For those who are 100% sure that Christine Ford's statements are completely accurate.
Link
Those who are 100% sure of most anything either don't understand what it means or are delusional.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Friday, September 14, 2018
Aerobatics with an electric model airplane with reversible propeller and non-standard control surfaces
Talk about sky dancing - take a look at this.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Obama's lies and the lies of the media
John Lott in the Washington Times.
JR is on target.
-----------------------------------------------------
Former President Obama has no shame, but don’t count on the mainstream media to tell you this. They are in on the deception. His talk at the University of Illinois on Friday contained all of the divisive rhetoric that he and the mainstream press accuse President Trump of engaging in.
The issue isn’t Mr. Obama breaking with the tradition of former presidents and becoming so political criticizing his predecessor. The problem is his lies and the lies of the media.
Possibly Mr. Obama claims that he doesn’t agree with the strategy: “we have to fight fire with fire. We have to do the same things to the Republicans that they do to us, adopt their tactics. Say whatever works, make up stuff about the other side.” But might it be that lying about the Republicans is Mr. Obama’s tactic?
Take Mr. Obama’s most vicious lie: “We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination, and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers. How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad?”
Mr. Obama was referring to Mr. Trump’s “there is blame on both sides” comment after the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. They leave out that Mr. Trump made it very clear that his comment did not pertain to “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.” Before making the both sides comment, Mr. Trump forcefully said: “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
But where were the fact-checkers?
Ironically, Mr. Obama attacked Mr. Trump in his speech for dividing Americans at the same time Mr. Obama is claiming that Mr. Trump can criticize Nazi sympathizers. Has Mr. Trump called Democrats anything similar? In Mr. Obama’s Nelson Mandela Lecture in July, Mr. Obama at least implicitly went after Mr. Trump with talk of “rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial, or religious superiority” and “right-wing billionaires.”
Then there are Mr. Obama’s usual attacks of Republican policies, which he thinks are all about “cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.” But even the liberal Tax Policy Center pointed out, “The top 1 percent and 0.1 percent of taxpayers will see their share of income taxes rise in 2018.” The mainstream media won’t even critically examine that or other Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated claims, which always carry the implication that Republicans don’t care enough about the poor or minorities.
On the economy, Mr. Obama took credit for the current growth: “so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started. I mean, I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on …”
People forget that stocks were completely flat for two years, from the end of December 2014 right up until the presidential election in 2016. Right after the election, the stock market around the world and especially in the United States started soaring. At the close of business on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 25,916, up 42 percent from the day before the 2016 election.
Long gone is the pessimistic outlook of the Obama administration. In 2013, four years after the recession had ended, Mr. Obama’s Department of Labor explained: the recession “left lasting scars on the economy … [it meant slower growth was] the new normal” for the American economy. In April 2014, Larry Summers, who had served as Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, warned that economic growth was going to be slow “for a substantial period of time going forward.” In August 2016, seven years after the recession ended, The New York Times predicted: “The underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White House.” The Times explained, “Something fundamental is broken in the global growth machine.”
Yet, after other recessions the fastest growth has consistently taken place right after the recession ends.
In August 2016, with the unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, many such as Paul Krugman were warning that the unemployment rate was already “near full employment” and that further reductions would be difficult to obtain. However, the current unemployment is better than 20 percent lower, near historic lows.
It is surreal for Mr. Obama to attack Mr. Trump for wanting to “use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents” when Mr. Obama’s IRS systematically damaged his political opponents, and his FBI and Department of Justice spied on Mr. Trump’s political campaign.
For years now the press has made false claims about Mr. Trump in the most vicious terms. But have Mr. Obama make the absurdly false claim that Mr. Trump is a Nazi sympathizer and you will wait in vain for any castigation by the press.
JR is on target.
-----------------------------------------------------
Former President Obama has no shame, but don’t count on the mainstream media to tell you this. They are in on the deception. His talk at the University of Illinois on Friday contained all of the divisive rhetoric that he and the mainstream press accuse President Trump of engaging in.
The issue isn’t Mr. Obama breaking with the tradition of former presidents and becoming so political criticizing his predecessor. The problem is his lies and the lies of the media.
Possibly Mr. Obama claims that he doesn’t agree with the strategy: “we have to fight fire with fire. We have to do the same things to the Republicans that they do to us, adopt their tactics. Say whatever works, make up stuff about the other side.” But might it be that lying about the Republicans is Mr. Obama’s tactic?
Take Mr. Obama’s most vicious lie: “We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination, and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers. How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad?”
Mr. Obama was referring to Mr. Trump’s “there is blame on both sides” comment after the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. They leave out that Mr. Trump made it very clear that his comment did not pertain to “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.” Before making the both sides comment, Mr. Trump forcefully said: “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
But where were the fact-checkers?
Ironically, Mr. Obama attacked Mr. Trump in his speech for dividing Americans at the same time Mr. Obama is claiming that Mr. Trump can criticize Nazi sympathizers. Has Mr. Trump called Democrats anything similar? In Mr. Obama’s Nelson Mandela Lecture in July, Mr. Obama at least implicitly went after Mr. Trump with talk of “rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial, or religious superiority” and “right-wing billionaires.”
Then there are Mr. Obama’s usual attacks of Republican policies, which he thinks are all about “cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.” But even the liberal Tax Policy Center pointed out, “The top 1 percent and 0.1 percent of taxpayers will see their share of income taxes rise in 2018.” The mainstream media won’t even critically examine that or other Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated claims, which always carry the implication that Republicans don’t care enough about the poor or minorities.
On the economy, Mr. Obama took credit for the current growth: “so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started. I mean, I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on …”
People forget that stocks were completely flat for two years, from the end of December 2014 right up until the presidential election in 2016. Right after the election, the stock market around the world and especially in the United States started soaring. At the close of business on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 25,916, up 42 percent from the day before the 2016 election.
Long gone is the pessimistic outlook of the Obama administration. In 2013, four years after the recession had ended, Mr. Obama’s Department of Labor explained: the recession “left lasting scars on the economy … [it meant slower growth was] the new normal” for the American economy. In April 2014, Larry Summers, who had served as Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, warned that economic growth was going to be slow “for a substantial period of time going forward.” In August 2016, seven years after the recession ended, The New York Times predicted: “The underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White House.” The Times explained, “Something fundamental is broken in the global growth machine.”
Yet, after other recessions the fastest growth has consistently taken place right after the recession ends.
In August 2016, with the unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, many such as Paul Krugman were warning that the unemployment rate was already “near full employment” and that further reductions would be difficult to obtain. However, the current unemployment is better than 20 percent lower, near historic lows.
It is surreal for Mr. Obama to attack Mr. Trump for wanting to “use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents” when Mr. Obama’s IRS systematically damaged his political opponents, and his FBI and Department of Justice spied on Mr. Trump’s political campaign.
For years now the press has made false claims about Mr. Trump in the most vicious terms. But have Mr. Obama make the absurdly false claim that Mr. Trump is a Nazi sympathizer and you will wait in vain for any castigation by the press.
There is a benefit from PSA screening
From www.practiceupdate.com.
-------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is beneficial in reducing prostate cancer mortality, and to determine optimal screening intervals and age groups to be screened.
METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study of 400,887 men under age 80, with no history of prostate cancer, who had PSA testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in the 5 calendar years 1998-2002, and were followed up for 12-16 years. Subjects were stratified into 6 groups based on the screening interval, and into 7 groups based on age. Prostate cancer mortality rates for each of the 42 subgroups were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
The data show that yearly PSA screening is beneficial, reducing prostate cancer deaths by 64% for men aged 55-75 years (95% confidence interval 50-78%, P <.001), and all-cause mortality by 24% (95% confidence interval 15%-34%, P <.001). This is the first study to evaluate various screening intervals and age groups, showing that yearly screening is the interval of choice. No benefit was found for screening at any interval for men under age 55.
CONCLUSION
Yearly PSA screening is highly effective in reducing both prostate cancer mortality and all-cause mortality in men with prostate cancer, and when combined with active surveillance to prevent overtreatment, lends support for PSA screening for men in good health aged 55-75.
-------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is beneficial in reducing prostate cancer mortality, and to determine optimal screening intervals and age groups to be screened.
METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study of 400,887 men under age 80, with no history of prostate cancer, who had PSA testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in the 5 calendar years 1998-2002, and were followed up for 12-16 years. Subjects were stratified into 6 groups based on the screening interval, and into 7 groups based on age. Prostate cancer mortality rates for each of the 42 subgroups were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
The data show that yearly PSA screening is beneficial, reducing prostate cancer deaths by 64% for men aged 55-75 years (95% confidence interval 50-78%, P <.001), and all-cause mortality by 24% (95% confidence interval 15%-34%, P <.001). This is the first study to evaluate various screening intervals and age groups, showing that yearly screening is the interval of choice. No benefit was found for screening at any interval for men under age 55.
CONCLUSION
Yearly PSA screening is highly effective in reducing both prostate cancer mortality and all-cause mortality in men with prostate cancer, and when combined with active surveillance to prevent overtreatment, lends support for PSA screening for men in good health aged 55-75.
Another Example of Regulation That Benefits Politicians, Not You
John Stossel at townhall.com.
JS is on target.
Too often, regulations are intended to benefit the regulators, not you. They give the regulators power to confer favors, which means the ability to collect money from those receiving the favors. Uber vs. ordinary taxis is a good example.
Those so much in favor of regulating Uber out of existence may say that regulations are required for safety - safe cars and drivers who will not harm you. Some of these people believe what they are saying - they fail to comprehend the significance of the fact that nobody is forced to use Uber. Others say this only to convince the gullible, so that they can share in the monopoly profit ordinary taxi firms are able to make in the absence of Uber.
-----------------------------------------
I just zipped down a city street on an electric scooter. It cost me 15 cents a minute. Fast and fun!
My scooter was just lying on the ground. I picked it up, activated it with my phone and rode away. When I was done, I simply abandoned it.
Won't it be stolen? No, because you need an app to activate the scooter and a GPS device keeps track of it.
My wife loves using the newish Citi Bike shared bicycles that are locked in a big dock near our apartment. They were a good innovation.
But then entrepreneurs came up with "dockless" bikes. They're even better.
But politicians may kill them off before we get a chance to find out how useful they are.
Some places have already banned the scooters. San Francisco said they "endanger public health and safety." City attorney Dennis Herrera complained about "broken bones, bruises, and near misses."
Sigh. Yet San Francisco also complains about not having enough transportation options.
In San Francisco and other cities, scooter companies tried doing what Uber and Airbnb did: They dodged destructive regulation by simply putting their services out on the street, hoping that by the time sleepy regulators noticed them, they would be too popular to ban.
That worked for Uber and Airbnb. We consumers got cool new ways to travel and alternatives to hotels, and investors got rich -- all because they didn't ask for permission. Permissionless innovation brings good things.
But flying under the radar is harder for scooter companies. Scooters on sidewalks are very visible.
"Unfortunately," Mercatus Center tech policy analyst Jennifer Skees told me for my latest video, "cities haven't learned from their experiences with companies like Uber and Airbnb. They want innovators to come ask for permission and go through the regulatory processes."
But the "regulatory processes" take years. "That prevents consumers from accessing a transportation option that could be accessible now!" said Skees.
After a four-month ban, San Francisco granted permits to two small scooter companies. The politicians stiffed Lime and Bird, the innovators that started the business -- presumably because they didn't kiss the politicians' rings and beg for permission first.
Still, even I acknowledge that there may be a role for government here. A public square needs some rules. Scooters, especially speedy electric scooters, can be dangerous.
"We haven't seen a large number of accidents or injuries," says Skees. "We don't ban bicycles because somebody might get hurt. ... Social norms (like hand signals) will evolve."
Whenever there's something new, the media hype the problems. The L.A. Times reports that some people hate the scooters so much that they "have been crammed into toilets, tossed off balconies and set on fire." Internet videos show scooters abandoned in the Pacific Ocean.
But scooter companies say the vandalism isn't so bad.
I wanted to try out scooters in my state, New York, but I couldn't, because craven politicians who claim to represent me banned scooters.
So I took our camera crews to a city that's been more reasonable.
Oddly, that's a place that overregulates most everything: Washington, D.C. But the capital embraced scooters.
So, the district has transportation that is green and good exercise and takes up less space than cars.
Maybe politicians will find it in their hearts to leave scooters, their makers and customers alone.
One innovation can make many others possible.
Cars take people to jobs they couldn't do in their own neighborhoods, allowing them to collaborate with people they might never have met if they walked or rode horses.
Planes, trains and ships bring down costs by allowing inventors to use exotic materials they can't find in their own back yards.
If any of those forms of transportation had been crushed by regulation, we'd never know how many benefits we'd lost.
Don't kill scooters. Let's see where they take us.
JS is on target.
Too often, regulations are intended to benefit the regulators, not you. They give the regulators power to confer favors, which means the ability to collect money from those receiving the favors. Uber vs. ordinary taxis is a good example.
Those so much in favor of regulating Uber out of existence may say that regulations are required for safety - safe cars and drivers who will not harm you. Some of these people believe what they are saying - they fail to comprehend the significance of the fact that nobody is forced to use Uber. Others say this only to convince the gullible, so that they can share in the monopoly profit ordinary taxi firms are able to make in the absence of Uber.
-----------------------------------------
I just zipped down a city street on an electric scooter. It cost me 15 cents a minute. Fast and fun!
My scooter was just lying on the ground. I picked it up, activated it with my phone and rode away. When I was done, I simply abandoned it.
Won't it be stolen? No, because you need an app to activate the scooter and a GPS device keeps track of it.
My wife loves using the newish Citi Bike shared bicycles that are locked in a big dock near our apartment. They were a good innovation.
But then entrepreneurs came up with "dockless" bikes. They're even better.
But politicians may kill them off before we get a chance to find out how useful they are.
Some places have already banned the scooters. San Francisco said they "endanger public health and safety." City attorney Dennis Herrera complained about "broken bones, bruises, and near misses."
Sigh. Yet San Francisco also complains about not having enough transportation options.
In San Francisco and other cities, scooter companies tried doing what Uber and Airbnb did: They dodged destructive regulation by simply putting their services out on the street, hoping that by the time sleepy regulators noticed them, they would be too popular to ban.
That worked for Uber and Airbnb. We consumers got cool new ways to travel and alternatives to hotels, and investors got rich -- all because they didn't ask for permission. Permissionless innovation brings good things.
But flying under the radar is harder for scooter companies. Scooters on sidewalks are very visible.
"Unfortunately," Mercatus Center tech policy analyst Jennifer Skees told me for my latest video, "cities haven't learned from their experiences with companies like Uber and Airbnb. They want innovators to come ask for permission and go through the regulatory processes."
But the "regulatory processes" take years. "That prevents consumers from accessing a transportation option that could be accessible now!" said Skees.
After a four-month ban, San Francisco granted permits to two small scooter companies. The politicians stiffed Lime and Bird, the innovators that started the business -- presumably because they didn't kiss the politicians' rings and beg for permission first.
Still, even I acknowledge that there may be a role for government here. A public square needs some rules. Scooters, especially speedy electric scooters, can be dangerous.
"We haven't seen a large number of accidents or injuries," says Skees. "We don't ban bicycles because somebody might get hurt. ... Social norms (like hand signals) will evolve."
Whenever there's something new, the media hype the problems. The L.A. Times reports that some people hate the scooters so much that they "have been crammed into toilets, tossed off balconies and set on fire." Internet videos show scooters abandoned in the Pacific Ocean.
But scooter companies say the vandalism isn't so bad.
I wanted to try out scooters in my state, New York, but I couldn't, because craven politicians who claim to represent me banned scooters.
So I took our camera crews to a city that's been more reasonable.
So, the district has transportation that is green and good exercise and takes up less space than cars.
Maybe politicians will find it in their hearts to leave scooters, their makers and customers alone.
One innovation can make many others possible.
Cars take people to jobs they couldn't do in their own neighborhoods, allowing them to collaborate with people they might never have met if they walked or rode horses.
Planes, trains and ships bring down costs by allowing inventors to use exotic materials they can't find in their own back yards.
If any of those forms of transportation had been crushed by regulation, we'd never know how many benefits we'd lost.
Don't kill scooters. Let's see where they take us.
It's Our Constitution - Not Kavanaugh
Walter Williams at townhall.com.
WW is on target.
Too many of today's voters are intolerant, have little appreciation for freedom, and little respect for the Constitution. They just want to restrict speech, force others to live as they see fit (restrictive laws and regulation), and free stuff (by confiscating others' wealth).
Here is a simple test of whether you are a member of the above group or not: Do you believe in a "living Constitution"?
----------------------------------
One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution": "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.
If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh's confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man -- Judge Kavanaugh -- whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.
Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring? Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. I examined our Constitution, looking to see whether an Article 5 amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment. Contrary to what our Constitution permits, Congress taxes and spends for anything upon which it can muster a majority vote.
But I found a constitutional loophole that many congressmen use as a blank check, as well as justification to control most aspects of our lives -- namely, the general welfare clause. The Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "promote the general Welfare," and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." What did the Framers mean by "general Welfare"? In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated." Madison wrote: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Case closed: It's our Constitution that's the problem for leftist interventionists -- not Brett Kavanaugh.
WW is on target.
Too many of today's voters are intolerant, have little appreciation for freedom, and little respect for the Constitution. They just want to restrict speech, force others to live as they see fit (restrictive laws and regulation), and free stuff (by confiscating others' wealth).
Here is a simple test of whether you are a member of the above group or not: Do you believe in a "living Constitution"?
----------------------------------
One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution": "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.
If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh's confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man -- Judge Kavanaugh -- whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.
Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring? Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. I examined our Constitution, looking to see whether an Article 5 amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment. Contrary to what our Constitution permits, Congress taxes and spends for anything upon which it can muster a majority vote.
But I found a constitutional loophole that many congressmen use as a blank check, as well as justification to control most aspects of our lives -- namely, the general welfare clause. The Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "promote the general Welfare," and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." What did the Framers mean by "general Welfare"? In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated." Madison wrote: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Case closed: It's our Constitution that's the problem for leftist interventionists -- not Brett Kavanaugh.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
The standard climate change models have been wrong - here is a plausible alternative model
Here is a link to an article "Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei".
It looks like there is more to climate change than the alarmists are willing to admit - perhaps because the alternative theory does not support their alarmist agenda.
Here are some excerpts.
------------------------------------------------------
Clouds are a fundamental part of the terrestrial energy budget, and any process that can cause systematic changes in cloud micro-physics is of general interest. To form a cloud droplet, water vapor needs to condense to aerosols acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) of sizes of at least 50–100 nm1, and changes in the number of CCN will influence the cloud microphysics2, 3. One process that has been pursued is driven by ionization caused by cosmic rays, which has been suggested to be of importance by influencing the density of CCN in the atmosphere and thereby Earth’s cloud cover4,5,6,7. Support for this idea came from experiments, which demonstrated that ions significantly amplify the nucleation rate of small aerosols (≈1.7 nm)8, 9. However, to affect cloud properties, any change in small aerosols needs to propagate to CCN sizes 50–100 nm, but such changes were subsequently found by numerical modeling to be too small to affect clouds3, 10, 11. The proposed explanation for this deficit is that additional aerosols reduce the concentration of the gases from which the particles grow, and a slower growth increases the probability of smaller aerosols being lost to pre-existing aerosols. This has lead to the conclusion that no significant link between cosmic rays and clouds exists in Earth’s atmosphere.
This conclusion stands in stark contrast to a recent experiment demonstrating that when excess ions are present in the experimental volume, all extra nucleated aerosols can grow to CCN sizes12. But without excess ions in the experimental volume, any extra small aerosols (3 nm) are lost before reaching CCN sizes, in accordance with the above mentioned model results. The conjecture was that an unknown mechanism is operating, whereby ions facilitate the growth and formation of CCN. Additional evidence comes from atmospheric observations of sudden decreases in cosmic rays during solar eruptions in which a subsequent response is observed in aerosols and clouds6, 7. Again, this is in agreement with a mechanism by which a change in ionization translates into a change in CCN number density. However, the nature of this micro-physical link has been elusive.
In this work we demonstrate, theoretically and experimentally, the presence of an ion mechanism, relevant under atmospheric conditions, where variations in the ion density enhance the growth rate from condensation nuclei (≈1.7 nm) to CCN. It is found that an increase in ionization results in a faster aerosol growth, which lowers the probability for the growing aerosol to be lost to existing particles, and more aerosols can survive to CCN sizes. It is argued that the mechanism is significant under present atmospheric conditions and even more so during prehistoric elevated ionization caused by a nearby supernova. The mechanism could therefore be a natural explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity13,14,15,16,17 or caused by supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales where the mechanism will be of profound importance18,19,20.
It looks like there is more to climate change than the alarmists are willing to admit - perhaps because the alternative theory does not support their alarmist agenda.
Here are some excerpts.
------------------------------------------------------
Clouds are a fundamental part of the terrestrial energy budget, and any process that can cause systematic changes in cloud micro-physics is of general interest. To form a cloud droplet, water vapor needs to condense to aerosols acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) of sizes of at least 50–100 nm1, and changes in the number of CCN will influence the cloud microphysics2, 3. One process that has been pursued is driven by ionization caused by cosmic rays, which has been suggested to be of importance by influencing the density of CCN in the atmosphere and thereby Earth’s cloud cover4,5,6,7. Support for this idea came from experiments, which demonstrated that ions significantly amplify the nucleation rate of small aerosols (≈1.7 nm)8, 9. However, to affect cloud properties, any change in small aerosols needs to propagate to CCN sizes 50–100 nm, but such changes were subsequently found by numerical modeling to be too small to affect clouds3, 10, 11. The proposed explanation for this deficit is that additional aerosols reduce the concentration of the gases from which the particles grow, and a slower growth increases the probability of smaller aerosols being lost to pre-existing aerosols. This has lead to the conclusion that no significant link between cosmic rays and clouds exists in Earth’s atmosphere.
This conclusion stands in stark contrast to a recent experiment demonstrating that when excess ions are present in the experimental volume, all extra nucleated aerosols can grow to CCN sizes12. But without excess ions in the experimental volume, any extra small aerosols (3 nm) are lost before reaching CCN sizes, in accordance with the above mentioned model results. The conjecture was that an unknown mechanism is operating, whereby ions facilitate the growth and formation of CCN. Additional evidence comes from atmospheric observations of sudden decreases in cosmic rays during solar eruptions in which a subsequent response is observed in aerosols and clouds6, 7. Again, this is in agreement with a mechanism by which a change in ionization translates into a change in CCN number density. However, the nature of this micro-physical link has been elusive.
In this work we demonstrate, theoretically and experimentally, the presence of an ion mechanism, relevant under atmospheric conditions, where variations in the ion density enhance the growth rate from condensation nuclei (≈1.7 nm) to CCN. It is found that an increase in ionization results in a faster aerosol growth, which lowers the probability for the growing aerosol to be lost to existing particles, and more aerosols can survive to CCN sizes. It is argued that the mechanism is significant under present atmospheric conditions and even more so during prehistoric elevated ionization caused by a nearby supernova. The mechanism could therefore be a natural explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity13,14,15,16,17 or caused by supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales where the mechanism will be of profound importance18,19,20.
Friday, September 07, 2018
The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing - Whitehouse shows his colors
Here is Jonathan Turley on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
JT is on target. There is too much disingenuous behavior by Democrats - here is JT's case in point concerning Senator Whitehouse.
-------------------------------------------------
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, the start of the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh this week displayed undeniable genius.
Indeed, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island demonstrated just how nimble most members of Congress are in holding diametrically opposed positions without a whiff of self-awareness. He began his opening statement by asking, “When is a pattern evidence of bias?” It was meant to demonize the conservative majority of the Supreme Court as blind ideologues for voting together. This pattern, however, is equally found among Democratic nominees and their supporters.
Whitehouse described a voting pattern of a conservative cabal that he described as the “Roberts Five” of “Republican appointees” who “go raiding off together” and “no Democratic appointee joins them.” He noted his staff discovered that the five conservatives justices routinely voted together and thus displayed obvious bias. Why else, he suggested, would the conservatives vote so often as a five justice bloc?
It could reflect a common view of the law. Moreover, Whitehouse ignored the countervailing “pattern” of those four justices always found in dissent in the same 5-4 decisions. While the voting consistency of conservatives was treated as a vile demonstration of partisanship, the same consistency of liberals was treated as an inspiring demonstration of principle.
Putting aside Whitehouse’s own bias in identifying a pattern of bias, he, like many others, confuse principle with politics. We should want our justices to have consistent voting records based on their views of jurisprudence. The alternative is outcome driven justices who adopt conflicting interpretations to reach the “right” result. To their credit, liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg follow a consistent view of the Constitution, allowing for more evolutionary rights as part of a “living” Constitution. While this view certainly has many detractors over the fluidity and indeterminacy of the underlying rights, these justices have a reasoned and good faith foundation for their approach.
Despite Whitehouse’s refusal to acknowledge it, so do conservative justices. The “pattern” he finds in block voting reflects a consistent interpretation that is largely more textual and static. Both sides have had notable and suspicious departures in their approaches, but they largely adhere to long held jurisprudential approaches. Part of Whitehouse’s evidence was that “in 73 partisan decisions where there’s a big Republican interest at stake, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Damned. Time.”
Of course, many of these cases involve opposing views that would support traditionally Democratic interests. Every. Damned. Time. For example, Whitehouse pointed to the recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME,which overturned a 40-year precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood was a boon for unions in requiring employees to pay a union despite objections to its activities or political campaigns. The decision in Janus also reflected a longstanding view of the First Amendment that such fees constitute compelled speech. That decision expanded protections for free speech. Likewise, Whitehouse cited “bonus decisions advancing far-right social agenda” like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which expanded First Amendment protections of free speech.
Whitehouse cited CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in declaring that “Roberts has served the interests” of the “contemporary Republican Party.” This statement, of course, ignores that the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court supports traditional Democratic interests in the same cases, from supporting mandatory union fees of nonunion members to the denial of free speech rights for corporations in political campaigns. Whitehouse and others simply dismiss any explanation for conservative voting patterns as the result of partisan or extremist ideology.
Whitehouse railed against how this “Roberts Five” majority was secured through secret funding of confirmation and electoral campaigns by groups “with dark money. The identity of the big donors? A deep, dark secret.” Once again, Whitehouse and his colleagues ignore the millions spent by liberal groups with “dark money” sources. Just as conservative groups identified by Whitehouse have funded the campaign in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination, liberal groups did the same to support Elena Kagan’s nomination and to oppose the Neil Gorsuch’s nomination.
The Washington Post details how Demand Justice, a group run by former aides to Hillary Clinton and President Obama, has spent millions to try to block the Kavanaugh’s confirmation by setting up shop within another nonprofit. This allowed it to mask both the names of its donors and their contributions. Likewise, Sixteen Thirty Fund raises unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors for distribution to liberal causes.
Like the voting pattern, the use of the same “dark money” corporations by the left are dismissed while conservative groups are demonized. Why? Because “they” are wrong and “we” are right. Democrats proved equally selective on the question of qualifications. Whitehouse denounced Kavanaugh as a “Republican political operative his whole career, who has never tried a case.” In doing so, he ignored the same lack of litigation experience by Kagan, who additionally had no experience as a federal judge, unlike Kavanaugh with 12 years on the bench. Yet, Whitehouse enthusiastically supported Kagan during her nomination.
Finally, Whitehouse denounced Kavanaugh’s use of “confirmation etiquette” as a “sham.” He demanded that Kavanaugh answer specific questions about his willingness to overturn cases like Roe v. Wade rather than “telling the committee fairy tales about stare decisis.” Yet, such “fairy tales” were happily accepted by Whitehouse and his colleagues when uttered by Democratic nominees. When asked about the case, Kagan replied, “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to presidential weight. The application of Roe to future cases and even its continued validity are issues likely to come before the court in the future.”
Whitehouse seems either blissfully unaware or willfully blind to the clear pattern shown by Democratic appointees. Since both parties show the same patterns, it does not constitute any evidence in distinguishing Republican from Democratic nominees. Ironically, one of the “Roberts Five” is retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been praised by most Democratic senators for his independence and integrity. Kennedy was the “swing” vote not because the four liberal justices swung to him. The liberal justices remained just as fixed as the conservative justices. It was Kennedy who followed a principled path that occasionally took him to the left over concerns for due process or personal dignity.
However, Kennedy’s principled stands did not make his colleagues unprincipled. The four justices to his right and the four justices to his left simply held more unyielding jurisprudential views. You can disagree with those views without seeing a consistent approach as evidence of bias. In other words, what Whitehouse decried in the hearings is actually a pattern of principle on both sides of the Supreme Court.
JT is on target. There is too much disingenuous behavior by Democrats - here is JT's case in point concerning Senator Whitehouse.
-------------------------------------------------
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, the start of the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh this week displayed undeniable genius.
Indeed, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island demonstrated just how nimble most members of Congress are in holding diametrically opposed positions without a whiff of self-awareness. He began his opening statement by asking, “When is a pattern evidence of bias?” It was meant to demonize the conservative majority of the Supreme Court as blind ideologues for voting together. This pattern, however, is equally found among Democratic nominees and their supporters.
Whitehouse described a voting pattern of a conservative cabal that he described as the “Roberts Five” of “Republican appointees” who “go raiding off together” and “no Democratic appointee joins them.” He noted his staff discovered that the five conservatives justices routinely voted together and thus displayed obvious bias. Why else, he suggested, would the conservatives vote so often as a five justice bloc?
It could reflect a common view of the law. Moreover, Whitehouse ignored the countervailing “pattern” of those four justices always found in dissent in the same 5-4 decisions. While the voting consistency of conservatives was treated as a vile demonstration of partisanship, the same consistency of liberals was treated as an inspiring demonstration of principle.
Putting aside Whitehouse’s own bias in identifying a pattern of bias, he, like many others, confuse principle with politics. We should want our justices to have consistent voting records based on their views of jurisprudence. The alternative is outcome driven justices who adopt conflicting interpretations to reach the “right” result. To their credit, liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg follow a consistent view of the Constitution, allowing for more evolutionary rights as part of a “living” Constitution. While this view certainly has many detractors over the fluidity and indeterminacy of the underlying rights, these justices have a reasoned and good faith foundation for their approach.
Despite Whitehouse’s refusal to acknowledge it, so do conservative justices. The “pattern” he finds in block voting reflects a consistent interpretation that is largely more textual and static. Both sides have had notable and suspicious departures in their approaches, but they largely adhere to long held jurisprudential approaches. Part of Whitehouse’s evidence was that “in 73 partisan decisions where there’s a big Republican interest at stake, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Damned. Time.”
Of course, many of these cases involve opposing views that would support traditionally Democratic interests. Every. Damned. Time. For example, Whitehouse pointed to the recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME,which overturned a 40-year precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood was a boon for unions in requiring employees to pay a union despite objections to its activities or political campaigns. The decision in Janus also reflected a longstanding view of the First Amendment that such fees constitute compelled speech. That decision expanded protections for free speech. Likewise, Whitehouse cited “bonus decisions advancing far-right social agenda” like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which expanded First Amendment protections of free speech.
Whitehouse cited CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in declaring that “Roberts has served the interests” of the “contemporary Republican Party.” This statement, of course, ignores that the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court supports traditional Democratic interests in the same cases, from supporting mandatory union fees of nonunion members to the denial of free speech rights for corporations in political campaigns. Whitehouse and others simply dismiss any explanation for conservative voting patterns as the result of partisan or extremist ideology.
Whitehouse railed against how this “Roberts Five” majority was secured through secret funding of confirmation and electoral campaigns by groups “with dark money. The identity of the big donors? A deep, dark secret.” Once again, Whitehouse and his colleagues ignore the millions spent by liberal groups with “dark money” sources. Just as conservative groups identified by Whitehouse have funded the campaign in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination, liberal groups did the same to support Elena Kagan’s nomination and to oppose the Neil Gorsuch’s nomination.
The Washington Post details how Demand Justice, a group run by former aides to Hillary Clinton and President Obama, has spent millions to try to block the Kavanaugh’s confirmation by setting up shop within another nonprofit. This allowed it to mask both the names of its donors and their contributions. Likewise, Sixteen Thirty Fund raises unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors for distribution to liberal causes.
Like the voting pattern, the use of the same “dark money” corporations by the left are dismissed while conservative groups are demonized. Why? Because “they” are wrong and “we” are right. Democrats proved equally selective on the question of qualifications. Whitehouse denounced Kavanaugh as a “Republican political operative his whole career, who has never tried a case.” In doing so, he ignored the same lack of litigation experience by Kagan, who additionally had no experience as a federal judge, unlike Kavanaugh with 12 years on the bench. Yet, Whitehouse enthusiastically supported Kagan during her nomination.
Finally, Whitehouse denounced Kavanaugh’s use of “confirmation etiquette” as a “sham.” He demanded that Kavanaugh answer specific questions about his willingness to overturn cases like Roe v. Wade rather than “telling the committee fairy tales about stare decisis.” Yet, such “fairy tales” were happily accepted by Whitehouse and his colleagues when uttered by Democratic nominees. When asked about the case, Kagan replied, “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to presidential weight. The application of Roe to future cases and even its continued validity are issues likely to come before the court in the future.”
Whitehouse seems either blissfully unaware or willfully blind to the clear pattern shown by Democratic appointees. Since both parties show the same patterns, it does not constitute any evidence in distinguishing Republican from Democratic nominees. Ironically, one of the “Roberts Five” is retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been praised by most Democratic senators for his independence and integrity. Kennedy was the “swing” vote not because the four liberal justices swung to him. The liberal justices remained just as fixed as the conservative justices. It was Kennedy who followed a principled path that occasionally took him to the left over concerns for due process or personal dignity.
However, Kennedy’s principled stands did not make his colleagues unprincipled. The four justices to his right and the four justices to his left simply held more unyielding jurisprudential views. You can disagree with those views without seeing a consistent approach as evidence of bias. In other words, what Whitehouse decried in the hearings is actually a pattern of principle on both sides of the Supreme Court.
Saturday, September 01, 2018
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gets It Wrong
Another example of the anti-gun crowd misrepresenting the facts.
John Lott in the Daily Caller.
-------------------------------------------------------
Word leaked Thursday via The New York Times that Education Secretary Betsey Devos was considering a Texas request to use federal education grants to arm teachers and staff. Of course, people have lots of concerns.
Will there be accidents? Will teachers lose control of their guns? Will students take them? Will insurance premiums go up? Have there been mass public shootings at schools that allow teachers to carry guns?
MSNBC and CNN were upset yesterday at the possibility. The consideration even prompted MSNBC contributor Yamiche Alcindor to bring race into the discussion. She worried: “If you start arming teachers … you could then start seeing statistics where potentially black students are getting shot.
Of course, no facts were offered to back up these fears. If you believe most of the media, it is a fringe idea that hasn’t really been tried except in a few strange, atypical places around the country.
Unfortunately, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, and smaller news outlets across the country have come to this conclusion because they regularly find their facts on state gun laws by turning to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, founded to honor former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) who was wounded in at 2011 shooting.
“That means eight states — Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming — either allow concealed-carry permit holders to carry at schools or don’t otherwise prohibit them from doing so,” as the Washington Times cited the Giffords Center this week.
The Giffords Center says it is theoretically possible for teachers and staff to carry in Alaska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, but in fact no schools in those states actually allow teachers or staff to carry. So they make it look like only five states have experience with teacher carry.
This understandably gives legislators pause. Most don’t like to risk lives on something that hasn’t been tested. After all, they don’t want to be seen as extremist. It also makes fearful speculation more plausible.
Even if things have worked out well in a few states, people will argue that we have simply been fortunate or that those states are somehow different. But if teacher carry works out across the country, that rejoinder becomes a lot less credible.
But the Giffords Center has let their strong views on gun control color the information they have given the media on gun laws in many states. Just yesterday, Gabby Giffords made it clear where her organization stood, saying arming teachers “recklessly puts American children in even more danger.”
She sent out tweets yesterday calling for voters to elect “gun safety champions that understand the foolishness of a plan like [arming teachers].”
In fact, thirty states technically allow for teacher carry, and twenty-one actually have school districts where guns are being carried on school property. Here are states (with links) that the Giffords Center missed that actually have at least some school districts with teachers carrying guns (only a few states keep a comprehensive list of schools that allow this and some schools are reticent to publicly announce their policy):
Arkansas: Clarksville School District
Colorado: Hanover School District, Fleming School District, Briggsdale School District, and “some others.”
Florida: Thirteen school districts have armed administrators, custodians, and non-classroom staff.
Georgia: Laurens County schools
Idaho: “a handful” of school districts
Indiana: As of February 23, 2018, “most don’t, more might start.“
Kentucky: Pike County School District
Minnesota: some do it
Missouri: Crocker School District
Montana: In 2017, Belfry, Custer, and Lima school districts
Ohio: By the end of 2016, over 175 school districts. More have clearly adopted this policy since then.
Oregon: St. Helens School District
South Dakota: Mellette and Tri-Valley Schools
Texas: As of February 2018, there were 172 school districts
Virginia: Lee County School Board
Washington State: eight schools in the Toppenish School District have nineteen staffers carrying.
Alabama, New Hampshire, and Utah have the least restrictive rules. They allow any teacher or staffer with a concealed handgun permit to carry at school. With all of this experience, we don’t need to guess about safety.
Clark Aposhian, the senior member of Utah’s Concealed Firearm Review Board, estimates that roughly 5 percent of the state’s teachers carry permitted concealed handguns. Of the support staff, which includes janitors, librarians, secretaries and lunch staff, 10-to-12 percent also carry. The odds are high that at least one person will be able to stop an attacker.
There has never been a mass public shooting at a school that allowed concealed carry. That isn’t too surprising since there’s now a mountain of evidence that shooters avoid places where people have guns.
In diaries and other statements, killers such as Dylann Roof (Charleston, SC church in 2015) or James Holmes (Aurora, CO movie theater in 2012) have explicitly stated their desire to target a gun-free zone.
In 1996, a young Islamic State sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. The FBI recorded a telephone call in which he explained: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church.”
Do school insurance rates indicate increased risk? “From what I’ve seen in Utah, [school insurance] rates have not gone up because of guns being allowed,” says Curt Oda, former president of the Utah Association of Independent Insurance Agents. Nor has the Crime Prevention Research Center’s survey of five other states shown any increase in insurance costs.
Another common fear is that someone will take away a teacher’s gun and misuse it. But this has never happened. Excluding off-hours firearms training on school grounds, there has only ever been one accidental dischargeinvolving a permit holder on K-12 property. This occurred at a staff restroom in Utah in 2014. The incident occurred outside of school hours, and the one person in the room received only a minor injury.
What we have learned from all this is that concealed carry poses no more risk in a school than in a grocery store, movie theater, or restaurant. Over 17.25 million Americans have a concealed handgun permit, and nobody knows whether the person next to them might have a gun until it is needed.
Understandably, reporters aren’t experts. But they misinform the public by uncritically relying on organizations such as the Gifford Center and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Presenting false information may end up killing lifesaving legislation that will protect our schools.
John Lott in the Daily Caller.
-------------------------------------------------------
Word leaked Thursday via The New York Times that Education Secretary Betsey Devos was considering a Texas request to use federal education grants to arm teachers and staff. Of course, people have lots of concerns.
Will there be accidents? Will teachers lose control of their guns? Will students take them? Will insurance premiums go up? Have there been mass public shootings at schools that allow teachers to carry guns?
MSNBC and CNN were upset yesterday at the possibility. The consideration even prompted MSNBC contributor Yamiche Alcindor to bring race into the discussion. She worried: “If you start arming teachers … you could then start seeing statistics where potentially black students are getting shot.
Of course, no facts were offered to back up these fears. If you believe most of the media, it is a fringe idea that hasn’t really been tried except in a few strange, atypical places around the country.
Unfortunately, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, and smaller news outlets across the country have come to this conclusion because they regularly find their facts on state gun laws by turning to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, founded to honor former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) who was wounded in at 2011 shooting.
“That means eight states — Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming — either allow concealed-carry permit holders to carry at schools or don’t otherwise prohibit them from doing so,” as the Washington Times cited the Giffords Center this week.
The Giffords Center says it is theoretically possible for teachers and staff to carry in Alaska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, but in fact no schools in those states actually allow teachers or staff to carry. So they make it look like only five states have experience with teacher carry.
This understandably gives legislators pause. Most don’t like to risk lives on something that hasn’t been tested. After all, they don’t want to be seen as extremist. It also makes fearful speculation more plausible.
Even if things have worked out well in a few states, people will argue that we have simply been fortunate or that those states are somehow different. But if teacher carry works out across the country, that rejoinder becomes a lot less credible.
But the Giffords Center has let their strong views on gun control color the information they have given the media on gun laws in many states. Just yesterday, Gabby Giffords made it clear where her organization stood, saying arming teachers “recklessly puts American children in even more danger.”
She sent out tweets yesterday calling for voters to elect “gun safety champions that understand the foolishness of a plan like [arming teachers].”
In fact, thirty states technically allow for teacher carry, and twenty-one actually have school districts where guns are being carried on school property. Here are states (with links) that the Giffords Center missed that actually have at least some school districts with teachers carrying guns (only a few states keep a comprehensive list of schools that allow this and some schools are reticent to publicly announce their policy):
Arkansas: Clarksville School District
Colorado: Hanover School District, Fleming School District, Briggsdale School District, and “some others.”
Florida: Thirteen school districts have armed administrators, custodians, and non-classroom staff.
Georgia: Laurens County schools
Idaho: “a handful” of school districts
Indiana: As of February 23, 2018, “most don’t, more might start.“
Kentucky: Pike County School District
Minnesota: some do it
Missouri: Crocker School District
Montana: In 2017, Belfry, Custer, and Lima school districts
Ohio: By the end of 2016, over 175 school districts. More have clearly adopted this policy since then.
Oregon: St. Helens School District
South Dakota: Mellette and Tri-Valley Schools
Texas: As of February 2018, there were 172 school districts
Virginia: Lee County School Board
Washington State: eight schools in the Toppenish School District have nineteen staffers carrying.
Alabama, New Hampshire, and Utah have the least restrictive rules. They allow any teacher or staffer with a concealed handgun permit to carry at school. With all of this experience, we don’t need to guess about safety.
Clark Aposhian, the senior member of Utah’s Concealed Firearm Review Board, estimates that roughly 5 percent of the state’s teachers carry permitted concealed handguns. Of the support staff, which includes janitors, librarians, secretaries and lunch staff, 10-to-12 percent also carry. The odds are high that at least one person will be able to stop an attacker.
There has never been a mass public shooting at a school that allowed concealed carry. That isn’t too surprising since there’s now a mountain of evidence that shooters avoid places where people have guns.
In diaries and other statements, killers such as Dylann Roof (Charleston, SC church in 2015) or James Holmes (Aurora, CO movie theater in 2012) have explicitly stated their desire to target a gun-free zone.
In 1996, a young Islamic State sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. The FBI recorded a telephone call in which he explained: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church.”
Do school insurance rates indicate increased risk? “From what I’ve seen in Utah, [school insurance] rates have not gone up because of guns being allowed,” says Curt Oda, former president of the Utah Association of Independent Insurance Agents. Nor has the Crime Prevention Research Center’s survey of five other states shown any increase in insurance costs.
Another common fear is that someone will take away a teacher’s gun and misuse it. But this has never happened. Excluding off-hours firearms training on school grounds, there has only ever been one accidental dischargeinvolving a permit holder on K-12 property. This occurred at a staff restroom in Utah in 2014. The incident occurred outside of school hours, and the one person in the room received only a minor injury.
What we have learned from all this is that concealed carry poses no more risk in a school than in a grocery store, movie theater, or restaurant. Over 17.25 million Americans have a concealed handgun permit, and nobody knows whether the person next to them might have a gun until it is needed.
Understandably, reporters aren’t experts. But they misinform the public by uncritically relying on organizations such as the Gifford Center and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Presenting false information may end up killing lifesaving legislation that will protect our schools.
How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average
From the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Another example of the anti-gun crowd's lies.
----------------------------------------------
A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.
Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.
It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.
Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.
Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.
Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.
Professor Carl Moody, College of William & Mary offered the following: “This is an important paper. The assertion that the US is responsible for 31 percent of worldwide mass shooters is patently absurd. Anyone who doubts the veracity of Dr. Lott’s analysis is welcome to download, for free and in Excel format, the entire Global Terrorism Database (https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/contact/). There they will find, with a simple back of the envelope calculation, that worldwide since 1970 there have been 58,445 mass firearm attacks. Of these, 402 have occurred in the United States. The US is, according to the GTD. responsible for less than one percent of all mass shootings (0.69 percent) since 1970. Dr. Lott’s calculations are much more carefully done, but Professor Lankford’s analysis is clearly not in the ballpark. Also, social scientists seldom have laboratories. Replication is the only way to verify claims. Any academic who refuses to share his or her data for replication purposes deserves to be shunned.”
Here is Lankford (the left chart) vs. the truth (right chart). Note the position of the US in each chart. On the left, the US stands out as having both high gun ownership and high mass shooters per hundred million people. On the right, the US has high gun ownership and low mass shooters per hundred people.
Another example of the anti-gun crowd's lies.
----------------------------------------------
A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.
Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.
It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.
Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.
Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.
Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.
Professor Carl Moody, College of William & Mary offered the following: “This is an important paper. The assertion that the US is responsible for 31 percent of worldwide mass shooters is patently absurd. Anyone who doubts the veracity of Dr. Lott’s analysis is welcome to download, for free and in Excel format, the entire Global Terrorism Database (https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/contact/). There they will find, with a simple back of the envelope calculation, that worldwide since 1970 there have been 58,445 mass firearm attacks. Of these, 402 have occurred in the United States. The US is, according to the GTD. responsible for less than one percent of all mass shootings (0.69 percent) since 1970. Dr. Lott’s calculations are much more carefully done, but Professor Lankford’s analysis is clearly not in the ballpark. Also, social scientists seldom have laboratories. Replication is the only way to verify claims. Any academic who refuses to share his or her data for replication purposes deserves to be shunned.”
Here is Lankford (the left chart) vs. the truth (right chart). Note the position of the US in each chart. On the left, the US stands out as having both high gun ownership and high mass shooters per hundred million people. On the right, the US has high gun ownership and low mass shooters per hundred people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)