Here are two videos illustrating certain aspects of the left…
…that I wrote about earlier today in this post.
I saw them in this substack article by Jim Treacher.
First one:
Democrat Rep. David Cicilline: “spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights” pic.twitter.com/7mvcbQ6muz
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 3, 2022
The left thinks that’s a great response from Cicilline – for example, see this.
I couldn’t easily find a video that gave a fuller context for the quote, so I’ll just give it this way:
The congressman [Cicilline] complained that Republicans believe people who pose an “imminent danger to themselves and others, such as they might commit mass murder, have a constitutional right to access a firearm. And to deny them that right would, quote, ‘trample on an individual’s due process and second amendment rights.’”
“You know who didn’t have due process?” Cicilline continued. “You know who didn’t have their constitutional right to life respected? The kids at Parkland, and Sandy Hook, and Uvalde and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on.”
“So spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.”
No, of course Republicans don’t want murderers to have guns, and they support not allowing people with certain violent criminal histories to have them. However, many murderers don’t have such a history and it’s extremely difficult to predict who will murder. Republicans also realize there’s no way to keep those intent on aggressive violence from purchasing and owning guns illegally. Therefore very stringent gun laws ensure that criminals have guns and make it hard for the law-abiding to buy guns to protect themselves.
Cicilline knows that, but he’d rather demagogue the issue – and trash the concept of liberty and Second Amendment rights in the process. It shows how nobly determined he is.
Next up we have this statement from Mondaire Jones:
Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY):
"You will not stop us from passing [gun control]. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand. We will not rest until we've taken weapons of war out of our communities." pic.twitter.com/0x3t1aJXBn
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 2, 2022
I wonder how he proposes to get guns out of the hands of the far greater number of criminals in inner cities who kill far greater numbers of people during most weekends. But that’s not his concern. His concern is doing whatever it takes – abolishing the filibuster, packing the Court – to enact gun control for the law-abiding, and he tells us so quite openly and directly.
One result of the Depp/Heard trial…
…may have been to drive a stake into the heart of “believe all women.” See this.
If so, good.
“Believe all women” was always absurd as well as pernicious. Believe all any group of people is absurd and pernicious.
And I refuse to get into the “who lies more, men or women?” debate. Suffice to say there are plenty of liars in each group.
On Ukraine today
Commenter “MBunge” thinks I haven’t paid enough attention to Ukraine lately. This was his snarky effort to bring it up:
Hey! Any body remember that war in Ukraine? You know, the one everybody was so excited about because it was all righteous and what not? Well…
Brahma Chellaney
@Chellaney
·
7h
Zelensky admits Russia now holds one-fifth of Ukraine, the largest country entirely within Europe. What he didn’t acknowledge is that Russia controls Ukraine’s industrial heartland, 90% of its energy resources (including all of offshore oil), and its critical ports and shipping.
I will give MBunge this: I haven’t written about Ukraine in a while.
The rest of MBunge’s comment is the needlessly snarky part: “all excited about because it was all righteous and what not.” What a way of trivializing and mocking what was actually deep deep concern and anguish about the suffering involved, as well as anger at Russia for provoking it (others disagreed and felt Ukraine provoked it, but all were upset by the war). And the “all-righteous” assertion is simply absurd; no one here said Ukraine was “all righteous” and in fact it has been acknowledged over and over that the country has a long history of corruption (as does Russia).
I’ve gone into the history of the two countries, both internal and their history with each other, many times. Suffice to say that neither is “all-righteous,” nor has anyone here said that Ukraine is. However, in this conflict and other recent ones, Ukraine is far more in the right than Russia – far more. MBunge and several others may disagree on that, but to characterize my position or the position of most of the commenters here as “Ukraine is all-rightous and what not” is a mocking mischaracterization.
But as I said, MBunge does have a point in that I wrote a lot about Ukraine and then stopped at least in the last few weeks. The reason is quite simple. At the beginning, there were three big surprises. The first was the enormous scope and ferocity/brutality of the Russian invasion, as well as Putin’s threats. The second was the defiance of the Ukrainians and their willingness to fight. The third was the fact that Europe supported them and to a certain extent has pulled back from its dependence on Russia. All these things were extremely newsworthy.
I had expected Ukraine to crumble from the start; that didn’t happen. But I never made predictions that Ukraine would win in the end – in fact, I steadfastly refused to make predictions and certainly would not have made that one. Most of the people here – and I’m included in that group – couldn’t see any good solution to this conflict. I still don’t.
At first there was some faint hope that internal forces in Russia might be able to dissuade Putin, but very early on it became clear that would not be happening. And I have never joined the chorus of “Putin is very sick and will die soon.” I just don’t see that as likely to be true at all.
It was quite a while ago that Russia stopped its offensive in so many regions of Ukraine and began concentrating on the ones it already had had a strong footing in (for example, ever since 2014, for the eastern regions). Once that happened, the war became less newsworthy in the sense of surprises, because it’s no surprise that when Russia concentrated its forces like that it would have the advantage. It doesn’t matter that the Russian military has such great flaws, it would still do well merely by attrition when it was in a much smaller area.
I still make no predictions, but I still see no good end here at all. I don’t know exactly how it will play out or when. I certainly plan to cover it when something extremely definitive and/or different happens. But till then I expect this slow chipping away at what’s left of Ukrainian sovereignty in the areas in which the fighting is occurring.
MBunge later wrote this (his first sentence is a quote from a comment I had written as a reply to him):
‘I think most people are well aware of it and have been aware for a long time that the next step for Russia would be concentrating on those eastern parts.”
Uh…I kind of think you’re gaslighting me here. There’s no “Ukraine” category on this blog but a search of “War and Peace” finds two posts on the subject in May after 15 in April. And if there’s one thing you CANNOT say about the majority of Ukraine talk here and in general it’s that there’s been much focus on long-term thinking or strategy.
Let’s not pretend that Ukraine has been the subject of a lot of sober consideration or debate. It’s been mostly “rah-rah” virtue signaling.
First of all, let me get one thing out of the way: there is a “Ukraine” tag on this blog, as well as a handy search function. When you do a search for “Ukraine” you get this. It’s a list of all my posts that mention the word. The first in line are those that have the word in the title, and then the next group contains all posts with the word in the body of the post but not in the title. They are listed in reverse chronological order for each group. They are 18 pages of posts (not all of them recent, of course). I believe that 12 posts are listed on each page (not sure and not interested in spending loads of time finding out). You do the math – that’s a lot of posts.
Take the first post in that list, and you’ll see that at the end of it there are tags and one says “Ukraine.” If you click on that tag, you’ll get relatively recent posts that I’ve tagged as being about Ukraine, four pages of them. I didn’t have the tag function until a few years ago, so the tagged posts for that topic only go back to 2019.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’ll respond to the rest of MBunge’s snarky comment number two. He wrote, “if there’s one thing you CANNOT say about the majority of Ukraine talk here and in general it’s that there’s been much focus on long-term thinking or strategy.” In fact, that’s one thing I can say, and I’ve said it before. I purposely didn’t focus – unlike a lot of writers – on troop movements and specific battles, or talk about specifics at all. With just a few exceptions, I purposely focused on the big picture: right and wrong, whether “winning” was possible and what that might look like, whether a war should be fought when things look dire, Europe’s and the world’s reaction, and what Putin might or might not be thinking and intending in the long run.
MBunge also wrote, “Let’s not pretend that Ukraine has been the subject of a lot of sober consideration or debate. It’s been mostly ‘rah-rah’ virtue signaling.” I can speak for myself, but I also think that for most commenters here, Ukraine has actually been the focus of an enormous amount of sober discussion and debate. No one here is “virtue-signaling” that I can see. That may indeed be occurring on the part of some people who as a kneejerk response post Ukrainian flags on their Twitter accounts, or something of the sort. But you won’t see that here and you haven’t seen that here, not from me or from the vast majority of commenters.
But yes, it was time to address Ukraine again. And so I have. I’ll add that I think this article published today on Ukraine is well worth reading. I haven’t finished it – it’s long – but I recommend it from what I’ve read of it so far.
Why is the left so ruthless and so determined to take power and keep it forever?
Commenter “T-Rex” asks a question:
“The left is ruthless, committed, and determined.” There is no denying this. But, why? I can’t wrap my head around why they want to so much power and control. I look at those people and can’t understand what is lurking within them to be so steadfast in their determination. For what end? Do they even know or are they merely tools of other powers? And as to the legions of fellow travelers, do they not understand that they, too, will end up in the gulag? Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
We’ve discussed this sort of thing here before, but it’s always a good question and I’ll try to give a succinct answer.
“The left” is composed of three groups, one with two subgroups and therefore a total of four. Actually, maybe it’s more than that, but these are the main ones I see.
(1) Political operatives. They are the people who are the most “ruthless and determined.” This is the group with the two subgroups.
(a)The first is composed of people who want to control other people. They want to be in charge, they want power, and their political positions are merely a means to that end. Leftism couched in idealism is a good way for them to appeal to other people in order to gain power over them. They are not believers in much of anything except power.
(b) The second subgroup within group (1) actually believes that, if the left comes to power, humankind (and the planet, maybe even in the opposite order) will be much better off. The right is evil and will destroy us. That’s where their impetus to power comes from: to do good. Beware.
(2) This group is composed of those who are convinced of the message of group (1b). Put those people in power by contributing money to them and voting for them, and the world will be a better place. This group – the voters and supporters of group (1) – are not really aware of the existence of group (1a). Or if they are aware of it, they think it’s just a minuscule number of people and besides, those people are working in the service of the Good in their pursuit of power and so what harm can they do?
No, they do not consider themselves tools of anyone and no, they don’t think they’ll end up in a gulag. And it’s by no means clear that they will end up in an actual gulag a la the USSR. Today’s gulags are more like Huxley’s Brave New World: mind-control enabled by technology, and ostracism and destroyed livelihood (and on occasion imprisonment) the punishment.
Also, although some of these people are well aware of history, they interpret it differently. In addition, many are ignorant of history, a growing problem as time went on and our education system became dominated more and more by the left.
(3) These are people who vote for liberal policies because they believe it is in their direct and immediate interest. In other words, they get things they consider benefits from it, mostly economic (such as welfare and other monetary benefits) but sometimes other things (abortion, for example) to which they want access. Many do not think about the larger questions very much; they find the more pressing concerns to be something much more imminent in their lives.
Same answer as in (2) for whether they expect to end up in a gulag.
The Founders tried to keep power out of the hands of the federal government. They realized that these groups of people exist and will always arise. They also realized that they could not design a government that would protect the American people indefinitely from the vagaries of human nature. But the Founders could try their best to postpone it as long as possible.
Almost from the very start, there have been forces chipping away at the edifice they built. Has the day of reckoning finally come, and has America’s luck on that score run out?
Open thread 6/3/22
This can’t be a real live monkey. It’s got to be a child in a costume – right? Right??
The Tulsa hospital shooting
A chilling mass murder has played out in Tulsa:
Tulsa police said a gunman charged into the second floor of the Natalie Building at St. Francis Hospital at 4:52 p.m. Wednesday, opening fire and killing four victims. Police also said the suspect died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The Tulsa Police Department identified the victims as Dr. Preston Phillips, Dr. Stephanie Husen, Amanda Glenn and William Love. They also identified the suspect as Michael Louis.
Tulsa police Chief Wendell Franklin said during a news conference Thursday that Louis underwent back surgery performed by Phillips on May 19 and complained of pain after being released from the hospital. Louis contacted Phillips’ office several times over the coming weeks and met with Phillips for additional help…
Police said officers found a letter on Louis making it clear that he wanted to kill Phillips and anyone who got in his way. He blamed Phillips for causing the pain following the back surgery.
The MSM is playing up the angle that the gun had just been purchased, but other aspects of the story don’t really meet their needs. Both gunman and the orthopedic surgeon who was his main target are black. It is an unusual situation in which the target was a doctor and the complaint was failure to relieve pain.
Obviously, there was more going on with the perp; there are plenty of pain patients and they almost never kill their doctors. I would like to know more about what actually happened in terms of pain relief, however: what medication the killer had been given and how much, was it usually adequate for pain relief, and what his prior history was. Did he have a drug problem? Was he having an idiosyncratic mental/emotional reaction to the drug that might have increased his aggressiveness?
So far I’ve been unable to find anything about those issues, but as a long-time chronic pain patient I am very very curious. Thankfully my pain has been quite minor in the last twenty years or so, but for about fifteen years before that (and prior to a surgery that really helped me) it was fairly severe and sometimes extremely severe. Along the way I met many doctors and many many chronic pain patients, both online and in person. Some of them were very angry, although certainly none of them were physically violent about it. Some of them seemed under-medicated, probably by doctors who were afraid of addiction, and some of them seemed over-medicated (were some faking? Perhaps). The entire issue of pain medication is a confusing quagmire.
None of this is meant to excuse this murderer in any way. But these are issues that especially interest me, and I would welcome some more information about that aspect of the case. However, because this incident can’t be used quite as effectively as some for propaganda, I predict it will fall off the radar screen quickly.
Some have tried to use it that way, however. For example, I’m surprised this tweet is still up there:
We can't even process one mass shooting before the next occurs.
Today’s atrocity in Tulsa happened on the 101st anniversary of the Tulsa Black Wall Street massacre. White Supremacy is clearly a factor.@JoeBiden https://t.co/78xXaUXR2W— Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn (@AMBichotte) June 2, 2022
RIP to the victims.
The left’s war against conservative DAs investigating election fraud, and against lawyers who would defend conservatives
Please read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
The left has developed a powerfully coordinated legal election effort under the leadership of left-wing lawyer Marc Elias. In recent years, he has successfully brought together a coalition of left-wing nonprofit groups to work in conjunction with each other on elections. It’s a brilliant plan considering the left now dominates much of the legal system to give him victories; in urban areas they have more judgeships, they dominate state bars which are responsible for attorney discipline, and they run the biggest, most powerful law firms.
A Gramscian March through the legal institutions.
More:
Now they’re coming after elected attorneys too. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who has been out on the forefront investigating election fraud, had 12 bar complaints filed against him and his staff by radical activist Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs over election issues. He beat them, but she will just figure out reasons to file more; continue to throw mud until something sticks. The Arizona State Bar is one of the most vicious bars in the country. I work as a reporter, and can rarely get comments for my articles from conservative attorneys in the state due to their fear of retaliation.
The State Bar of Texas is going after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, suing him for investigating election fraud in the 2020 election. Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for breaking election laws by implementing voting changes during the COVID-19 pandemic without the approval of state legislators. SCOTUS rejected his request 7-2 for lack of standing, a sign that it wasn’t completely without merit. So now the bar is alleging he violated a catch-all, vague rule of professional misconduct prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
The left is ruthless, committed, and determined. And even in relatively conservative states, apparently the bar associations are not conservative at all. That’s why some attacks on conservative lawyers are accomplished through the bar.
As the author of that article, Rachel Alexander, writes:
It’s easy to get left-wing run state bars to disbar conservative attorneys, because it’s not a jury of Americans that decides; it’s either a left-leaning bar judge or panel stacked with left-wing attorneys, plus occasionally a token member or two from the public.
The writer goes on to describe how a Virginia lawyer who represented some January 6th protesters was disbarred that way. Other lawyers – these are not AGs, mind you, but lawyers – who represent conservatives, as well as Trump’s lawyers, have been targeted too.
It used to be that both sides respected the legal system and the need for every defendant to have a lawyer, even a defendant on the opposite political side. The left stopped subscribing to that principle quite some time ago. To them – based in part on being taught Marxist-based approaches such as Critical Legal Studies and its philosophical descendants – law is a power struggle, pure and simple. And in a power struggle the left will employ every weapon that it can find.
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are…
Open thread 6/2/22
On opening doors and closing doors at Robb Elementary
“Old Texan” asks a question:
Were there not firemen also on the scene [at Robb Elementary], lots of emergency back up perhaps with the ‘jaws of life’ which are are a hydraulic-extrication rescue tool used in a number of difficult emergency situations, particularly car crashes. I would think they could crush that door and frame open in seconds.
“Chases Eagles” answers that the proper equipment for the task might be a K-tool and Halligan bar, but it takes about 6 seconds even for a trained team, long enough for them to be shot.
I found this article stating that all 38 firefighters in Uvalde came to Robb Elementary on getting news of the shooter. It’s an all-volunteer group, and so they all have day jobs. It doesn’t say when they arrived – obviously they didn’t all arrive at once if they were coming from a host of other places. They may have arrived rather late in the game. It also doesn’t say what equipment they had.
One problem I’ve seen discussed elsewhere is that firefighters break down doors when there is a fire, but they are not trained to do so in a situation in which they are taking hostile gunfire from behind that door. I’m not sure how that would be done.
Some people say they should have risked their lives, and even risked almost certain death. But doesn’t it take a while to enter a door that way – maybe even more than 6 seconds – and wouldn’t they have to stand in front of the door or very near it for that time? And that’s of course assuming they had access to those tools and had trained people available at the time, and that the firefighters were aware the problem was the door. If firefighters trying to do that are killed, what good does that do anyone? Why should a bunch of firefighters die as well, all to no avail because it wouldn’t mean that they could get into the room any faster?
Is the goal to be seen to do something, even if it’s not productive or if it’s even counterproductive and suicidal?
Here’s a video on how to pull hinges from a metal door. It takes quite a while, as you can see, and it makes a lot of noise that certainly could be heard by the perp at Uvalde. It seems it would have been suicide for the firefighters to have tried this. And it also depends on the hinges being on the outside. If you want to see how it’s done with inside hinges, here’s another video. It takes a long time and a lot of effort as well, and the firefighters have to stand right in front of the door while they do it, making a lot of noise. To me – and I freely admit I’m the opposite of an expert on this – that again makes it seem like a suicide mission that would not produce the desired ends of the removal of the door.
Perhaps if all 38 firefighters had tried to do it, each pair after the other being killed and then a new pair taking their place, it could have been accomplished? Or maybe not? Is that what is demanded by some people – even though the shooting of the children had long ago stopped (and, however, delays meant it was possible or even likely that children were dying who might otherwise be saved)? And that assumes that those in charge knew the firefighters were there and that they had access to the proper tools. Firefighters regularly risk their lives, but do we require them to knowingly go on a suicide mission that probably has little chance of success?
And by the way, in case you’re wondering – it was reported that the shooter was able to shoot cops through the door and had already grazed the first responders that way, and this explains that metal doors do not stop bullets.
On another topic related to doors at Robb Elementary, the teacher who had propped the outer door – and then closed it again although somehow it didn’t lock – is now reported to have tried to make sure the door was locked behind her:
[Her lawyer Flanary said] “She kicked the rock away when she went back in. She remembers pulling the door closed while telling 911 that he was shooting. She thought the door would lock because that door is always supposed to be locked.”
Flanary added that the teacher even remembers pulling and holding onto the door — which has a horizontal push bar — while on the phone with 911. At one point as she headed back to her classroom, the 911 call dropped and she texted family that the gunman was inside the building and then that she could hear police.
And about another door at the school – I’ve already mentioned this in a previous post, but if you missed it and are wondering how the gunman got into the classrooms where he killed the teachers and students, one of the surviving students from that class has said that the teacher got an order to lockdown (perhaps in an email, but I think it may have been a text) and went to the classroom door to lock it and at that exact moment the gunman appeared and entered the room, shooting and killing the teacher and then the children.
Yellen admits she was mistaken about inflation
On the one hand, at least Yellen admitted she got it wrong.
On the other hand, I don’t think that serious inflation was actually a difficult call. I’ve often said that economics is very far from my field of expertise, but even I was aware that inflation was very likely, and long ago it appeared it was no transitory fluke. So her error was actually pretty egregious.
And of course they are making all sorts of excuses:
A Treasury Department spokesperson told FOX News, “The Secretary was pointing out that there have been shocks to the economy that have exacerbated inflationary pressures which couldn’t have been foreseen 18 months ago, including Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, multiple successive variants of COVID, and lockdowns in China. As she also noted, there has been historic growth and record job creation and our goal is now to transition to steady and stable growth as inflation is brought down.”
The article says that a lot of people on Twitter are calling for Yellen’s resignation. As far as I’m concerned, she can stay put, because any replacement would almost certainly be far worse than she has been.
