Can't believe this made it into "Hands Off My Gun"

Hands off My Gun is touted as, "Defeating the plot to disarm America".  I'm up to chapter 6, and so far it's been more, "Bash the left and spout inaccuracies."  It is incredible what she thinks she can get away with.  Here's a couple interesting tidbits.

She attacks celebrities for having armed security.  I get the logic.  If these celebrities say you shouldn't have guns, then they shouldn't have anyone around them with guns, too.  But here's where that breaks down.  Most of the celebrities listed don't have a strong stand against the 2nd amendment. Even if they did, they still live in a society where guns are prevalent.  That reality, and the fact that celebrities daily face threats and harassment, and it would be stupid of them not to have an armed guard. It's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.

She states that Nia Sanchez was in the Miss USA Pageant in 1994.  I hate to pick on typos, but Nia Sanchez won in 2014.

She sites the Gary Kleck/Marc Gertz thesis on guns from 1995, claiming that there are sixty times the number of people defending themselves with a gun than being killed by them.  That date is not a typo, however. Even more shocking is how she touts this thesis as the end all in gun studies right after she puts down a dissenting study by Arthur Kellerman as unscientific. Got news for you, Dana. Your study gets it wrong, too.  Know who gets it right? These guys are one of many who have done studies independent of Kellerman and come to the same conclusion, that you are many times more likely to be shot in an altercation when you own a gun, than when you don't.  She also sites another John Lott study, and I've already debunked him.

I'm plodding my way through this book slowly.  So far, I would be embarrassed to use any of these arguments for defeating the "plot to disarm America". Since there are about as many guns as there are people in the US, how do they plan on rounding up all those guns anyway?

And now, a correction  In my post about the man shot in Wal*Mart with a fake gun, I stated that the guy who called in on 911 was an ex-marine, and I was correct.  But he didn't serve very long before being thrown out. It also looks like, while the guy was holding a gun, he was not brandishing it as the 911 call states.  It was a pretty real looking pellet gun, but this looks more and more like an overreaction on the 911 caller's part, and on the part of the police. I apologize for the error.

Michelle Obama's scandalous Target trip revisited

Dana's thoughts on Michelle Obama's story of woe when someone mistook the First Lady for being helpful at Target (spoiler: she's not helpful).

Okay, I'm with Dana on one point, it doesn't seem to be much a story of racism.  But the reason why escapes most from the right, as Dana shows in this video.  It wasn't racism because she asked her to help, it was because nobody recognized her.  Like I said, not a great example, but Dana is way off the mark, illustrated by the pictures of helpful people she uses at the end of the clip.

Also, does Dana's show seem poorly produced to you?  It's like there's a 5 year old in the control booth saying, "Hey, get a closeup on the side of her face!"  "Hey, use the boom camera to back away from Dana, and up, that would be so cool!"  Really, it's not cool.  It's not professional.  Frankly, I expect better.

Only "just" laws should be followed

Dana had something about the Eric Garner case on Wednesday.  In her third hour, she thinks it is just fine for him to be selling loose cigarettes because the cigarette tax in New York is just way too high. She then doubles down by saying it is an unjust law, and while some conservative tell her it's still a law, she says "not every law is just, and not every law requires a choke hold." And her defense is to say you don't support Obamacare, do you?

The big question is, what is just?  Should we go any speed on roads because we find speed limits unjust?  Should we lie and slander people because we think the laws about that are unjust? Should we shoot people we don't like because we believe laws against that are unjust? It's tantamount to criminal to say just laws do not need to be followed. Dana is smart enough to realize this.

Listen to it on the third hour of Wednesday's show.  It begins at about 12 minutes and skip ahead again to 23 minutes when she goes into the story about Anita MonCrief (who walks into crowds of Mary Landrieu supporters, innocently in Dana's eyes, and posts clips where they say dumb things, then Dana calls it, "they are trying to intimidate Cassidy supporters") Actually, maybe the whole hour is worth listening to, just to remind yourself of the depths it seems Dana will go to promote her agenda.

A non-emotional clearinghouse of facts

In my last post, I focused on a "fact" from Dana's book.  What I failed to realize at the time is who that "fact" was from, and just how heavily Dana was leaning on him for these "facts".

His name is John Lott, and Dana introduces him in chapter 3 like this:

John Lott's fabulous Crime Prevention Research Center has expertly debunked a number of [Mom's Demand's] claims by analyzing statistics and crime reports.

She calls them a, "hated clearinghouse ... of nonemotional analysis."  Then Dana goes off on a Shannon Watts tweet about how 84% of all female firearm homicides are in the US.  The CPRC has her covered, stating that women in the US are only 22% of all homicides, while the mean for those 25 countries, many of whom are small, is 24%, thus making them much worse.  Sorry, Mr. Lott, you forgot to mention that firearm homicide rates in those countries are also much lower. Most are below 1 in a hundred thousand, while here in the US, it is almost 5.  One would be left to believe that would also be a big contributor to that 84% figure from Shannon Watts.

Of course, if you select the right stat, everything looks good.  The CPRC has been known to not only select the "right stat", but to sometimes cook the books to make that right stat.

Ian Ayres and John Donohue wrote a paper that found that, if anything, concealed carry laws lead to more crime. Lott, (along with Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley) wrote a reply where they argued that using data up to 2000 confirmed the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. In Ayres and Donohue’s response to that paper, they found that Lott’s data contained numerous coding errors that, when corrected, reversed the results. Furthermore, this was the second time these sorts of errors had been found in Lott’s data. Lott had presented to the NAS panel figures showing sharp declines in crime following carry laws. Declines which disappeared when the coding errors were corrected. Finally, when Lott saw Ayres and Donohue’s response he had his name removed from the final paper.

Dana does not let junk science that has been proven wrong in the past get in the way of getting the "right stat"/"fact".  In this case, it may have been good to find a better, non-tainted source.

More from the book

I've been reading Dana's book, and it's taking me a long time because I have to stop almost every page and look up something.  Nine times out of ten she is just flat wrong on what she is saying.  Here is just one example.

Dana states that states that have the highest gun ownership, do not have the highest homicide rates. Then she states that Alabama has a third the gun deaths that Illinois does.  Now, this mixing of criteria is bad enough (and it continues throughout chapter 4) but it is also flat wrong in it's thinking.

According to the FBI, homicide rates in those two states show Alabama to be more violent, 7.2 per 100,000 compared to Illinois' 5.5 (which is down from 6.0 the year before).  Louisiana, another state with lax gun laws and a high rate of gun ownership is at 10.8, Mississippi at 6.5, well, you get the idea.

So, how do they rank in total gun deaths, which also include accidental and suicide deaths?  Alabama is 7th (16.34), while Illinois is at 37th (8.66).  Yeah, Illinois is almost half that of Alabama in gun death rates.

So wrong, and wrong again, Dana.  It's no surprise people are shouting down anyone stating Dana's book isn't factual on Amazon.  They don't want to read something they so agree with to be false.  Sorry to break it to you.  This is the kind of things you can expect from the book.

Dana and Ed part II: Civility rules?

The results are in for the first debate, and Politifact has a claim by Dana as mostly false, while a claim from Ed was mostly true.

Conservative talker Dana Loesch says 4.7 million people lack health insurance due to Obamacare

Ed Schultz: 10.3 million people would lose insurance with Obamacare repeal

Here we go, round two:

Round 2: Dana Loesch, Ed Schultz Throw Down over Obamacare Again

It was an auspicious start where Dana introduces Ed, then starts introducing 10-15 other people, and a studio audience who will also ask questions... but no, she was just kidding, she's not on MSNBC, it's just her and Ed.  I was then shocked not only by Dana's intelligent and non-leading questions, but also Ed's calm and thoughtful demeanor.  I won't break it down, it's actually pretty good and I want you to watch it and get the full effect.  Both made good points, didn't talk over each other, and it's pretty hard to pick a winner.  I'm pleasantly surprised.

The Ed Show lived up to my expectations

Ed Schultz Shouts at Dana Loesch over Obamacare: ‘You’re Being Unworkable!’

My expectations were not that high.  Here are some low lights:

Ed came right out with a tough question:  Why don't Republicans not have a plan on the table for healthcare?

Dana's answer?

“Because Harry Reid has hid it on his desk, that’s why.  You know that there are over at least nine plans that have been submitted by House Republicans and sent to the Senate — alternatives to Obamacare.”

If there are any plans that passed the house, they passed as a part of "repeal Obamacare".  That makes them all non-starters.    The line about Harry Reid is pretty much a Republican response from before the elections though, so Dana is working her bag of tricks early.  Ed lets this one slide.

Dana had this gem trying to beat down some of the numbers Ed had talked about leading up to her interview:

Dana: Well, you were sighting White House numbers...

Ed: No, these come from the Congressional Budget Office

Dana: I know!  And I have some numbers for you from the CBO because we know how the CBO works, they just score what you give them.

But Dana, you'd never do something like, I don't know, quote the CBO and even call them non-partisan, would you?

CBO: Budget Deficit $75 Billion Higher than White House Projected

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that based on the Obama administration's budget proposal, deficits over the next decade would be $1.2 trillion higher than the White House estimated.

You can't use someone when they agree with you only to beat them down when they don't.  Not to mention she quotes CBO in two more instances in the interview.  Moving on:

Ed: Dana, are there more people in America today with healthcare than there was a  year ago?

Dana:  No, there are a lot of people who have lost health insurance.

...

Ed: I want to be crystal clear, you say that there are fewer people  in this country than there were a year ago, is that correct?

Dana: Remember it was Politifact's lie of the year that Obama said that if you want to keep your plan you can...

Ed: That's not an answer to the question!

You can see why Ed would get a little frustrated, since Dana is avoiding answering a question that she will deny is true anyway.  There are more people insured today than there were last year.  No conflating the issue with tales of people who "lost their insurance" can change that.  Most if not all of those that "lost their insurance" are actually insured today, some surprisingly with better plans, at prices close to what they were before.

Also, that nearly unverifiable mantra of, "I've had family/friends that..." just doesn't work in a public debate.  It may or may not be true, but you may as well be making up your own source to back up your argument.

Dana stated that she was doing a favor to Ed for being on his show, and telling him he was framing the question wrong, and trying to correct him.  In other words, she lived up to my expectations, which weren't really high.

Ed was full of bluster, loud, dismissive, and talked over Dana. In other words, he lived up to my expectations, which weren't really high.

Dana has tweeted that she gets to have Ed on her show as a part of the agreement.  Oh, God... we have to go through this again?

Dana on the Ed Show tonight!

It will be on Obamacare

Now we will truly get to see if Dana is good at debate, since Fox/The Blaze is not going to have her back.  But I have to say, it is a non-issue whether Ed has insurance through Obamacare. He may have a plan through his employer.

I'm not a big fan of Ed, and I'm not sure he's that much better when it comes to being factual.  Here's hoping they can debate the issues, and not conflate a narrative.

Why did Dana cancel her book signing when she did?

Second Amendment advocate gave short notice requesting security, canceling event

I have a few questions after reading this story.  First, when was this book signing arranged?  When did Dana learn there wouldn't be any security?  And ultimately, why did it play out the way it did?

The first question is important, because it shows how much time they had to plan this event.  To wait until the last minute to make a decision on security, especially with the book signing event with an issue happening a full 10 days previous that would cause security concerns, is shoddy management at best.

The second question is important, because it is the difference between incompetence, and stupidity. It was just incompetence to not know the security arrangements until the last minute.  It's just plain stupid to know the security issue, and wait to the last minute to fill it.  And since we know Dana isn't stupid, that makes her incompetent, or possibly something else.

Dana has had six book signings scheduled to this point.  There was the Books-A-Million signing on the 23rd, a group book signing on the 25th (no location given), Georgia Tech on the 29th, and Orlando on the 30th.  Then the TCU cancellation/postponement, and a signing scheduled for Saturday in St. Louis.  There are no others on her calendar at this point going through February.

Surprisingly, there is nothing about the attack at the Books-A-Million event from Dana on Twitter:

Also nothing on Facebook.  Nothing on the news.  Nothing.  That is very suspicious to me.

Most troubling, however, is how Dana wishes to tout the fact that she needs security because she's had threats, and she brings her children to these signings.  There is no logic to this.  Either it is safe enough for your kids to be there, or it is dangerous and they should not be there.  

Truthfully, my opinion stands.  This was a publicity stunt.  The lateness on her request for security, the extreme lateness of the cancellation.  The lack of book signings since the release of the book, and the lack of news on these signings, not even a local peep.  If this was not Dana using her book to push carry on campuses, I would be shocked.  Point blank, how can you see this evidence and think any differently?

Dana cancelled her TCU book signing

From October 2nd: Today’s Signing Event At TCU Is Canceled

She sighted that the security that she thought she would have didn't come through.  Now, whether this is a staged cancellation to help promote open carry and no-gun zones is up for debate.  But Dana has a nationally syndicated radio show, a TV show on BlazeTV, and a book that is best selling in two Amazon categories, and she can't afford her own security.

This brings me to two conclusions.  One, either there is really no money in being a conservative talk show host with a best selling book, or someone's priorities are out of whack.  Dana makes her money making fun of the left daily.  Heck, her whole mailbag of hate segment is all about making money on the hate that is thrown at her.  Maybe instead of filling up that margarita machine, she should look into getting her own security guard if she is not feeling safe.

Then, this happened on Twitter:

‘Food writer’ attacks Dana Loesch, ends up with egg on his face

So, a guy makes the same claim I do, that Dana was using this as a publicity stunt.  She turns around and tells him to check his facts.  Then, this:

Ah, @BudKennedy so you were stalking me. Got it.

Just so you know, don't accuse Dana of something totally legal, and she won't accuse you of a crime. I wonder where I have heard that before?  But tell me, where does Dana get her facts?

And good thing the left is SO intolerant.  Maybe Christine Teigen can explain to Dana how there are whackos on both sides.  Stay classy Dana.

How unprofessional is this book going to be?

Well, all you need to know about Dana's new book before reading it is right here in this quote:

Among the most notorious anti–Second Amendment advocates are former New York City mayor (and kazillionaire) Michael Bloomberg, his dwindling Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and their associated group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. (They couldn’t pick a name that didn’t sound like a porno title?) 

Just how bad is this sentence?  Words that do not exist (kazillionaire), words with contractions, a double negative, and the thing that drives it over the top, the porno reference.

The porno reference is bad on so many levels.  First, maybe I do not watch enough porn, but that just does not sound like a porn title.  Second, good Christian girl that she is, Dana should not be flaunting that she knows anything about porn.  You should not have a mention about porn in the forward, when you mention it is all about God in the acknowledgements.  And lastly, she uses this line in her radio show all the time.  Sure, it may play well with the crowd that listens to her for Florida Man, Today in Stupidity, and Mailbag of Hate, but this is a book.  Be professional.  While you are at it, write some new material.  This is not a greatest hits CD, it should be all new stuff.

This, coming in the forward of the book, can only make the rest of the book look unprofessional.

Next, I probably shouldn't skip forward to Chapter 8, but I am going to do a little research myself on the founding fathers and gun control.

So, this happened

Dana, who keeps telling us "Moms Demand Action" is a great name for a porn movie (and she puts it in her book, too) goes on Fox and Friends in this:

Yeah, that totally looks like some sort of Catholic Schoolgirl costume.  Not to mention the skin tight dress on the cover of her new book.  Now, when was the last time you saw Shannon Watts dressing provocatively?

Yeah, I can't wait to read this book.  Should be the highlight of my year.

Reserved!

I got my copy reserved, how about you?

Should be fun to pick this book apart.  Just hope I can do it in two weeks.

Dana has a plan, as long as nobody calls her on it.

First of all, the guy has a name, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.  Second, Mr. Nakoula was on probation for bank fraud when he made that video, and was arrested by Los Angeles County for eight violations of his probation, including using an alias, and using a computer.  It pretty simple to refute the first part of this sentence.

Second, to say the Obama administration has no strategy is some pretty cool spin on what was said in the press conference.  Obama clearly has a plan, otherwise he wouldn't already be running air strikes against ISIL.  The question asked was, "Do you need Congress’ approval to go into Syria?”, not, "Now that ISIL is beheading Americans, do you have a strategy?"  Obama will continue to strike ISIL in Iraq, that is without question.  He also said there would be, “military, political, and economic components” to the fight against ISIL.  Does that sound like, "no strategy"?

Don't let Dana fool you.  She knows all this.  She just love to sow dissent.

Inspiring young minds.

If you saw the image below, a preparation question for the SATs, you wouldn't be offended would you?

Well, if you only include passage 1, you have a perfect formula for the Conservative rage machine.  Together, both passages counteract each other, give you both sides of the story.  Doesn't that inspire someone who is young and learning to think about issues?  

Now, Dana wouldn't do something like, oh I don't know, retweet an image of passage one, would she? Nah, she researches everything, she would never be wrong, or mislead anyone, for her own benefit.  Hat tip to the anonymous tipster for this one.

Let's do something about it

Just a quick note, as I don't have time to make a clip, but I want to point something out that I heard today. Dana had a little overreaction theater today with the whole Sofia Vergara and yield for pork situations.  To Dana, these people aren't allowed to react to these situations.  Then Dana does a three hour show of overreacting to stuff, including these two situations.  If you really are sorry for the state of the world, Dana, you have a platform, you can do something about it.  Or, you can make fun of "Florida Man".  Whatever, it's your choice.  I really don't care.

Speaking of Florida Man, this cracked me up:

re·cog·ni·zance \ri-ˈkäg-nə-zən(t)s\ law : a legal promise made by someone before a court of law that must be kept to avoid being punished.

If you are released on your own recognizance, you are released without bond.  Expect a retraction from Dana on today's show.

Dana and the Rick Perry indictment.

First, it's a spit mask, not a spit bag.  Second, a .23 bac means 0.23% of the blood is alcohol.  Not 23%. So she wasn't like 40 proof, she was like .4 proof.  

I'm glad Dana got her kicks describing Rosemary Lehmberg's arrest. The story of Rick Perry's indictment has nothing to do with her arrest, however. The story has everything to do about politics. Rosemary Lehmberg's position as district attorney in Austin, the state capital of Texas, is an important one. The Public Integrity Unit investigates lawmakers.  This was the last office Democrats had a hold of.  Were Rick Perry to have forced her out, he would have been able to pick her successor and have complete control of the state. Of course, that was not going to happen.  

Rick Perry's big blunder was trying to force her out of her job. It wasn't his place to do anything on the matter. Oh, sure, he can veto the funding for the Public Integrity Unit.  He just can't use it to force someone out of their job.

Nobody is defending Rosemary Lehmberg.  What she did is indefensible.  Her crime, however, was drunk driving.  Nothing else she's being prosecuted by the likes of Dana for matters.  She got drunk, so drunk that she not only shouldn't have been driving, she was to a point that physically she could not make smart decisions for herself. If she were to have sex that night, the man doing it could have been arrested for rape because she didn't have the faculties to legally say yes.  If she threatened to take someone's job in that state, she is not criminally liable.  If she actually does take that person's job after she sobers up, then she should be indicted.

The hard truth here is that Dana made a big mistake.  When comparing Rosemary Lehmberg's crime to Rick Perry's, she draws a parallel I'm afraid she missed.  Ms. Lehmberg went to jail for her crime.  Should Rick Perry as well?

Who's Josie?

Dana Loesch and Spike Lee, "Whos Josie"?

Dana, as always, is wrong.  CNN didn't call it a radio station, they called it a local radio show on KFTK. Guess they still hold a grudge.  Dana corrects them, with a flair, of course.  CNN did vet the video (at least they did in this report by Anderson Cooper) by siting a source within the Ferguson police confirming that's how it went.

When listening to the clip when Josie was on the Dana show see if you can catch something weird in what she says.  That's right, why would a friend of Darren Wilson ever call him, "the officer"?  It brings me to my next point.  Is what Spike Lee said about this being a plant true?  Is she reading from a script?  It's not out of the realm of possibility, but in putting it out there, I've just made the same mistake Dana made in this case.  In her hurry to be first (see my last article) she put a narrative out there.  She covers herself by saying she doesn't know if it is fact, so take it with a grain of salt.  But even that is dangerous. Just like if I mentioned that Premiere Radio has a service where actors are paid to call into radio shows.  I mean, technically Dana could be using that service with her callers.  The caller did call Darren Wilson, a dear friend, "the officer".  Also, Spike Lee is correct in stating it is a little convenient timing.

Just a little food for thought.

Narratives

They want a narrative?  Does Dana not know that time and again she's shown her narrative skills?  Several times she's talked about guns, hoplophobia, and bans; honoring Native Americans who aren't, you know, narratives I've time and again debunked.  How does Dana get the get the right to call others out on their narrative?

And what is it with this native advertising?  I'm all for making a buck, but if you are a person of integrity, you shouldn't let advertisers pass that commercial wall and become a part of the show like at the end of this clip. Hey, the belt of truth is integrity... something I think Dana should know about, God fearing woman that she is.

Robin Williams

I loved Robin Williams.  His stand-up, his comedic roles in movies and TV, they are the best and showed a great comedic talent.  I also loved him in serious, and sometimes dark roles.  The guy had range.

When he passed, I for some reason wasn't shocked.  He's older, and I've seen a lot of people in the industry die, possibly before their time.  When I was told he committed suicide, it also didn't shock me.  He was a tortured soul, to say the least.  

Which is why I am glad to see Dana treating the subject so well.  I just wish everyone would:

I have not the words to express how bad this is on all levels.  It should make Liberals mad, as it is intended.  But it could backfire on Rush with his base, as most probably liked Williams as well.  Not to mention how insensitive it is to the Williams family.  It's not a very intelligent narrative, every way you slice it.  Which is why I don't write Unraveling Rush, because there's just too much low hanging fruit there.  Not that Dana doesn't pick up on some of the things Rush says and goes with it.

Rest in peace clown prince.  You will be missed.

A toy gun, in the toy gun aisle

Fake gun in the fake gun aisle

Dana. Dana. Dana... don't you know stuff like this is easy to look up and disprove?

Man, holding realistic-looking toy gun, shot, killed at Ohio Walmart

So, the gun was a pellet gun, a rather real looking MK-177 (pictured below), and he was waving it at customers.

He was also shot in the pet aisle, not the toy gun aisle.  I thought this was just shoddy reporting by Reason, but they got it right, too:

Police Shoot Man Holding Fake Gun—Near Fake Gun Aisle In Walmart

Well, the headline is misleading and wrong.  But the reporting inside is correct, and even includes the information on what kind of gun it was.

Dana also blamed "hoplophobia" (irrational fear of guns) brought on by Bloomberg groups for customers calling police on the man, even though the man who called was an ex-marine.  Dana says she's all about the troops, especially ex-Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi. But now she's calling ex-marines hoplophobic? Why is Dana disparaging our troops?

Lastly, why must Dana introduce a pornographic angle when saying the name, "Moms demand action"? That explains why she calls me creepy, I guess.  If you don't find relating the words, "moms demand" to a porn site creepy, there's something wrong with you.  Thanks for clearing that up, Dana!

What I'd like to see

Dana has a lighter side, but something still isn't right

Dana showed her lighter side, sort of, today.  But while she seems to be moving in the right direction, there is still something wrong with her line of thinking.

She talks about how she wants to tear her enemies face off, or turn her enemies to ash.  That's how she likes to fight the good fight.  But she realizes this isn't the way to go.  What she says, the direction she thinks is better, is just as bad, in my opinion:

One more person I convert, or, one more person I can get to see the light is one more person I don't have to fight.

Let me get this straight.  There is no meeting of the minds here, it's just the other side has to be won over to your side, or they have to be fought? I'm sorry, but that's pathetic.  No wonder our country is becoming more and more divided, due to thinking like this.  It's think my way, or get turned to ash.

In Dana's world, if you aren't condemning Palestine and lifting up Israel, you are anti-Semitic.  But I condemn both.  Israel is choosing to bomb civilians.  Palestine is choosing to hide it's weapons among it's civilians. Both are bad.  But to Dana, that makes me anti-Semitic, because it's okay to bomb "the terrorists".  I just don't see it that way.

It's the fact that there is no middle ground for Dana and most conservatives that makes out country so divided.  I say, stop.  It's not about converting people to your line of thinking, it's about learning to forgive the differences and celebrate the similarities.  Otherwise we will never work together, and that weakening of the country conservatives always talk about will come sooner than later.  That may be easy for someone who starts so close to the center like I do.  But we do have to meet in the middle sometime.  It is imperative to our country's survival.

Doubling down on DACA

The governor of Indiana is not happy with Obama.  There were 245 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) sent to Indiana from January 1 to July 1 and the administration didn't tell him.  He fired off a letter stating that Obama needs to secure the border, basically. Yeah, there are 245 more people in this state of almost 6.5 million people.  The strain on our economy must be tremendous, except for the fact that those kids are living with family members already here until they get asylum, or deported.

And try as I may, I have difficulty believing anyone who states our southern border isn't secure.  We have more border patrol, more fencing, more drones, more cameras more of anything you can think of on the border than any other time in our history.  If the border isn't "secure", it is at least the most secure it has ever been.

And the current immigration crisis is not a border security issue.  It's a lot more complex than that.  A story from the Vox goes over this issue in great detail, and I suggest reading it if you want to get a better understanding of what is going on at our southern border.  Basically, the surge in UACs are not coming from Mexico at all, but from the area comprised of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The reason UACs are fleeing that area is because of gang activity.  If you are a child from that area and you are recruited by a gang but don't accept, your family will be attacked.  So children are being sent from that area to other countries for asylum.

The US is getting most of these UACs, but one thing is certain, DACA is not the reason why.  For starters, to qualify you would have had to be in the country since 2007.  Secondly, the increase in UACs started in 2011, months before DACA was introduced.  Finally, interviews of UACs find that very few even know of the existence of DACA.

So why is DACA even an issue when we talk about border issues today?  Well, because Republicans don't like it, and they don't like what it is doing, allowing "illegals" to live in America while they are skirting our laws.  Never mind that we are following the law by taking these kids from Central America in.  We can turn Mexican children away, and most do get sent back after an interview to eliminate issues with trafficking (not that there aren't still problems sending back kids who are being trafficked).

Dana today brought all this together is doubling down on the DACA lie.  Why?  This is so easily debunked. Like how incandescent light bulbs were banned.  Dana talks about stashing them like that's the smart thing to do.  They are cheaper to buy, but over the long haul they cost you more.  So it's not smart, just rebellious.  But the funny thing is, incandescent bulbs are still being sold today.  You can't buy a 100w bulb, because the new more efficient 72w incandescent bulb has now replaced it, with the same light as the 100w.  75w is now 53w, 60w is 43w, 40w is 29w.  Because it wasn't a ban at all.  It was a new guideline on bulb efficiency.

But I digress.  No, DACA isn't the problem.  The problem is we have people like Dana who would rather lie about DACA being the problem than to help out kids.  Well, except as a photo op to give them sandwiches.

The "Welcome Wagon" that is DACA

So, Dana went off on a rant about stupid people today.  About how she can have a civil conversation with people from the opposing side, but not if they are "stupid" or say "stupid" things.  Well Dana, here's your moment.

DACA is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  It was enacted by Homeland Security on August 15th, 2012.  Dana calls it the "Welcome Wagon" for the illegal children coming into our country at the moment.  Only one problem with that.  The children coming into the country at this time are not eligible for DACA.  The children that can take advantage of DACA would have needed to be in the country for 5 years starting in 2007, and have been physically present in the country as of June 15th, 2012.

So, Dana... would you have a problem arguing with yourself?

Matt Sorum and hunters

I know what you are saying.  Matt who?  Well, if you grew up in the 80s, and listened to bands like The Cult, Guns 'n' Roses, and... ahh, who am I fooling, nobody heard of Matt Sorum.  That is nobody had heard of him until he started a twitter war over trophy hunting.

As for @tednugent my point was never about hunting , just the glorification of killing and promotion there of.

To drive the point home, here's another tweet:

I'm not asking u not to hunt or eat what you want. Just respect the animals existence and don't glorify their death , #nomoredeathphotos

Most importantly, he states that he is a vegetarian/pre-vegan.  The reason I am pointing out these things will now become painfully obvious:

You know where the meat came from in your supermarkets, don't you? NOT MAGIC. #douchebags

Anti-hunting celebs should boycott supermarkets. Those displays of meat everywhere are surely offensive. #douchebags

If Sorum spent as much time learning about conservation as he did flat ironing his bleached hair, he wouldn't sound like such a #douchebag.

No, @mattsorum has never been hunting because they don't have outlets for his flat iron in the wild. #leavehuntersalone

When I was little rock stars used to be rock stars, not whiny little pansies who freak out over hunters. Rock is dead. Manson was right.

Let's get this straight.  A vegetarian wouldn't be going to the meat section of a supermarket, right? Other than that she's just being crass.  She said on a show this week that when she sees someone with an opposing opinion, she goes into attack mode, and wants to gut them (don't I know it).  But at least have the decency to know who the guy is and what he's talking about.

The unthinkable has happened!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03z8h2qsbgg

Dana has a hard time saying she was wrong.  I think she did it twice in one story.

She starts off the third hour with the story of illegal immigrants and the buses that the "small" town (of 100 thousand people) of Murrieta, California turned away.  She was saying there were two buses, and they just get dropped off at the Greyhound station.  Later, she says it's 3 buses (and apologizes for the error!) and they get took to a processing center before getting released.  This was a moment in the making!

Alright, I'll stop.  Of course I couldn't take Dana's word for it, whichever one you choose.  What's really going on at the border?

Dana said that something like ninety percent don't make it back.  Actually, it's more like sixty-five.  It's still bad, but it is also bad to be twenty-five percent off.

Dana said there are no health screenings or background checks.  But the Mayor of Murrieta has said the exact opposite.

Dana says they get processed and just get released.  Actually, the release is to ICE agents who will take them to their final destination in the US, or deportation.  This is not the dumping of immigrants on the great city of Murrieta.

The final destination of the buses was San Ysidro, south of San Diego.  The buses were similarly met with people on the street.  The only difference was they were welcoming them.  The immigrants have been through a lot.  Strife in their countries  A torturous trip up the east coast of Mexico.  Detention by the border patrol.  Then they had to go through what happened in Murrieta.  A welcoming face in San Ysidro must have been a warm sight.

It didn't have to be like this.  But the fury a fervor  over the immigration issue on the right has brought is to this.  Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.  When did these words stop meaning something in this country?  Dana believes we should add a caveat to that phrase, only if they are your best and brightest. 

This 4th of July, ask yourself this question.  Is this what we really want our country to be?

"He was stopped by a good guy with a gun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTYNqxV_go

Check it out, Dana actually says in the case of Floyd Lee Corkins II that a good guy with a gun subdued him.  I don't know if the guard actually had a gun on him, but if he did, he did not use it to subdue Floyd Lee Corkins II.

An armed intruder, spouting opposition to social conservatism, walked into the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council on Wednesday and shot a security guard before the wounded guard and others wrestled him to the floor and subdued him until police arrived, authorities said.

When you say, "He was stopped by a good guy with a gun", it's usually "with the gun" not by tackling him.  This fails on so many levels.

But let's go a little further, Dana starts off talking about the Proud Whopper and "how we (people like Dana) react" compared to "how they (liberals) react".  This fails on so many levels as well.  You can't equate one person to a segment of the population.  Not everyone who is conservative can be equated to Timothy McVeigh, for example.  Mr. Corkins is not the face of liberals, either.  The equation of such borders on ludicrous. 

The truth is out there.  You just have to find it.  More and more, I am not finding it listening to the Dana Show.  And that's too bad.  Just like she believes Patricia Ireland is intelligent, but wrong, I too believe Dana is intelligent, but wrong.  I applaud her for her success, but with success comes responsibility.  If she's going to squander it for an agenda, it's her right.  She is so much better than that, though.  I just wish she would see it.

No, Everytown didn't say Target banned guns

No, Target Didn’t “Ban” Guns *UPDATE: Target Says “Not A Ban”

Oh, those rascally Bloomberg anti-gun extremists!  Calling Target's call to not bring your guns into their store a "ban" when you know it really isn't.  Wait, what?  They didn't call it a ban?

Moms Demand Action Applauds Target for Asking Customers to Leave Their Guns at Home in Response to Moms’ Campaign

Okay, so Moms Demand didn't call it a ban.  Maybe it was Everytown?

Thank Target for Adopting Gun Sense Policies

Um, Mayors Against Illegal Guns?  Oh, they don't have a website since they were folded into Everytown.  So which Bloomberg anti-gun extremist said it was a ban?  I'm not seeing it, on websites, on twitter, or on Facebook. 

On the issue of, "keeping your guns at home", yeah, Target doesn't say that, either.  They do request to keep your guns out of the store, and I'm not seeing much of a difference in the wording.  Yeah, you could respect Target and leave your gun in the car, thus not keeping them at home, but that's just picking nits.

Which brings us to why Dana would choose this wording.  It's to keep her opponent on their heels, even though they have reason to claim victory, and they did put in the work, and get a positive result.  And that's the point to those who claim to support the second amendment wish to do instead of actually have an honest debate on the subject.  Anyone who opposes them are anti-gun extremists, even when those same extremists advocate responsible gun ownership.

I wish we could have an honest debate on issues like these in this country.  Unfortunately, it looks like we will be pulled farther apart by the extremes.

Aren't personal lives personal?

The whole Thad Cochran story got the Dana treatment at the top of the third hour of the show on Friday.  You can find audio here:

Third hour, 6/27/14

Basically, Mr. Cochran is living with a staffer and having an affair.   He flies her everywhere with him.  He's abandoned his wife and is basically flaunting this affair with his staffer.

Only problem is, none of it is true.  Sure, he lives in his staffer's house, but it's a big house, and he's renting an apartment in it.  Sure, she goes with him on trips, but they are official business and she is his executive assistant, has been since 1981.  And while his wife is in a nursing home in Mississippi suffering from dementia, that doesn't mean he has abandoned her.  And he denies any affair calling any thought of it as "silly".

So, is it alright to attack and impugn the character of people in politics, now?  Because if it is, Democrats who Dana accuses of attacking Sarah Palin deserve an apology.

In other news, Dana also accused Thad Cochran of shaking a Klan hood to scare black voters to come out and vote for him.

Forget that there is no evidence Cochran or his staff put this flier out, but can Dana refute the things that are said on the flier?  Did he not vote against the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum?  Did he not make racist comments on his radio show?  Does he not oppose SNAP funding in the farm bill?

And did McDaniel supporters go into black neighborhoods and intimidate people into not voting?  We are convicting Cochran for many things without proof, where are the questions about this revelation?

I can't believe Dana has been doing radio for so long and is still getting it so wrong.  Where is the integrity in journalism?  Hey, as Breitbart used to say, it's not mean if it's the truth.  And since the truth isn't out there, Dana's just being mean.  Too bad, because I think she's smarter than that.

Entering Iraq with the consent of the government there

Did Maliki Change On Immunity For US Troops?

Well, since they will be assigned through the Embassy, they will already have the immunity the troops at the Embassy have.  That, and as Jay Carney said a few days ago, they have permission to go from the Iraqi government.

Undercutting Democrats and Native American history

Dana had a couple pretty bad statements pertaining to the Redskins trademark ruling.

"Democrats want to hide their continual heinous treatment of American Indians, and they think that changing a team name that honors them will do the trick."

Yeah, I'm sure the Democrats are the only party that mistreated Native Americans.  While Andrew Jackson did initiate the trail of tears, and he was the founder of the Democrat Party, he is far from a progressive, as a matter of fact, his ideas were downright conservative.

But I digress, I find it disturbing that someone could state that Democrats came up with the idea of changing the name of a Football team to cover up their previous abuses.  Is that what Dana really thinks?  There is really no evidence Democrats are behind this, and how can such a symbolic gesture actually do anything?  Wouldn't being the first American president to hold a conference of Indian tribes at the White House or expand the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and make it permanent be a better way of "covering up previous abuses"?

"That name was a tribute to the first coach of the Washington Redskins who were formerly known as the Braves."

Well, he was never a Washington Redskins coach, because he never coached the team when it was in Washington.  It was originally the Boston Braves for one season in 1932, then in 1933 when William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz coached the team to two seasons of equal wins and losses before being fired, they changed it to Redskins.

But first, the team not only had an "Indian" coach, they also had several members of the team who were Native Americans.  But the owner at the time of the name change, George Preston Marshall, paints a very different picture on why he changed the name:

On July 2, 1933, the day the Braves officially announced they henceforth would be known as the Redskins, Marshall told the Associated Press that the name change was made in conjunction with the team’s relocation from Braves Field in Boston to Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox.

"So much confusion has been caused by our team wearing the same name as the Boston National League Baseball Club that a change appeared to be absolutely necessary,” Marshall said. “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins."

A shrewd businessman and something of a visionary about the fledgling league’s potential to appeal to a national audience, Marshall made a simple marketing decision: Two Boston teams calling themselves the Braves was one too many, and Redskins suggested a Fenway Park tie with the Red Sox while enabling them to keep their Native American motif.

So the name wasn't changed to honor anyone.  It was done to tie in with the "Red" Sox, and distance themselves from the team that would eventually move to Atlanta, called the Braves.

There is something else here, however.   Did you know that William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz wasn't a Native American at all?  He plead no contest and served 30 days in jail for stealing the identity of a Native American so he could dodge the draft.  He actually was born of German parents in Rice Lake Wisconsin.

How could Dana, someone who hammers Elizabeth Warren all the time on this, get it so wrong here?  I guess she'll have to "read up a little bit about it" before she remarks on it again.

Howcould here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/06/19/3252428/john-mcgrath-redskins-owner-dan.html?sp=/99/289/&ihp=1#storylink=cpy

Is one year enough?

So, did Obama negotiate, or run to get troops out of Iraq after being told no once?  I dunno, let's check:

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.

A year of negotiations.  They met by teleconference most times.   But it broke down simply because America wanted immunity, and the Iraqi people (not Malaki) didn't want to give it to us.  A year.  How much longer do you need for it to BE a negotiation, or for Dana to notice? 

Dana isn't stupid, nor is she ignorant of facts.  Why would she be so blatantly wrong here?   

Are Israeli teacher's armed?

Quick answer, no.

I guess what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas

On Sunday, there was a shooting in Las Vegas.  Two gunman entered a Cici's pizza, shot two police officers, and then on their way into a Walmart shot another before one killed the  other, then herself.  My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. 

I tuned into the Dana Show yesterday fully expecting something to be said about this shooting.  All I got was crickets.  There is a reason for this.  To me, it's not because of the backgrounds of the gunmen, although they are conservative, and the man was at the Bundy Ranch during the standoff.  No, to me it is how the 3rd victim died. He was a good guy with a gun.  He confronted the gunmen, and didn't stop them.  Now, we will never know if he kept his gun concealed whether he would be alive today, but it is likely he would since nobody else was shot.  This is why I believe Dana isn't mentioning it.  Although since they are violent conservatives, and that is something Dana has said repeatedly doesn't exist, she may be avoiding it for that as well.

I have only gone through the first hour of today's show, and while she has mentioned the Oregon shooting, still nothing about the one in Las Vegas.  Rachael Maddow, the lady in a K-Mart pantsuit, covered the couple in her Monday show.  Guess that Ivy League... er... Rhodes Scholarship is paying off for her.

I guess I should be flattered

Looks like Dana spotted me.  Here's the text of her post, in case she takes it down:

"Creepy. Progressive male stalker that I banned from this page after he spam-hated every thread created a blog dedicated to me. He unfortunately made the mistake in thinking that he can be anonymous online. Not with me you can't. Apparently he does this on working hours."

Lets see.

1.) I'm a moderate Republican.

2.) I got to post 3 thoughtful rebuttals to her posts on Facebook before I was banned.  Spam-hate?  See for yourself:

3.) Anonymous online?  Well, I started a new email and created an account here and on twitter with a made up name.  I'm not Todd Edwards, nor am I connected with him, I just like his films.  So if she knows who I am, she's doing some serious hacking. Which would be illegal.  I am allowed my privacy.

4.) I work during the day.  All my posts are at night.

She is right about one thing, I did create a blog about her.  Hey, one out of five isn't bad.

But let's forget whether she is right or wrong in the facts of her statement.  Let's get to how wrong this post is.  Calling me creepy, a stalker, implying I do this on company time... all of this is not just to discredit me, it is a very dangerous game.  If I weren't protecting my identity, she'd be inviting her followers on Facebook to find me and attack me.  Hey, she blamed Piers Morgan for doing the same thing to her. 

All because I started a blog.  I'm not creepy, I'm not a stalker.  I'm just pointing out my opinions of what a public figure is saying.  Nothing here is hateful.  Nothing I am doing is wrong.  Why is Dana afraid of that?

Here's hoping she comes to her senses and retracts her statement.

Edit: Got to the second hour of the show, and she goes one step further in stating this is a, "creepy serial killer shrine".

Edit II: Hey, I didn't know you could view people's edits!

Wonder why she added the remark about my blogging on work hours?

Bowe vs Andrew or apples vs oranges

Ah, our veterans.  You can't disparage them.  Unless you are Dana.  Then if your name is Bowe, it's alright.  Roll that beautiful bean footage:

 

In the clip above, Dana is reacting to Bill Maher when he said the release of prisoners was, "kinda illegal".  Well, it was, kinda.  There is a law in place stating Obama would need to give congress 30 days notice before releasing prisoners.  Is that law enforceable in this case?  Probably not, as it violates Presidential powers, specifically protection of American citizens abroad.  Don't take my word for it, take Jack Goldsmith's word.  He served as a lawyer under Bush for the DOD and the DOJ, and he states that (from Time Magazine), "...Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”"  So, kinda is actually right, in this case.  Especially since there is video evidence Bowe Bergdahl looked near death.

She then pivots to an article in the New York... er... Los Angeles Times titled: Maybe we should thank Mexico for intercepting that armed ex-Marine, by this one chick (I've been told they don't like to be called that) Robin Abcarian.  Granted, that's not the most diplomatic of titles.  In the story, we learn quite a lot more than Dana is willing to let on.  Dana even disparages the article as being written with, emotional zeal and personal prejudice.  That's kinda like saying, "pot, this is the kettle, you are black".  Except you are saying it to a refrigerator, and it is white.  While Dana's emotional zeal and personal prejudice shine through in the clip above, Miss Abcarian's article explores a few of the facts in question.

In Andrew Tahmooressi we have a man who crossed the border with guns that are illegal in Mexico.  Upon authorities finding out about this, they take him into custody.  He tries to escape twice, and inflicts harm upon himself.  He is eventually moved to a better prison.  He's had 50 visits, and a TV interview since his incarceration.  And it looks as if he's been in Mexico a few times before (thank you Tony Perry).

The underlying facts are not good. A crime is a crime, he didn't just kinda carry guns across the border.  He didn't just kinda try and escape from prison (twice).  Take away that he's a veteran, and most of the current sympathy crowd would forget he exists.  They may actually accuse him of running guns for Eric Holder.  But as a vet, it doesn't matter how many crimes he may have committed.  That makes him a saint.

I guess I should get on about how I believe the cases of Bowe Bergdahl and Andrew Tahmooressi are not the same.  Well, Bowe more than likely walked away from his platoon, Andrew more than likely committed crimes, then tried to walk away from them.  In Bowe's case, why he walked away is not known with any certainty.  In Andrew's case, why he crossed the border is not known with any certainty.  Heck, there are a lot of similarities.

But here's the crux of it all.  Bowe was at war, Andrew was not. Bowe was held by enemy combatants, Andrew is not.  Bowe was incommunicado, so his whereabouts and health were in doubt.  Andrew has had 50 visits from family, lawyers, consulate members, etc, and his health is not in question.  Bowe was held because he was an American, an enemy.  Andrew is being held for the crimes he is accused of committing.

The Obama administration is doing all it can to either gain the release of Andrew Tahmooressi, or at least ensure him a fair trial under Mexican law.  If they could gain his release tomorrow, I am sure they would do everything in their power to do so.  To paint this debate as we love a deserter, but hate our veterans, is like calling a white refrigerator black.  It may make you feel better, but it is far from the truth.  And Dana, since one of your guiding principles is to, "gird your loins with truth", don't you think your listeners deserve some in this case?

#Feminogisiststs

So, Miss Nevada's question/answer blew up on Twitter.  So Dana was on the case:

First, Dana incorrectly states that all of these tweets are corralled under #yesallwomen.  But clearly, she got these tweets from another source.  The source can be found here:

‘Rape culture wins’: Feminist freakout after Miss Nevada dares suggest self defense training for women

You can follow along while she reads the tweets.  It is clear since not all the tweets say #yesallwomen that they got this information another way.  I believe the story states the search term is, "#missusa self defense".

That being said, let me say this.  When have we ever as civilized society rightly said that when a woman got raped, that it was her fault?  So why is it that we tell them they MUST defend themselves against rape, like it is the only solution to the problem?  Isn't this one and the same?  If you are a woman and you don't have a way to defend yourself, are you then at fault for whatever may happen to you?

Dana thinks it is man shaming to say teach men not to rape.  As a man, I'm not offended. Yes, women need to defend themselves.  I am totally fine with that.  But we as a culture need to get to the root of the problem.  Just because we have free will, doesn't mean men have the right to rape, or anyone commit any crime.  And we all should want to work toward fixing the problem.  Until then, shaming women, even if you are a woman yourself, isn't helping.

Sadly, misogyny is everywhere

Dana started out the third hour of her show on Wednesday with South Dakota GOP Senate Candidate Annette Bosworth.  She had an odd news conference where her staffers pasted her campaign posters with some of the bad things people say about her on the Internet.  She said all you would need to do is Google her name with one of those words and you'll find the things people said about her.  Dana loved it, and felt that Democrats should literally eat those words.

This is something called misogyny.  This doesn't happen to just Republican women, it happens to ALL women.  From Michelle Obama, to Nancy Pelosi, to Michelle Bachmann, to Sarah Palin, all have had to deal with this kind of thing.  Heck, Dana has to deal with it, but so does Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes.  I implore you to think of a vile term for a woman (if you can), and Google it with any of the names above as Ms. Bosworth is asking you to do, and you'll find they all get called these sort of names. This is not something that is exclusive to Republican/Conservative women.  There are a lot of people out there who don't have that filter the rest of us do.

It is funny how Dana was quick to defend Ms. Bosworth at the top of hour three on Wednesday, but later she is quick to attack Sandra Fluke.  I don't know what is more troubling, her revelation that Ms. Fluke will wind up living with a bunch of cats and saying it's not mean if it is true, or that she can't wait for Ms. Fluke to lose so she doesn't have to hear from her again.  Dana, a staunch supporter of the first amendment when it suits her, would rather silence someone with a different opinion than allow them to have it. I wonder where I've seen that before.

But this was just another instance for Dana to bash the #yesallwomen campaign.  On yesterday's show, she equated them to women looking for free birth control.  But go out to Twitter and look at the #yesallwomen feed, and you'll see something surprisingly different.  Women are telling their stories of misogyny, including how they have been beaten for not giving men sex.  Why can't Dana empathize with them?  Is it because she perceives all of them to be whining Liberals?

Dana pivoted off that point to say Liberals don't give a darn about the real misogyny in this world, how Muslim men treat their women, siting Meriam Ibrahim, a woman sentenced to death in Sudan for marrying a Christian man.  Which fails on two levels.  First, Liberals do care (she may be released soon due to world wide protests).  Second, just because other women in the world are mistreated, doesn't mean women here aren't mistreated as well.The second is most important, because even if no "feminist" cared about Meriam Ibrahim, that doesn't excuse what happens to women everyday here in America.

Dana said on Friday that it is nothing but man hating going on in the #yesallwomen feed. I beg to differ. This article by Estelle Tang that I found while looking at the feed illustrates how it is being a woman in this world.  If you have something sexist happen to you everyday, then a guy kills seven people, and claimed before his rampage he was going to kill as many women as possible because they deprived him of sex; I'm not a woman, but I'm sure my reaction would be like many on the #yesallwomen feed.

Right gets it wrong on honors night

Cole Middle School Cancels Honors Night

So this story had the right all in a tizzy, including Dana.  Can't fault them, though.  It did have a juicy line:

"Members of the school community have long expressed concerns related to the exclusive nature of Honors Night," the email stated.

Nothing raises the ire (whether produced for her show, or real, who's to know) of Dana quite like "success shaming".  Since they canceled Honors Night due to it's exclusive nature, the right were on it like rabid dogs.  On the surface this looks like another case of success shaming.  But look a little deeper, and you'll find something possibly less sinister.

So, they cancelled Honors Night.  First things first, what the heck is Honors Night?  All I know is it is held after school hours, and include awards found in this school pdf on page 18.  I am not aware if it is a dinner or not. 

Who attends this function?  Well, I'd have to guess, but I believe it would be the students and parents of the award winners, and faculty.  This is where the exclusivity comes in.  I am guessing very few non award winning students come.

It you were to win an award, wouldn't you want to accept it in front of the largest audience?  Is that, in fact, what happened?  They didn't cancel the awards, just the night.  They planned on having the awards ceremony as an in school event  Who stands to benefit from this change?  To me, it's not the students who don't win awards, as they now have to be in the room when the awards are given.  So if the award winners are the ones to benefit, as they can now lord their achievement over a larger audience, who complained about the exclusive nature of Honors Night?  Could it be the award winners themselves?  Quite possibly.

Forgetting my speculation here, they still didn't cancel the awards, so excellence was still being rewarded.  Judging by almost every right wing pundit's reaction, they missed that point.  To them, the school couldn't be bothered to reward excellence, in fact everyone gets to be number one.  They couldn't be farther from the truth. 

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

Fox debates.  Fox loves them, because it kills two birds with one stone.  They get to beat a Democrat, and they get to claim they have Democrats on Fox where MSNBC does not have Republicans.  Although if you listen to some MSNBC hosts, it's not for lack of trying to get Republicans on their shows.

But the Fox debate goes something like this.  The Fox host will start by explaining what is happening, usually slanting it to the Conservative/Republican side.  Then the person they have chosen to argue for comes on.  They are usually always Conservative/Republican.  They get an easy softball question from the host, and they get all the time they need without interruption to explain their position.

Then, the lamb being led to slaughter comes on.  They are almost always Democrat/Liberal.  They get a pretty hard/leading question, and before they can get their full point out, they will be interrupted by the host to clarify, or to be shouted down by the Republican.  Lather, rinse, repeat for around 9 minutes.

On Friday, May 16th, Dana was on the Kelly File.  Martha MacCallum was guest hosting.  Ever been in a classroom with a substitute teacher?  No offense to Martha, but you knew something was going to happen the moment this started.  Jessica Erlich was the Democrat lamb to be led to slaughter.

As you can see, not only did Martha tell Dana to pipe down at one point, she didn't do anything to defend Dana.  And things got a little nasty.  Here's my take on a few of the parts:

ESSICA ERLICH:  What I find sad and disturbing is that really what you have here are two attention-seeking reality television wannabe appearing brothers who are political activists who have an extreme agenda, and are trying to cloak it in this, sort of, you know, religious freedom characterization, and using that as a way to get, you know, their own business and drive that. And I find that very disturbing.

...

DANA LOESCH: Well, I have to jump into Jessica’s remark, I wonder if she finds it disturbing and attention-seeking that the brothers were actually committed still to the six families whose homes they were flipping for this television show. They had already started production and when HGTV pulled it, the brothers continued on their time and on their own dime, I might add, to continue their promise and fulfill what they said they were going to do with these families.

Disturbing?  I don't find it disturbing that the Benham Brothers continued to flip homes for families on their own dime.  But I do find it attention-seeking.   What I find disturbing is that talk show hosts like Dana use that fact like a cudgel to beat all detractors over the head instead of debating the true point.  You may as well have said, "They aren't attention-seeking, look at this thing they did to catch you attention."  The real question is why are they not extremists?  Souldn't you say something to refute this claim?

ERLICH:  That has nothing to do with their political beliefs.

LOESCH:  Well, you just said that you found it disturbing. I just don’t understand the anti-Christian bigotry. I mean the world is big enough for all of us, don’t you think? 

Well, it is big enough for all of us.  Dana is someone who characterizes Moms Demand Action so many bad ways, however.  I do not feel she stands on steady ground when she preaches to us about just getting along.

Instead of refuting Jessica's claim that the Benham brothers are extreme, Dana says the whole darn thing is anti-Christian bigotry.  I would say that is shocking, but it is the latest conservative talking point when talking about the "homosexual" agenda.  Jessica is offended by this statement, as most people should be.  Nothing Jessica has said to this point approaches being anti-Christian.  She has said the Benham Brothers are using their Christianity to further their political views.  I, as a Christian, agree that if someone is doing this, it is disturbing to say the least. 

Well, after some talking over each other, Dana finishes off strong telling Jessica, “You’ll learn more if you keep your mouth shut!” and the kicker, "If we’re going to have a theological discussion, let’s start with your name calling, your smearing of these brothers just because you’re an anti-Christian bigot!”  I can almost hear the control booth in Martha's ear, "Go to commercial!"  Dana wasn't done, though,  She finishes with, "Your voice is shaking."

Now, Dana professes to be a Christian.  She is also full of paradoxes.  She heavily supports the second amendment.  Yet when it comes to the 8th, she doesn't seem to care.  When Oklahoma had their botched lethal injection, Dana thought the man didn't suffer enough.  Yet the 8th amendment tells us the government can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. 

I fully expected to see a retraction and apology... oh, who am I kidding, Dana never admits she's wrong.  In her blog post, Speaking Up For What's Right, Dana misses the mark on what being a Christian is.  Here are a few of the low points:

 I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe.

Whenever you see someone use the "friend argument" you should know it's history.  People don't look too kindly when this defense is used.  I can't see why Dana would use it here.

It’s why it floors me that people like Ms. Ehrlich, who I’m sure prides herself on “equality” and compassion, would go out of her way to malign the characters of two men whose only crime seems to be that they are Christians. Perhaps she was not raised in a diverse environment and didn’t learn to coexist with people who think differently than she, but it’s about time she learned.

People like Ms. Ehrlich?  You do realize you should never use a phrase like, "people like you", unless it is followed by, "because you are a good person".  And the crime isn't that they are Christians, but that they have extreme Christian views.  And since Ms. Ehrlich is half Jewish, who's father and grandmother survived Nazi Germany, and has a mother who is an evangelical Christian, I'm pretty sure she had a diverse environment growing up. 

 I am not going to be misled into believing that I should be meek about my faith to appease those who do not share it, I am not going to be meek in defending other people of faith, or defending my faith, period, when it is unfairly maligned such as it was this evening. It is not a pejorative to say that someone is an anti-Christian bigot if, in fact, they are an anti-Christian bigot.

 Isn't there something in the bible about turning the other cheek?  Meek shall inherit the Earth?  I missed the one where he said to berate someone because you believe what you are saying is true.

People will feign more offense over the title than the action and the action must change before the label will. Do not allow yourself to be driven away from expressing or sharing your faith. Hold yourself to a standard of love, but the bottom line is that the truth isn’t mean, it’s the truth.

But, " the truth isn’t mean, it’s the truth", isn't a Christian belief, it's Breitbart's Rule #12.  Breitbart, I am lead to believe, was himself not a Christian. 

So, in essence, Dana has fashioned herself into a Christian Bully.  It wasn't bad to call Ms. Ehrlich an anti-Christian bigot, because Dana thought it was true.  Just like a bully on the playground believes your face is ugly, so saying it isn't bad.  Except instead of taking Ms. Ehrlich's lunch money, Dana reveled in the fact that she made her cry.  With a smug grin, she said triumphantly at the end of the debate, "Your voice is shaking."  I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of Christian values I can get behind.

I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf

I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf

I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf

I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf