Drunk, or not drunk, Dana edition

 

A few things. First, undocumented Europeans, undocumented Asians, undocumented "Americans" come to the US all the time. Dana is taking "Americans" to be US citizens, and she's completely wrong, but that's a grammar issue. 

Second, it's the Shengen Agreement, not the Shenzen Agreement. 

So the question is, drunk or not drunk?

The Mimbo

Dana never ceases to amaze. She picked on three Bachelorette contestants for being not so bright, and bring just something to look at, a Mimbo. So Christianlike.

I did a little digging, and here's what I found:

Mike Johnson

He was a financial advisor before joining the show, and is a vet, having served in the Air Force. Dana is very patriotic for calling him a mimbo. He worked as a financial advisor. He's been dating Demi Lovato, so if he wasn't already rich, he's at least living right.

Matt Donald 

He graduated from High Point University, a Private Catholic University in North Carolina where he got his Bachelor of Science in Psychology. He works in medical sales. He's known to have money, and he seems to be living right.

Luke Stone

He graduated from George Washington University. He's worked as a political consultant. Again, he's known to have money, so he seems to be living right.

Nothing about these three says mimbo, not even close. Dana needs to troll harder, this was a quick one to debunk.

While I was away, I missed this:

https://www.stlmag.com/longform/the-making-of-dana-loesch/

A very long, detailed story on Dana. It's well worth the read. Some highlights:

In 2014, Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze TV offers Dana a show, and the Loesches move to Dallas. KFTK continues to run The Dana Show in syndication until 2016, when its ratings begin to plummet. But the gossip Corcoran hears is that the St. Louis station “can’t wait to get rid of her” personally. This mystifies him: “She’s doing exactly what you want to do on air, and she’s—not a rising star, a shooting star! But they were having trouble getting her to cooperate with promotions and activities outside her three-hour air show.”

Early friends of the Loesches are definitely glad to see them go: “She espoused so much hate and vitriol and was such a controversial figure that the fact that Chris was still involved in Shock City—even though he wasn’t doing anything—was a problem,” says Firley. “The St. Louis music scene wanted nothing to do with him; they’d go record in Nashville rather than use us.”

Burning bridges to light their way. Such a Christian thing to do!

After bringing a New York Times reporter with her to a firing range, Dana confides, “Looking back, I think I always wanted to know that I was safe.” The Loesches’ world view has always had an us-versus-them quality, with Chris in the role of Dana’s protector. “Chris attacks anyone from her previous life who speaks out about what she was like,” says one observer. When a woman remarks on Facebook that Dana is nothing like she used to be, Chris goes after her with an army of Dana’s supporters. Pretty soon, the post vanishes. On another occasion, after he is briefly ejected from Twitter—ostensibly for defending Dana so hotly—Chris posts, “I will never stop defending my wife’s honor from lies and liars. It’s called being a man, a husband and a partner in life.”

This is what strong independent women like, someone to be their attack dog.

After Kayleigh McEnany (now spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee) announces in 2016 that you can’t be a true conservative unless you support Trump (at the time, Dana most definitely doesn’t), Dana says on The Dana Show [about three minutes into the clip]: “Babycakes, this [election is] more than going on television and flashing them pearly whites and your flat-chested, red-dressed, over-sprayed bleach blonde hair while you sit here and you preach all this stuff about who is or isn’t a conservative.”

 When Dana is informed that McEnany has chosen to undergo a preventive double mastectomy, she doesn’t flinch or apologize, just brings out her own bona fides, saying she’s watched every woman in her family die a horrible death from cancer. “I’m sorry for the struggles she had,” Dana writes to The Daily Caller, “but perhaps being the ‘victim’ of my words can give her an insight into the kind of harm Trump’s words inflicts on others.” On air, Dana says, “I’m just doing it the Trump way: You come at me, I’ll come back at you three times as hard. You like it now? Because I can go harder.”

It's not interesting Dana can put her foot in her mouth like in this case and not apologize. That's Dana's M. O. No, what's interesting is that Dana didn't bow to the god that is Donald Trump like she does now.

Again, it's a bit on the long side, but it is worth a read. 

Hi! I'm baaaaackkk!!!!!

 I just wanted to say a couple things about today's show, since I listened. First, the thing she calls a "face panty" is worn not to keep from getting the virus yourself, but keep your virus from getting out.  This is a virus spread by aerosol. The mask is there to reduce the aerosol coming out of your mouth and nose. A great example is, someone gets to sneeze on you. Would you rather they wear a mask, or not?  If you can say you want them to do it without the mask, you can call it a face panty.  I guess Dana thinks all panties are useless when it comes to blocking things, but I guess you just have to keep them on.

And like Dana says she's not taking any advice from people that don't know what to call every piece of the gun, Dana called a charging cable a freaking hose. It seems like it was mostly to say Kamala Harris is good with hoses. At least Kamala never dropped out of journalism school.

Dana, if you are such a loving Christian, you'd drop the hate, drop the lies. But if you did, you would have to drop the show, because that's the only thing that keeps your show interesting. But it doesn't mesh. Miss Contradiction should be your new name. It just fits.

Post 80 and some of my favorite posts.

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

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

This is one of my favorites. Nothing like seeing Dana write something and smack her down with an easily proven fact:

...archives failed to turn up a Marcus column excoriating the ascension of a community organizer.

Try the search term, "Ruth Marcus Obama Inex-" and Google will actually finish that word for you, and the second page holds a link for you:

The Audacity of Nope 

Blam!

Right gets it wrong on honors night

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

Bowe vs Andrew or apples vs oranges

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

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

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

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

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

Wrote the book on it

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

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

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

The Garland experiment

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

The Garland Experiment II: The Notorious JJP

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

Not the sharpest crayon...

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

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

Not the sharpest crayon...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dana finishes up stating the video makes no sense. Eddie the Eagle is a trademark, you can't buy a trademark.  Owning a gun is a natural right. It is a complete non-sequitur. Um, say what? Does Dana even know what a non sequitur is? You know:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Bee is saying A is non deadly but regulated by the NRA, B is deadly, but the NRA is trying to deregulate it.  How is that a non sequitur? It is a funny premise, and since this is a comedy show, it fits right in.

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

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

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

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

Do they deserve $15 an hour?

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

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

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

Games People Play

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Is it Fisking time again already?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Using a CDC investigative study as fact, and siting Hitler

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts on Colorado and San Bernardino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analyzing Ted Cruz's technique

Dana's not happy someone called out Ted Cruz on his gun handling technique.  That someone is Wes Siler, and it's obvious he knows nothing about guns.  I mean, Dana calls him, and the people commenting on the story idiots, so they must be wrong, right?

Except this is a guy that knows a thing about guns.  He has written my favorite article about gun safety, something I never see Dana doing.  She talks a good talk, but she does far more to try and help you keep your guns safe from Obama, than gun safety.

Well, Wes didn't take this affront from the likes of Dana lightly.  He found another video, showing Cruz at one point had pointed the barrel at people behind him.  He then posted an article mocking people to the right of gun ownership, and roasting them to a crispy brown.

So, Wes can join Nomiki, Dan Carlin, and David Pakman as people I have said I liked in this blog, but I have to ask, is he right?  Is Cruz wrong for carrying his gun this way?  Well, first I would like Gil Ash from the National Shooting Sports Foundation to explain to you how to carry a shotgun. Then I would like you to picture Obama carrying that gun the same way.  The very people who are saying Cruz is okay in carrying it this way would lose their ever loving minds, Dana included.  I mean, who can forget the flack he got for just shooting a gun:

Yeah, tell me Obama wouldn't get it from all sides on the right.  Then tell me Wes Siler would write the article differently.  He wouldn't.  Because he is a man who truly loves guns, and not the politics around them.  I get the feeling it's only the politics of guns the right cares about. And right now, we can't afford to focus on the politics of it, we need to look long and hard at the issues surrounding gun ownership, gun rights, and gun violence.  Both sides are bad at this.  But I'm pretty sure if they both stopped being petty, we could come together for the better.  Until then, Cruz wasn't being dangerous, he just wasn't following the rules of gun safety. So don't have a cow when someone points this out. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

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.