INDIVIDUALS to have the right, not the military. (unlike today's lefties, these guys were generally intelligent-they didn't see the question of the military having guns as being worth discussing).

ANYONE that had ANY interest in "freedom" and "rights" would be 100% on the side of individual gun rights (for law abiding sane people). The folks that want the government to take guns are folks that either are too foolish to understand the path that totalitarianism takes, or are interested in seeing our nation head that way.

American Solutions

These guys seem to be mostly common sense.

I don't really like their #10 and the whole "survey says" thing is much less than perfect, but one has to try to hold their nose and support what little positive is out there in the age of BO.

Top 10 Reasons YOU Should Support the Platform

1. English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
2. We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
3. The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
4. Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
5. Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
6. Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
7. We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8)
8. We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8)
9. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
10. We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

It is an amazing time. I suppose the lefties are just as surprised by the fact that not drilling anywhere or building any refineries means that we have less gas and diesel as they will be by the fact that when you raise a lot of taxes you get a lot less revenue for the government and a lot less productivity for everyone. Oh well, I guess a major part of being a lefty is enjoying your own imagination more than the real world.

The lefties are a wonderful people. Their "assumed rights" to everything from healthcare to "the lifestyle they want to be accustomed to" are a critical thing, but those that need to work to produce all that good stuff ought to just be happy with what they happen to decide we can have and keep our noses to the grindstone.

What Does the MSM Really Believe?

Bear Market Guide: Stay calm, make money - Jun. 27, 2008


Here is a little gem from within this article out on CNN today:

Put today's economic peril in perspective

Before you panic over today's headlines, and how far stocks could fall, consider the relative health of today's economy.

In the early 1970s, economic output was falling. But today, despite the sluggishness, GDP is still inching ahead.

In the early 1980s, unemployment hit 10.8%. Today, the rate is 5.5%, or about half that.

Inflation topped 12% in the 1970s and 14% in the early 1980s. Today, it's at 4%.

So if you read the rest of the MSM, today is a "horror". We are CERTAINLY in a "recession", it is just a "new kind". Apparently the new definitions are that anything sort of an absolutely stellar market, econonomy, low inflation, low prices, strong dollar, etc with a Republican in the White House is a "poor economny". "Sluggish GDP growth" is a "recession", again, providing that a Republican is in the White House. However, the story that they not doubt follow in their own investing, and are willing to share with investors that will read is that it really isn't all that bad at all.

Other than trying to pin a bit of the Carter hangover on Reagan, they are pretty much right on target. The '70s was the worst economic times that Baby Boomers have seen. Yes, it was far better than the depression, but we are yet to have any 3-term Democrats yet to give us quite the incompetence that a real depression needs to take hold. Carter did amazingly bad in one term, even anything nearly as bad as 9-11 happening. By the MSMs own admission (to investors only!) Bush isn't anything even remotely as bad.

Why I'm Voting Democrat

I think this guy pretty much has it pegged. He could be a bit more anti-gun, but you can't have everything!

I'M VOTING DEMOCRAT BECAUSE….

By Kirk Peterson

I'm voting Democrat because:

I think Cuba and China should be able to drill for oil 50 miles from our shores, but we shouldn't be able to drill for it 100 miles from our shores. I'm worried that some might spill, even though during Katrina not one drop was leaked from over 3200 wells off the shore of Louisiana, or any on-shore storage tanks. It could happen. Maybe.

I think nuclear power is bad even though France (my dream country) gets 80% of its electricity that way, we have 104 plants operating now that have never had a single death associated with them, the fuel is totally renewable, a kilowatt hour can be produced cheaper than any other way, and there are no atmospheric emissions. Okay, that's all good, but the problem is, some company might make money and employ people, and I'm against that.

I think we shouldn't be using oil anyway. We should fly our airplanes with fermented woodchips. Wait a minute…that would mean we have to cut down trees. Okay, no flying.

I think killing unborn, innocent babies is fine, and euthanizing old, sick people is fine, but executing convicted guilty murderers is not. Instead, they should have cable, a gym, a library....

I think we should ignore the fact that adult stem cells are involved in over 90 current cures and treatments, but embryonic stem cells have yet to be effective in even one. It doesn't matter, we need to destroy those embryos.

I think showing my generosity by taking one person's money from him so I can give it to another person who didn't earn it, is better than me giving my own money. I'm really generous with other peoples' money.

I think the government is too small, and we shouldn't let people take care of themselves. They don't really know what's good for them. The government should be making these decisions.

I think that being allowed to keep more of my own money is a disincentive for me to go out and earn more.

I think the top 1% income bracket paying 37% of the taxes isn't enough. And, the top 5% paying over 57% isn't enough. It's not fair that these people get to keep some of their money. They should pay their "fair share" even though I'm not sure what that would be.

I think we should have judges who make up the laws they want, and not be bothered by silly ideas of having elected representatives make laws, or paying attention to what the Constitution actually says, not what they want it to say.

I think being a US citizen shouldn't really mean anything and we should give all our Constitutional rights to anyone who wants them - even our enemies. Oops, I didn't mean we actually have enemies; they're just people we did something to upset, and we just don't understand them correctly.

I think if we just played patty-cake with Admedinejad and got to know him, he wouldn't think we're the Great Satan anymore, and we could be friends. Oh, and I also believed Kim Jong Il when he said they weren't making nukes. After all, Jimmy Carter agreed with him.

I don't think anything is really worth fighting for, especially America, because we're the whole reason there are problems in the world anyway.

I'm not interested in people being free. I just want the French and the UN to like us.

I don't think the laws of supply and demand are real. I think that's all just a big Republican conspiracy.

I'm worried about global warming, even though the Earth has been cooling for 8 years, the south polar ice cap is growing faster than the north pole's ice is shrinking, and there is a direct correlation between the change in the Earth's surface temperature and sun spot activity. That stuff doesn't matter, what matters is we need to get rid of SUVs. Oh, and I also know CO2 is a pollutant, even though it's natural and trees need to ingest it to live. Al Gore's my hero.

I believe that NAFTA is bad, even though all the trading partners have had an enhanced standard of living, unemployment is down in all three countries, and average wages are up. But, the AFL-CIO is against it, so I am too.

I don't think a parent has any business deciding how his child will be educated. This is a job better left to the federal Education Dept. and the teacher's unions.

I don't think anyone should be able to voluntarily put a small bit of his social security into an account that he actually owns and controls. If the -2% return the government is getting you on your social security isn't enough for you, you're just greedy.

I think welfare is great, and if someone doesn't want to work, even though they can, why should we make them? Instead, we can just take someone else's income, and give it to them because it would be cruel to make them work when they don't want to.

I want socialized medicine, because that way everyone gets the same level of care, and so what if you have to wait three years to get your hip replaced. You don't need to walk anyway....you can go on welfare!

I think Bush lied about Iraq even though every intelligence agency in the world said the same thing our CIA did, and all the major Democrats saw the same data and also said the same thing, and they all voted for it. Oh, and we just did it for oil, even though we're still waiting for that cheap oil....

How could you vote Republican? They're mean. I mean, they want old people to die, they want the environment so polluted even they couldn't live in it, and they just want to kill people in wars because they like war so much. This is all good for them because...... uh, because.... because they.... well, it doesn't matter - it's just good for them.

I'm for change, and Obama's for change, and if you're not changing, you're staying the same. And Obama's for the future, and I want to be in the future, because if you aren't in the future, that's just so "now", and I don't want to be "now", I want to be in the future. Oh, and I also want hope, and Obama's for hope, and I hope his hope is hopeful for America. So, I want the hope that in the future there will be change, and that's what Obama says he wants too. (I hope.)

Making the Clinton's Look Good

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama

You have to read the whole thing, a teaser:

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed
by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his
other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any
illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media
swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity
unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight --
switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from
Moscow changed direction.

I'm thinking that BO may in the final analysis make even Jimmy Carter seem like a President that we would have rather had than him.

My Biases

747 pilot rescues farmers from disaster - CNN.com

I've always loved equipment of most any sort- big planes and helicopters are way up there, but allegedly my first word was "tractor". The equipment on our farm wasn't very big, but I still enjoyed that part of farming; it was the cows that I just couldn't stand.

Anything with "747" in the title tends to catch my eye. Rare surprise to see an actual good news article! Think of it, a 747 pilot that probably makes $150K a year going out and helping a farmer in need? What is the world coming to? Aren't those the kinds of greedy evil people that we are supposed to be hammering with all sorts of taxes and regulation? What is wrong with that guy-he must be a really rare exception, most of the folks like him are BAAAD!

Why Does BO Need ANY Campaign Money

Rove, critics try to pin 'arrogant' label on Obama - CNN.com

Tell me again why it is that BO needs any campaign money at all? This is a CNN headline for goodness sake ... "Rove, critics try ...". Uh, is what the MSM calls "news reporting"? What would the difference between that and what BO's vaunted "response team" might do? Is Rove associated with the McCain campaign? The MSM basically never reported the fact that BO came up with his own presidential seal--if they HAD reported it, how might THEY have thought about it? We all know that GWs "smirk" was a sign of HIS arrogance-the MSM was honor bound to let us know the "facts" on that. I'm sure they got maybe 5-10K facial look scientific experts to sign a statement that "yes, that is a very arrogant "smirk"" ... so they were completely justified in reporting the arrogance of that as "proven fact".

We know that it MUST NOT be arrogant for BO to make his own seal, since Karl Rove thinks it is, and we know that Karl Rove is evil and wrong. So what is it? Does his worshipfulness BO make "mistakes"? Seems unlikely. Is it a "brilliant political move"? Is it "serving mankind"? I mean, I KNOW that it has to be good, because we are all in love with BO, but I'm one of those folks that is bitterly clinging to my gun with little in the way of brainpower. How am I supposed to know what to think unless the MSM tells me?

Author of Cathedral and Bazaar on Guns

Eric Raymond, Author or title book which is one of the seminal works of the Open Source software movement has some interesting opinions on gun ownership.

No Right Found?

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

I fine the MSMs choice of words to be interesting. Usually if there is ruling on abortion, we see headlines like "Court Upholds a Woman's Right to Choose", but in this case, from the POV of the MSM, they are active ... they "struck down" a law. Of course the 4 justices that voted to uphold this law either felt that the constitution needs to tell us it is OK to have an army that carries guns, or more likely, that the "constituion is a living document" and whatever 9 folks in robes think is a good right to make up or strike down ought to be fine with everyone else.

The 2nd amendment is really the ONLY right that counts when it comes right down to it. An unarmed populace is guaranteed to be sheep--Nazi Germain, USSR, China, Cuba, you name it--when they come for your guns it is the very last chance for any rights to remain. Under Saddam, the Iraqis had the right to vote, for some strange reason the vote always came out like 97% for Saddam. The claim may be made that one has "free speech"-- the USSR main paper was "Pravda", or "Truth". The difference between Pravda and the MSM in the US isn't nearly as great as we might think. Today, all the folks at CBS, NBC, NYT, etc with any kind of ability to get a story out would tell you that they are "very free". Of course today, we have Fox News and talk radio, where some of the folks whose views were not tolerated in the MSM outlets actually DO have the right to state their opinion. Passage of the Fairness Doctrine could put an end to that any day.

Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments, yet the high court found a specific right for abortion that states were not allowed to rule on there. The right to bear arms is as explicitly called out as any right in the constitution, yet it took 32 years for a challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, and it passed by a SINGLE VOTE! The MSM would have you believe that what happened here is a fairly arbitrary action and that there is no "right"--at least no right that is like the "right to abortion".

The most clearly delineated personal right in the constitution, and fundamentally the only one that makes the document more than a piece of toilet paper was upheld by a SINGLE VOTE. The old "doomsday clock" that supposedly set a time until we would annihilate ourselves with nukes used to tick perilously close to disaster. Why don't we have a "totalitarian clock"? Alarms ought to be ringing for everyone.

The S&W .22S

By popular demand, a picture.

How Can God Himself "Distort the Bible"?

Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible - CNN.com

Wow, James Dobson is REALLY important, his view of Obama's comments on the Bible is enough to warrant a full headline on CNN online. Is Dobson running for anything? Is he "in bed with the Republicans"? ... Well, if one reads the article, right IN the article it admits that Dobson has indicated that he will NOT vote for McCain. Talk about your "Republican shill".

So why DO you run this as a picture headline on CNN? I guess my question would be: "Why would Obama think that he needs a special staff to deal with "false attacks and rumors", when he obviously has CNN"? (and NPR, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, ....) The reason "why" is pretty obvious, CNN wants to do their best to "defend their guy and demonize ANYONE ... candidate or otherwise that makes any punches that might even have an outside chance of landing.

So what did the MSM deity BO say?

In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to
govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages
suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama
asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests
slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could
go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays
from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical
that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its
application."

What could be wrong with that? I mean, his holiness BO is certainly a noted theologian, right? I mean we ALL know that MANY in the Republican party have been calling for a theocracy where we would govern "solely on the word of the Bible"--nothing alarmist or off the wall there, right? We all know that there hasn't been any Christian theologists in 2K years that have come to any conclusions of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments for Christians, right?

I hesitate to question the great theologion, BO, but I know he will enlighten us in the future on the lack of meaning of Acts 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

No doubt Dobson is wrong and BO is right, it is "impossible to decide" between the OT and NT on what one ought to do! I wonder who is more believable on theological topics between BO and the Pope? Guess it would have to be BO, since he obviously trumps St Peter, who was the first Pope!

We are truly blessed to be alive in this time to experience the theological insights of the the great odor ... BO.

A Gun Vault to "Shoot For"

Supposedly the late Charlton Heston's gun vault. Not everyone really "needs" a flamethrower, but if you can't trust Moses with one, who could you trust?