New bumper music suggestion -- Love is in Control - Donna Summer

There is a method to my madness, of course, a connection to something Dana has done..  It's not the Quincy Jones smoothness that makes this the perfect bumper music, either.  See if you can catch the connection between this song and a blog post from Dana.

You see, Dana went ballistic (pun intended) when she saw the the SNL skit on guns.  Haven't seen it?  I'd be shocked, it is everywhere:

Did you catch the connection, yet?  What Dana didn't like about the skit, and the Donna Summers song's subtitle have something in common.  Here, let Dana explain it:

Everyone in the SNL bit had their finger on the trigger, like so:

That's right!  Finger on the trigger, baby!  Except, if my sight isn't failing me, that finger up there isn't anywhere near the trigger.

Not that it matters much.  It's comedy, it is supposed to be mocking people like Dana, and judging by the rant she went on in her article, it hit the spot.  Just to make her feel better, I bet they won't try and give her gun advice, as long as she doesn't try to give them comedy advice.

Time once again to fact check the fact checker.

WaPo: Yes, We Want Your Guns

Oh, Dana... must you tease me so?  Counter-Fisking is go. Well, let's do this USA!

Wouldn't it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

I know, because there are no 

mass shootings

anywhere in Europe (or elsewhere)

anymore

because they

banned guns .

(Right?)

This is what I call mixing the facts.  The WaPo author (Fred Hiatt) said far fewer deaths, but Dana trots out the fact that deaths do occur. Hiatt says civilized world, and Dana says Europe, because we all know everyone hates Europe, am I right?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Oregon had background checks and "modest common-sense reforms."

Yeah, and they were just implemented this year. And some gun shops and sheriffs offices are going against the law... call them safe havens for guns. Given time these reforms may be able to bring down gun violence like they already do in other states.

When I read this, I didn't think that Hiatt was coming for your guns, but showing the narrative that it doesn't matter what you do, they are going to think they are coming for your guns, I do understand he does ramp up the rhetoric later, however.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it's time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media. 

Actually, Hiatt is looking long term at changing the minds of the people first, not the law.  Because trying to just change the law doesn't work, not with the big voices like the NRA and the little voices like Dana leading the charge against them. It's so smart, Dana seems to have missed it.

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn't working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is "reform." Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals. 

"The author" is actually saying stop pussy footing around and get shit done.  All the examples he quoted are the incremental approach, yet Dana's response clearly shows she thinks they are the "whole hog" approach.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn't have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI "flawed" in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof. Yes, let's restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans for not only the deeds of criminals, but also because the background check people want expanded is horrifically flawed. Heaven forbid we spend time otherwise making sure that the people administering the law do so and that it's followed to full extent.

I love it when Dana trots out the argument that Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun because of a flawed background check system. A system that trips over itself to placate gun rights advocates like Dana, so killers who should not have had a gun shall purchase one. It is an argument that proves background checks need to be strengthened, not diminished.  Thanks for your work, Dana.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.

Based on ... ? Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they're anomalies.

Chicago had a problem with guns long before they enacted GOAM last year. It's not like a flick of a switch will turn that light off. And looking at New York... maybe you don't want to talk about New York, Dana  Their murder rates are pretty low.

I am in shock or something, however, because I sort of agree with Dana on this one. It is a law with good intentions, but it doesn't seem to work, and is very likely not legal.

The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. 

What "loophole?"

Um, Dana, I'll let YOU argue this one for me:

You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence...

There... that's the loophole.  If you are a criminal this is a way around a background check, the barrier that has stopped many a  prohibited possessor from purchasing from gun stores. Who cares if it is illegal for a  prohibited possessor to buy the gun, let's stop him from getting it in the first place.

Punishing innocent Americans for the decisions of criminals is gun shaming and abhorrent.

Wow, I did not realize putting background checks into place was such a punishment. Although I have heard some gun owners say they would gladly jump through the extra hoops if it brings gun violence down.

As we've seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. 

It's rich that the side which advocates for the "sanctity" of infanticide is concerned about loss of life elsewhere. 

Well, that escalated quickly. Infanticide, a definition is in order:

in·fan·ti·cide (inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/) noun

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

What Dana is talking about is of course, abortion. Which is not infanticide. Embryoicide? Zygoticide?  Maybe fetiscide? But not infanticide. Maybe we can procure some deep cultural change in this matter, too. But it won't be done by telling lies to make your side look better.

Don't whine about a "cultural change" while you push to mainstream pedophlia [sic] and black market baby organ sales. People aren't so stupid that they'll miss that massive disconnect.

Whine? Hey pot, the kettle is calling. And no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true that anyone is trying to mainstream the sale of "baby" organs and pedophilia.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue. 

Oh, finally, eons down the article the author finally thinks of inner city gang crime. But it's not gang crime causing this, it's guns. If guns didn't exist there wouldn't be any gangs! Ever! Yes, gun rights are a civil rights issue. Anti-Second Amendment advocates constantly find themselves on the wrong side of it. 

Right here Dana picks on one point made in the Hiatt article, but leaves two others alone.  And I bring them up here because in their absence, they are even more significant:

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue. Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!

Why not these points, Dana? Did you not find any talking points that wouldn't make you come off as extremely insensitive and hypocritical?

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

The author would do well to learn how to read statistics and not cite the debunked Kellerman study (he refused to release his findings initially because he knew they were flawed; I also debunked him in my book)

You wrote a book. It was not the definitive book on the subject, and it was a rather flawed book at that. Although it is ballsy. Most people would tiptoe around Martin Luther King and the subject of guns.

But I digress, the Kellrerman study.  He found what he believed to be correlation between gun possession and gun assault. While his research was flawed, many have built on it and proven it right.

This isn't even close to what Hiatt is saying, he's just quoting statistics. Moving on:

Automobile accidents kill more people than guns. (See also drowning, bathtubs.) We should have a national conversation about common sense laws to restrict access to automobiles.

Automobiles not only don't kill people (people kill people, right?), they are designed to prevent the killing of people. Air bags, safety glass, seatbelts, etc. You don't see airbags on a gun, do you?

And oh the times are a changing. It won't be long when Dana won't be able to point to cars as bigger killers than guns. Not to mention that there are common sense laws that restrict access to automobiles. Drink and drive? Lose your license. Too many points? Lose your license. Nobody will insure you? You can't license your car. Can't pass a driver's test? Sorry, no license for you.

Well, you get the idea.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

None of what this author proposed would qualify as "logical." We should talk intelligently about enforcing current laws, strengthening the justice system and reducing the bureaucracy, and stopping gun shaming.

So the answer to what we see happening today is... nothing, let's stay the course because it seems to be working just fine. I think a definition for logical is in order, but my guess is Dana knows, or doesn't care. She's tossed out the red meat for the people who keep her paid and employed. Her job is done here.

 

My thoughts on "that video"

So, there was this guy from Chicago who created a video that depicted Dana shooting herself. He didn't just make it, he tweeted it out to Dana, and Chris Loesch, just in case Dana missed it. From there, you can guess if you don't already know, things got weird.

Dana used it as a platform to garner donations for the NRA. She became a national story off of this, she got a lot of attention from it. One has to wonder, right?

I would like to be the first to condemn the video, but I won't and here's why. It was a parody. To condemn it is to go against the first amendment. We should all be able to make snuff films of our favorite celebrities, as long as that's as far as we take it. Yeah, I just flipped the whole drawing Mohamed argument on its head.  Is that wrong?

Then, ask Trey Parker and Matt Stone what they think about it. They make this little TV show called South Park, which has been a giant celebrity snuff film for 17 years. And Dana has said she loves it, it's a barometer for culture. Should they be investigated by the FBI because they had Brittney Spears shoot herself? Or had Spielberg and George Lucas rape Harrison Ford? Or out Tom Cruise as gay? Of course not. That is what the first amendment is all about.  As long as someone's paying, they should be allowed to do it.

So the thing Dana condemned as a murder fantasy, is pretty much in line with how she feels about other things. Draw the Mohamed cartoon because they don't want us to is pretty similar in that both are first amendment rights. It happens all the time on TV, too. It's called parody. It's called satire. It's the social barometer Dana really likes, until she doesn't.

That said, I do have one other thing to say about this guy. Dana once said of me, "Creepy. Progressive male stalker that I banned from this page after he spam-hated every thread created a blog dedicated to me." But if you look at my Twitter feed @decondana, and what I have written here, the only thing true is I created a blog about her.

The guy that created that video? Look into his Twitter feed. This could be the guy she's talking about when she said that about me. He seems rather obsessed with Dana. I don't think that is cool for one second. I had a theory that he was paid by someone close to Dana to make that video since when you follow the money, Dana comes out good once again on this stunt.

When I looked at his feed, it just didn't seem to fit. He's constantly replying to things she's said. Wait... how is he doing that? I pretty much got banned immediately from her on Twitter. How can he post relies to her? Wouldn't she have banned him right away, too?

Unless she doesn't ban the creepy stalker types, because the thrives on moments like this. And you never know, when you follow the money, maybe I could be right after all. Again, it's just a theory. If I am wrong, I still believe how he's treated Dana on twitter is uncool. One does have to wonder, however.

Revisiting my first post

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

The first thing I wrote here was a story about Fox debates.  One in particular really got my attention, because in it, Dana was being a real Christian bully.  Well, today, this happened:

Dana on Facebook: Flashback to one of my favorite debates.

It's not that it's one of her favorite debates, it's the treasure trove of content in the comments that caught my eye.  She's so heavily edited any detractors out of her Facebook feed that everyone just loved it.  A few examples:

What slays me is that ONLY if you fall down and agree 100% with this nonsense are you a valid person; otherwise, you are labeled a bigot, racist, hell, choose your noun of preference - they all get spewed religiously instead of putting together a cogent argument. It's like a schoolyard playground. The bullies CANNOT put forward a legitimate, logic-based, provable argument so they resort to name-calling and make it a personal attack. How terrified they are! Keep at 'em, Dana!

So, let me get this straight,  Jessica says they are cloaking their politics in Christian beliefs, and gets called an anti-Christian bigot by Dana, and it's Jessica that's the bully?  Got it.

You cannot use logic against lefties because they are not logical. One of the ways to identify a sociopath is to see how they adjust or adapt information to support their claim. But the only way to expose them is to have the debate so those around can watch how they mis-apply data to make their point.. and sometimes can be quite funny.. but mostly looks pretty pathetic.. Well done Dana.. and I feel sorry for people so tangled up in their own self deception.. so sad. that is how people waste their life.. defending the indefensible.

And it seems Jessica is also a sociopath.

I liked this debate too, but it's kind crossing the line when Jessica was calling those brothers names a degrading them and when Dana starts calling her names and telling her to keep her mouth shut! Two wrongs don't make a right! But good job Dana!

Awww, you were doing so good until you got to that qualifying "but".  You do know that negates everything said before it, right?

This was one of the first debates I watched.. fell in love with Dana after this. She literally made that woman cry.

Something every Christian can be happy about.  I mean, WWJD, right?

I was gonna say that! The way her voice started trembling, another 30 seconds and she would have been balling! 

Jesus said: Go and cry no more.

These liberals can disparage whomever they want, but as soon as you confront them with a little logic, they crump.

Logic = name-calling.  Got it.

 Thanks, Dana!  You made my night with this post!  But hey, at least the quality of her posters has gotten better.

 

A message to Stephen Crowder

So, in my readings I stumbled across this article by Stephen Crowder.  I felt it my duty to respond.  Here's what I said:

In the case of Vance Day and Kim Davis, what you have are two people who are the government.  They by definition in the constitution should not be promoting any religion on the job.  Kim Davis is on record that it is God's authority, not government's that she denied giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples. Where is the right's love of the constitution here?

I am myself a Christian.  I'm not a scholar of the Bible, but I've read it a few times.  In all cases you mention, it is my belief that the people you feel are being persecuted, are not acting very Christian.  Someone comes to you wanting a wedding cake for a same sex marriage?  Bake them two.  Same sex couple comes up to you seeking a marriage license?  Render unto the government what is the governments.  Hiding Christ's love in this manner does nothing more than put Christianity in a bad light.  

But in reality, when it comes to the governmental definition of marriage, it has very little to do with the Christian definition.  It makes marriage a contract. It gives you many benefits like tax deductions, and control of what happens to a loved one when they fall ill.  Don't believe in the new definition of marriage by the government, don't participate in it.  Get married in a church, don't make it final with a license.  Pay more in taxes.  If you really feel the government's definition is not right for you, there's your true remedy.  Don't everyone rush to get your governmental marriages revoked, now.

What I truly see this as, is another issue to further divide this country.  And whether it be left or right, it is pretty clear who these division peddlers are.  Stephen, you have a platform that can be used for good, just as others in this field do.  Are you going to do that? or just keep stoking the flames for every last dollar you can get?  Don't worry, I won't get my hopes up.

Now, whether I get approval through moderation is another thing.  

Wrote the book on it

I am beginning to like Nomiki Konst.  Near the end of the video, she eats Dana's Lunch. She points out that mental health funding is an issue.  While she bungles the statistic she mentions in saying, "The federal gun registry has prevented 2.1 million criminals from accessing guns, you know that's something you were fighting against", (she meant universal background check, there is no federal registry) she deals a pretty strong punch. Dana's response? "False". And Obamacare (and no, Dana, we didn't "spend" a trillion dollars on it). And a 2004 study (that she doesn't site) also proves Dana right.

But you know Dana's biggest argument? "I wrote the book on it". No, Dana, you wrote "A" book on it. And it is a pretty flawed book at that. Because it isn't a book of statistics, although there are some, and they are pretty lousy, but it is a highly partisan book that blames Democrats at every turn for gun problems. To say it is "THE" book on it is like saying Milli Vanilli sang "THE" album.

Dana also makes another point, that the strictest gun law states have the highest "murder" rates.  Notice the mixing of statistics here. But play along with her game, and you'll find it to be false. States with the strictest gun laws, like California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, Illinois and Pennsylvania, only one is in the top ten (Maryland is second) while the rest are way down the list (Pennsylvania is 13th, California is 17th, Illinois is a seemingly statistically impossible 28th). States with the most lenient gun laws (Utah, Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Montana, Louisiana, Idaho, Kentucky, Wisconsin) have Louisiana at #1, but most also fall outside the top 20. Okay, so what about the southern states Nomiki talked about? Besides Louisiana, we have Missouri at #3, South Carolina at #4, Nevada and New Mexico are 5 and 6, and are technically south, but are not considered South. Michigan is #7, then Tennessee, Mississippi and Arizona round out the top 10.  These are murder rates from The FBI crime rates for 2010, just so you know.

So Nomiki is correct, half of the top 10 highest murder rates are in Southern states. And Dana was wrong, states with the strictest gun laws do not have the highest murder rates. And you better believe it, because I wrote "THE" blog post on it.

First Dana Show Live Blog

Alright, time for my first live blog of an hour of Dana’s radio show.  The rules are simple.  I will listen to an hour of the Dana Show.  While listening I will type up my thoughts.  These thoughts will do unedited (and you will have to trust me on this one).  Since I am listening from the podcast, I will pause for four minutes when there is a commercial break.  When done, I will do a little fact checking of what I wrote.  Hopefully if this doesn’t take a whole lot of time, I can make this into a regular feature. 

So, here we go:

Trump saying Megyn Kelly was off base while saying blood was coming out of her wherever is totally “Ironic”

And I mean ironic in the Alanis Morissette way, of course.  

Hillary is under criminal investigation?  At least she hasn’t been charged like Rick Perry.

FBI has stated it is not a probe into Clinton, but into the email server itself, and the security of the server. 

Cold spring in February, 2009?

February always has cold springs.

Roger Ale?  Is that a bitter brew?

From the Gengis Khan school of mispronunciation. 

Just because Trump is open and honest doesn’t mean what he said absolutely wasn't about menstruation.

Labor workforce is at a 38 year low for a lot of reasons, one of the biggest is because of retirees.

And projections have it continuing to go lower. 

Saying Salon is the graffiti of the internet is also totally “Ironic”

Again, the Alanis version here.

webOS was too late, and not as refined as iOS and Android.  Deal with it Dana.

I've been down this road before

***No pause for break, nothing more to comment on.

“They act like police did it as a celebration”.  No, they wrote a headline that was factually correct.  

And yeah, the guy did deserve to get shot from what he did, but there's that irony thing popping up again.

*** No pause for break, nothing more to comment on. (yes another quick break)

Roger Stone interview starts with something about a conversation between him and Trump, audio from some interview with Trump with no reference to who it was, or where it came from.

Journalism 101, cite your sources. I didn't hear it.

Trump has been good with messaging.  Say what the people want to hear.

Dana: Trump talked about illegal entry and securing the border.  She totally whitewashed the whole Mexico is sending it’s rapists line, didn’t she?  No Dem would get that kind of treatment from her.

Clinton did not call Trump, Trump called Clinton. I think if Clinton got a call from H.W. for political advice, he would have taken that call, too, and given good advice.

I was wrong, Clinton did call Trump, but it was after Trump had reached out to Clinton for advice:

 “Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

 Perot didn't “split the ticket”.  Exit polls show the people who voted for Perot would have split evenly or not voted at all.

The 1992 exit poll asked Perot voters who was their “second choice.” They split evenly between Clinton and Bush, 38 percent for each. (State exit polls indicate that Perot may have tipped the tight races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Ohio to Clinton, not enough to change the Electoral College outcome.)

That said, I think Trump is a little more polarizing, and he could cost Republicans votes.

While Trump can’t be bought (haha yeah right) that doesn’t mean he will do right for the country.

Jeb Bush has 100 million dollars?  Wow, I didn’t know he got that much.

While Dana did say it was his PAC (which is an oxymoron, since you can't even have contact with any PAC) it's misleading.  Jeb has raised 11.5 million, though.

Trump not only has a comfortable margin, it actually increased after the debate.

This may not be true, too tired now to care to find the numbers.

Cruz sounds like Mr. Haney!  And I think Dana missed the reference.

Democrats: If we can’t beat the right, we have to get them to beat themselves up.  Actually, even 

Bernie Sanders is polling better than most of the Republican field right now.  I don’t think they are too worried.

Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging or Defeating Clinton and Republicans. Here's Why

*** No pause for break, nothing more to comment on.

Fair interviews/endorsements. Well, when you throw softballs to those you like, and hardballs to those you don’t, it’s hard not to see it any other way Dana.

Hour two?  Why not, Hour two.

Would you eat a dirt root food?  Hey, I ate a large helping of beets with onions over the weekend.  The taste don’t bother me… I had dominion over it.  And does SuperBeets have that much of a benefit?

There are no studies showing SuperBeets works.

I have not read further into it, but I wonder if the peaceful protesters remained peaceful while bad actors didn't want to be peaceful?

Did numerous reports state Michael Brown got his finger in the trigger?

In my limited search, I could not find one.  There were eyewitnesses, but no reports with him touching the trigger guard.

Jay Nixon was MIA again?  He is governor, right, and not mayor?

He did release a statement today.

Lots of stuff on Danaradio.com on what was spent after Jay Nixon called for an inquiry.

There is stuff out there, but I don't have time to fact check it.

Jay Nixon is the most failed governor in the United States?  In the history of Missouri? I find that hard to believe.

The kid who stole the gun didn't do so to shoot at cops, he was in a shootout with other people when the cops arrived, and were not a part of the “protests”.

The story is everywhere on the map

Was he even armed at all? But the protesters were not looking to shoot cops. A dispute amongst the protesters broke out first.

The pastor that got his laptops and iPads stolen when he let people in sounds too good for Dana to be true.

The pastor did tweet it out.

Dana is focusing on Mike Brown a lot, but not the others who have been shot (except for when she can talk bad about New York).

Dana: Stupid!  Nice language from a Christian.

Iran, a leading Israeli magazine says Obama is a Jew baiter. Use of anti-Jewish incitement in Iran deal.

As much fun as I am having, I am going to stop here.