January 12, 2011
— Ace This post is insanely long, and it might be too obvious for most people, and some may decide at the end I've wasted their time.
Maybe it is obvious; I don't know. Sometimes I think there's a value in stating the obvious explicitly, because otherwise people tend to assume it, and therefore overlook it -- and therefore its very obviousness makes it inobvious.
You know when a post is long? When it starts with a Roman numeral. If you just want some anti-left invective, skip to VI.
I.
I'm good at seeing plot twists coming in movies because I'm keyed into the basic structure of plot, and I know, basically, there are twenty plots and fifteen subplots and a couple dozen variations and once you know those, you know every plot.
Political arguments tend to follow similar patterns, but there are even fewer "plots." 90% of all arguments about policy are about the existence, or nonexsitence, of "Category 3." Which I'll explain later.
What makes Category 3 such a contentious point of debate is, first of all, that people tend to talk about risk, particularly the risk of death, in ways they know, inside, to be false. We speak, rhetorically, publicly, about the need to avoid risk, and especially death, as if this imperative is absolute. We must do everything we can to ensure there will never be another _____ -- fill in the blank. Today it's Jared Loughner.
In fact, we have never been absolute about death. We all remember from our Drivers' Ed classes that driving ten miles over the limit increases the risk of death in a collision by a nontrivial amount, some increased odds of death that is not so small as to be a rounding error. A number large enough to count -- 2%, 3%, 5%. Whatever it is. I'm not looking up because the actual number isn't important. What's important is that I know there is in fact an increased risk of fatality in a collision for each 10 mph I go over the limit, and I blow this off. I don't think about it. I shoot for a speed that has nothing to do with physical safety; it's really just about what I can get away with without drawing a ticket. Not anything having to do with elevated risk to a life that should, in theory, matter to me.
In the seventies, I think, lawsuits were directed at car companies for "design defects" that increased the odds of fatality in collision. In fact, they weren't defects at all. Car designers could make every car as safe as possible -- with heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers and and the like -- but they don't. They have mathematicians calculating risk, and they pick a risk-level they think is reasonable, taking into account the target cost of the vehicle. And yeah, cheap cars are lighter and smaller and therefore more deadly in collisions.
And to make sense of that risk -- because equations need numbers -- they had to assign a dollar-value to a human life.
The plaintiffs there claimed that it was inhuman and so on to "assign a value to a human life and say that that life will not be protected above a target cost," but the courts wisely ruled against such claims. Because, while we may talk as if each human life has inestimable value and is precious beyond mere dollars, in real life, we know that's not true. We don't act as if that's true. We are well aware of the risk of death when we undertake certain risks, and we go ahead undertaking those risks anyway.
It's not true that we assign life an infinite value, and that value, being infinite, therefore trumps all other considerations. We assign it a limited value, so that some risks do turn out to be "worth it," in our minds. The typical public rhetoric does not match the reality we all understand. You're not allowed to say that a human life only has a value of $10,000,000, or whatever you assign it, in public. You're called "inhuman" or cynical or whatever.
Nonetheless, we all do a quasi-economic calculation when we undertake risks, and whether we assign the value of our lives at $1,000,000 or $50,000,000, there is some number attached to it. Whatever it is, it's not "infinity." It's large, but it's not infinitely large.
It's because of this disconnect between what we say about death and what we actually know about death that Category 3 takes such an outsized role in the public debate. II.
Category 3 is a simple idea. Anytime we're talking about banning something -- and here we go right now, we're talking about banning 1) all political rhetoric on the right, 2) all people on the right, 3) mags holding more than ten rounds; 4) mags holding more than zero rounds, 5) pot, 6) heavy metal music, and who knows what else by the end of the week -- we argue about whether these various forbiddences, large and small, will reduce the risk of catastrophe by people in Category 3, and the argument generally goes "Category 3 is very large and so we must have a new prohibition" and on the other side "Category 3 is very small, or does not exist at all, so the prohibition is futile."
Category 1 is almost everyone. 99%+ of the public exists in Category 1. People in Category 1 simply are not, under any circumstances, going to do anything spectacularly bad. It doesn't matter how much pot they smoke, how many Judas Priest albums they listen to, how many guns they own, how much Glen Beck they listen to. Prohibitions have no effect on Category 1 people because they're immune from these supposedly-dread inputs in any event.
Category 1 people aren't very important in this debate, then, at least as far as the supposed wonders of new prohibitions, because they don't need prohibitions to avoid going postal.
Category 2 is, I don't know, whatever the percentage is -- 0.01% of the population. The crazies. Those born bad. The people with bad wiring and bad chemicals in their heads. These people are pretty much pre-programmed to do insanely evil things, and there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop them.
Prohibitions also have no effect at all on Category 2 people, because, it doesn't matter what the laws are, or what media they watch. They're psychopaths.
A good example of Category 2 is Jeffrey Dahmer. As you probably know, Dahmer was obsessed with the image of the Emperor from Star Wars seated on his throne in front of that big window out into space. Did anyone suggest that, due to Jeffrey Dahmer, we need to "crack down on Star Wars"? No, not a single person in the world suggested that. We understood Dahmer to be Category 2, and it didn't matter which movies he watched; whether Willow or Weekend at Bernie's or Three Men and a Baby, it didn't matter. Someone who's going to get the idea "I should kill people, and cut up their body parts, and put them in the fridge, and eat them when I want to snack" from Return of the Jedi is, I think obviously, going to get that idea from whatever movie he's watching. Or not watching.
Similarly, while people did in fact fret about the extreme violence in Taxi Driver, very few people suggested that that film "caused" John Hinkley to shoot Reagan. Some did, I'm sure (because Taxi Driver was already controversial), but we didn't have a big national debate over Taxi Driver. We understood that someone who got the idea that Jodie Foster would be his girlfriend if he killed the president was someone who didn't really need much prompting from Martin Scorcese. Taxi Driver "caused" John Hinkley to go crazy in much the same way Catcher in the Rye "caused" Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon -- that is, not at all.
Category 2 people are also irrelevant to the national debate on any suggested prohibition, then, for a reason exactly opposite the reason Category 1 is irrelevant: Category 1 people will not kill people no matter what "temptations" are offered to them; Category 2 people, on the other hand, will kill people no matter what "temptations" are denied to them, so they are effectively unreachable by any public policy response.
Unless you want to ban Taxi Driver, Catcher in the Rye, and Return of the Jedi. And everything else, including Barney the Dinosaur, because, hey, dinosaurs would eat people if they could, right?
III.
Which leads to Category 3, a category of person which may or may not exist, and, even it if does exist, is almost certainly the tiniest category of all. Category 3 people -- a group of about the same size as Category 2, maybe a little bigger, probably a little smaller -- are the people that supposedly are controllable by prohibitions. These are the people who, it is supposed, would not go on shooting sprees but for the existence of some social evil -- guns, pot, heavy metal, violent video games, action movies, a "climate of hate," a propagandistic militarization of American society, take your pick.
These are the ticking time-bombs who, unlike Category 2 nutters, do not light their own fuses. Their fuses must be lit by external actors or external circumstances.
Were it not for the existence of this terrible temptation towards evil, the thinking goes, Category 3 people would not murder people, so if we could just prohibit the stimulus or tool they used in their crime, we would not have the crime at all.
So that's why these arguments about prohibition always are arguments about the existence or nonexistence of Category 3 and about the size of this group. Every argument goes like this: Those against the prohibition say that everyone is in Category 1 or Category 2 -- they either never will commit crime, or always will commit crime -- so no prohibition will have any effect. If pressed, they may admit the theoretical possibility of the existence of Category 3, but will immediately say "but that is such a tiny handful of people there is no compelling reason to reduce everyone's freedom for such a small number of hypothetical situationally-bad actors (that is, good or bad depending on public policy inputs).
Those urging prohibition will swear to the existence of Category 3, and further state it is a rather large segment of the population. They don't usually put a percentage of it, but usually they seem to be talking about a very large slice of the population indeed, if we go by their rhetorical fury -- at least 1%, maybe 10%, and if you're talking about Tea Partiers, approaching 60%.
Every argument goes just like that. Just like that. Prohibitions on enhanced interrogation techniques, a.k.a. "torture," follow the same pattern, but a bit in reverse-- those seeking to ban torture swear there's no such thing as Category 3 -- a terrorist who will not respond to conventional law enforcement techniques, but may respond to tougher measures-- and thus swear every terrorist is Category 1 (will talk, if you just ask him nicely) or Category 2 (will not talk under any circumstances, including actual torture) so there's never, never a reason to waterboard someone, ever.
IV.
Here's my thinking on Category 3: Although it may sound like I'm suggesting it doesn't exist, in fact I generally assume it does. I do so not based on particular "studies" or the like; I just go by the general principle of physics -- if it can happen, it will happen. An idea I think derived from the Law of Large Numbers -- given a sufficient number of trials (a sufficient number of people), any circumstance which is not explicitly forbidden by the laws of nature will, sometimes, exist.
So to me a lot of the absolutist argumentation over Category 3 is a bit silly and off-topic. We don't know whether it exists or not in any case; on the other hand, we can probably guess it exists (all things exist, if not specifically forbidden by the laws of nature) and really the only argument is about how large the group is.
Which we also can't know.
So, after all this arguing about whether Category 3 exists or not, and how big it might be, we really have no idea. We can talk and talk about it but we don't know. I can't say for sure if smoking pot was a necessary pre-condition for Loughner's killing spree. Probably not, I'd say, but I don't know, and can't rule it out.
(Oddly enough, the only thing I can rule out is that a "climate of hate" caused this-- because I know for a fact, based on his writings and testimony of those who knew him, that he was not animated by right-wing politics at all. What we really should be talking about is whether we should prohibit the government from using grammar to mind-control the population, which is really Loughner's complaint. Personally, I'm on the anti-using-grammar-to-achieve-mind-control side of the argument, but I invite contrary arguments on this crucial issue. I'm curious as to how social cons and libertarians might wind up in agreement, or disagreement, about whether the government should be permitted to continuing mind-controlling us through selective and arbitrary rules of grammar. And date-conventions, of course.)
That's how these arguments play out, publicly. Category 3 does exist; Category 3 doesn't exist, or is so small to be a rounding error.
V.
Then comes the next phase. Because no one can prove his position that Category 3 doesn't exist, or is trivially small, or Category 3 does exist, and is frighteningly large, the next step is to argue about the value of the risky thing in question.
A calculation of whether a risk is a justified one depends on two main variables -- one, the odds the risk will result in catastrophe, and two, the value gained by undertaking that risk, even if in some cases it will have a bad result. And here is where people really live, because they have an easy answer about the second variable. This is a remarkably easy inquiry for most people, especially those on the liberal side, as they don't have a strong ideology of freedom to warn them away, generally, from prohibition, since it's really just asking the simple question: Hey, do I like this thing or don't I like this thing?
If you don't personally like a thing, if you find no value in it, it's a remarkably tempting thing to do to just assign that thing zero legitimate value and therefore argue for prohibition: After all, if something has zero legitimate value then it doesn't matter what the exact risk of the activity or thing might be -- as long as the risk is above zero, then it should be prohibited (in thinking that doesn't include a strong pro-freedom element) because in that case the risks, the downside, clearly exceeds the value, the upside. Because, of course, the thing in question has been assigned a value of exactly zero.
If not lower.
Don't like pot? Don't enjoy it? Assign it zero legitimate value and ergo any and all risks of pot-use exceed any legitimate value of thing and it's an easy call. Ban it.
Don't like heavy metal? Don't dig it? Assign it zero legitimate value and ergo all risks of depression, suicide, and social isolation -- all the claims made about the ills heavy metal "causes" -- far outweigh the value of it, because the value is zero and the risks -- however tiny -- must exceed zero, even if only barely.
Guns? Oh my oh my, is this an easy one for liberals! Guns have zero legitimate value, for hunting, for pleasure, for home defense, for defense of the person; and obviously they have high risks associated with them! This is the easiest call of all!
This is all too easy, and leads to too many prohibitions. You cannot just assign a thing a value of zero, for all other people, because you don't like it. A proper evaluation of risk and value must take into account the value experience by the people who do find value in it.
Everyone's bad like that, but liberals are generally worse, because they tend to have absolutely no respect -- not even a token nod of it -- for anyone thinking differently than they do.
And they're taking that to the ultimate step now.
VI.
In the case of Loughner, a tragedy welcomed ghoulishly by the left, leftists have even bigger ambitions in mind than they've ever admitted before.
Guns? That's nothing. Banning guns, or at least a lot of them, is a minor step on the way to a much bigger goal: What they're seeking to do in the current debate is prohibit any and all expressions of right-leaning political belief.
And it's an easy call for them, of course. Right-leaning political belief has zero legitimate value -- negative value, really! -- and the risks of such dangerous thought are frighteningly large!
Ban it. Ban the right. Ban them entirely. They contribute no positive value to society and in fact impose unbearably-high risks.
That is, essentially, what this is all about. Never has the left been so brazen or ambitious in the scope of what it seeks to prohibit. In this case, their rhetoric indicates they seek nothing short of the muzzling of the right, the entire right, everyone who disagrees. The risks of our opposition to Obama, that some people will be dangerously upset by our use of the word "socialist," are simply too high.
Oh I suppose we'll be permitted, as formalistic nod to the old, outdated Constitution, to offer token resistance. Ineffectual resistance. We'll be permitted to say things that are so non-inciting they fail to incite any genuine persuasion in the public.
But anything more than that? We're not allowed to say it. The risks are simply too high.
Jared Loughner proves that, in fact, by not proving it. Loughner clearly was not watching Glen Beck or listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading Sarah Palin's tweets. We know this for a fact. The leftist media even admits this, sometimes, when they have no other good options.
But that just proves that our provocations are even more dangerous. For if such provocations tilted the mind of a right-leaning politically-involved sort of Category 3 person, well, that's the paradigmatic situation you're looking for to prove your thesis. In that sort of situation, you'd have the proof you were looking for.
But -- follow the leftist logic here -- Loughner is not a Tea Partier, or a conservative, or even right leaning at all. This proves that not only can our provocations influence our own crazies (which is 60% of us, to hear them talk) but in fact are so potent they can even drive those who don't listen to us to kill.
Do you see that next argument taking shape? Taking shape? Having taken shape, I should say, past perfect. Krugman and all the rest of them, having called this as a deranged right-winger (and been proven wrong) simply make their argument more all-encompassing. They're no longer arguing that right-wing invective can have an unbalanacing effect on right-wingers who hear it.
Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.
That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people.
And not only does Category 3 exist, it's quite large -- like I said, I really believe they really believe that upwards of 60% of Tea Party are ticking time bombs ready to kill upon receiving Rush Limbaugh's next coded message.
And Laughner proves how scary all of this is. If even a left-winger can't resist Rush Limbaugh's commands to kill when he doesn't even hear them, what possible chance is there that the 60% of the Tea Party which is primed to murder will resist his call when they do hear it?
Posted by: Ace at
06:33 AM
| Comments (212)
Post contains 3390 words, total size 20 kb.
Posted by: Zakn at January 12, 2011 06:41 AM (zyaZ1)
Posted by: Achmed the Dead Acorn Pollster at January 12, 2011 06:43 AM (NFPBT)
Is it just me, or is the call to ban overheated rhetoric dangerously close to Laughner's "grammar mind control?"
"Follow the leftist logic here..." c'mon, Ace! It's not serious, heart-felt logic, it's just sopishist bullshit to convince/hoodwink the masses. Don't give them the honor of your five paragraphs to disect their "arguments."
Posted by: ProfShade at January 12, 2011 06:44 AM (CC3vq)
Posted by: Dixie at January 12, 2011 06:45 AM (ye++F)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 12, 2011 06:45 AM (TMB3S)
If you wanted to save yourself some time and connect to Morons all over in an easy way, just condense all of the above into this:
Loughner is the Mason character from CoD: Black Ops.
Posted by: EC at January 12, 2011 06:46 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: Jimmuy at January 12, 2011 06:49 AM (ets+s)
Posted by: King Friday at January 12, 2011 06:51 AM (f+oEY)
Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.
For example, the oft-repeated phrase (as if by memo) was,"When you hear the same hateful rhetoric being repeated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it's going to have deadly consequences."
The implication is: the rightwing media is brainwashing people and it must be stopped.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 12, 2011 06:51 AM (WmBF6)
Good read on a snowy day. The best nugget in there, though, is the discussion a bout how liberals assign zero value to things others hold dear, like guns. They are so insulated in their social world - why, I don't know anyone who owns a gun! Guns are icky. Guns are valued only by icky rednecky ignorant hayseed people, and only used by crazy people to shoot up college classrooms and shopping centers! New York City has banned handguns since, like, forever! See how enlightened and sophisticated that is? We don't need guns in the most densely popluated city in the country! Why do yahoos in Arizona need them?
Literally every liberal I know thinks this way about guns. Most of them also think this way about values many of us hold dear, like sexual chastity, personal responsibility, thrift, respect for women and girls, etc. They drink each other's bathwater and do not ever attempt to understand how others think about anything.
Posted by: rockmom at January 12, 2011 06:52 AM (w/gVZ)
Posted by: t-bird at January 12, 2011 06:52 AM (FcR7P)
I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.
Fired employees are notoriously capable of snapping. Although such snapping is a good sign there was an underlying problem, there's often no reason to suppose they ever would have snapped had they remained gainfully employed.
Posted by: A Reasonable Man at January 12, 2011 06:53 AM (xxqLI)
Yesterday, Laura Ingraham played a clip of that idiot liar Larry O'Donnell: "My mother watches to Glenn Beck every day. She's not going to go out and kill somebody, but..."
O'Donnell went on to say his mother is being influenced by all the 'scary' things Beck is putting on his chalkboard on his tv show.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 12, 2011 06:54 AM (NwOSU)
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 12, 2011 06:54 AM (XdlcF)
Risk = probability x consequences
So when discussing something like an auto accident you look at the probability of an accident. It is very high. Then you look at the consequences. The overall averages show that almost all accidents occur within 10 miles of home a low speed. IOW fender benders with minimal health consequences and some financial effects, largely dependent on your deductible.
People instinctively know this which is why they think nothing of getting in their car and going down the road. On the other hand, a lot of people have an fear of flying. There are two reasons for this. First the aircraft is not in their control therefore they are at the mercy of others, but primarily because of the calculation.
The probability of an air accident are low, however the consequences are dire. It is almost certain death.
As for category III people who will be influenced to do bad shit because of external stimulae. I say the umber is infinitesimally low. This nutbag would have done the killings here regardless of external and that shows in his writings.
Posted by: Vic at January 12, 2011 06:55 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Glenn Beck at January 12, 2011 06:55 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 06:55 AM (02uN6)
I think what this boils down to, what this always boils down to is that today's liberals have become everything they railed against as dirty hippies of the 60's. Mainly, The State and The Man. As a political entity they are almost unrecognizable some forty plusyear later.
And I have more respect for the pigfilth hippies of the 60s.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 06:57 AM (Y5+Z3)
Posted by: RedneknSC at January 12, 2011 07:00 AM (x8U/s)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 07:00 AM (02uN6)
I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.
...which, in my experience (5 years as a special ed. teacher), goes double for people with mental illness like Loughner. I worked with a number of kids who absolutely fell apart over these sorts of disruptions in their personal lives.
Posted by: AndrewR at January 12, 2011 07:01 AM (APD1F)
So we should ban abortions because of the people who shoot abortion doctors, right?
And the Koran, because of the people who kill infidels.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 12, 2011 07:03 AM (4ucxv)
Very well said. An excellent exposition of both the reality of human nature with the inevitability of serious defectives being present in the distribution, and also the real goal that the Left is seeking here. In their desperation, they grow ever more strident, angry, and irrational. They crave the opportunity to use the force of law to crush opponents.
We already have plenty of laws to cover the evils man can do. Too many, really. No amount of additional legislation will prevent people from doing extreme things, all of which are already prohibited.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 12, 2011 07:05 AM (xUM1Q)
Some one posited on an earlier thread that if the left really believed this they would bow to our every whim as they do with muslims.
The opposite position is that if they really do think that is true, imagine how they would react if we successfully dissuade them of that notion.
I think that neither are true. They unconsciously let them themselves believe something they know to not be true because the debate is more important than fact.
Posted by: ef at January 12, 2011 07:07 AM (c7Pp2)
Posted by: Mr. Dave at January 12, 2011 07:07 AM (dYKl3)
You pretty much have it right in section VI here. They truly believe we are all ticking time bombs awaiting our coded "telefon" message to pick up our automatic-silenced assault rifles and go on a spree.
I do believe a Category 3 exists.. but in very very small numbers. The proof of that would be to look at the anti-islamic violence after 9/11. There was some.. but very little. Anti-Islamic sentiment was feverishly high.. and should have brought out many more Category 3 types and spurred them to action. It didn't. Militia groups are potential Category 3.. the radical lefty groups of the 60's and 70's were potential Category 3 types. But, the percentage of people who can be infected with hate-speech to go violent in action has proven to be infinitesimally small.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 12, 2011 07:09 AM (f9c2L)
It also makes them feel good about themselves to believe it. After they finish posting vicious celebratory bile to Facebook after Cheney has surgery or Rush has a heart attack, they pat themselves on the back for not being evil brain-washed haters like those stupid teabaggers.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 12, 2011 07:10 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 07:11 AM (OlN4e)
Every action, good or bad, needs three components..
Motive, Opportunity, and Means....
Category 1 does not, because they do not have the motive...
Category 3 does not, because they lack means...
Category 2 will break other restrictions, to overcome the lack of opportunity or means...
Prohibition is all about taking away the means to perform an act... but that very prohibition limits any other use of the proscibed Object.... AND if there is a large enough group in Category 2, they will provide the means to enable Category 3... (think child porn, or pot) rendering the prohibition unsuccessful.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 07:11 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 07:11 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 07:13 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 12, 2011 07:13 AM (70v0o)
Posted by: Mr. Dave at January 12, 2011 11:07 AM (dYKl3)
I think its the level of motiviation which puts you in one category or another... and Religions do change Motivation levels.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 07:13 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: Thinking things over at January 12, 2011 07:14 AM (4o/Qp)
Posted by: katya, the designated driver at January 12, 2011 07:14 AM (OmlsY)
Roger Simon:
The right wing is the supposed source of all violence and violent rhetoric. Of course, we know thatÂ’s not true and of course there hasnÂ’t been any real right-wing violence, none whatsoever associated with the tea party movement. ItÂ’s all a charade.
But the left persists in believing it. Well, not entirely. Some are following an Alinskyite trail of deception. But a good percentage — as this past few days have demonstrated as never before — are genuinely convinced they are surrounded by a bloodthirsty mob of semi-illiterate rednecks out to polarize the country.
This is one of the more clearcut demonstrations of mass projection I have seen in my lifetime.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 12, 2011 07:15 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: CyclopsJack at January 12, 2011 07:16 AM (hhCaF)
Indeed. But go back to Loughner's view - that words can control reality - not by persuading people to do or not do things, but by their very use.
The left is making a variant of Loughner's argument RIGHT NOW.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 12, 2011 07:16 AM (bgcml)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 07:17 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 07:18 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Smokey Behr at January 12, 2011 07:18 AM (QyeW7)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 12, 2011 07:18 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 07:21 AM (SJ6/3)
Go into the wayback machine and try to remember every single thing that the Left accused Bush of wanting to do.
Then realize that is their intent and they are enacting it now.
Freedom of speech?
Looks like it's going away for conservatives.
/never let a good crisis go to waste.
Posted by: shibumi at January 12, 2011 07:21 AM (OKZrE)
Posted by: The Guys at January 12, 2011 07:21 AM (h6mPj)
Sat Jan-08-11 **09:35** PM
46. Shooters dad is 58 year old Randy Loughner from Tucson, AZ
Could this be who accompanied him to the meetings?
We've searched like crazy for the shooter - Jared - but let's see if we can some up with any FR or tea party stuff about his dad Randy Loughner. I'll be searching as well and let you know if I come up with anything.
http://tinyurl.com/4rb87w7
Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 12, 2011 07:22 AM (8x3SC)
No, not really. Well, if it starts with "Once upon a time...," then maybe.
Posted by: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious at January 12, 2011 07:22 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 07:22 AM (OlN4e)
Wait a sec... that was a clear attempt at nefarious, mind-controlling grammar usage.
Posted by: Sheriff Dupnik at January 12, 2011 07:22 AM (gbCNS)
very...very good post
One thing though...should there be a separatecategory ...or maybe sub-category...for those who respond to pressures or encouragement to commit violent acts they would not have done with a leadership vacuum....
..think union thugs here
Posted by: beedubya at January 12, 2011 07:23 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Doc Merlin at January 12, 2011 07:24 AM (MIaPf)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 12, 2011 07:24 AM (xQAv5)
Posted by: Glenn Beck at January 12, 2011 10:55 AM (zgZzy)
Wait, the tears aren't a code?
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 12, 2011 07:24 AM (eCAn3)
Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 12, 2011 07:25 AM (6ftzF)
"I really believe they really believe that upwards of 60% of Tea Party are ticking time bombs ready to kill upon receiving Rush Limbaugh's next coded message."
I don't. Not the people doing most of the talking anyway. They know full well that they're using lies and false accusations to foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'd remain silent. Think of how they deal with Islamic terrorists, or even cartoons.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 12, 2011 07:26 AM (hUf/c)
OT
Come on. Cirque Du Soleil is without a doubt the gayest Circus on Earth. In fact, the only gay circus. And Fwench to boot.
Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 07:27 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2011 07:27 AM (9L1z6)
I don't. Not the people doing most of the talking anyway. They know full well that they're using lies and false accusations to foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'd remain silent. Think of how they deal with Islamic terrorists, or even cartoons.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 12, 2011 11:26 AM (hUf/c)
Yep... made this point in an arguement last night...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 07:28 AM (AdK6a)
Ah look! It's Dan Dan the shitstain Romney spam!
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 07:29 AM (Y5+Z3)
As to the terrorist interrogation question. Al Bibi (sp?) was interrogated under the regular order rules for quite awhile, after that did not work they let one of the "happiness and good works" will get us what we want fellows try their hand. (Seriously, this guy posited that by building "rapport" with the suspect and giving him cookies when he is co-operative we would be successful.)
After that failed (ie did not turn up anything useful) they waterboardered him. He immediatly gave up the location of the safe house where Khalid was found.
The guy with the cookies still regularly makes public appearances stating that his methods are, better, faster, and more accurate.
Posted by: Have Blue at January 12, 2011 07:31 AM (mV+es)
Wait a minute? Rush has secret messages on his talk show? Where do I get a code key?
Posted by: CDR M at January 12, 2011 07:31 AM (y67bA)
I think a lot of this is specifically targeted at FoxNews. The Left wants to make the people who work at FNC -- the hosts, the producers, the staff, everyone -- feel personally guilty for being inflammatory in the hopes they tone it down and shut-up.
FNC has 10x the influence of talk radio. Especially since the iPod generation no longer listen to radio.
The tactic has in the past proven to be effective in turning right-wing Senators, Governors, Supreme Court Justices, and even Presidents to the left.
Posted by: bobbo at January 12, 2011 07:33 AM (QcFbt)
Wait a minute? Rush has secret messages on his talk show? Where do I get a code key?
Posted by: CDR M at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (y67bA)
It's the old enigma machines.
Posted by: robtr at January 12, 2011 07:33 AM (hVDig)
I think Cat III folks undeniably exist. Statistically I think the number is vanishingly small.
Extending your law of large numbers however, you will see that sum of Cat III types grow larger and more capable of threatening larger numbers of innocents.
So there is an interesting hypothetical to debate in some respect. But that debate needs to be had at precisely the point Nighthawk says above: around the weighing of the cost of Liberty against the cost of Life.
Liberals are notoriously bad actors in such a debate for precisely the reason Ace highlights: they place a negligible to zero value on the concerns of Conservatives.
Posted by: krakatoa at January 12, 2011 07:34 AM (a0Jhx)
I like long posts, especially this one. I really like the way it begins, to let you know it's a long post:
"It was the best of posts, it was the worst of posts"
Posted by: Michael Steele at January 12, 2011 07:35 AM (5qBd2)
Which to me means there is no freedom I will trade to be protected (even with the assumption the prescribed protection would be effective which it wouldn't)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 12, 2011 07:35 AM (tf9Ne)
It's the old enigma machines.
Posted by: robtr at January 12, 2011 11:33 AM (hVDig)
B_ Sur_ _o Drink Your O_al_in_
son of a bitch...
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 12, 2011 07:35 AM (eCAn3)
Posted by: beedubya at January 12, 2011 07:36 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 07:36 AM (84Grz)
Those people are actually Category Two with respect to the proposed ban, because their violence would occur with or without the thing to be banned .
Posted by: The Monster at January 12, 2011 07:37 AM (yMxwG)
Such as losing an election and watching their world view implode? Who can have watched the appalling spectacle of the last few days without concluding that these people are losing it?
Posted by: pep at January 12, 2011 07:37 AM (GMG6W)
Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 07:37 AM (5qBd2)
Why isn't the Shrink Community trying to prove that they might exist?
Who has existed as a Category 3 killer ?
Some people are crazy and killers and have political motives. Hello, John Wilkes Booth
Other Category 3 people are just crazy and killers: Self-absorbed lunatic narcissists like Hinckley and Mark David Chapman. They fix on Something / Someone and listen to the Crazy Voices in their head
Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 07:38 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 07:39 AM (SJ6/3)
Oh goodness. More of their meme seems to be evaporating.
It's pretty clear at this point that newsrooms have replaced reporting Style Guides with a print-out of Alinsky's Rules.
We know they've already gone with the rule on 'keeping the pressure up'. Same goes for 'picking the target, freeezing it, and polarizing it'.
And it's not really working for them, now is it?
So now what?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 07:39 AM (Y5+Z3)
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 12, 2011 07:39 AM (vGmv/)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 07:39 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: Beck's Chalkboard at January 12, 2011 07:40 AM (EL+OC)
I had to take the morning off to read it, but I really liked this post and had not considered this arguement in the light Ace presents it.
thanks for the ammo Ace.
Posted by: Shoey at January 12, 2011 07:40 AM (ehKDD)
See, I don't think those people fall in Category 3. Maybe 2, or maybe they deserve their own category.
I think the Category 3 to which Ace refers is not the guy who walks in on his wife and another guy- sure, he'll use a gun, but he'd use a knife or a bat if it was what he had. I don't even think it's the super-severely Mentally Retarded or super-duper Autistic kid who is so unable to interact with the world in any rational way that they finally (and, with MR and Autism: repeatedly) snap into violence of some kind.
I think he's talking about a theoretical category of person who would never commit murder- except that guns exist. And another category of person who would never commit murder- except he watches Glen Beck and listens to Rush.
The difference between the latter group and the former is that they are otherwise fully functioning, and whatever sets them off isn't some immediate stimulus, but a long series of "stimuli" which accrue over time.
In the case of the guy who wouldn't commit murder except for the existence of those icky guns, the "theory" (to give it a name it hasn't earned) would be that the constant temptation, day after day, eventually wears him down and his "better nature" eventually just fails him. Or whatever.
In the case of the guy walking in on his wife- that's a sudden and specific stimulus to violence. For the MR and Autistic, they kind of fall into the "series of stimuli" camp, but there is always one final straw. "Category 3," to my interpretation, is not anyone who we can point to a final straw (because that would actually give us a specific reason for whatever happened that we could debate instead of a "climate of hate"), but rather someone who is just "worn down" into violence.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 12, 2011 07:40 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Sir Golfsalot at January 12, 2011 07:41 AM (5qBd2)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 07:41 AM (84Grz)
Interesting.
I think we have to accept that:
1. Most politicians have an urge to expand government. They ARE government
2. The Right is anti-government expansion.
3. Therefore, outside of war debates, we will most often be the anti-government side.
4. We also are the side that defends gun rights.
5. In the current environment, # 3 and #4 result more often in appeals for “armed resistance” than liberal rhetoric.
6. ???
An idea I think derived from the Law of Large Numbers -- given a sufficient number of trials (a sufficient number of people), any circumstance which is not explicitly forbidden by the laws of nature will, sometimes, exist.
Similar to the Law of the Internet: If you canÂ’t imagine it, itÂ’s on the web. So, Rate My Turban.
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 07:41 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 12, 2011 07:42 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Christine Bongiorno at January 12, 2011 07:42 AM (6QC41)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 07:43 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (84Grz)
Hey, I did pretty good with a surplus tank and some tear gas!
Posted by: Janet Reno at January 12, 2011 07:43 AM (eCAn3)
Oh goodness. More of their meme seems to be evaporating.
-----
I know. Next up on the democrats banning block? Loughner's friends.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 12, 2011 07:44 AM (8x3SC)
My life is worth around $ 220,000.00, give or take a few dollar.
Also, in section I, i remember this being a part of Fight Club, where the audience was supposed to be disgusted. Ed Norton's character was one of the people for the auto industry who decided whether or not there should be recalls or if it would be cheaper settle law suits. And the company would then choose whichever cost less.
Posted by: Ben at January 12, 2011 07:44 AM (wuv1c)
93
And right there, we're all proven correct by ABC.
"Laughner began his spiral downward after a high school girlfriend broke up with him."
Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 07:45 AM (5qBd2)
They know full well that they're using lies and false accusations to foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'd remain silent..
I agree to a point. Nobody has called me complicit to murder to my face (and they should not.) They may feel they are protected from backlash somehow, maybe because they rarely leave the basement. It's really hard to say how many are the worst kind of liars and how many actually are buying this shit. Remember that many just repeat what they hear and never put two brain cells to work thinking critically about much of anything.
Great post, good and long.
Posted by: spongeworthy at January 12, 2011 07:45 AM (rplL3)
If they honestly believed that 60% of Tea Partiers are dangerous enough to start going postal and take out government officials the current media sh*t storm wouldn't be happening. They'd be to busy cowering behind their desks and tax-payer funded bodyguards to be talking all this crap.
All prohibition does is make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Posted by: AdamPM at January 12, 2011 07:45 AM (/83rF)
That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people.
Now, watch me make Krugman cluck like a chicken simply using the power of my mind.
And the Force. Sith Lord and all that.
Now watch as I make Krugman think he is The Chicken.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at January 12, 2011 07:46 AM (1hM1d)
So now what?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (Y5+Z3)
We're gonna double down, baby....double down!
Posted by: Libtards everywhere unite! at January 12, 2011 07:47 AM (VuLos)
Great, thought provoking post, Ace.
Have to agree, though, with the camp that feels as if the majority of the moonbats (the ones who are most fervently stirring this pot) truly thought there was any real danger in prodding and provoking the right, they would cease and desist.
I saw a comment (after Krauthammer's op-ed in NR Online for cripes sake) from a moonbat who confessed a "vague uneasiness" about there being crazy conservatives out there, and cited "studies" about how conservatives were more prone to fear-mongering, authoritarianism, etc.
Yeah, there is probably some uneasiness about us because they have no concept of what makes us tick. What they feel is more like the slight uneasiness you feel when you turn over a dead Man of War on the beach and try to make sure you don't touch a tentacle, but I think they feel very, very safe in their continued demonization. Just like flag burning, demonstrations that trash the military or US traditions. If they thought there were scores of silently waiting Jack Bauer types out there ready to reap vengeance, they would NEVER be as bold as they are.
Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 07:49 AM (1kwr2)
Happens all the time.......
The Great Thing about crazy people is that you can say anything about them and it will be difficult or impossible to prove you're wrong / full of chit
Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 07:50 AM (UqKQV)
You were right. Anything starting with a Roman numeral should be skipped. By the way, the "light" cars that you describe that have a calculated "death" value attached do not exist simpley because Detroit wanted to make "light" cars. "Light" cars exist because of Federally mandated CAFE standards. Period. Improvements in energy throughput for internal combustion engines have come a long way in the last 40 years. But the car companies knew they wouldn't come fast enough. They shaved the weight and the size of the car to get more mileage per engine.
Understand that the car companies made rational calculations. Undertand also that The Leviathon responsible for this never did, never will, and so far, has not been held accountable.
Posted by: Donald J. Morrissey at January 12, 2011 07:51 AM (GkYyh)
Wimmin problems maybe? But I'm more inclined to rip from the Dem's playbook. I'll use Alinksy Rule #4- Make the Enemy live up to its own set of rules...
I blame every Democrat that pushed for HC legislation over job creation-
"The online-forum messages exhibit a growing frustration that, at 22 years of age, Mr. Loughner couldn't land a minimum-wage job and was spurned by women."
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 07:51 AM (Y5+Z3)
Also, confirmation bias.
The last few months they've been toying with the idea that Obama really needs another Tim McVeigh. Which has been a reliable argument on so many issues for sixteen years. Every time someone mentions Islamic terror they counter with Tim McVeigh, for one. And they truly believe there are many wannabe Tim McVeighs in their political opposition.
So when a congresswoman under Palin's "crosshairs" was actually shot, after the wave midterm favoring the primitive prole conservatives, the circle was squared. Then the stubborn facts started to trickle out. But due to the confirmation bias we're watching them struggle to debate the facts. Always a losing effort unless you can change the facts a la Orwell or Stalin.
Posted by: Beagle at January 12, 2011 07:51 AM (sOtz/)
that is all..........
Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 07:52 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: AnnaH at January 12, 2011 07:52 AM (7mMUX)
And the most prosaic thing I can think of saying was "If Loughner was Category Three, then this might have been better dealt with if more of the Category Ones in the crowd were also Condition One."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 12, 2011 07:53 AM (Jdtsu)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 12, 2011 07:53 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 12, 2011 07:53 AM (70v0o)
I'd only note that there are probably a good chunk of Category 3's who are really Category 2's who just lacked opportunity or drive. IOW, the same imbalances exist that would make them 2's, but they were denied by events not of their control.
Not that this proportion changes the calculus of your argument at all. If there are any Category 3's, even a hypothetical construct of one as manufactured by thinkers for convenience, then the liberal (and I mean non-liberal, actually) impetus to intervene exists.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 12, 2011 07:53 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (9KqcB)
I'm sorry, but your Post is outside the Guidlines of AOS Posting rules.
#3 must ALWAYS be PROFIT
Posted by: Self Appointed Moron Cop at January 12, 2011 07:54 AM (AdK6a)
Probably, but its always been the hard left that was more prone to filling mass graves and body counts in the tens of millions.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 07:55 AM (84Grz)
Will we get to wear Che t-shirts?
Posted by: pep at January 12, 2011 07:55 AM (GMG6W)
Posted by: Ezra Klien at January 12, 2011 07:56 AM (N1KWs)
The left believe people are cattle. They believe no one owns their own thoughts/actions and that if they are stupid enough o believe the shit the MFM spews, well then, they are stupid enough to be prodded to violence.
Posted by: momma at January 12, 2011 07:57 AM (penCf)
"Laughner began his spiral downward after a high school girlfriend broke up with him."
Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 11:45 AM (5qBd2)
Und now we get to ze root... ze cause...
Its all a Womans fault...
/runs out of the thread giggling...
Posted by: Siggy Freud at January 12, 2011 07:57 AM (AdK6a)
Ace, excellent post. Rational thought is being supplanted by motive bound liberals. The liberal response to the Arizona tragedy is duplicitous and perverse. Yet, it is being advanced by the unscrupulous mainstream press.
The degree to which the liberal meme is being advanced is alarming to reasonable minded people i.e. conservatives.
Posted by: Journolist at January 12, 2011 07:57 AM (LwLqV)
Wow - just read this on my lunch hour. Very interesting and, as always, a great post, Ace.
mac :]
Posted by: macbrooks at January 12, 2011 07:59 AM (J+MD4)
The idea wasn't to use the pistol in active acts of organized resistance, rather for the individual finding it to use it to ambush a single German soldier from whom you could obtain a quality high-capacity weapon to use in your resistance operations.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 08:00 AM (84Grz)
Posted by: Jaynie59 at January 12, 2011 08:02 AM (YjQWV)
#3 must ALWAYS be PROFIT
Posted by: Self Appointed Moron Cop at January 12, 2011 11:54 AM (AdK6a)
I'm taking it in a new, exciting direction.
My point is, generally speaking, conservatives feel much stronger about arming ourselves and about stopping the perpetual growth of government. So, there will always be a Category 3 risk for us. There just is. And if someone acts out, and the link to the right is proven, what do we say?
We say: "Living with the risk is more important that altering our views." We should start saying that now, rather than harping on the fact that no link has been found in this case.
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 08:03 AM (9KqcB)
Liberals are simply incredibly lazy thinkers.
The answer to the question of cost/benefit is that things liberals like have infinate value. Things they don't like have zero value. The problem is...because conservatives have no value to liberals...then their complete erasure from Earth makes no difference. And because understanding what conservatives want or think has no value, it is easiest for liberals to assume conservatives think the same thing about them! But liberals have infinate value! They can't not matter! Ergo, the only solution is that liberals must eliminate all conservatives immediately!
Sorry, but the cost benefit thingy says you gotta go!
Posted by: Alaskan caribou at January 12, 2011 08:05 AM (1vG6v)
Clyburn: 'Intellectually, [Palin] seems not to understand what's going on here'"She is an attractive person, she is articulate, but i think intellectually she seems not to understand what is going on here," he said.
Posted by: momma at January 12, 2011 08:06 AM (penCf)
Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 08:07 AM (1kwr2)
We say: "Living with the risk is more important that altering our views." We should start saying that now, rather than harping on the fact that no link has been found in this case.
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 12:03 PM (9KqcB)
Its the fight between saftey, and Liberty... and the Progresives are always pushing saftey in order to take away Liberty... even if the thing has no Real benefit.
Like the TSA grope downs. Theres has not been a single terrorist plot stopped at a US airport by all these searches, yet they expanded them.
I just started rereading Crichton's Climate of Fear last night... whose basic premise is that the Gov must always keep its Citizens in Fear, in order to expand its powers.... Note that the Left, is using that exact tactic now. They are trying to use a single incident of a whacko, to put MORE limits on Liberty (both Guns, and Speech)...
The Government, and Media, are perpetuating Fear....
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 08:08 AM (AdK6a)
Ace said:
"Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.
That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people."
And here you have the essence of the sickly mind-thoughts that are driving the Climate Alarmists. (See: anything and everything observable supports our climate theory.)
Nice post Ace. Can't believe I read it all.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 12, 2011 08:10 AM (fLHQe)
That's why we have Israel and subsidize Palestinians.
Posted by: The Middle East at January 12, 2011 08:14 AM (swuwV)
The hard left (which is most of the left these days) isn't really concerned about lefties being driven to kill. The BIG fear is the middle third who arent drinking all the kool-aid are being driven to the right.
The town halls last summer and Beck's ralley in DC absolutely suprised the professional left and frankly.... scared the bejeebus out of them. Remember all the flak about those "crazy violent tea partiers"???? This response to the Arizona on the part of the left is a continuation of last summers efforts.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 12, 2011 08:18 AM (J5Hcw)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 12, 2011 08:19 AM (PaSAU)
Category 2 people generally have great difficulty holding on to jobs. They struggle to achieve and maintain romantic, familial, and friendship relationships. The weight of being a loser eventually causes the crazy person to formulate a fantasy plan of violence that they believe once carried out, will magically transform their lives into relevancy.
Posted by: dri at January 12, 2011 08:20 AM (4uWkx)
Posted by: Category 1000 energy bolts at January 12, 2011 08:22 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Democrats at January 12, 2011 08:22 AM (QgmBR)
Posted by: murray at January 12, 2011 08:29 AM (mmN+q)
We need to immediately pass some legislation to prohibit rejection by women.
Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 08:35 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: murray at January 12, 2011 08:37 AM (mmN+q)
We need to immediately pass some legislation to prohibit rejection by women.
Posted by: cthulhu
Easy for you to say. You have tentacles.
What?
Posted by: Blue Hen at January 12, 2011 08:38 AM (R2fpr)
Although I was really, really pissed off for the past two days over this, I am beginning to realize that reasonable heads will most likely prevail, after all. And most people really are reasonable. So the vast majority of Category ones out there are going to reject this bankrupt school of thought and it will die of starvation, as it ought, except in the same people and outlets that are pretty much
in category two in the first place, sans the violence (mostly).
Except, of course, my wife, who upon reading an editorial headline or two the other day, completely bought the whole "We must reduce the rhetoric' thing hook, line, and sinker. Oh, well, I'll keep working on her - she's worth it.
Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 08:38 AM (ilOUE)
So, there you go.
We need legislation to mandate that people watch TV and listen to political radio, and those who dislike the news should be put on a watch list.
Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 08:41 AM (kaalw)
Implications are left as an exercise to the student.
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© works for the University of Planet, natch at January 12, 2011 08:44 AM (GBXon)
And Laughner proves how scary all of this is. If even a left-winger can't resist Rush Limbaugh's commands to kill when he doesn't even hear them, what possible chance is there that the 60% of the Tea Party which is primed to murder will resist his call when they do hear it?
This alone could have been typed and all the rest avoided.
Posted by: rightzilla at January 12, 2011 08:46 AM (ujT7B)
Yeah, my wife has very conservative instincts but gets her info from the MSM and tilts a bit left emotionally. She knows about the tragedy, of course, but isn't following this whole side of the debate about the "rhetoric".
She is OK with Palin, but kind of buys into the meme of her not being "qualified". However, last night she heard someone chattering on TV about whether Palin should forego a run for President after the past days' events and said "WHAT? WHY"
Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 08:49 AM (1kwr2)
No category 1 exists because most people who's lives take a nosedive will not resort to a crazy violent "solution" to their problems.
Category 3 people are in essence just category 2 people who's lives have fallen apart to the point that they become despondent. Despondent and crazy add up to violent action against others.
Posted by: dri at January 12, 2011 08:50 AM (4uWkx)
http://tinyurl.com/45eaqen
(safe link to Gateway Pundit)
And we know who that 28% is - the hardcore left, who despite my heartfelt confidence in most people to do some basic reasoning on their own recognizance, will believe anything: A. that they are told by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo B. that demonizes their political opponents.
Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 08:50 AM (ilOUE)
Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 12:35 PM (kaalw)
Oh! I absolutely agree!
Posted by: maddogg's stiffening whanger at January 12, 2011 08:51 AM (OlN4e)
If only I could get that far. My wife is a knee-jerk liberal, very emotionally driven. But she married me, so there is hope.(well not for HER, she still has to live with ME, but for bringing her over to the Dark Side, I mean).
Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 08:55 AM (ilOUE)
I also stay out of chest deep water, thus avoiding 90% of shark attacks.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 12, 2011 09:00 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 09:02 AM (ilOUE)
What he needs is a Reichstagsbrand, so he can have his Ermächtigungsgesetz. Everyone knows you can't have an Ermächtigungsgesetz without a Reichstagsbrand.
Posted by: The Monster at January 12, 2011 09:02 AM (yMxwG)
Part of the strength of the left is their ability to convince large groups of people that chaos and tragedy can be defeated legislatively.
If you accept that chaos and tragedy will always still occur at some frequency greater than you like, no matter what laws are passed, you are less willing to throw everyone's liberty away for a small percentage decrease in life's lethality.
Posted by: lauraw at January 12, 2011 09:15 AM (DbybK)
Posted by: bour3 at January 12, 2011 09:15 AM (D1E3j)
Posted by: rightzilla at January 12, 2011 09:23 AM (ujT7B)
West, I think all one can ask is that (like you say) a wife or whoever does some basic reasoning before formulating hard and fast positions on important issues.
When she sees an outtake of Obama at a baseball game talking about what a great country this is, she kind of buys it. But she also is well capable of looking at the taxes we pay and how hard we work, and then seeing an acquaintance of hers extend her unemployment for another half year so she doesn't have to work, and realizing it isn't right.
Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 09:24 AM (1kwr2)
Posted by: tokingjoe at January 12, 2011 09:31 AM (f3Tf1)
Wimmin problems maybe? But I'm more inclined to rip from the Dem's playbook. I'll use Alinksy Rule #4- Make the Enemy live up to its own set of rules...
I blame every Democrat that pushed for HC legislation over job creation-
"The online-forum messages exhibit a growing frustration that, at 22 years of age, Mr. Loughner couldn't land a minimum-wage job and was spurned by women."
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (Y5+Z3)
from brutally harsh experience, i have learned some things that turn women off.
1. Dungeons & Dragons - I'll never understand why, but pretty women can sense a D&D player from miles away, if you ever want to get laid put down the 20-sided dice.
2. Major mental illness - creeps them out even slightly more than being short and unattractive (but only slightly)
Posted by: Shoey at January 12, 2011 09:33 AM (ehKDD)
There are a lot more category 3 people you you suppose Ace.
1.2 billion Muslims is not a trivial number. That's why the Left is constantly worrying about not provoking them. The Left is a least consistent in their belief that category 3 people shouldn't be provoked, I'll give them that.
By the way, great post.
Posted by: Speller at January 12, 2011 09:35 AM (J74Py)
Posted by: Greg at January 12, 2011 09:37 AM (wBUxE)
Heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers is how cars were built in the 1930's; they were horribly unsafe. A big strong vehicle will itself survive - while killing you. All of this was discovered in the 1950's by Mercedes which thought that their energy absorbing technology was so important that they released it to all the other car manufacturers without patenting it.
When people are buying big cars with strong frames and bumpers like Hummers they are buying CARS which will survive an accident NOT cars which will protect them in an accident.
The safest car you can buy is a 3500 lb sports sedan like a BMW - Mercedes - Infiniti etc.. This is because there are two factors in safety: 1. How well are you able to avoid collisions in the first place. 2. How well are the passengers able to survive a collision.
Factor one is inversely proportional to vehicle mass.
Factor two is proportional to vehicle mass.
In other words a 50000 lb vehicle does better in a collision than a 3500 lb vehicle but it is much more likely to get into a collision than the smaller vehicle; 18 wheelers can't turn, they can't stop - they smash into things. The bottom line is that you are much more likely to die driving an 18 wheeler than you are if you are driving a 3500 lb sports sedan. As a result the most dangerous job in the continental 48 states is driving an 18 wheeler.
Conversely vehicles smaller than 3500 lb sports sedans are more likely to avoid collisions than bigger vehicles - but they do so poorly when they do get into a wreck that they are more likely to kill you than a 3500 lb sports sedan.
A 3500 lb sports sedan is small enough, has good enough handling and brakes to avoid most collisions - while being large enough to protect you in a collision it can't avoid. Bottom line; lowest death rates of any vehicle types driven in general purpose driving. It is why BMW's have lower death rates than Volvo's - even though the latter are designed to survive collisions. (The Ford Aerostar van has a lower death rate than any other vehicle, but that is because it is the 'soccer mom' car which is rarely driven more that 35 mph)
All a big vehicle provides is the illusion of safety. Don't buy a big car because you think it will make you safe; it won't.
Posted by: An Observation at January 12, 2011 09:47 AM (ylhEn)
AGH! The timing of it all.
Quickly don't have time to read all the comments, but some have pointed out that not only is this (likely) the smallest category of people (that the left wants to use to set the rules for us all), but the influences in question are the smallest influences in their decisions (personal events, family, relationships, and of course onset of mental illness being vastly larger drivers).
So basically they want to set laws and social rules based on the least relevant possible information.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 12, 2011 09:55 AM (bxiXv)
Sorry Ace, but I agree with what I read so far, but that seems like so much psychology that it really made me contemplate category 2.
Posted by: Sponge © at January 12, 2011 10:18 AM (UK9cE)
My wife is no dummy. I think she voted for the O, but she has been very quiet since he took office. I would bet that she would not vote for him again. And she was never supportive of the health care bill - she is well aware of what more bureaucracy will do the the industry and our hopes for effective health care, she works in a related industry. I am also sure that she is well aware of the other factors you mention.
So, she qualifies in your "basic reasoning" department (except she married me - nobody's perfect)
But she was brought up liberal, her parents and friends are liberals, and we live in the bluest of blue states. So there is lots of momentum and ingrained thought patterns involved.
We have a great marriage, BTW, she is the love of my life.
Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 10:37 AM (ilOUE)
Posted by: moviegique at January 12, 2011 10:51 AM (1y5Vr)
Posted by: izoneguy at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (83mM1)
Posted by: Meg Mass at January 12, 2011 11:19 AM (f4Ndo)
You're saying that there are some people who don't like Heavy Metal?
Man, I need to chew on that for a bit. I've never considered the possibility....
Very good piece BTW. read every word, and couldn't agree more.
Posted by: IronDioPriest at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (R5UWl)
Oh wait......
Posted by: PFFFT at January 12, 2011 11:26 AM (wFMDa)
I think I'd look pretty dapper with a brace of flintlock's tucked into my belt.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:32 AM (GhHlR)
For years, I've summarized liberalism with two phrases:
- Liberalism is all about feeling good about yourself (and bad about those who disagree).
- Being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry (Love Story, anyone?)
This thesis is entirely consistent with those phrases, albeit more concrete and explicit.
Posted by: TommyC at January 12, 2011 11:37 AM (8PLYI)
Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (MODaN)
"That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people."
But not just "people" but other left-leaning people! I.e, that expressed, conservative opinion can cause left-wingers to kill their own kind! In other words, if you call person X a socialist, and I agree and am happy that person X is a socialist, because I am too, I'm still so infuriated by Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, et al. (despite never hearing them) that I will kill, not kill Limbaugh, Beck or Levin but my hero, my compadre, the socialist!
Posted by: HardcoreCon at January 12, 2011 12:00 PM (YMTtc)
Posted by: DAve at January 12, 2011 12:09 PM (jpunE)
Posted by: Charlie at January 12, 2011 12:17 PM (yxpFA)
Very good and thorough assessment. In law enforcement, they say that 20% of people will not steal something no matter what, 20% will steal something any time they can, and 60% will steal something only if it is tempting enough and they think they can absolutely get away with it.
I think you missed something small, but incredibly important, though.
I. The loud, obnoxious voices on the left (not to say all of them, though it is tempting) started trumpeting this supposed cat #3 tie before anyone knew anything. It is inductive reasoning at best, situational eisegesis at worst. They are looking for a reason to silence opposition, so they wait for a convenient time. It is a one-way train. There is only one suggestion, and if anything fits (in their opinion) it will be made, regardless of its veracity.
II. Further, their world-view dictates that since their opinion is the only valid one, then those who hold an opposing one must either be stupid or insane. Conservative ideas are dangerous, because they are ignorant, wrong, and evil. Those who aren't smart enough to resist those ideas (cat $3) must be protected from those who are insanely voicing them.
III. What they cannot entertain is the idea that the ideas themselves could be either equally valid, or more valid than their own. I think that is the greatest and best hope for evangelical conservatism (not to be confused with conservative evangelicalism). If we can turn off the invective just a tad, and get people to realize that conservatives simply have a different paradigm of government, then our ideas can speak for themselves. For when your ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, shouting loudly at the opposition is the last resort.
Posted by: Ryan at January 12, 2011 12:21 PM (8hxNA)
Posted by: Sheriff Joe at January 12, 2011 12:32 PM (ocHBO)
Posted by: Artemis Fowl at January 12, 2011 01:37 PM (unNgC)
Posted by: Socratease at January 12, 2011 01:42 PM (Cw79V)
Bravo ... and please keep up the good work; without people like you in the trenches, we on the right will be frickin doomed. The movers and shakers over there get desperate enough they'll do just about anything -- desperate times call for desperate measures, and as we've seen, all too often, some of those fools will say or do anything for political gain.
A waste of time? Nay. Not at all!
Ace you are a great thinker and you communicate complex things like this very, very well. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Bill in TN at January 12, 2011 03:01 PM (5KYBU)
Thanks Ace, very good work.
I've been trying these last few days to understand the liberal cacaphony with little luck. This helps me understand their mindset and explains their actions. Now if you would just quit using grammer to control my thoughts..........
Posted by: Hammer at January 12, 2011 03:06 PM (hVGDL)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 12, 2011 03:07 PM (bvfVF)
They want the violence. They need the violence.
The election of BHO with a near-super majority in both houses of Congress proves that without a Reichstag fire, they can't pull it off. Their Socialist Utopian dreams can never succeed in the United States without some event so horrendous that the Socialists can permanently change the laws to forever tip the balance in their favor.
Like the Hungerford massacre irreversibly disarmed the Britash people, the Left in the US must have in incident so appalling that they can convince just enough Rinos to join with them to pass a slew of liberal laws that are, at this very moment, already written and ready to be brought to the House and Senate floors.
But alas, their time has passed. Rejected after only two years. All that remains is the playbook.
Posted by: Cooter at January 12, 2011 04:06 PM (BcLJD)
1.2 billion Muslims is not a trivial number. That's why the Left is constantly worrying about not provoking them. The Left is a least consistent in their belief that category 3 people shouldn't be provoked, I'll give them that.
Posted by: Speller at January 12, 2011 01:35 PM (J74Py)Which puts the lie to the idea that they honestly think conservatives are category 3.
They attempt to provoke us with lies, abuse and false accusations on a pretty much daily basis.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 12, 2011 09:04 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Ryan at January 12, 2011 04:21 PM (8hxNA)
I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing you personally, but that's about the most insane over-assessment I've ever heard in my entire life.
80% of people are thieves of habit or opportunity? Holy shit, are these LEOs or prison guards? 80% of the inmate population, maybe.
Think about it, if that were even remotely true, your car would be stolen every week, or you'd be burglarized every other day.
I might buy 2% and 6%.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 12, 2011 09:07 PM (bxiXv)
I'd say to them, "Look in the mirror, laser-brains." It's amazing, let's just call it Fudd's Law, that whatever they're guilty of, they accuse us of the most heatedly.
Posted by: Beverly at January 12, 2011 11:41 PM (rGZlj)
Posted by: VekTor at January 13, 2011 10:08 AM (N7DZ0)
Posted by: gzuckier at January 13, 2011 04:32 PM (gAs/7)
Posted by: hair extensions suppliers at January 18, 2011 01:41 PM (tpvde)
Posted by: cheap jewelry online at May 13, 2011 12:17 AM (vSIuF)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.258 seconds, 340 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Chuckit at January 12, 2011 06:35 AM (tUFnv)