Today’s NARN

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air!

I’l be on from 1-3PM today this afternoon. 

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1440, and Brad Carlson is normally heard on “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 2-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

Here Be Dragons

It’s hard to think about warfare in the past century without conjuring up the image of the tank.

Today’s main battle tanks – nearly impregnable to any weapon that faces them on land – are like the land-battleships they were intended to be, 100 years ago.

British “Challenger II” main battle tanks. A Challenger scored the longest-ranged tank to tank kill in history – 5,000 yards. That’s three miles. With a first shot.

Some wars have involved vast fleets of tanks duking it out, in the desert…

Israeli “Patton” Tanks – US-built M-60s – maneuver across the Sinai in 1973.

…and the sub-arctic…

A British “Scorpion” “tank” (actually a light scout vehicle) in the Falklands in 1983.  Although mostly intended for covertly snooping around enemy positions in Europe, it was heavier than anything the Argentinians had brought to the Falklands, and so may as well have been the above-mentioned Challenger II.

…and on the steppe.

German “King Tiger” tanks – the most powerful tank of World War II – at the Battle for Berlin.

Of course, at times the legend of impregnability was an illusion; beneath the hide of hardened steel, they were vehicles full of fuel and explosives and far-from-impregnable men.

An American “Sherman” tank, blown literally to pieces by an internal ammunition explosion. Those sides that are peeled open are 1.5-1.75 inches thick. The turret weighs something like five tons.

Today’s main battle tank is like a formula 1 car compared even to tanks from the 1970s; todays’ American M1 Abrams…

A pair of M1 Abrams tanks.

…is powered by turbine engine, has a laser range-finder integrated into a digital fire control system that allows it to score first-round kills while moving, against moving targets, at ranges well over a mile, firing hypervelocity rounds with tungsten or depleted-uranium cores that can slice through armor like it’s cardboard at ranges well over a mile.

Soviet-built T-72 tank, destroyed by an American tank round that drilled through the sand berm, and then through the armor.

And the concept got its first shakedown 100 years ago today.

Continue reading

Deplorable Her!

“So what is it that makes half of Trump supporters so ‘deplorable’, to put it in Herself’s own words”, I ask some of my “progressive” friends.

Is he anti-immigrant?  Well, anti-illegal-immigrant, yadda yadda, sure.

And there’s a shopping list of other complaints.  And I may even echo a few of ’em.

But the one I hear – whispered conspiratorially, as if they’ll get spanked if they’re heard saying it – is “some of them are birthers“.

To which I respond “Then he’s in splendid company”.

The screen grab below is from a 2007 memo from Clinton strategist Mark Penn, essentially urging her to go “birther” on Obama, who was still well behind in the polls.

screen-shot-2016-09-14-at-11-08-05-am

Clinton was the original “birther”.

Oh, the “fact check” industry among the media’s pet Democrats says it’s not true – by dint of the fact that Hillary has never physically been busted at a Birther rally, herself, in person.

But even “Factcheck.org” admits that it was Herself’s supporters who were the original…

…well, deplorables.

It’s Still Way Too High

Trust in the mainstream media hits an all-time low:

A major pollster has some stark news: “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year,” writes Art Swift, an analyst for the Gallup poll, which first asked the nation to weigh in on the press in 1972.

“Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72 percent, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal,” Mr. Swift said.

The sentiment has fallen slowly and steadily, and has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

14% of Republicans still trust the media – which means I still have work to do.  51% of Democrats trust the media – which is confirmation bias in action if I ever saw it.

Open Letter To Every Single Movie Ticket Website

To: the owners of every single movie ticket website
From: Mitchell Berg, cranky consumer
Re: Huh?

All,

I went out on your website – which one doesn’t matter, because you’re all pretty much the same – last night to try to buy a ticket to “Sully”.

Ticket prices are insane – I get that.

But below the ticket price, you added a two dollar “convenience fee”.

For two dollars, I’ll stand in the line for 40 seconds. I shut off the browser and went to the Riverview Theater to see “Blazing Saddles”.

But I had a brilliant idea. Stop charging the “convenience fee” to buy the ticket. But start selling concessions online, have them ready at a “will call” window for concessions when I get there, and I will pay the two dollars not to stand in line for my damn popcorn..

See to this.

That is all.

It’s Just The Normal Noises In Here

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Minnesota election law requires party delegates at the convention to designate electors and alternates.  Minnesota Republicans failed to do that at their convention so party big-shots designated some afterwards.  Democrats correctly pointed out this duct-tape fix failed to comply with the law and asked the Supreme Court to strike Trump’s name from the ballot.

The Secretary of State objected that early voting starts in 11 days and they’ve already printed a million ballots so it would cost a fortune to change the ballots now. The Supreme Court decided the Democrats had waited too long to bring the challenge and ruled against them based on the ancient equitable doctrine of laches.

 Laches?  Laches?!? That’s Republicans’ ace in the hole?  That’s their big defense? 

 Laches is one of those kitchen-sink defenses you throw into the Answer when you’re totally desperate and have no defense on the merits of the case.  It’s for losers and scoundrels and weasels.  A major political party trying to get a Presidential candidate onto the ballot shouldn’t be relying on laches.

 They really are the Stupid Party. 

 Joe Doakes

But why did the DFL file the suit – which, but for logistics and the appeal to, ahem, laches, might have succeeded?

Michael Brodkorb, newly at MinnPost, breaks that down.   Short story short; there are people who get paid to be cynical about things like rules.

Report Card

Frank Drake is running and extremely aggressive, and fairly tart, campaign against Keith Ellison in the fifth Congressional District.

Will it work? I saw the 1980 Olympic hockey team; I do believe in miracles. I’m a Republican in the inner city, so I have to.


Anyway – Drake provides a list of Keith Ellison’s “accomplishments” in office:

Top Keith Ellison accomplishments:

1) I promise to end these wars, and not start any new wars.

2) Minneapolis is now a UN sanctuary city funded by Minnesotans.

3) I can show up anywhere, and I’m the story.

4) The DNC was impartial. That’s why “Keith’s for Hillary” now.

5) Who’s this Frank Drake dude anyway?

6) Community Action of Minneapolis was a great front and money laundering operation until it was seized by the Government for fraud. Bill Davis remains a trusted advisor. President Obama will pardon him before leaving office.

7) Marijuana remains a Class 1 Narcotic, just like Heroin.

8) Keith Ellison was never involved, in any way, with the overthrow of Syria or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

9) Unemployment is low, especially in our urban centers. That 4.5% Unemployment Rate is true, despite 1/3 of all Americans not working. Over 94,000,000 Americans don’t work.

10) Our Government is in the business of War. Private prisons are a growth industry.

11) My ideas are proven in Venezuela and many controlled economies.

Keith Ellison’s ideas resonate like a frying pan dropped from a five-story building hitting the pavement.

Drake has a way with words that we could use a lot more of an inner-city Republican politics.

A Good Guy With A Gun

Two men attacked a woman in a WalMart parking lot in Shawnee, Kansas, hitting her in the head.

An unarmed man attempted to intervene.  The assailants shot him.

Another Good Samaritan – armed with a legally-owned firearm – responded, shooting and killing one of the attackers (some emphasis added by me).

Police said the second man ran off. Police originally believed they captured the second suspect using a K-9 officer, however, that person was not connected with the incident. Police are working to identify the second suspect at this time.

The good Samaritan who was shot and the woman who was injured were both initially listed in critical condition. The woman has since been released from the hospital. The good Samaritan who was injured had surgery Sunday night. He is being identified only as a 33-year-old Kansas City, Missouri resident. The second good Samaritan, a 36-year-old DeSoto, Kansas man, was interviewed by police and released.

Interviewed and released.  Written between the lines; he was carrying legally (Kansas has Constitutional Carry), and the shoot was righteous.

Prayers for the good samaritan who didn’t have the means to deter being shot.

And for the good samaritan who did.  Right though he seems to have been (and events will no doubt vindicate him completely), it’s as traumatic for a righteous shooter as anyone.

The Right To Remain Befuddled

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

 

Hilary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn’t recall details of her email server, security clearance, briefing details.  Trump supporters say she’s still suffering from the concussion in 2012.  I say her inability to recall is not evidence of absent-mindedness, it’s a criminal defense necessity in a politicized law enforcement environment and she knows it, first-hand, from prior experience.

 Remember Scooter Libby, convicted because he “lied” to the FBI about who “outed” Valerie Plame to him?  Libby didn’t “out” Valerie Plame – that was Richard Armitage, which the prosecutors knew all along – but they were digging into who told who.  Libby claimed he learned it from Tim Russert, who denied saying it. 

 Even the Wall Street Journal concluded the entire case was a political witch hunt based on false evidence and a colossal waste of money.  But Libby remains a disbarred convicted felon.

Hillary is smart enough to know you NEVER say anything, NEVER remember anything, NEVER concede anything to the cops. 

Which is not the same as saying she doesn’t actually remember.

 Only that she can’t be convicted.

 Joe Doakes

Deplorables Like Us

Hillary “regrets” the “gross generalization” of saying:

“…you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
She added, “And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”
Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”

Candidate says something stupid on the campaign trail that the media gingerly reports during the weekend news dump, and quickly walks it back Saturday? Dog bites man.

Democrat noise machine (non-profit and mainstream media divisions) leap into action to support the “gross generalization” within hours, waving polls of deeply suspicious origin about?

Dog licks dog.

Here’s the problem with the “gross generalization”; Hillary Clinton doesn’t take a dump if it’s not part of a plan.  This was no accidental “gross generalization”.

The other problem?  The things she accuses the “irredeemable deplorables” of are nice and non-specific; each deserves a section in the DFL Dictionary (more later this week.    They resemble nothing so much as Article 76 of the Soviet Constitution – which basically covered nonspecific crimes against the state that weren’t articulated anywhere else – sort of an extrajudicial wild card.

Question government “human rights” policy?  Or even debate that racism is anything but a social construct of white Americans? You’re racist!

Point out the bias built into domestic abuse law, or even question the result of modern feminism?  You’re sexist!

Stand for traditional marriage?  You’re a hatefui homophobe!

Advocate caution and protecting our economically disadvantaged with immigration policy?  You’re xenophobic and probalby Islamaphobic!

Are you in the irredeemable half of the “not voting for Hillary” public, or not?

Depends on where they need you to be.  Only they know for sure.

Hillary’s “generalization” was a slander of half the American people.

Lessons In Leadership

One of the great lessons in leadership?  Express caricaturish contempt for those you’d like to have follow you:

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said, according to CNN. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

For “the most qualified candidate in history”, she seems to have a fuzzy grasp on how you lead people.

I don’t recall Ronald Reagan referring to a quarter of the people as “irredeemable government teat-suckers”.

Voter Suppression

In perhaps the most bald-faced violation of Berg’s Seventh Law in history, the DFL – which is constantly whinging about phantom claims of “voter suppression” – is actively trying to disenfranchise half of this state’s electorate in the Presidential election.

DFL Chair Ken “Dwight Schrute” Martin is sueing to keep Donald Trump off the Minnesota ballot in November, over an absurd, abstruse technicality in election law:

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party’s Thursday lawsuit claims the Minnesota Republican Party failed to nominate its presidential electors, the people who cast the state’s 10 electoral college votes, in accordance with state law. Keith Downey, the chair of the Minnesota Republican Party, said last month that the party called a special meeting to approve alternative electors because it had previously neglected to do so.

screen-shot-2016-09-09-at-11-14-36-pm

One of these people is imitating Mussolini. The other was a character on a hit TV show.

The suit, which was filed directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court, adds a new level of chaos to an already strange election season. It could cause the parties to spend some of the rushed final eight weeks of the election fighting in court, distracting from other campaigning. While the suit is a technical one, if successful, it could affect the entire presidential election.

If the DFL wins – and one would think even Minnesota’s absurdly liberal Supreme Court couldn’t possibly be that obtuse – then long-time friend of this blog Dave Thul had a great idea; every conservative should vote for Jill Stein, and make the Greens a major party in Minnesota, sapping DFL votes for at least the next four years and drawing money from the DFL’s graft pool.

There’s also a part of me that hopes Martin “wins”.  This – the most baldfaced example of corruption masquerading as law I’ve seen in my lifetime – would stand a good chance of opening an epic floodgate of support for Trump, or at least against Hillary’s party.

The Right Profile

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

When Jacob went missing, Democrat Governor Rudy Perpich called out the National Guard to search for him.  No other kid gets that kind of treatment – Amber alerts hadn’t even been invented.  Why that kid?

 Because Patty Wetterling was connected. And she’s stayed connected – and in the spotlight – for all these years.  Now we’re supposed to leave our porch lights on for her.

 She suffered a terrible loss, no doubt about it.  But what about all the other moms who didn’t get celebrity media treatment?  100 kids a year go missing in stranger abductions.  They don’t have foundations.  They don’t have media coverage.  They’re not connected.  Nobody remembers them.

 I’m not objecting to the compassion shown to Patty Wetterling.  I’m objecting to the lack of compassion shown to everybody else who isn’t as politically connected.  Once again, there are rules for politically connected Democrats, and different rules for the rest of us.  That’s awful.

 Joe Doakes

It wasn’t two years after Wetterling’s disappearance – and three weeks after the birth of my own daughter – that Margaret Marques disappeared.  She was kidnapped, molested and murdered by a store clerk who is, God willing, the bitch of a very lonely sadist in prison.  The Minneapolis Police did a capable job of catching the scumbag; but the eight year old daughter of immigrants passed from the news fairly quickly.

This isn’t to take anything away from the work the Wetterling foundation has done and still does, to minimize or politicize their tragic loss – Joe Soucheray is right, we do owe the Wetterlings something – or to wish anything but a very very different background had befallen Jacob and his family.

But would the family have gotten the kind of leverage they did if they were just a regular bunch of central Minnesota schlubs?

Faces Gone Black, Eyes Burning Bright

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air!

I’l be on from 1-3PM today this afternoon.  We’ll talk about:

  • Jacob Wetterling
  • Ken Martin’s voter suppression effort
  • 9/11
  • And much more…

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1440, and Brad Carlson is  heard on “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 2-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

The Raj

Dana Loesch once noted via subtitle that “you can’t govern a country you’ve never been to”.  I might add that it’d be hard for the mainstream media to cover a nation none of them understands – but that’s another article.

The easiest way to govern people that you never see, and don’t care to bother to understand, is to tell them what they really want and need.  And the American Left is doing that via the notion that the great mass of Americans in largely-red “flyover land” – the expanse between the Hudson and the Sierra Madre that America’s political and major media classes regard with such frigid fear – consistently “vote against their interests” by voting Republican.  The phrase “voting against their interests”, where “they” are people you don’t know, whose lives and values you don’t understand, used to remind me of a zookeeper wondering why the cats in the panther exhibit turned up their nose at Panther Chow – but that underestimates both the panthers and the zookeepers.   It’s really more like the relatoinship between plantation owners and their serfs – but not that kind of plantation owner, y’understand.  No, the kind that cares about his/her serfs, and wants to do right by them, and who is hurt when they, being unruly knaves, spurn his/her benificence.

And being good plantationers, they occasionally try to understand their subjects.

Of course, those attempts invariably fail – run aground on their patronizing, condescending, usually classist assumptions.

The NYTimes bestseller list first saw this phenomenon with the best-selling What’s the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Franks, in which the writer – a Kansan who fled the state for New York – prescribed a generation of Kansans (and by extension other flyover staters) becoming, or at least voting like, Ivy Leaguers.

I personally saw it in Gail Collins’ inadvertently comical trip to Williston, in which she looked at the roughneck oil-town environs through her Park Avenue contact lenses, and in the documentary “The Overnighters”, which pounded oil workers into sociology-class stereotypes with the energy of a Nigerian metalsmith turning an oil drum into a cook stove.

So when a Berkeley sociologist1 Arlie Russell Hochschild goes to rural Louisiana  to chronicle the lives of Tea Partiers, you’d think you could predict the results.   The book is called Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, and it’d seem you’d be right. No, I’ve not read it, and likely won’t.  But the surprise is in the review itself, in the Washington Post, whose article on the book is titled “A Berkeley sociologist made some tea party friends — and wrote a condescending book about them“.  

I’ll invite you to read the whole thing.  But this reminded me of Gail Collins standing in the line at McDonalds in Williston:

When she lands in Louisiana, Hochschild realizes, “I was definitely not in Berkeley, California. . . . No New York Times at the newsstand, almost no organic produce in grocery stores or farmers’ markets, no foreign films in movie houses, few small cars, fewer petite sizes in clothing stores, fewer pedestrians speaking foreign languages into cell phones — indeed, fewer pedestrians. There were fewer yellow Labradors and more pit bulls and bulldogs. Forget bicycle lanes, color-coded recycling bins, or solar panels on roofs. In some cafes, virtually everything on the menu was fried.”

Dear God, no yellow Labs or solar panels? How do you live?

And I’m trying to imagine this bit here…:

Hochschild preps for her conservative immersion by reading “Atlas Shrugged,” because we know tea party types are into that. “If Ayn Rand appealed to them, I imagined, they’d probably be pretty selfish, tough, cold people, and I prepared for the worst,” this acclaimed sociologist writes. “But I was thankful to discover many warm, open people who were deeply charitable to those around them.”

…had Hochschild changed her subjects from rural whites to Urban blacks, and Ayn Rand to Malcolm X.  

She’d never do lunch in Berkeley again.

The second American Revolution will be against our fellow Americans.

Halo

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Ad Hominem logical fallacy is an attack on the speaker’s credibility, rather than on the facts at hand.  A Liberal using that fallacy would say: “His opinions are wrong because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless whether he’s correct on the facts.”  

 I want to know the word for the opposite of Ad Hominem, where a Liberal would say: “His opinions are correct because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless of whether he’s right about the facts.”

 I thought of Appeal To Authority but that’s where the authority actually is an authority, for example, citing Paul Krugman as an authority on economics.  It’s still a logical fallacy because it substitutes Krugman’s opinion for proof of the facts at hand, but it’s not quite the right fallacy.

 I’m thinking of the Liberals saying Obama is Black and therefore Obama-care must be good, anybody who opposes him must be evil, based on his skin color and not on the merits of the proposal.  He’s not an actual authority on health insurance so Appeal to Authority is the wrong fallacy.

 I was reminded of it by the recent article on Thug in Pastels starring Javier Morillo, who advocates the same ideas as any Left-Wing union stooge but from the unimpeachable position of a Gay Hispanic man.  Liberals treat him as if his opinions are right because of who is expressing those opinions.  He’s untouchable, so his opinions are untouchable, whether or not they’re correct on the facts.  What’s the word for that?

 Is it the Halo Effect? 

Joe Doakes

Figuring out the logic of the left could keep an army of philosophers busy for years.

Follow The Trail

Fearless Prediction:  If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, Black Lives Matter will disappear faster than you can say “Hands Up Don’t Shoot”.

Reason for my Fearless Prediction:  Given its funders, it’s bald-facedly obvious that Black Lives Matter largely exists to inflame the black vote for an election where the Democrats will be fronted by a geriatric woman, rather than an black man.   While it’s not strictly an arm of the Democrat party, it may as well be.

Evidence:  BLM has come out against charter schools – an institution whose most passionate supporters in the Twin Cities are in fact black families.  So much so that their controversial Saint Paul organizer, Rashad Turner, is resigning from the group:

Rashad Turner, who led Black Lives Matter St Paul for nearly two years, says he is leaving his position after the national Black Lives Matter organization joined forces with the NAACP to call for a moratorium on charter schools….Turner says public schools not only have a bad record of staff assaulting black students [to say nothing of consigning them to an inferior education – Ed.], but offer less options for black families, stating, “I think that this moratorium really takes away the student voice, it takes away the parent voice, because we’re seeing families in increasing numbers want to attend charter schools.”

Mark my words.   Budget cut to zero by January.

Number Six

With the tragic resolution of the Wetterling case, we’re starting to see the inevitable flurry of calls for the return of the death penalty to Minnesota; it’s the same flurry we see after every grisly, heart-wrenching crime.

I’ve said it before; I support the death penalty for every reason but one.  And it is, unfortunately, an absolutely dispositive reason.

We’ll come back to that.

Walter Hudson, in PJM, attempts to debunk the five most common conservative objections to the death penalty.  I’ll list ’em; you can read ’em yourself:

  1. Government can’t be trusted
  2. Death is not an adequate punishment
  3. It’s cheaper to keep them alive
  4. Death is not a deterrent
  5. Life is precious.

And he does a good job with those five arguments.

But he – like Dennis Prager before him  – misses a sixth argument; the inevitability of executing innocent people.

Executing someone who was innocent of the crime for which they were condemned is the ultimate moral crime, presuming it’s avoidable.  And it is 100% avoidable; life in Supermax (from which nobody has ever escaped) is both absolute and, when an error is inevitably discovered, reversible.

Of course there are cases like Heinrich and Dahmer that are easy slam dunks. It’s the difficult cases, with circumstantial evidence and lots of moving parts, that make it difficult. Ignore them at your peril.

Now, to be fair Walter obliquely alludes to this in his first point about government incompetence:

Why have government at all? If they can’t get anything right, why trust them with any of it? This is silly. If people are being wrongly convicted, let’s stop that! We don’t fix that problem by nerfing sentences.

Walter states this as an “if”.  It’s not.

And it’s not just about government incompetence; there’s human nature, and even the foibles of “settled science”  as well.  For example, it‘s a dead lock that Cameron Todd Willingham was executed wrongly for the arson murder of his two kids – not because government was incompetent, but because it very competently prosecuted Willingham based on science that turned out to be completely erroneous.   Everyone knew that Arson science was “settled” when Willingham was convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  Today, everyone knows that the old science was complete twaddle.

Now – go through the records of people who were convicted based on “hair strand analysis”, which was considered as solid as DNA in the sixties through the eighties, and is regarded as little better than phrenology these days.

Think about it.

Given the emotional, financal, political and legal realities of death penalty cases – they’re extremely emotionally charged, evidence is frequently circumstantial, the political benefits of executing people are large, the public defender budgets are small – it is inevitable that corners will be cut.

Next, Walter commits what I consider “taking a moral shortcut” – the old “wouldn’t you rather be  dead than in jail if you’re innocent?” question, which you’ll note is only asked by people who aren’t facing the business end of a needle, rightly or wrongly:

How is it better for someone to be falsely convicted to a life sentence than to be falsely convicted to a death sentence?Either way, it’s a false conviction. Are we to regard the world as a better place because an innocent person might spend his life in prison rather than be executed? Is that really the standard?

Yes.  It is standard, and a very good one.  The world is a better place, because an innocent person who might have been dead is still alive, still protesting his or her innocence, still has a chance to right the wrong against them – and all of us.

How about we focus on minimizing mistakes? How about we focus on making sound convictions?

Sure – let’s!

Except “mistakes”, incompetence, hubris, corruption, bad science, and just plain human error – are always with us.  Thinking we can just think them out of existence is magical thinking.  Appeals to magical thinking are appealing responses to ethical conundrums – like saying “how about we make cars perfectly safe before we build more roads”.  But innocent people have been, and inescapably still are, on death row today – because of bogus evidence (do you have any idea how many death sentences are based on evidence from jailhouse snitches looking for better deals?), or crummy defense, or unscrupulous prosecutors, or even good prosecutions in good faith based on evidence derived from science that turns out wrong, as in Willingham’s case.

So sure – let’s focus on making sound convictions.   But let’s not pretend that that’s an answer to mistaken executions, or that it’s a question that can be answered.

That seems like a much better plan than settling for a world where innocent people spend their remaining years in hell, and guilty people don’t get what they deserve.

Over 150 people have been released from death row in the past 43 years. Not given new trials – released from Death Row to the streets because they didn’t commit the crimes for which they were condemned.

I’ve heard of none of them bemoaning the fact that they’re alive rather than dead.

There are dozens of flimsy arguments against the death penalty, and many good arguments for it…

…and one argument against it.  And that argument is all it takes.

The Diversity Scam

Studies are starting to show what our lying eyes have been telling us all along; force-feeding “diversity” to people makes things…less diverse than if it merely organically.

Why is this happening?

Well, the money, sure; pimping diversity is an epic make-work program and graft opportunity for the Social Justice industry:

But it goes way beyond money.

Turmoil and turbulence create ideal opportunities for asserting power.   Poking at “fault lines” – and race was a fault line that was getting relatively stable until fairly recently – creates opportunities to accrete political power.

Which leads, inevitably, to more money.