"Spooky" Stories.

Here's a bunch of interesting parables about human nature and group events and survival.

Naturally they get a bit dark in places.  And some are apocryphal   such as the lemmings one, but they do talk about how bad stuff can happen and it's rarely "fair".

And in short, the importance of liberty, of being free.  Such as the one about the starved horses. Where a farmer is taken in on animal cruelty charges because he starved his animals in the hopes of being able to afford them at a later day:

The moral of the story: The guy who is starving you may sincerely be trying to feed you, but his best efforts might not be enough. In the end, if you are penned in, you can be killed by simple starvation and neglect, requiring no directly malign intention by your captors. Starvation just happens naturally when insufficient food is coming into the enclosure.

Or the related Crazy Cat Lady.  Someone with too many animals to care for and refuses to let them go:

The moral of the story: Good intentions don’t mean squat if you trap other living beings inside an enclosure and then you can’t feed them in perpetuity. The holocaust that results is still on you. Expressed good intentions about your trapped population will not be accepted. “I was doing my best to help them” will ring as hollow a defense as “I was just following orders.” North Korea comes to mind as a very large enclosure.

Malevolence is not required for oppression and destruction   Though funny thing,  the people that want to whole the whip, that want to make a "better"  man  tend to rather enjoy it.


And then after the parables it gets darker. Like what happens when the food distribution systems fail?  The answer is grim.  In short: stay out of an adjacent to any urban centers.  Oh joy.

There's a related article on Civilizational Margin here.

Water is Heavy.

An example.

There's a reason they tell you to not drive over flooded roads.

Inertia and buoyancy .

Post inspired by some thoughts from Tam, the above image, and some car talk at lunch.

Oh and from this bit here.  Specifically this part

BlogMeet and Merch and Handgonne Vids

Had a fun blogmeet at Yats.  Topics went from what happens when a bunch of your neighbors are also into armature radio, to the importance of red beans, to where to buy blinking "science!" lights, and a bunch of various and sundry that slip my mind at the moment.

And as promised I wore my Russian Origami shirt:

If you want one it can be ordered at the above link.

I'll put up Roberta's account when it gets posted. Edit:  And here's her report.

But first, as promised,  footage of the Handgonne in action.



Here's one of it with a better fireball.   And here's a closer look while a friend shoots it.

There's just something about a gun with no moving parts.   Also it's quite fun firing shot as well.  Also at the blogmeet was discussion that while the handgonne could be used for squirrel hunting,  deer hunting, as one of the smith's friends is thinking, seems right out the window.


Update with GBC comments:

Weerd: You wearing a suit at the range, Jack?

This tickles me because in that vid (and right now) I'm wearing Woolrich conceal carry pants,  a Dickies work shirt, workboots and one of Linoge's Russian Orgiami shirts (I bought two, you should too!).  All of which is pretty far from a suit.

Both shirts have good material and long tails, which makes handy for carry options.  The pants are nice having reinforced pockets,  extra pockets (without making you look like you have cargo shorts), and seams that have extra material that make doing repairs and adjustments a snap.
.
Weerd: Jack looks like you shop at the MIB store!

Hey! I  have some tan, dark blue, and brown clothes.  Even some dark green stuff!

Monsters?

Here's an interesting piece on Cracked by David Wong 5 Reasons Humanity Desperately Wants Monsters to be Real. It goes into the psychology and evolutionary history and why humans are so inclined to demonize out-groups.

What's funny is when the David Wong's own bias gets through.  Naturally, he talks about how when someone disagrees with you they might not be a monster, but the inclination is there  especially if you dehumanize others to justify your own misdeeds.

 Naturally his examples lean a certain way. For example  unpack this conclusion:

So no matter how many times you vote to cut food stamps and then use the money to buy a boat, you could still be way worse. You could, after all, be one of those raping/murdering/lazy/ignorant/greedy/oppressive monsters that you know the world is full of and that only your awesome moral code prevents you from turning into at any moment.

It's fascinating in a piece about dehumanizing those that disagree with you to give yourself moral comfort, the author...  does exactly that.  It's actually very human.  I can give a little slack as it would be hard for him to write an example such as above without some bias.

However, earlier in the article, he has a section where he talks about vigilante fantasies and why they are so satisfying, even to himself. And then he puts up a picture of George Zimmerman.

Nevermind that Zimmerman was injured, attacked first, was defending himself, and that much of what Tayvon Martin's family  "has said in public have turned out to be outright fabrications."   Hell just look at the deliberate use of photos of Martin that are years out of date.

In an article talking about the need for humans to to have monsters, David Wong makes his own monster.  In an article about how people will rush do dehumanize others without having all the facts  David Wong does just that.

Hats off Wong.  Excellent example of man's need to create monsters.

What's funny is that there are monsters.  Or is someone who goes about raping/murdering NOT a monster?

Aren't good and sensible people all about rape never being justified? Isn't that why the Dem's "War on Women" resonates?  They point out examples of people that try to justify/excuse/contextualize rape because it is considered repugnant (and then they conflate it with #MoreFreeStuff).


You can have a point on your list that says "We All Have at Least One Category of People We Think of as Monsters"  and nod sagely on the wages of hate and dehumanizing, but the contra is... what?   To have no behavior  no action that is considered monstrous?  

I'd give Wong credit for acknowledging that he is not immune to this behavior.  He repeatedly talks about this being a universal human trait and gives his own examples, both knowingly and, as we see above, unknowingly    But the title of his piece betrays that he doesn't think monsters are real.


The thing is there are monsters (hah note how the "At Least One Category"  point is such an insulation from this line of thinking).  Or there are at least are people that will do monstrous things to other human beings.

Rape and murder for example. You can even point to people that do monstrous thing and without any "justifiable" (whatever that means)  reasons.  Is the alternative to say that all people would be rapists?   That we are all monsters,  we just don't have the opportunity?

Just look through Weerd's Gun Death files or  Jay G's  Dead Goblin Count  And yes, by calling them Goblins Jay G is deliberately dehumanizing the attackers.

Or if those examples are a bit too pedestrian how about this list of The 7 Creepiest Serial Killers In American History.  Or maybe Cracked's own lists such as 6 Real Murders who Put Horror Movie Villains to Shame  or  The 5 Creepiest Stories in the History of War.

Here's the thing David Wong forgets (in addition to his own making of monsters).  Yes there was a psychological and evolutionary need for humans to develop behaviors that were designed at defeating predators, rivals, and attackers.

But predators, rivals, and attackers still exist. Sure, you can come up with  reasons why the rapist, the murderer, or person threatening to do the preceding to you if you don't give him your stuff is not a monster.  But that doesn't negate the fact that there are people who can and will do those things to you.

Saying there's no such thing as a monster is no comfort when faced with a person perfectly willing to act like one.

Of course, that there are monsters (or those that act monstrous)  does make dehumanizing those that disagree with you much. much easier. Just because you go around saying that some things are wolf-like does not mean that wolves don't exist.

The Nineteenth Amendment? You’ve come a long way baby.

Sure as she made little golden apples, there's a reason that Eris made surrogates and hatchet-men.

It’s so that when you court the “unemployed I’m the voice-of-my-generation so pay my rent Dad!” voting block with your glass-eyed celebrity looking for a big, strong Welfare State to be her husband-daddy your campaign has some plausible deniability.

Not all attempts to be hip and edgy work out.  And you kind of want an escape hatch.



Yes... there's a full minute of her "too hip for the world" prattle.  Why that's like 45 minutes in college minutes!  And boy does it feel that way.

Remember, "this is an official Obama for America ad. This isn’t some PAC, or some minor celebrity trying to get upvotes on Funny or Die. OfA put this out there."

Further, Treacher points out this is what the Dems think of their own base, women so "so helpless and infantilized that something like this appeals to them.”  Or worse it's what they think will sway independents.

Again,  this is why you have surrogates and hatchemen and PACs and fellow travelers. Keep your own hands clean.  Have an alibi.

I mean geeze, Progs. It’s not like the Republicans haven’t been giving you plenty of ammo in your “war on women” you don’t have to go full Stepford.

Is that why Obama admitted that he has trouble with ninth grade math? Did he think it would help woo voters he assumes are intimidated by all those scary numbers?

It's sad when the Daily Kos puts together a better "Republicans are Scary to Women" advert.

Oh and to add to the pile of Sad?

It's a copy of a Putin campaign ad. 

*puts on black framed glasses*
"Yeah, it's a fun ad in an ironic, trying to hard, way,  but I liked the original better.  It was Russian, I'm sure you haven't heard of it."

Via Weerd, of course who also links Crowder actually managing to satirize the vid.
Way to fight against Poe's Law!

Fall

Welp, looks like with the front moving through Fall is here.

I should have bought some cider today.   Ah well.

It's looking like I'll have to mow the lawn one more time.

Depending on the weather, I hope to fire the handgonne again, and see how others like it at the range.

Not sure I'm ready to risk the chron with it though.

Who will retake the Whitehouse?

I heard that line just now on the radio on the drive home.

You expect that with an election and all.   But there's some caveats.

The AP newsdroid was talking about "The Obama campaign's plan to retake the Whitehouse."

Not retain the Whitehouse.  But retake.   

At least they're admitting that Obama was in office, at some point in time.

 

And of course the newsdroid herself used that blatant language.  Democratic operatives with bylines indeed.

Though I wonder why the Progs are so worried. It's not like the Stupid party is a real threat to them,  and even if the Stupids won it wouldn't be too different.

Then again, Maoists and Stalanists don't get along either.

Stupid Republicans think Dems are doing a "shiny object" campaign. Why that's just... Squirrel!

So this is getting some lefties in a tizy.

He'll govern as a pro-life president, but you're going to see the Democrats use all sorts of shiny objects to distract people's attention from the Obama performance on the economy. This is not a social issue election.

The reaction is rank disbelief that this isn't a social issue election followed by a  good twenty minutes of people complaining about that exact shiny object.  Followed by one about how galling it was to say that strengthening gender based equal pay was neither a major economic reform or a job creator.

Little bit of fun irony.
Edit: This is not to say that issue X is not important and that because someone of Party A says it's a "shiny distraction" it's illegitimate. It is funny when a list of such "shiny objects" is brought up when it actually does distract people.

And of course Mr A was there and added this chestnut.

Yeah I dunno, the large scale hoarding of resources by the top 1%, achieved by squeezing it out of everyone else, is kinda a social issue

Bravo Champagne Socialist. Bravo.  Funny thing, that comment didn't get any traction.

But the best part was later on  this story was laid out. Never mind the administration lying about Benghazi to make themselves look better,  no Palin said something that Carney and Cuomo have!

It's sorta racist!

Squirrel!

Common household tool

That's the line that got commented most when I passed this link around.



And sure,  the 1911 has been around for over a century.

Via Vodkapundit.

Quote of the Day Sebastian: ID required for which rights?

At PA Gun Blog Sebastian articulates the "Voter ID" thing quite nicely in his take down of a reporter whining about the number of people who would be disenfranchised by voter ID,  after bemoaning that Americans care more about gun rights than voter rights.

Oh, but there’s no concern about millions people who might not be able to exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the same reason? This is complete and utter bullshit. I’ll put more thought into what to have for dinner tonight than what Stephanie Jones put into this article, for her to parrot such nonsense. Either you can’t condition the exercise of a right on showing state ID, or you can. If you can, it’s acceptable for both rights. If you can’t, it’s acceptable for neither. That’s the debate, and it’s one I think that is worth having. It’s also one I’m perfectly happen to be on the side of requiring no state ID for either, if Ms. Jones can decide voting rights are really that important. 

Emphasis added.     And this is just on treating voting on a Shall Issue basis.  Where if you meet a set of requirements (age, citizenship) you will get a card and you will be able to vote.

And speaking of disenfranchising poor people from a constitutional right...
The president bemoans the  availability of "cheap hand guns".  Well at least he didn't use the phrase "Saturday Night Special." The racist irony would be a bit too thick there.

While Chicago mulls over a "bullet" tax. 

How about May Issue?  There's still places where the State can decide for any reason to deny you a right.  Live in NYC or Boston or San Fan and you're not politically connected or wealthy?  Well screw you.

Remember, Martin Luther King Jr. himself applied for a carry permit.  And since this was the American South in the late 50's the police used their discretionary powers to deny his rights.  Fortunately, the South has advanced and now any law abiding citizen can get a carry permit regardless of their skin tone.

No, you want to go to a place where the police are empowered to infringe on the rights of anyone they damn please you'd have to go to the "North".  Or at least the North as the progressives define it.

After-all the , the police would still deny King a permit in Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, DC and much of new New York, California and Massachusetts, especially the urban and "urban" parts of those states.

A'yup the only state in that list that could be considered "Southern" is Maryland. Progress!

This all reminds me of this question:  If the State cannot trust the average citizen to keep and bear arms then why does that State trust the average citizen to vote?

"I'll be your visionary, and you do the things I come up with."

The Onion has a pretty good takedown of the more "magic" based TED talks.



I predict a great future in green energy for this fellow.   I really like how they captured the "elegance trap" that these snake oil salesmen peddle in.  That's an idea that is so perfect, so great, so elegant that it HAS to work.  And damn the little details.

Via 

Why the Rise of Gun Rights?

Sebastian has an open thread in the change from the high water mark of the Gun Control movement to the present where they are scattered and demoralized.

The discussion in the comments is fascinating.  We know Gun Rights are on a hearty upswing but as to why, well.. there seem to be many reasons.

The spread of Shall Issue to the vast majority of the country, the spread of self defense as a reason to own a gun, the accessibility if information via the internet,  the re-normalization of guns via (video games and all of the previous)  seem to be major factors.

In personal experience, I was in Buffalo for a wedding.  And I found that May Issue was loathed there.  Even by the "hipsterish" folks.  As long as the person you were talking to was not a red-diaper baby level (with one big exception) people seemed affronted by the idea of "The Man"  telling them they couldn't have a gun. Also discussing the pre-1986 aspect of machine gun ownership boggled them. No no you can't own that machine gun it's too new, here have this older one.

However, that big exception:  Canadians.  The Fudd is alive in them.  They're all about the "Sporting Purpose"   so Pa-Pa's hunting rifle or Me-Ma's shotgun is just fine, but a handgun or something with a normal magazine?  Well... then you gotta be looking for trouble.  It goes to the "Why do you need a gun?"

In Canada,  "Because Fuck you that's why!"  is considered too impolite.  And "Because I want to defend myself" is seen as too aggressive. Hell I remember growing up  (NJ in the 90's)  that you couldn't argue that people should have a gun unless it was for historical or hunting or sport purposes.

That's what banning carry and self defense does.

In Canada you can't use a gun to defend yourself.  Their safe storage laws make it a crime to defend your home with a gun, and you can't get a carry permit. Well unless you're connected.  Canada's Carry Permits are a bit harder to get than NYC's but they exist.

But the point is that if you live in an area where people can't use guns to defend themselves in or out of the home then you have turned guns into just a somewhat dangerous hobby.   As Weerd has said before:

Yep, as soon as we only frame gun ownership in a "Sporting Purposes" test, we've lost, because guns indeed are dangerous. We not only have people killed and injured during the sports, but we have people abusing guns and harming and committing crimes.

To weigh those things against the fun of hunting and sport shooting is simply selfish and foolish, and if that's the case there is no reason to NO ban guns.

As soon as we add self-defense and the protection from tyranny, suddenly the argument changes greatly. 

I think,  adding self defense and protection from tyranny was a big factor in changing the argument.   Note that the places that have gun control "success"  work by taking away self defense from the common man.

Germany, Italy,  Canada,  NYC... the dirty secret is that those places do allow CCW.  Just not for the commoners.   And I think that is a difference  as many Americans (especially those in the ~30%  ~10 May/No Issue states) realize with jealous eyes towards their freerer brethren.

I know that in Buffalo itself there's a big blame NYC/Bloomberg angle where they lay the State's Nannying stupidities on the downstate folks.

Progressive "Irony"

So in mixed nationality conversation this comment came up:  "Isn't it funny how we read all American dialogue with a southern accent."

Which is revealing for various reasons. But what was most revealing was the response it got in Mr. A:

God dammit why couldn't Sherman have exterminated them? I mean that's like.. about two notches from imagining every German with one of those red swastika armbands

A tiny bit of credit for him knowing about the March to the Sea even if to fuel his fantasies of racial extermination and ideological purity.

This is what the loon is really saying:

How dare other countries stereotype my nation based on a racial-ideological-regional sub group!  Why that's almost as bad as saying we're Nazis!  Clearly the military forces of my nation should have exterminated said racial-ideological-regional sub group when they had the chance!

Why racial?  Because Mr. A wouldn't want Soutehrn blacks to be slaughtered by Sherman.  That's racist! Yes they were slaves, but the niceties of slave versus free man is thin gruel for a man that whines about a lack of extermination.


And this from a person that has good odds of thinking he's more moral and compassionate than you, and will lecture you on end about it.

Tolerance!

Merch and Merch or Origami Hand Cannon

Well, I exaggerate slightly.

It's origami and a hand cannon

The T-shirt is Linoge's  Russian Origami  that just came in today.  Very sharp. Order yours today.  

Supplies are limited.  Seriously, they are.

The cannon on a stick is... well exactly that.  It's a 50 caliber handgonne courtesy of Speer.  It was a custom order but he's made them before.  As JayG will attest.   And it is a seriously awesome and very fun weapon.

I've already got a flintlock and a blackpowder mortar so I had all the kit in hand.

(Not pictured: fuse.  Which is a story for another day)

Very fun.  There's something about a gun that has no moving parts.  I have some video I shot at the range.  Not sure if I should go with the one where I have my back to the camera (obscuring the cannon)  or the one where you can see the handgonne but the fireball isn't as good.

Also as a bonus Speer packaged some thing extra in with my order.

It's the little tube on the bottom rail.

Yes, it's a 22 caliber  key-chain cannon.  I don't have the shot to fire it yet but hope too soon.

And how funny is it that my biggest and smallest guns are both single blocks of steel that you light by sticking in fuses?

 Here's another picture for scale against my mortar.  The above link has some close in shots of it.



So that's two merchants I've had more than satisfactory business with.

Update:  Thanks for the link Linoge!  And here's an updated post with the shirt at a blogmeet and some video of the handgonne in action.

Quote of the Day Tam: The Future!

So some guys decided that Project Excelsior was cool and all,  but it could have been faster.

This led to Felix Baumgartner trying to break the sound barrier... without an airplane.   Or anything other than potential energy.  Granted at 23 miles up he's got a mess of that.


After watching the event Tam puts it into perspective 

 I just used a global communication network to watch video footage and telemetry streamed in real time from the edge of space, where a man privately sponsored by an energy drink company leaped into the black sky and went supersonic without an aircraft.

What a fascinating modern world we live in! 

A'yup.


 In other news I had a very interesting range trip yesterday.  I'm still compiling the photos and my notes.

Got some fun gear to talk about and what to do if you have the muzzle-loader equivalent of "A click and no bang."   First and foremost   Obey all the 4 rules.  You do that and you won't get hurt.

The Truth about Robert Farago and the Truth About Guns

Ever wonder why the gunbloggers are so against the The Truth About Guns?

Sure you've heard about Robert Farago's copyright infringement, theft of content, misrepresentation and lies, editing of other people's works,  dim view of gun owners, and general jackassery.

But I doubt you've seen a a whole mess of examples in one place.

Linoge does a commendable job on stockpiling the litany, though it was a group effort.

Occupy Sesame Street

So team Obama thinks they have a winner.  Thanks Weer'd!

They're staunchly demanding the continued federal funding of a media behemoth that includes a TV show lasting 43 seasons (and counting), two feature films, mounds and mounds of merch (millions upon millions of every imaginable type , international spin-offs,  and connections to the Walt Disney corporation.

Normally when someone shouts "We need to fund the arts!"  they're talking about something small and obscure, usually a product that would not survive on the market on its own.

At the very least they're not talking about something that has been successfully mass-marketed for decades.

Does a mass commercial concern  really need federal funding?  It's not like Sesame Street has shied away from turning their creative content into profitable products. Also note the constant refrain that removing government funding equals banning.

Here we have the cannibal pot of the modern western social welfare state.  The same people that talk about cutting government waste or sticking it to those Fat cats will scream and cry if anything were to happen to Elmo or Big Bird.

Of course the Obama admin didn't ask Sesame Workshop's permission to use their product in their ads.
And despite the founder being a heavy Obama donor,  the company has demanded that the Obama admin take down the ads.

The Obama campaign refused.


Update:  The Obama Campaign's response:

A lawyer for Sesame Workshop has requested that the campaign take down the spot, which was slated to run on national cable outlets.

“We have received that request,” [Obama spokesman Jen] Psaki told reporters on Tuesday. “We’re reviewing it. I will say it doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane” — a reference to Obama.

Got that?  They're gonna keep blathering about how vital it is that a merchandise-driven show stays on the public teat weather the show runners want them to or not.

So remember only one candidate is serious about puppet Welfare!


It's good to recall that Obama was using this to contrast himself from "big evil wall-street fat cats".  Yeah President GoldmanSachs who still has Corzine as a top bundler, and has plenty of finance friends in the White House gets to play the populist card.

And call it to keep funding a "to big to fail" parade of merch.  Which really is how the banking and auto bailouts worked.   Companies that play ball get protection.  Those that don't...  don't.

It's a good thing Obama's so busy looking out for the little guy.  

Political consistency...

Here's a bit of advice.  If you complain about the current state of politics and explain why voters fall for demagogues and liars with:  "Because people are stupid."

That's perfectly fine. By and large, the citizens of a representative government do get the government the bulk of them vote for.

And you can followup with a complaint about "politics as usual".  Again, see previous.

But when you dream about your own ideal party you shouldn't have your cornerstone be that it's "one that gives a damn about the people."  Then we get to murky waters.

So... you want a party that gives a damn about the very same stupid people that keep voting for the wrong politicians?

Huh, a party that treats the common rabble at best as spoiled ignorant children that need the coercive force of the state to "enlighten them".

From there it goes to a Feudal view of the world and straight to treating "the people" as livestock.

Compassionate!

Quote of the Day RobertaX: "particularly dim -- and particularly telling."

Her comment on this PSH scare-monger page complaining about people with guns carrying at little league games!

And how is this complaint written?

Schneider voted to void local gun laws and let politicians decide who can carry guns.

Huh? Politicians deciding who can carry guns?  I didn't realize the Dems were so against discretionary issue. And they don't want politicians deciding where they can carry either?  So no government mandated gun free zones then?

Oh wait...  they just don't like it when the Statehouse rules against their favor.

Or as Rickn8or points out: "Um, isn't that decision made by politicians at either level?? Or is a state legislator more expensive than a city / county one?"

This reminds me of Melina Kennedy.  When she ran for Indianapolis Mayor, she made a similar baronial assumption. She ran promising to "get tough" on "gun crime", with a whole raft of restrictive regulations for the city... that State Law would have prohibited her from enacting.

I guess government's only bad for these folks when it ties their hands.

Quote of the Day JayG: Trust the intentions of an attacker?

JayG comments on a story where a man finding five young men suddenly breaking into his house opens fire defending himself. Jay wonders if it might have just been "kids" breaking into some places looking for "easy beer money".  However  he points out that's rather moot:

When those unknown people come through the door, you have no idea if they're just kids out misbehaving or a pack of feral animals who really don't care if you wind up dead. 

I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't want to bet my life on the morals of someone kicking in my door...

Similar lines are:

•  "Give the mugger what he wants and he'll go away."
• "Don't antagonize the attacker you'll just make things worse."
• "You money's not worth risking your life over."

All these thoughts have the central problem that they presume the aggressor  the criminal, the man willing to break the most fundamental aspects of the social compact, is someone who will honor a verbal agreement.

Folks don't be surprised when the murderer or the rapist reveals he's also a liar.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be that "high" up. Take the simple mugger.  You think someone perfectly willing to walk up to another person and threaten grievous bodily harm in order to get their stuff is a person who you can trust to adhere to negotiated terms?

You may think your life isn't worth the money in your wallet. Yet to the mugger,  it is.  But don't worry you can totally trust him to keep his word if he says he won't hurt you if you just give him the money.

Doubly so if he forces you to a different location like say an alleyway or the back room of a shop.  Nothing suspicious there!

You never forget your first Doctor...

Mine used a crowbar.

Need a hint?  It's a variant of this shirt:  You Never Forget Your First Doctor  Mine was McCoy
Which is itself a variant of this shirt.

Also from the second link there's this wookie shirt.

Quote of the Day Tam: TSA Branding Opportunities.

On going through the airport today (the security may be fake but the is real),  Tam noticed something.

I find it amusing that they are selling ad space on the bottoms of the trays you dump your personal effects in. When the day comes that America has cattle cars and camps, the boxcars will have ads on the side and the prisoner's uniforms will have sponsorship logos. ("Real Americans wear Nike when they get reeducated!") 

It occurs to me that the US's dark future is likely a mix between DeathRace 2000 and Brave New World.   At least after the civ-rios and pop-reds from the collapse of the prole-cred supply settle out and things stabilize to the New New Economic Patriotism.

Get Nutrient-Cubes at Blue Eagle locations today!

And as a bonus go to this Onion article where I'm more... befuddled as to what the joke is.  I guess it's funny because Obama doesn't really have godlike powers and omnipresence.

Oh and whatever you do don't think too deeply on why the locations in this article are Democratic strongholds.  Or the differences in lifestyles between the Party's voters, campaign volunteers, and grunt staffers versus the Party's bosses, office holders and senior advisers.

Quote of the Day 1911Man: Facts? Who cares. We're conveying Emotion here!

 So Robb Allen mocking has a post mocking an anti for saying "the number of children killed by guns has doubled every year since 1960”.

Those of you with even an inkling of critical thinking should be laughing or face-palming.   I'm not here to quote Robb's deconstruction.

No this is for 1911Man's comment on said post:

Liberals don't care about FACTS, and do so in a way that is so utterly foreign to the Conservative mind as to be outside the event horizon of your comprehension. When they say stupid shit like this, they don't actually intend to convey a fact. What they are conveying, quite effectively if the reader is a fellow Liberal, is an EMOTION. Neither the writer nor the reader cares about the number; the number isn't even in their universe. What they are saying is "I really, really hate guns." The Liberal reader never even thinks to wonder about the accuracy of the factual statement, because its accuracy is irrelevant to the communication being had.

Remember this difference.

When you say e.g. "27% of black males between the ages of X and Y are in prison", what the Liberal hears is "I hate black people." They foolishly interpret your words as though a Liberal had spoken them.

This is true.  I have found this when arguing with Libs.  Hell just see the previous post.  The man who tried to pass off that Beck line as real didn't apologize or even knowledge that he had been taken in by a lie.  All I got, from him and others, was a "Well Beck is crazy."

What Beck actually said was immaterial. What mattered was that Beck = Crazy Right Wing.  And by finding a way to link the variable "Beck" to the Libya the value Crazy Right Wing can be applied to Libya.

Fake but accurate.  Emotionally true.  "This supports my own biases and world view so I'll automatically accept it without any verification."

To be fair, that last one is a bitch to grapple with.

I've seen this emotional conveyance in gun rights debates.

I'll do something like explain the status quo of the NICS and the requirements to be an FFL and someone will get all affronted and then accuse me of defending it.  They'll assume that because I say "X is already illegal due to Law Y" that I must be a supporter of Law Y.

Here's another example of emotions trumping reality. MSNBC's Harris Perry believes that because Elizabeth Warren grew up thinking she was native american she really is a native American.

Really its no stranger than thinking Elizabeth Warren is the middle class champion while Scott Brown is the mustache twirling plutocrat.  Even though Warren has far more wealth and has been legal representative for big insurance companies and mine companies and all sorts of liberal boogeymen.

Funny that.

Soothing Scapegoats.

So noted, nutty commentator  Glen Beck recently proposed that one of the guards that died with Ambassador Stevens Glen Doherty might have been CIA and that before his death upon seeing the situation worsening  sent an electronic message to warn allies of the deteriorating conditions.

  A diplomat and former SEAL being a spook and using the internet to get a message out? Sounds sensible right?

Not to slashdot!

No they studiously ignore Beck's main thrust, that the attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with a youtube video.  No they zero in on... things Beck Never said.

It's actually a fascinating game of telephone where slashdot reports the comments on one article here. Which itself is a paranoid exaggeration.

In sort, because Doherty sent his message via Eve Online's messaging system, Kris Ligman at  Gameranx reached this conclusion: "Glenn Beck Thinks EVE Online is a Front for the CIA."

Yes, and AT&T is an NSA front and the US Postal System is an FBI  sting operation.   And Slashdot decided to go further into the fantasy and report a sarcastic comment as gospel.

And thus you have this meme:   "Here's one that even The Onion would reject as too blatantly ridiculous: American right-wing radio and TV clown Glenn Beck believes that Sean Smith aka Vile Rat, the EVE Online diplomat who was killed earlier this month during the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, was actually a CIA agent, relaying communications to his fellow undercover agents at Something Awful."

Note that the names are different too.  And note the fluffy chat that obscures the shocking concept of  "Diplomatic staff can sometimes be spooks."

But hey, Beck would have said something crazy anyway!   And this provides a nice soothing distraction.   Romney and Beck and the rest of the Right Wing are the real ones to blame.

It's not like the State Department ignored flagrant threats, attacks, and kept a woefully under secure facility,  the FBI waited for weeks before finally giving up and never did investigate the consulate, or that the White House is actively covering up what happened.

Nope! No worries about that.  Beck said something crazy!

 I'll note that this cropped up in my my mostly liberal, low information voter test group as the first mention of the terrorist attack in Libya.  Take that for what you will.

Quote Of the Day Bleddyn: "Journalistic Only Ones"

In a comment, responding to Robb Allen's post on "offensive speech" and how "American Journalists whose entire lives revolve around being able to say what they want, when they want" are moaning and whining about how free speech must be curtailed Bleddyn says:

This is the journalist version of the "only ones" mindset. When they espouse restricting speech they don't mean THEIR speech. They are smart and trained to speak only correct ideas. If you take offense, it's because you are wrong. But who knows what filthy, terrible ideas you might express if given the freedom to?                      

 This.   Spot on.

As has been said before.  The Antis are not simply anti-gun.  They are anti Liberty.   They have as much contempt for the First Amendment as they do the Second.  They hate any limit on governance and any idea that the common rabble have the same rights as them.

Mark my words.  We will see a push for May Issue style discretionary Free Speech permits.

And the media will happily play along. After-all  it'll crush their competition, dissenting voices, and maybe with a few "informed citizens mandates"  bring back their market share.