How can you love guns when they kill so many people?

“How can you love guns when they kill so many people?” is the question John B. Fischer of The Atlantic wants to explore in his recent rant, Is It Morally Acceptable to Love Machine Guns?

Fischer is dismayed that every year, hundreds of people attend the Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot, cultivating a love for [what he calls] assault weapons in an “era of mass violence.” Fischer attended the annual Oklahoma Maching Gun Shoot and shot 80 rounds in less than a minute from a Browning machine gun.  He found it to be quite a lot of fun, and the people were congenial and harmless, “much like at a county fair” he said.  He noted that “Laws are observed and safety procedures meticulously followed”. Continue reading

“Death with dignity” or “physician-assisted suicide”

The art of persuasion often depends on using the right words to describe the subject matter you want people to believe and support. Politicians that benefit from illegal voting will fight attempts to make illegal voting more difficult to accomplish by accusing those who support voter ID of trying to suppress the disadvantaged poor from voting. Those who support gun control will call semi-automatic rifles “assault weapons.” Unconstitutional laws to take guns away from law-abiding citizens are called “common sense gun safety” laws. Marijuana smokers are lately preferring the term cannabis to describe their psychotropic drug of choice. I guess it sounds more legit or something.

“Death with dignity” sounds less harsh than “physician-assisted suicide” and possibly gets around the Hippocratic Oath prohibition on physicians giving a deadly drug to anyone who asks for it. Proponents of terminating the terminally ill want to avoide the word suicide because for many people suicide is prohibited by their religious beliefs.

Both of these terms are euphemisms for killing elderly or terminally-ill patients with toxic drugs. Death with Dignity is the preferred term because everyone wants dignity throughout their life and at their death.

Colorado voters will decide in November whether to accept or reject a ballot proposal that would legalize physician-assisted suicide in cases of terminally-ill patients with less than 6 months to live. If accepted by voters Colorado will become the 5th state to make legal the killing of terminally ill patients, along with Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California. These are all uber-Leftist states. We will see if Colorado voters, many of whom have fled those states, want to make Colorado into the same sort of cultural and political milieu they beat a path away from.

The Colorado proposal’s official title is “End of Life Options.” How clever to characterize killing people with two words that signify the opposite, life and options. Everyone likes both of those things, and the official title will probably garner a few thousand votes from people who wouldn’t vote for anything containing the words “suicide” or “death”.

There are good reasons to oppose the killing of elderly or terminally-ill patients, such as the fact that Insurance companies, hospital staff, government agencies, and even family members often have a financial stake in an early death for these patients. Today we know that many of the so-called witches that were put to death in the 1692 Salem witch trials were women of means whose heirs were anxious to collect their inheritance. Some heirs bore false witness at the trials of “witches.”

A strong reason to opppose changing Colorado’s laws on death and dying is that it simply is not necessary. Terminally-ill patients can be kept comfortable with pain relieving drugs and hospice care has made great strides in giving them loving and tender care in the presence of family members. Dying with dignity does not require suicide or intentional killing. In fact, it would be hard to find dignity in either of those choices.

The U.S. Navy has become a playground for Marxist social experiments

In 1994 Kara Hultgreen, the first female to ever be certified as a carrier-based fighter pilot, crashed an F-14 Tomcat on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). She was killed instantly. Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness suggested that Hultgreen “may have been the victim of a flawed policy”, which overlooked her mistakes in training, two of which were similar to those that caused her death. A detailed explanation of the pilot errors leading to the crash can be found here. Hultgreen’s fate resulted from the Navy’s desperate need to have a female certified as a carrier-based fighter pilot, a distinction that is normally reserved for the best of the best because it involves flying skills that a very few of the men who try out for it ever achieve. In essense, the Navy’s idiotic social policy is responsible for the destruction of a multi-million dollar aircraft and the death of a young woman who would have had a stellar career if she had not been guided into a billet demanding skills she did not possess.

The Navy has learned nothing from this experience and is in fact now doubling down on the same madness that has already caused a lot of trouble. The appointment of Rear Admiral Michelle Howard to Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe is the result or more of the sort of “flawed policy” that led to the Kara Hultgreen tragedy. Admiral Howard is a staff officer who had never seen combat or even held a post on a genuine U.S. Navy war ship. It appears that she is being offered this billet solely to satisfy a diversity goal of the uber left wing Ray Mabus, Obama’s Secretary of the Navy. Admiral Howard is a black female. This time it’s the national security of the United States that is being set aside in pursuit of an unwarranted social experiment. Continue reading

Is Donald Trump getting a fair shake by pollsters?

UPDATE 8/28: How Can You Tell When a Campaign is Way Behind? There is still time to turn things around, but not as much time as you might think, and that’s because of widespread early voting.

Sometimes polls are wrong but history and reality tell us it’s a dicey game to bet too much on them being wrong. They were wrong about Brexit, so that shows it possible but not necessarily probable.

Many conservatives believed the presidential polls were wrong in 2012 because pollsters were not using the voter turnout factor from 2010 when Republicans made large gains. Instead pollsters were using the 2008 turnout factor because it was their belief that presidential election trunout is a different species than off-year election turnout. Conservatives therefore continued to believe Romney would when win the polls were calling it for Obama. Turns out the polls were right and conservatives were surprised and disappointed. Continue reading

Thoughts on being “Never Trump”

You’ve heard this before: “I don’t like either candidate, so I’m not voting!”

If you are thinking that, read this. [I doubt if you are thinking like that. If you were you wouldn’t be here reading this. But please read on anyway and pass it to a friend who might need it]

If you are a Republican that won’t vote for Trump think about it this way… Continue reading

What can Hillary do to the U.S. Constitution?

She can do a lot. She can and will appoint new justices who are true believers in the “living Constitution.” Those are the sorts of justices that will conjure up new rights not spelled out in the Constitution and ignore rights that were clearly written there by the founders and the people who originally ratified it.  She and they can violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, under the guise that it’s a “living” document, and they will surely do that.

How would you like to play poker if the rules were “living?” All “living” means is that the rules are not fixed and can be changed willy nilly by he who holds sufficient power to do so. It’s a bit like flipping a coin when it’s, “Heads I win and tails you lose.”

Sher says she will offer amendments to fix things she thinks are wrong. She hates the Citizens United case that says citizens don’t lose their right to free speech just because they carry on their affairs in the form of a corporation. So she’ll want to make changes to the first amendment putting an end to certain people’s participation in the political process.  She hates guns so she also hates the second amendment and especially Heller v. DC which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So, “right after inauguration day” she says she’ll offer Constitutional amendments to “fix” free speech and law-abiding citizens possessing firearms.

Criminals will keep theirs.

Amending the Constitution the legitimate way does not involve the President of the United States at all. It is done by the Congress first offering an amendment by a 2/3 vote in both houses. Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.  That’s too hard to do, so the amendments she’s talking about will done by the liberal justices she appoints, by judicial fiat.  No need for the people to have a say in any of it.  No need for Congress to have a say in any of it either.  Hillary’s version of “Wham bam thank you ma’am.”

A smidgen of economic literacy in less than one lesson

From the preface of Henry Hazlitt’s 1946 Economics in One Lesson:

This book is an analysis of economic fallacies that are at last so prevalent that they have almost become a new orthodoxy. There is not a major government in the world at this moment [not now either, TeeJaw], however, whose economic policies are not influenced if they are not almost wholly determined by acceptance of some of these fallacies. Continue reading

The coming socialist dystopia, unless we stop it

Before he died, Milton Friedman warned that socialism would become popular again. Bernie Sanders proved him right.

I don’t think many of Bernie Sanders’ ardent followers have more than a vague idea of socialism and what it means. Some polls have shown that when asked to explain socialism a fair number of millennials give an answer that more describes capitalism. Of course, they also say they hate capitalism.

Whatever they think it is, socialism in every form it has ever taken does not allow for the existence of free markets of exchange. All trade and production is owned and/or regulated by the government. Regulation in the modern state eliminates the need for the government to actually own factories and machinery and super markets. Absolute control over every aspect of life is the goal, not ownership unless that is necessary for control. It isn’t. Continue reading

Weekend body count in heavily gun-controlled Chicago

Four dead, dozens shot in Chicago over the weekend. But things might be looking up, at least compared to last weekend when nine were killed and 52 were shot.

With the strictist gun control laws in the America, how does this happen? To get to the answer you’d first have to admit that gun control is a false promise. Gun control laws only restrict peaceful people who are the problem, and to believe that will somehow reduce gun violence botrders on insanity. The truth is that making it more difficult for the good people to protect themselves does not reduce gun violence and is likely to create more gun violence.

Some people will console themselves with the belief that it is mostly gangsters and criminals who are the victimes of gun violence in place like Chicago or also heavily gun controlled Connecticut. Really? 13 people at a house party were shot Sunday morning in Bridgeport. What are the authorities doing? You guessed it, they’re claiming they don’t have enough gun control laws. In other words, they don’t know what to do about gun violence and they’re not serious about wanting to do anything about it anyway.