Thursday, January 13, 2011

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Obama Loses 445,000 Jobs Last Week--Back to the Level of December, f2009

First, the title is absolultely accurate (to the extent the statistics themselves are accurate). The weekly number for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs and lost jobs) came out today, and that number ROISE 35,000--to 445,000. In other words, the Obama economy LOST l35,000 MORE jobs last week, and the total is back to the same level it was at in December of 2009 (more than a full year ago), and several times in early 2010.

Note that the headline, and the above paragraph--although dead on accurate--is a PARODY of the dishonest and incompetent (including Fox) reporting of the media on a very subjective and volatile number (the number of new unemployment claims each week). It is also--really mainly--a parody of the general distortion of jobs data by the mainstream media and leftist Democrats (who distorted the data in exactly the opposite way during the Bush Administration--hypocrites that they are).

Yes, we are talking about GROSS jobs here. That, of course, is not the important number. The important number is NET jobs--although a weekly jobless claim number above 400,000 means that we are NOT (most likely) progressing substantially on net jobs. And a RISE of 35,000 is BAD news--plus being "unexpected" for the incompetent and perpetually surprised econommists ("incompetent" unelss you correctly realize that NONE of these people has ecough information or wisdom to determine how to manage and predict the economy, which totally DISCREDITS the idea of centarl planning: of management of the economy by econoists and goverfnment bureaucrats).

Segue to the STIMULUS. What did the Obama Administration do on the "accounting" for the success of the "stimulus" plan? Oh, you know the answer to this one. They counted GROSS jobs--a totally IRRELEVANT number, and they did that dishonestly. Thus, my headline only takes the Obama Administration, and the mainstream media, at their own word, applying their own standards: what matters is GROSS jobs!!!! That is, of course, false. But to try to say that the Obama jobs policy has been a success, instead of the abysmal failure it has been, they had not choice. It is a FACT that NET jobs have NOT been created since the passage of the "stimulus" bill. In fact, we have a NET LOSS of jobs. If they try to talk about NET jobs, they have no evidence at all that the "stimulus" added ONE NET JOB. It is entirely possible--I would argue that it is so--that the "stimulus" created GROSS jobs sucked all of the air out of the private sector economy, and PREVENTED net jobs from being created. What is certain is that net jobs have NOT been created.

Yet, MSNBC (I heard Crhis Matthews say it) labled it an obvious political LIE that the Obama "stimulus" did not create a single job. MSNBC, and the entire mainstream media, of course, take "f1984" as their Bible. They are masters of the Big Lie. It is an Orwellian Big Lie to suggest that the creation of GROSS jobs by "stimulus" spending automatically means that NET jobs were created. We know, in fact, that they were not. But might not the "stimulus" have "saved" the loss of even more jobs? That is possible, but there is NO EVIDENCE by which to measure whether that is true or not. There is NO such recognizwed statistic ("saved jobs"), which amounts to a Big Lie in itself (the attempt to "quantify" "saved" jobs when no such statistic has ever existed in the past). It is certainly possible--I would say likely--that NOT ONE NET JOB was created by the Obama "stimulus".

How can that be? Just look at the weekly jobless claims number. Why is it misleading to suggest that the Obama economy LOST 445,000 jobs last week? Easy. Ys, that many jobs were LOST (or at least the new unemployment claims number suggests that), but it is likely that almost that many jobs were GAINED. It is the NET that matters, but that is also what matters in evaluating the "success" (failure) of the Obama "stimulus". For every job "created" by government actioin, how many were lost? That is the relevant question, and yet this obvious point is almost never made in the media--even by the iooncompetents at Fox News. Of course, MSNBC and Crhis Matthews are deliberately dishonest on the matter, along with the AP and the rest of the mainstream media, but Fox News does little better at EXPLAINING these economic statistics and their meaning (or lack of meaning).

The jobless claims number (new unemployment claims reported weekly) is NOT, or example, a definitive, concrete number. It is--at least partly--a SUBJECTGIVE number, because it is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED using a fallible formula. Yes, there is a RAW number, which you might regard as concrete, but that number (not usually reported, in a proof of media INCOMPETENCE) is also often misleading. For example, think CHRISTMAS. Hiring increase approaching Christmas, and firing decreases. But that is due to CHRISTMAS--at lest in part--and does not necessarily represent a real improvement in the labor market Even the weather can affect the weekly unemployment claim number, but economists can see the weather like the rest of us. They STILL never get it right. The point is that you have to look at the jobless claims number over time, AND you have to consider that there may be special factors going onn--especially around the holiday season--that cause the weekly numbers to be misleading (perhaps, for example, because the long recession has DISTORTED the holiday seasonal adjustment accuracy, by making it difficult to assume that old patterns of holiday hiring and firing are still relevant).

Thus, let us look at the new unemployment claims number over time. In the fall of 2009, as we headed toward the Christmas season, that number went STEADILY down (while the unemployment number stayed about the same, which has been true ever since). Thus, the AVERAGE for December of 2009 was 455,000 (with weekly dips to the same level as this latest weekly number). But that decrease in new jobless claims STOPPED with January of 2010. From that point, until May, the number bounced up and down between 440,000 and 490,000, with NO TREND (although for most of that period the desicable Associated Press LIED by saying an "improving" trend was in place--a "seady" improving trend, no less--whenever the weekly number jumped back up.

Then came the summer of 2010, starting in May. Suddenly, the weekly unemployment number STOPPED fluctuating toward the bottom on the RANGE it had been stuck in since December of 2009. Rather, the range moved UP. For one four week period, the AVERAGE was actually above 480,000, and the number did not drop below 450,000. In other words, the range SHIFTED (for the seasonally adjusted, subjective number) rom a range primarily jumping around 450,000 or 455,000 to a range where 460,000 was the BOTTOM (for the most part), and the top even went ABOVE 500,000. Yet, abruptely, the range went back down at the end of the summer--eventually even reaching the 400,000 level in December. How can this be explained?

Yes, there have probably been some variations in the economy, which seemed to weaken in the spring of 2010, and to stabilize again as we began to gear up for the holiday season. But the exlanation that seems to best fit the facts is that the seasonal adjustments are broken--distorted by the long recession. Was the BIG spike up in new unemployment claims in the summer a FICTION (in part) overstating the weakness? Probably so. Then was the apparent major improvement from September to the time of Christmas another FICTION overstating the improvement? Probably so. Look at the AVERAGE beginning inMay. In other words, average the weekly number over all of the weeks from the time the number started spiking up in May to the decline in the fall. What is the result? It is about the SAME as that 455,000 AVERAGE for all of December of 2009---probably a bit HIGHER than that.

Q.E.D. There really has been little or no "improvement" in the jobless claims number since December of 2009, and the attempt to read things in to these weekly numbers is more a sign of INCOMPETENCE (by economists AND media) than anything else. Obsiously, this weekly number is both volatile and subjective. IF you had a stready improvement over MANY monts (always allowing for a blip here and there), it might mean something. As it is, however, what we have is a number that DID "steadily" improve in the stabilizing economy in the second half of 2009, but which has NOT improved since in any kind of steady way. SOMETHING happened in the summer of 2010, but it may have been mainly a FICTIOIN. SOMETHING happened in the fall of 2010, but it may have been mainly a FICTION (glitch in the figuring of the number). Overall, the sitaution has remained the same for a whole year--NO improvement.

By the way, MINOR improvement in the weekly number does not mean much--even over time. The AVERAGE for ALL of 2010 was little changed from the average for December of 2009. If that average were to drop to 440,000 for 20111, would that mean much? Nope. In PERCENTAGE terms, it would be a miniscule "improvement". For there to be a real improvement since the fall of 2009 (again, MORE than a year ago), we need to AVERAGE under 400,000--preferably under 350,000. At this time, there is no indication we are going to do that.

On jobs, the Obama economic policy has been a dismal failure. But--to a degree--that is a matter of opinion. What is NOT a matter of opinion is that reporting of economic numbers and what they mean is INCOMPETENT. You will usually not even see the QUESTIONS I raise addressed--including the question of how the weekly jobless claims number can vary 20% or so, while the UNEMPLOYMENT number stays about constant (as it has since July of 2009). It is ABSURD to suggest that the unemployment number, over all o that time, can be explained by people coming back into the work force because they see an improving economy (the only--absurd--"explanatiion" I have seen).

We need real rekporting on economic numbers, their inconsistencies, and the multiple possible meanings. Instead, we continue to get INCOMPETENT reporting, and incompetent "analysis" from the Stupidest People on Earth (economists and the "analyusts" on Wall Street--not to mention the mainstream media).

P.S. Note, as usual, that this article has neither been proofread nor spell checked---because of bad eyesight--unless this note is deleted. Even so, it should still make more sense to you than almost ANY of the reporting on this subject.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords and President Obama: Trying To Bring "Meaning" To a Meaningless Act

Let me first say that I have no great problem with what President Obama said in his memorial speech. It was a speech he had to make, and he did his best to be all things to all people--to avoid offending anyone. You can say the speech was too long, and tried to do too much (and what was this APPLAUSE as to lines in the speech--ildly inappropriate, in my view. Do we ordinarily hear APPLAUSE at memorial services? Sell, I have not attended that many, but I just can't see it as the right response, as if this is all about PRESIDENT OBAMA,.). As usual with Obama, the speech sounded more like a dissertation on grief and loss than a real expression of grief and loss (which Bill Clinton did so well). But those are quibbles, and not the fundamental problem with the speech.

The fundamental problem with the speech--but it is the fundamental problem with our reaction to EVERY one of these big tragic events, including 9/11--is that President Obama felt obligated (for god reason) to try to give meaning to an event which has NO meaning, other than that bad things are going to happen no mater what we do. In fact, President Obama SAID that (quoting Job, and rightly saying that we will NEVER be able to make sense of all of the bad things that happen, because we are not God). Yes, the speech contained numberous internal contradictions, because it really did try to do way too much--tryig to be all things to all people.

The main point here--and the central reason it is impossible for this kind of speech to chnge anything about America, or fo this tragedy to changed anything about America--is that the tragedy itself tells us NOTHING. Oh, you can say it raises questiions about some things. How much security should Congrss people have, and who should pay for it? Should we do more about making it easier to involuntarily commit people? Should we prohibit the selling of extended ammunition clips? But even these are really OLD issues, and even on these old issues the tragedy does not really give us any SUBSTANTIAL indication of the correct path forward. Prsident Obama said that w shouyld "debate" how to "prevent" this kind of event from occurring in the future--debate that BECAUSE this tragedy occurred. That is simply not true. The tragedy MAY highlight the reason we need to pay attention to these issues, but it is absurd to suggest that we need to avoid this kind of event happening any more urgently AFTER the tragedy than before the tragedy. We KNEW this kind of event COULD happen (and still can, not matter what we do), and the fact this tragedy occurred adds NOTHING to the debate. That was not true of 9/11, because 9/11 caused us to have to wake up to the fact that we were in a WAR against Islamic extremism--a war they were already fighting, but we were not. But the mass shooting by a madman changes nothing about the know threat of which we were already aware.

I read--many years ago--the definitive book (in my view) about the "Texas Tower" mass shooting by an "all-American boy" at the University of Texas in the 1960x. There was all of this search for "answers" at the time, including a FALSE rumor about a brain tumor (Kinky Friedman satirical song: "There was a rumor of a tumor"). The book I read--coreectly, from all indications) rejected the idea of any deep meaning or "answers" to that tragedy. The books conclusioni about the "cause" of the shooting: "The shooter was a mean SOB." Yes, the University of Texas closed off the observation deck on the Texas Tower on the University of Texas campus, but that did not prevent the Virginia Tech mass shooting, or Columbine. Nor did the Virginia Tech shooting or Columbine really give us any clear path as to stopping similar shootings (or bombings) in the future. Yes. Some things changed slightly, but there is simply no way to stop this kind of thing from ever happening again (even the imposition of a Soviet Union style pollice state). Shootings by disturbed individuals--as old as guns and projectile weapons, including arrows--can NEVER add anything to the "debate" about how to stop those things in the future, except in a marginal way such as closing off the Texas Tower or beefing up security, because each tragedy adds NOTHING to our knowledge about these meaningless events, other than that we need to realize that the danger exists. But we knew that already.

The worst contradiction in the Obama speech was on "civility" in political discourse (which Obama himself has often ignored). President Obama correctly said that lack of civility in political discourse did NOT cause the mass shooting in Arizona. Like I said, President Obama did his best to be all things to all people, and to avoid offending anyone. However, Obama immediately CONTGRADICTAED himself, and then tried to avoid the contradiction by an ABSURD statement that made absolutely no sense.

If lack of civility did not cause the shooting, then the shooting has NOTHING to do with the issue of "civility" in politics? Right. Yes, that IS right. And that is a fact. The shooting of those people in Arizona by a madman has NOTHING to do with the "issue" of civility in politics. It is absurd to say with one breath--as Obama did--that lack of civility did not cause the shooting, and that we have no way of knowing what triggered the shooter, and then say in the next breath that the shooting should cause us to change our manner of political discourse. That makes no logical sense, and Obama actually realized it. Therefore, he said something that made even less sense.

Obama said that we should engage in more civility in political discourse NOT because of the shooting itself, but because we should want to make the victims PROUD of us Say what? I am sorry, mister President. That is ABSURD and ridiculous. I would like my CHILDREN to be proud of me, although even there I do not weigh every word with that in mind. Will the victimns of the Arizona shooting be "proud" of you if you drink to much? If you commit adultery? If you lie? Is that what you are going to be thinking of when you contemplate those things, or any of the other vices and faults all of us have in one way or another (remember "original sin"?). Would you really think more of what the victims, living and dead, of the Arizona tragedy would think of you more than what your own children would think of you? More than what Jesus would think of you (if you are aa Christian, as I am not)? More than what the soldiers who have died for this country would think of you? Nope. It is ABSURSD, and the kind of absurdity that becomes inevitable when you try to give too much meaning to an essentially meaninglesss act. Yes, I KNOW Obama "meant well", and that it sort of sounds good. That does not change that it is STUPID. All Obama is really saying is that we need to be "civil" because that is the right thing to do. That may be correct (see below), but the Arizona tragedy has NOTGHING to do with it. The "issue" is UNRELATED in any way to the Arizona tragedy, and Obama himself said so--before trying to bootstrap back into the same argument with an absurdity.

What is "civility"? That is the problem, isn't it. To the mainstream media\, and the left, "civility" is not criticizing the President, the government and Democrats in Congress. That is, that is "civility" unless the President is George W. Bush, or the person in Congress is not Michelle Bockman, or the "government" is not the government of Arizona. Does the Arizona tragedy tell you ANYTHING about what is proper exercise of free speech, criticsm, and exprssion of poplitical opinion, and what is "incivility". Of course it does not. For the mainstream media and the left, it is "uncivil" to disagree with themin a passinate and assertive manner--or often in any manner at all, as with criticism of Obama labeled as "racist" just because Obama happens to be black, even if the criticism is of POLICY (as almost all of it is).

Yes, I am going to continue my series on the "murderers" out there, apllying the standards of the Pima Country sheriff 9not my standards). The next article willl explain why the Pima Country sheriff himself is a "murderer", along with Eliot Spitzre, CNN, MSNBC, Alicia Menendez, Bill Clinton and probably Hillary Clinton. And yes, they are all the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on tow legs are four (along with the rest of the mainstream media and most of the rest of the left). The article after that will explain why this whole "civility" push is a mere continuation of the AGENDA of the mainstream media, and the left, BEFORE the Arizona tragedy. They are all merely trying to USE the tragedy to push that agenda-a sick and perverted thing. If you have to USE this tragedy to push your already exiting agenda of your idea of civility, then you are a sick persson. Yes, that applies to almost all of the people of CNN and MSNBC--nopt to mention the rest of the mainstream media.

Did I just call the President of the United States a sick person with a sick mind? Nope. I do think the President tried to dress up the SICK concept being pushed by the mainstream media to USE this tragedy to push their already existing agenda (NOT--as the President asserted was the only proper role this tragedy should play--a concept the mainstream media came up with because of "introspectdion" brought on by this tragedy). Too many Democrat politicians, and others on the left, have pushed this concept for years--and certainly since Obama has been President. The idea that this tragedy has "inspired" them to introspection is more ABSURDITY. This tragedy has merely "nspired" them to try to USE this tragedy for their own political purposes and to supoport their own agenda. I don't think Obama quite did that, although he deliberately tried to have it both ways. Absurd as it is, calling for "civility" because it would make the shooting victims "proud" of you is not really the same as eequating criticsim of Democrats and Obama with hate speech (while ignring your own similar speech). As stated, I don't have that much problem with Obama's actual speech, since I think he felt obligated to try to be all things to all people, and he can hardly be too harshly criticized for trying to place too much meaning on an essentiallyu meaningless tragedy. We seem unable, as a society, to avoid that particular absurdity. But the mainstream media, AND a lot of leftist Democrats, should realize that Obama has accused THEM of tryihng to use this tragedy for political purposes--correctly.

Don't I worry that I am being "uncivil" by continuing my series on MURDERERS creating this "climate of hate" that helped lead to the Arizona shooting? Nope. As I have clearly explained, my series is a PARODY of the statements of the Pima Country sheriff, and so many leftists out there. I am using THEIR standards, since I can't be sure that their standards are wrong. Well, yes I can. I can be sure that their standards are wrong, and that they are deliberately trying to USE this tragedy to advance their political agenda. However, as a rhetorical device, and a means of satire, it is useful to presume that they might be corredt in their professed standards. I know hat their REAL standard is that criticism of leftist Democrats, Democrat members of government, and similar people is "uncivil"--while criticism of conservqtives and Republicans--including President Bush--is the highest expression of American patriotism. But I refuse to emply a standard that obviously wrong, even as an exercise in parody, and herefore apply the PROFESSED, neutral "standards" of the Pima County sheriff, the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats in my parodies.

P.S. Note, again, that the above has neither been prooferead nor spell checked, because of my poor eyesight--unless this note is deleted

P.P.S. What happens if these truly senseless murders by mentally disturbed individuals (that is, high profile mass murders or murders of prominent people, as some 16,000 murders occur ev every year in the USA) begin to happen every week--instead of being relatively rare events that give us no reason to radically change this country? Well, in that event we would have to try to figure out what has changed to change the pattern that has existed as long as modern civilization. And we will probably have to try to figure out some way of stopping such a sudden epidemic of mad killers. As it is, these isolated high profile events involving mentally disturbed killers provide NO reason to believe that anything has changed from what we have always known is a rare risk out there. Yes, there are a LOT of mentally disturbed killers. Luckily for politicians and crowds, however, they are mainly a danger to people they know or have a very personal grievance against. Islamic extremists are an organized force trying to destroy us, and kill us. Mentally disturbed individuals are, almost by definition, an isolated danger (even within the mentally ill) where isolated high profile events change NOTHING about the overall danger. I would mention that we now have many more people than we once had--meaning that mass and high profile murders almost have to become somewhat more frequent (again having nothing to do with "civility"). What level of frequency requires a reevaluation of the threat with the idea that we HAVE to "do something", even at the cost of a lot more money and risk to our way of lif? I don't know. I just know that we have not yet reached that level, and that the Arizona shooting is NOT a "reason" (beyond simly being another isolated datapoint) for ANY major change in policy or behavior--beyond, again, isolated measures which might be considered (like closing the Texas Tower). Psychologically, of course, members of Congress are fre to arrange more security for their peace of mind, even though this one incident does not change at all the threat they are KNOWN to face from deranged assassins. I have long noted the absurdity of the "magic wand theory of government", whereby it is assumed that all we have o do is wave a magic wand (usually by the Federal Government) and "solve" a problem. In my former life, I was a personal injury attorney in a case where a psychiatric facility (Timberlawn, in the Dallas area) released a mentally disturbed individual who immediately went and shot family members KNOWN to be the subjects of his irrational anger. We lost the case on the defense that the profession of psychiatry is incapable of accurately predicting "dangerousness". What is interesting about that case, moreover, is that the shooter HONESTLY answered the old qluestion on the gun purchase form (pre-background check) about whether he had been in facility because of mental illness, or been diagnosed with a mental illness (however that question was worded). The gun shop IGNORED THE ANSWER (probably because the form was a mere formality where no one expected an honest answer). See what I mean about the "magic wand theory of government"? Just because you pass a law does not mean that a problem is "solved", even when the law seemingly should have worked (very often not the case, as with the background checks, which have a use but hardly "solve" the problem).

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords and Marijuana, Killer Weed: Are Those Who Encourage Marijuana Use Murderers?

The Fiffords shooter was obviously a pothead. He was rejected for the military because he tested positive for marijuana, and his drug use is well established.

That leads to these two questions: Did marijuana use lead to mental instability? Or did marijuana use cause an already disturbed mind to go completely off of the beam? There is also the queston of whether marijuana use led the shooter into trying drugs with even more of a mind altering qullity--resulting in the shooting.

Q.E.D. There is evidence that those who encourage marijana use are moraly responsible for this shooting--certainly more evidence than that Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh is responsible.

The shooter was described by one former classmate as a "leftist". As stated in my previous article, that is debatable, because at this extreme of a deranged mind, "left" and "right" have little meaning. What matters is the derangement. However, there is no doubt that the shooter waws NOT a conservative, or influenced by any conservative figures. There is also no doubt he wass a heavy marijuana user.

Thus, the question is whether advocates of marijuana use adequately considered the effect that marijuana may have on a mentally disturbed individual--to the extent the marijuana itself does not cause mental instability. Using the standards of the left, and the mainstream media (see previous article), this clearly places moral guilt on those who have encouraged marijuana use, inclluding pushing for its legalization. No, we can't be SURE that marijuana use caused the shooting, but a link could certainly be inferred. Furtehr, this shooting makes clear that marijuana users are dangerous individuals. The shooter was NOT a Tea Party member. He WAS a heavy marijuana user (as well as anti-religious, and therefore subject to being triggered by the hate statements of Bill Maher and other anti-religious bigots and atheists, as described in the previous article).

Even if the shooting was not directly related to the marijuana use, does not the shooting provide an opportunity to explore the DANGERS of marijuana use--especially with regard to mentally disturbed individuals--and suggest that pro-marijuana groups should "damp down" their rhetoric? By the standards of the mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the rest), this conclusion absolutely follows.

You can make the following flat statements about marijuana, all of which are objectively true:

1. Marijuana is a mind altering drug that adversly affects both the mind and the body--the only question being the degree of the adverse effect. This shoooting would suggest that the degree of the danger is understated.

2. Marijuana is definitely more dangerous to a mentally disturbed individual with a mental disease, as is true of any drug (or alcohol). Again, the only questioin is the degree of the danger. Again, this shooting would idicate the danger is underestimated. Is there such a thing as "Reefer Madness"? That, of course, is the title of the "camp" old movie looked upon as ridiculous becaue of its hystericxal overstatement? of the dangers/effects of marijuana use. Whether "Reefer Madnes" was ridiculous (and it was) as to the normal effect of a single marijuana cigarette, it seems clear (at least likely) that marijana use by a person with a severe (and maybe not so severe) mental disease is a disaster waiting to happen, even assuming (why?) that marijuana is not capable of triggering a mental disease itself (or by leading a prson to experiment with LSD and other, even more dangerous, mind altering drugs).

3. Marijuana is a DISASTER for children--including adolescents. That is true not only of children exposed to the drug (second hand smoke, even?), but of children whose primary care givers are heavy marijuana smokers.

4. "Medical use" of marijuana is a sham and a fraud. That is not because there may not be some (minor) benefits--on some pain and related problems--from the use of marijuana. It is because that is just an EXCUSE to try to get around the law, and to use a spurious argument for the legalization of marijuana.

5. It is a myth--a totally false myth, as this shooting shows--that people who smokew marijuana are automatically non-violent and non-dangerous. That is simply not true. In fact, as this shooting illustrates, the opposite may be true--especially as marijuana interacts with a disturbed mind.

6. To say that marijuana is not as bad as alcohol is to DAMN marijuana with faint praise. Alcohol is a truly danagerous drug. I say that as a person who drinks (moderately). If alcohol were not so well established in our society, you would have to be insane to make it legal. As far as public health and safety is concerned, there is probably NO measure that would do so much good as the EFFECTIVE prohibition of alcohol. Yes, I a saying there is a strong case that the people behind Prohibition were RIGHT, except in their assessment of human nature (and perhaps their concept of frredom--as if modern leftists believe in "freedom", which is completely disproven by the anti-smoking Nazis and the "fatty foods" police).

P.S. See my previous article. Yes, again it is ABSURD to "blame" marijuana, or those who promote its use, for the shooting of Babrielle Giffords. That is, it is absurd unless you use the standards being used by leftists, the mainstream media, and Democrats (that unholy trinity who are One) to assing moral blame to conservatives. There is MORE evidence to connect marijuana use to this tragedy than there is to connect Rush Limbaugh--a LOT more. Yes, I am seriious about the 6 items above about marijuana (as I was serious about the hate sppech of people who are militantly anti-religious). Marijuana is NOT a "harmless" drug. But you simply can't use one incident to say that marijuana makes peopole into mad killers, or converts people with an already existing mental disease into maad killers. That is a stretch you simply can't make, bu--again--there is MORE evidence for that stretch in this shooting than for blaming the Tea Party or "extreme" political discourse. I repat: It is an EVIL thing to try to USE this kind of tragedy to push your political agenda, or to push ridiculous ideas that yoyu have to "choose" yor words in political discourse carefully so as to avoid triggering a MADMAN. There is MORE evidence that this particular madman was "triggered" by marijuana than that he was triggered by Rush Limbaugh. But say he left a note saying that Rush Limbaugh caused him to do it It would still be an EVIL thing to say that the disturbed mind of a MADMAN is the "fault" of Rush Limbaugh. Yet, can you imagine the media reaction to such an event? These (the media--in additioin to this shooter) are SICK people pushing sick ideas trying to USE a tragedy to push their own agenda. They should be ashamed, but they have no shame.

P.P.S. Note, again, that the above is not either proofread or spell checked, unless this note is deleted, because of my poor eyesight. :ove wotj ot/

Monday, January 10, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords and Atheists: Murder and Hate (Is Bill Maher a Murderer?)

It appears that the person who sshot Gabrielle Fiffors, and murdered at least six people, is an atheist--or, at the very least, anti-religious in the extreme.

The shooter evidently had a "shrine" to the devil. In his writings, he parodies "In God We Trust" by saying something like "In God We Do Not Trust". He evidently refers to being given a Bible as the worst insult that could be offered him.

That leads to the inevitable question (using the standard of the Pima County sheriff, leftist politicians, and the mainstream media): Are atheists, and anti-religioius hate mongters like Bill Maher, feeding into a "climate of hate" that encourages unbalanced individuals to commit violent acts of murder. No, Bill Maher is not a murderer in a legal sense, but does he have MORAL responsibility for the hate he is spreading?

Are atheists, and anti-religioius people in general, a dangerous group of extremists feeding hate into the minds of unbalanced individuals such as the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords? It is certainly more likely than the absurd "messsage" the Pima County sheriff, the mainstream media, and other leftists are trying to push down our throats: a message that the Tea Party and conservative talk show hosts are responsible for every act of violence in the political arena--even when the shooter is a LEFTIST, lunatic anarchist, as is evidently the case here. As I have repeatedly said, at the extremes (lunatic fringe) the left and the right merge. There is NO difference between fascism and Communism--between Stalin and Hitler--which explains why th;is shoter would have a copy of both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. But there is NO case that this shooter was a "conservative", or the type of person to be "insired by talk radio (usually embracing God and religion). It is entirely plausible, however, that this lunatic could be "inspired" by the extreme anti-religiouis rhetoric of people like Bill Maher, or even more militant atheists who tell people that religion is the main evil in the world (although leftists in general try to give the truly intolerant Muslim religion a pass because leftists are even more anti-American than they are anti-religioius, and one of their cheirshed beliefs is that Americans are generally bigots towward "minorities" shuch as Muslims).

When so many anti-religious people on the left tell people that we are in dangger of turning into a religiouis theocracy, and that "right wing" religious leaders are planning to impose such a theocracy on this country, does that not contribute to a "climate of hate"? Does it not impact the mind of unbalanced individuals like the Fiffords shooter? Especially since the idea that we are in danger of becoming a theocracy is absurd--unbalanced itself?

Q.E.D. Atheists are a dangerous group--not to mention the mainstream media and leftists (big overlap with atheists) who are spreading the Orwelian Big Lie that the extremists" out there spreading hate are all, or even mainly, consope. Bill Maher IS a murderer--at least in a moral sense--IF you apply the "guilt by association" and "encouragement" to derangement, standard urged by the mainstream media and other leftists., it is absurd to blame atheists and other anti-religious people for the actions of a single person who happens to share their unreasonable hatred of religion--which would be true even if Bill Maher had a reasonable hatred of religion, or if even more militant anti-religious people were more reasonalbe. That would be true even if the shooter--like Muslim extremist ssterrorists have done--announced he was killing people in the name of "atheism", or because he was directly inspired by Bill Maher. This is an EVIL of the mainstream media--"built by associaton" on a truly insane and evil scale: to suggest that people (so long as they are not members of groups favored by the media) are responsible for the twisted way in which a deranged mind might perceive--or be "inspired by"--what others say. Of course, that is not true when there is direct advocacy of violence, but this whole idea of WORDS creating a "climate of hate" (when the words do not directly advocate action) is a truly EVIL thing. This type of media insanity creates more of a "climate of hate" than any "right wing anger" out there. It is NOT "civility", or responsible "ublic discourse", to accuse people exercising their First Amendment rights in a non-violent way of being responsible for every act of "political" violence out there. Yet, that is what our evil mainstream media is doing, and Fox News is too willing to go along with it (part of the problem, and not part of the solution, as Fox News remains, even if Fox News is more willling to at least queston these evil absurdities than the rest of the mainstream media). IF you are going to adopt this idea that groups are responsible for the insanity of people who agree with them, but act irrationally on those beliefs, then the Fiffords shooter DOES condemn atheistsss, and other anti-religious people, as groups feeding into an insane mindset. This idea that ATHEISTS, and other anti-religious people, are responsible for the irrational Giffords shooter is MUCH more plausible than the idea that the Tea Party is responsible. The problewm is that BOTH ideas are EVIL thihngs--irratioinal in themselves. We have to get away from this idea that people who commit irrational acts can determine how the rest of the world works (for fear of "triggering" their irrationality). In that direction lies only madness (the idea that we must speak, argue and discuss in a way to avoid triggering the truly disturbed among us).

I do think Bill Maher is an anti-religious bigot--a bitter man spreading hate in the world. I do think that is true of much of the mainstream media, and certainly true of militant atehists (an oxymoron, in my view, in that atheism is suposedly based on SKEPTICISM) and other militantly anti-religious people (supposed "agnostics"). As an agnostic myself, I can hardly condemn all atheists and agnostics for the actions of one irrational individual without condemning myself. And I don't. I do regard INTOLERANT atheists, and anti-religous biots like Bill Maher, as wrong. I regard that they are spreading inolerance and hate. But that is NOT the same as saying they are responsible for the twisted mind of a murderer. If you can't make this distinction, as to many leftists cannot because their reason is twisted by their agenda, then I am sorry for you. Bill Maher deserves to be aatacked for his intolerant ideas. He does not deserve to be attacked for the actions of some nut who may have ideas vaguely like his. Similarly, the Tea Party MAY be subject to being questioned about their ideas, and even about the allegedly intolerant way in which they are expressed, but they do NOT deserve to be attacked because those ideas are allegedly spreading "hate". That is merely an attempt--Orwellian, at that--to avoid confronting the ideas in favor of attacking the person.

Shame on you, media. Shame on you, Pima Contry sheriff. Shame on you, CNN. Shame on you MSNBC. Sahme on you all who attempt to make groups responsible for the actions of irrational single actors, rather than contend in the arena of ideas. NO ONE is sresponsible for the actions of the Giffords shooter, except the Fiffords shooter and anyohne directly complicit with him. NO, it is an EVIL thing to suggest otherwise--which is not to say that we might not do better in doing something about obviously deranged individuals. But that is another article, and primarily the result of LEFTIST "reforms" making it really difficult to involuntarily commit people for mental illness.

Nest article: Gabrielle Giffords and Marijuana, the Killer Weed. See how a leftist pothead--his mind twisted by "reefer madness"--comes to kill six people. Yes, more murderers out there: the people who have encouraged marijuana use.

P.S. 2: Note, again, that the above is not either proofread or spell checked, due to poor eyesight, unless and until this note is deleted.