Search This Blog

Friday, August 5, 2016

Post 80 and some of my favorite posts.

This will be my 80th post.  Looking back has been sort of painful.  I never professed to be a good writer, and since I don't make any money doing it, I also don't have the time to edit like I should, and sometimes my point doesn't get across.  But then there are times when I hit it just right.  Here are some of my favorites.

Female talk show host offended by Feminist Columnist Offended By Carly Fiorina Run

This is one of my favorites. Nothing like seeing Dana write something and smack her down with an easily proven fact:
...archives failed to turn up a Marcus column excoriating the ascension of a community organizer.
Try the search term, "Ruth Marcus Obama Inex-" and Google will actually finish that word for you, and the second page holds a link for you:
The Audacity of Nope 

Right gets it wrong on honors night

This was one of my earliest works. It took me very little time to look up some information and report it like it was. There was no success shaming going on, and the reaction caused by the allegation was a classic case of the right freaking out about nothing.

Bowe vs Andrew or apples vs oranges

Comparing Bowe Bergdahl with Andrew Tahmooressi, someone captured by enemy combatants with someone who committed a crime in another country, is just plain stupid.

I've read a lot of stupid things...

Dana takes on Southern Democrats, and claims they disarmed Martin Luther King Jr. in her book. Turns out she's wrong, King disarmed himself.

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

Poor Jessica Erlich. You gotta have a tougher skin when Dana's cornered by the facts. Dana not only got Jessica's voice to start shaking, but gloated about it on the air.  When you have no facts, attack!

Wrote the book on it

God bless Nomiki. She tells it straight. I hope Jessica was watching and taking pointers. This was my most read post, more than doubling what was in second place. I think it was because Nomiki retweeted it.

Did Governor Walker step in it, or was he misquoted?

It's funny how the guy you back is just misquoted, then you go on to misquote the guy you don't like.

The Garland experiment

Do you want to see Dana debating Melissa Harris-Perry (Harris-Lacewell) circa 2010? Of course you do! And I use it to contradict some things Dana said on her radio show at the writing of the article. Sometimes Google just serves up the nicest things if you ask it right.

The Garland Experiment II: The Notorious JJP

Judge Jeanine Pirro says it all, with a smugness Christ would have loved. But I found a contradiction in her statement, that the first amendment is not negotiable. Another post where Google was truly my friend.  Special thanks to David Pakman for running with this story and mentioning me by name.

Not the sharpest crayon...

Dana takes us on a ride where she examines a Samantha Bee video on gun control. It's obvious she didn't watch it.  It's like shooting ducks in a barrel in how I pick off Dana falsehoods in this one.

Well, that's 80. When will there be an 81? We shall see. I can't say for certain I'm done with it, but it may be a while before I post again.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Not the sharpest crayon...

I had an errand to run for lunch Wednesday, and I wound up listening to Dana. My ears perked up when she mentioned Samantha Bee.  I love me some Samantha Bee.  When I watch her new show on TBS (Mondays at 10:30pm EST), I can't help but think of her as a Liberal Dana, only funnier, and less mean.

Dana had a few choice words for Miss Bee (wait... wiki Samantha Bee... she married Jason Jones? They have two kids? How did I miss this?) I mean Ms. Bee.  You see, Bee made a video that made fun of the NRA:

Dana doesn't like that (and by Dana doesn't like that, it probably means the NRA told Dana not to like that). Dana made about 13 minutes of the most terrible argument about this video, and you can listen to it below:

Bee's video was about how she wishes she could buy the Eddie the Eagle mascot costume from the NRA, but it is so highly regulated by the NRA, an organization that has gone to deregulate, and continues to push deregulation of guns, she can't purchase it.

Along the way, she points out all the loopholes in gun law that allow people to purchase firearms, rather easily.  And it looks like she's skirting a few laws to do so, and she says at the beginning of the video that it is all real. How did Dana attack the video? Poorly... it's almost as if she never watched the it. Here's Bee turning pages with a gun and, oh my, is she:

She's got her finger on the trigger! The Dana I know would have lost her mind over that! There is no way she watched the video. Which is why I believe Dana's argument falls flat.

There is so much to unpack from this 13 minutes I may not be able to do it justice. Dana started by saying Bee wasn't the brightest/sharpest crayon in the box.  She states Bee wasn't funny, was just a bit player on the Daily Show (Dana, they call them correspondents, and Bee was the longest running one in the history of the show). Dana thinks Bee has less of a top lip than she does and looks like Grimace from McDonalds. All of this is fine, Dana has a right to her opinion. But it's also an Ad Hominem attack, which is one of many losing arguments. One has to wonder why she relies on it so heavily. Even a first year journalism school dropout knows better... oh, that's right.

She then has to devote minutes on how bad Trevor Noah is as a replacement. The argument she makes with Noah is that she doesn't like it when foreigners come to our country and tell us about the second amendment. Guess Dana missed the fact that Bee is also a foreigner, she's from Canada. This is hard to miss, since she is white and does not have an accent.

Dana says Bee is not funny. But I can think of 10 funny things Bee has done for the Daily Show, while stuff like Dana's Jobs for JihadisProud Conservative Attending a Flashy Hollywood Awards Show, and #RACETOGETHER STARBUCKS look like a high school sketch show in comparison.

Dana finishes up stating the video makes no sense. Eddie the Eagle is a trademark, you can't buy a trademark.  Owning a gun is a natural right. It is a complete non-sequitur. Um, say what? Does Dana even know what a non sequitur is? You know:
  1. If A is true, then B is true.
  2. B is true.
  3. Therefore, A is true.
Bee is saying A is non deadly but regulated by the NRA, B is deadly, but the NRA is trying to deregulate it.  How is that a non sequitur? It is a funny premise, and since this is a comedy show, it fits right in.

Dana states that Bee has never purchased a firearm. She can tell, and those who haven't purchased a firearm look like a child trying to put a circle into the square hole in a shape sorter. How ever could her staff had let her make such a stupid argument? Here is another reason I think Dana didn't watch the video, because in it, Bee is shown buying guns.

My mind is blown. I seriously don't know what to say. To bring this whole terrible argument home, there was so much else wrong in this segment. Like Greg, the producer from DC that is just now allowed to talk, stating that the Daily Show comes on during the day when he worked. Dana tried tearing down the argument about how it's easier to buy a gun than Sudafed by going on a rant about how hard it is to buy Sudafed.

One of the reasons I stopped listening to Dana regularly is because I just got tired of the same old spiel. This segment not only illustrates that, but also how I believe Dana is spread too thin. She's still got her radio show, she's got the TV show, she does talks, and speeches, and writes books, tweets constantly, and at the end of all that, she still has a husband and two kids who I am sure get all the attention they need from her as well. And with all this on her plate, she's been making big mistakes like this. This article was too easy to write, like shooting fish in a barrel.

She still has an expanding media empire, though. And her devoted fan base can't see the error of her ways. Which says a lot about republicans in this day and age, doesn't it?

Monday, April 4, 2016

Do they deserve $15 an hour?

Recently, I heard Tony Katz on the WIBC morning show tell us that fast food workers did not deserve $15 an hour because he saw one McDonalds drive in worker be rude and let someone else hold the door open while looking at her phone.  Think about that for a second, one employee out of thousands.  One instance out of millions a day, and he is using that to justify his political position that people do not deserve a $15 an hour wage.

The reason I thought about this now, is that I was at a Hardees yesterday, and it was pretty busy for a Sunday.  The staff worked flawlessly in getting people in and out.  I didn't see anyone loafing.  Do they deserve $15 in my eyes? Yeah, I believe they do. Should they have that $15 taken away from them by someone who is for one moment inattentive on the job?  No, they should not.

Making blanket assertions about a group of people? Well, that's business as usual for conservative politics. Again, as long as it is what the listeners want to hear, forget the truth.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Games People Play

Night or day, you just can't stop it.  So, how have you guys been doing?  Things have been fine here. The football season ended, and I just could not pick back up listening to Dana, and I feel better for it.  Alas, I had the radio station on in my car when I went to lunch today, and this spewed out:

Just when I thought I had gotten out, they suck me right back in. There is so much wrong with this. The story is about a transgender man who went to an all male barber shop to get a haircut. He was refused because they do not do women's hair, and they do not even let women into the shop. They are, "too much of a distraction".

What follows from Dana, Kane and a caller are a bunch of false equivalencies. It all boils down to the right to refuse service. To Dana, Kane, and a caller, you should be able to run the business as you see fit. Want to refuse service to someone, have at it. There are other barber shops, and besides, this is your hair, you should do what is right to get it right. To Dana, for this woman, that involves going to a great clips.

That argument falls flat on its face, because this is not about forcing someone to cut your hair. It is about ending discrimination. Judging by her current, short cropped haircut, she has someone that has been cutting her hair. If any discriminated class of people, whether black, white, male, female or gay didn't get protection thanks to the courts, we might see a whole lot more bigotry than this,

They made a comparison about taking your Dodge to a Honda dealer. I have personal experience  with this, and would it blow your mind to know I have seen Mitsubishis serviced at Buick dealers, Hondas at Chevy dealers, and even Dodges at the Honda dealer, even when there was a Dodge dealer just next door. Wanna know why? Because the guy who purchases a new Buick will get it serviced at the Buick dealer, and will probably buy an older car for their child, but still get it serviced at the Buick dealer because he likes it there, he knows the people. And the Buick dealer will gladly service the older Mitsubishi because it is good business.

And no, if a manager at a Walmart "doesn't like you" he cannot tell you to leave. That is, unless he tells everyone he does not like to leave, or he has another reason, like he does not like you because you shoplifted, or you were fired for bad performance. As long as he is uniform on his denial, and he is not denying due to discrimination, then he does have a right to refuse service.

Because when you go through the process of opening a business, and you offer a public service, you cannot just deny service to someone because you do not like them. If everybody were allowed to do that, we may as well start segregating water fountains. Because you certainly could hear similar arguments in the 60s that Dana espoused int he video above.

Dana falsely states this is about protected classes of people by saying not everybody can be a protected class because if that was true, then nobody could be one. But this is not bout protected classes, because everybody in California is protected against discrimination.

At the end, Dana starts talking about how Helen Keller was a bigot. She is flummoxed that someone who could not see could have a racist heart. Let us forget for a second that Keller was the daughter of a man who used to own slaves. Nothing I have read says she was a bigot, and quite to the contrary, she fought bigotry. She was unto herself a protected class waiting to happen. She is part of the reason every restaurant must have a braille menu. The only crime Keller may have with people in Dana's crowd is that she was a socialist. Edison? Well yeah, he was a jerk, just ask Tesla.

This is the kind of lowest common denominator politics that has driven me away from the show. There are those who are drawn to it, much the same way they are driven to Trump. They do not care if it is true, as long as it is what they want to hear. It is the red meat for their radio ear. They can keep it. At least until the next time I go out for lunch and forget to turn the channel.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Is it Fisking time again already?

Dana Fisks, and thus, so shall I.
Let's examine. First, from the White House:
Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. 
And yet the CDC says firearms are "an important crime deterrent," if you want to put stock in a government entity for an obvious answer. The benefits of firearms vastly outweigh the abuses of them by criminals:
She is again quoting a study that investigated other studies to lay the groundwork for continuing studies.   Even her link states that:
Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
The first part of that is correct, the second part while correct, also misses a big point of the study. It was an investigative study that looked at many of the studies done. The Washington Post did a writup on this, and the CDC also said in their study that, "all of those statistics are in dispute -- creating, in the study authors' eyes, a research imperative."

Moving on:
And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident.
I look forward to the President's executive orders on pools, cars, and bikes. I've covered previously:

Carspools, bicycles, and other unintentional injuries are the top killers of children.
The leading causes of injury-related death among children ages 14 and under are motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning and fires and/or burns.
Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children’s lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.
Furthermore, vastly more children are killed by fire and water than accidentally by firearms. 
Pools, cars, and bikes are also highly regulated. Most of those regulations are in place to reduce those unintentional injuries and death. All of these things are used more commonly among children, as well. Not a great argument, if you ask me.
The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.
Who are these people? I get the progressive obsession to speak for every group, but this doesn't speak for gun owners. This claim is also wrong. From Truth Revolt:
According to a CNN poll conducted last month, nearly 60% do not want the types of gun control laws Obama is asking for. In fact since 2013, a majority have felt this way. 
Notice Obama said sensible steps, and Dana points to a poll that says Obama policies?  But if you believe Pew research, one of the more revered polling institutions in America, there is overwhelming support for closing the gun show loophole, something that hasn't changed since their 2013 poll that also show overwhelming support for restricting those with mental illness from owning a gun, having a database of gun sales, and a ban on semi-automatic weapons. And yes, that poll also states the majority of gun owners want most of these measures as well.
... the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people.
What reforms? And why is common sense one word? The "expanded background checks" the President calls for already exist in California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, the states which most recently endured tragedies. Why didn't those "commonsense" laws reduce anything?
What reforms?  Oh, people, I'm so clueless, help me out here. I'm going to spit out the four states where there was a mass shooting, and then say because they had mass shootings, they reduced nothing. I love mixing stats!

Let's forget real stats in this case.  Stats that show states that have "expanded background checks" have fewer gun deaths. Do this, because it's a losing argument on your side.
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
"If you're in the business of selling firearms ..." this is already a law and federally regulated. So Obama wants to pass this law again? Or make everyone a FFL thereby creating a defacto registry, something I've previously asked? This is the biggest takeaway.
Ah, but the federal regulation does have a loophole. While it isn't significant, it is there. Patching it up should be no problem, right? Ah, a defacto registry. I'll go get my tin foil hat.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.
The background check system is already flawed and the administration plans to expand it further. John Lott has done some excellent work on the faulty background check system:
Awww, how cute!  John Lott has a Blogspot website.  He has to be reputable (and no, I never said I was reputable).  Not that what Dana quotes from Mr. Lott here has anything to do with overhauling (not expanding) the background check system,
Furthermore, how do you "improve notifications?" We're talking about improving the consistency with which people do their jobs. It wasn't a lack of manpower that enabled thug Dylann Roof to purchase a firearm and mow down black church-goers. It was a simple FBI error:
It wasn't an FBI error, it was an error in the criminal history. From Dana's link:
According to Comey, on April 13, two days after Roof tried to purchase a gun, a background check examiner ran his criminal history, which brought up a felony drug charge and wrongly listed the arresting agency as Lexington County Sheriff’s Office.
Had the examiner known that the actual arresting agency was the Columbia Police Department, which detained Roof in February for behaving erratically at a local mall, she would have known that Roof had admitted to drug possession and barred the sale.
The examiner did her job correctly. She actually contacted two incorrect arresting agencies, then labelled the the case as delayed/pending.  Since they did not find the needle in the haystack in 3 days, the case proceeded. Now, if she had gotten to the case earlier, maybe she would have had enough time to find that needle, but it was so backed up, the first two days of the 3 day process saw the case waiting for an agent to take the case. More people and people working 24/7 would have helped in this case.
Whether or not Roof could even purchase a firearm is moot as he was charged with felony drug possession and in South Carolina, a charge, not even a conviction, is enough to render one a prohibited possessor. Roof couldn't carry much less purchase. But then again, criminals don't follow laws. 
I'm confused, because in Dana's link states, "A drug charge does not stop an individual from buying a gun, but Roof's admission, contained in the Columbia Police Department's arrest report, would have." I mean, who's right? The Washington post also says, "Roof had been arrested for possession of narcotics in February, a charge that alone did not disqualify him from buying a gun." Without delving into the law, I'll side with the journalists on this one.
2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.
The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.
The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.
ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
It's weird to me that an administration that sold guns to terrorists south of the border proposes more manpower to enforce gun laws. Are these "200 new ATF agents" going to Chicago? St. Louis? DC? NYC? Are they going to any of the areas that serve as the biggest drivers to gun homicide rates to ensure repeat offenders and gang bangers don't obtain illegally procured firearms? 
The administration sold guns? There's nothing farther from the truth.  They told gus stores to allow straw purchases which they were supposed to track to the illegal dealers and make big arrests, That's far from them selling guns themselves. Not that it has anything to do with this point.

All I hear from the right is, "Enforce the gun laws you have." Heck, Wayne La Pierre put out a video doing just that.  Doing more to enforce gun crimes is #1 on your list of things the administration should be doing. Until the administration says they will do it. Then of course you are not. Thanks, Obama.
3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.
The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.
By "legal barriers" they mean the due process proclaimed as a natural right in our Constitution. We have a legal process in place by which to adjudicate someone mentally unfit for Second Amendment eligibility. The problem is, we don't follow it. I've covered this extensively:
 There's something missing, let me add that in now:
The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
And there is further clarification further down the proclamation:
Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals. 
Yeah, dancing around HIPAA is to me dicey as well. But why leave out the increase to mental health care?
Again, for laws to work, people must follow them and those implementing them must do it properly. It's not a money issue. 
Agreed, but you didn't include the part about money, and the part about money had nothing to do with enforcing the law. So what are you trying to say here?
Shape the future of gun safety technology.
The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.
The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
Gun owners by and large roll their eyes at smart gun tech because it's completely errant, unsafe, unpredictable, and frankly a silly choice for defense. Here is one test where the heralded first choice for smart guns failed miserably. Sorry, but if I'm defending myself against a rapist in a parking garage, I don't think he's going to wait for my wristband to take 20 seconds to pair with  my gun (that's if it does so successfully, whereas tests of Armatix iP1 struggled to do even this, to say nothing of the difficulties with the trigger). Read the full review. Additionally, smart gun advocates are championing pricing poor people out of their Second Amendment rights. Smart gun tech is as faulty as it is expensive and if the free market supported firearms with bulky tech that made usage impossible we wouldn't need the President executive ordering federal funds to pay for additional research to again prove the obvious. I suppose in keeping with progressive narrative building I have to ask why they are so against allowing poor people in high crime, urban areas to exercise their Second Amendment right? The poor would be the hardest hit.
Man, I remember having a Commodore Vic 20. That thing was garbage. It was expensive and didn't do much, and didn't do that well (enter run command, start tape, get error, rewind tape, lather rinse repeat. But I sure am glad they didn't stop trying. Look at what we can do now. I carry a very small device in my pocket that does thousands of times more things than the Vic 20 did.

Gun safety tech doesn't do much now, but I can't wait for the tech that reads your DNA when you touch it and only fires for you. Dream it, and it will happen.
There is nothing in the President's executive orders that would have prevented the tragedies we saw this year anor is there anything included in these proposals that isn't already federally regulated. 
What the heck is an "anor"? Probably mean "nor", but you can't criticize a typo and then make one yourself, unless you are doing it ironically.

Dana stated in her radio show that she loves conflict and debating issues. Then why has she banned me on Facebook and Twitter? Whenever someone who is level and rational states facts instead of namecalling, she suddenly can't handle conflict or debating the issues. Kinda sad, really.

Well, that's all for now. I'll be looking out for more Fisking in the future, and now that Fantasy Football season is over, expect more from these pages in the coming months.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Using a CDC investigative study as fact, and siting Hitler

The CDC was given the go-ahead to begin studying gun violence in America by the Obama administration in 2013. It would be the first time since 1997 they would be funded to do so.  Instead of just going willy nilly into the fray, they put together an investigative study where they gathered many studies to use as a base point to conduct studies.

To Dana, however, it is an opportunity to parrot the same tired 1995 study, but claim it is now the CDC's numbers.  Yes, that old Kleck and Gertz study claims 2.5 million occurrences of defensive gun uses annually, but it is too old, and not very good, as I've pointed out before.  Other studies looked at by the CDC are magnitudes lower than the Kleck and Gertz study, but even they may be flawed, since it is very hard to get an accurate count of it, since it is not something that is officially reported.

Dana also points out that there was gun control under Hitler, and look how that turned out. Nothing like invoking Godwin's law to try to win an argument. Here's the problem with that statement.  After World War I, Germany signed a treaty that banned gun ownership in the country.  It wasn't until after Hitler came to power that this ban was lifted.  Sure, Jewish people were not allowed to have guns, but that's not your typical gun control, and otherwise Hitler loosened gun control in Germany, giving German citizens the "God given" right to own guns.

That's not something Dana would like you to know. And most people who listen to Dana will continue to do so in ignorance to the truth.  I'd hate to invoke Godwin's law myself, but you know Dana, Hitler had a pretty good propaganda arm, too.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

A few thoughts on Colorado and San Bernardino

Last week, in the midst of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, Dana several times dismissed it as a bank robbery gone wrong, even after Chase bank, and police said there was no shooting there.

She never walked back that claim, even going as far as just saying he was in a shootout with police and took sanctuary in the Planned Parenthood.  Most disturbing about what was said, however, was that it should be okay with people on the left because no clinic workers were hurt due to enhanced security, even though murders were going on there (the abortions, not the shooting.)

The idea that the Robert Dear case was an act of domestic terrorism has been floated, even by Mike Huckabee.  Even if this isn't the case, Dana is basically giving comfort to a criminal who killed 3, including a police officer, mother of two, and combat vet who is a hero that saved lives that day, and injured several more.  Comfort, because the people he attacked are people she's attacked.  Maybe she's covering because she feels a little bit culpable?  Probably not, as you will see in a minute.

Fast forward to the San Bernardino shooting.  Before we knew the identity of the shooter, or when they were still thought to be white assailants, Dana was still giving comfort to criminals, this time because some on the right were calling for tighter gun laws.

I saw on Dana's Facebook page a short blurb the night after the assault that the name of the assailants had been revealed.  She only posted what they were, and didn't speculate on their Arabic origins, but judging by the comments on those posts, many minds had already been made up.  Even before we had a motive, they were Muslim, thus they were terrorists. even though as of this writing it is being investigated as an act of terrorism, we still don't know a motive.

In the following days I noticed another disturbing thing from Dana.  Since neighbors had some suspicions saying he saw several middle eastern men visiting, but didn't want to call police for fear he would be called racist, Dana feels if you see something, say something (although she's not alone in this).  Dana is basically saying that you need to racially profile your neighbors, and said this shooting was all the PC social justice warrior's fault. Sorry, Dana, the shooting is still the fault of the shooters, but please tell us how that phone call to police would have gone?

So Dana is just fine attacking Muslims, or Planned Parenthood, and consequences be damned.  We will have more idiots shouting down Muslims stating they are all terrorists.  We will have more attacks on Planned Parenthoods.  But Dana won't be to blame, and will downplay any incidence, even with evidence that proves false.

Another disturbing thing I realized recently when Dana was going on a rant about solar, and how bad it is, is that she is no longer reading ads for a solar company.  Imagine that for a minute.  If she thought solar was bad all along, why read ads stating it was a great alternative? And did she hold back on saying solar was bad while taking money from the solar industry? Did she attack the solar industry because they stopped giving her money? Ah, who am I fooling, Dana's above this sort of behavior.  And as long as she's feeding red meat stories to those who will eat them up, stuff like this won't even be questioned. Nothing to see here, carry on.