Read it.

Recently I wrote about why Washington gridlock is probably not the only reason Congress did not pass any of President Barack Obama‘s request for funds to fight Zika. It seems that lawmakers have not appreciated the severity of the Zika threat thus far.

Uh, dude? Not every problem is a problem for Congress, okay? Unless it’s a seriously contagious disease, it’s a local problem.

“Ron Klain was the White House Ebola response coordinator from October 2014 to February 2015. He is now an external adviser to the Skoll Global Threats Fund.” Ah, I see. His income depends on there being no local problems. Well, that’s good to know.

Somewhat annoying to find crap like this in the Wall Street Journal.

Christina Hoff Summers, in usually-reliable Voice of the Crust Time magazine, draws the line.

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women….

The Other McCain is not surprised.

The feminist remake of Ghostbusters has predictably failed at the box office. After opening at No. 2 its first weekend ($46 million gross in the U.S., behind The Secret Life of Pets), last weekend the ‘busters went bust, tumbling all the way to No. 5 ($21 million). This was a one-week decline of 54% in ticket sales, and three new films, including Star Trek Beyond, joined The Secret Life of Pets ahead of Ghostbusters. In its third week, however, Ghostbusters slid further, falling to No. 8 Friday, according to a Box Office Mojo estimate. To understand just how bad of an overhyped flop this is, compare Ghostbusters to Hotel Transylvania 2.

What? You’ve never heard of Hotel Transylvania 2? This G-rated animated comedy sequel opened last September with $48 million in gross domestic receipts its first weekend, which made it No. 1 at the box office. For the next two weeks it was in second place, and Hotel Transylvania 2 remained in the top five all the way to early November. In its first five weeks, the film grossed more than $150 million.

Read it.

Of course. Who ever heard of a right-wing comic? The best one could hope for is somebody like George Carlin who, while left-wing, poked fun at many of the pet tropes of the left like environmentalism.

Read it.

Emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee reveal that Nicholas Confessore suppressed information about Hillary Clinton’s victory fund in an article he wrote about Bernie Sanders. The New York Times political correspondent made the omissions at the request of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Marc E. Elias, and DNC officials.

The emails, published by Wikileaks, also appear to show that Confessore made other edits to the article at the request of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. After Confessore’s revisions, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach suggested that the DNC Chairwoman grant an off-the-record interview to a group of New York Times writers.

My, what a surprise. Aren’t you surprised? I’m sure surprised.

David Cole is having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

In a normal election year, it would be big news: one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the U.S. fooled by a small cadre of internet trolls into publishing a completely false piece about a GOP presidential candidate. In a normal election year, a story like that would dominate the conservative news cycle for several days at least. Raging Glenn Beck types would demand that the editors explain the reason for the complete abandonment of journalistic ethics that led to the massive error, and there would probably be calls for the reporter responsible for the piece to be fired.

Hell, in a normal election year, a story like that might even seep into the mainstream news cycle, with “media critics” wailing like Björk over the decline of newsroom standards and practices.

But this isn’t a normal election year, as if anyone needs me to point that out.

Well, some people appear to need reminding from time to time.

Speaking of that, who is this intrepid sleuth wearing the fedora with an index card saying “press” neatly tucked into the fabric band? Why, it’s none other than ace millennial newshound Caitlin Dewey. Dewey is The Washington Post’s “digital culture critic.” She earned her bones as a star reporter through years of hard work—tiring nights walking a beat, pursuing leads that often went cold, uncovering graft and corruption at the highest levels of society. Just kidding; she won an essay contest sponsored by The New York Times in which college students were asked to describe their last breakup.

Wow. Here’s your replacement for the SATs. (And I’m sure she pronounces it ‘Kate-Lynn’ rather than the correct Irish ‘Kaht-leen’.)

Regarding U.S. presidential elections, what if everything we know is wrong? What if someone did everything the “wrong” way, and what if that person still won? If Trump wins, the rules will never again be respected as they were. An entire class of political hacks will lose their jobs, fatally exposed as naked emperors. So I don’t want Trump to start doing things the “right” way, or to become “presidential,” or coherent, or “kind and gentle,” or toned down, or “friendlier.” I want him to continue tweeting idiotic memes while pissing on the idea of creating a functioning ground game in swing states. I want him to continue to make funny faces, and to sling childish insults, and to say in an insulting way something that a more “serious” candidate would sugarcoat for wider acceptance. I want the son of a bitch to act as unpresidential as humanly possible. I want The Washington Post and every other “paper of record” to keep attacking him, and I want the conservative establishment to join in.

Pass the popcorn.

Read it.

Perhaps the true measure of how far a society has slipped into the abyss, is not by looking at what people say, but instead, looking at what people are not allowed to say.

Read it.

‘Coded racist language’ is Academic for ‘he hasn’t said anything racist so we have to make it up’.

As a wise man once said, ‘If you can read the code, then you’re the racist.’

Yeah, you know it isn’t and I know it isn’t but what would the mainstream media (not to mention the lefty kooks) say about that if a Republican did it? Oh, wait, they already did….

John Hinderaker pulls back the curtain.

The Associated Press was once a straightforward, relatively nonpolitical news source, but those days are long gone. Now some of the most hard-core Democratic Party advocacy comes from the AP. Thus, it is no surprise that the AP is trying to advance the Democrats’ narrative that Trump is a bigot.

…

“Coded racial language” is big on the left, but note that so far, the AP hasn’t quoted a single word that Donald Trump actually said. Not one. The AP goes on in the same vein, quoting Trump’s far-left critics, but never citing any of Trump’s own words.

…

There is much more along the same lines; read it for yourself if you like. The next day, July 23, the AP came out with another anti-Trump racial smear: “Energized white supremacists cheer Trump convention message.” It is more of the same: Trump doesn’t actually say anything about race, but we liberals will tell you what he really means.

Read it.

The Democratic convention has arrived. If they only go positive, they can get a bigger bounce than the small one it looks like Republicans got. That’s before considering their news media advantages, which the WikiLeaks emails in last week prove are just as intentional as the Right has thought for years. They weren’t just feeding stories to impressionable journalists, but the more enthusiastic partisans were sending stories to the Democratic National Committee for pre-publishing approval.

Take a deep breath and try not to be distracted by the phrase ‘a media’. (These people went to college, although you’d never know it.)

Read it.

Some of Hillary Clinton’s contemporaries who helped shatter glass ceilings in their own professions are exasperated that their female friends aren’t planning to help elect the country’s first woman president.

“I am never going to speak to you again unless you vote,” lifestyle entrepreneur Martha Stewart said she told a female friend in her 60s who plans to stay home Election Day.

You’d think it was the Miss America contest. Apparently it doesn’t occur to these ‘glass-ceiling breakers’ that the Presidency is an actual job with actual requirements and actual duties that are actually important. Just having two X chromosomes isn’t enough.

“We as women should be so proud that there is a strong and viable candidate,” said Ms. Stewart, a Clinton supporter. “Yet there are women who are not even thinking about her as a woman. They are just listening to criticisms of her that she is a liar.”

Perhaps whether she is a liar is more significant than whether she is a woman? Just maybe?

Read it.

Angela Gibbins, Head of Global Estates for the cultural relations organisation, which is partially funded by the taxpayer, made the comments in response to a photo on social media captioned: “I know he’s only two years old [sic], but Prince George already looks like a f****** d***head”, according to The Sun.

Posting a message beneath the picture of the young prince, she reportedly wrote: “White privilege. That cheeky grin is the innate knowledge he’s royal, rich, advantages and will never know any difficulties or hardships in life”.

Feel the love.

In response to criticisms online, the 52-year-old Ms Gibbins is said to have responded: “I’m sound in my socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

Yet another right-wing hater. Oh, wait….

Now, imagine what would have happened had she said that about some black kid.

Read it.

Though they haven’t yet completed covering things up, Hillary Clinton’s journalistic defense team at the Associated Press has swung into gear at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Read it.

The Washington Post isn’t good at being subtle when it comes to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It’s quite easy to figure out which one is the Democrat, simply from the photos and photo illustrations they chose on the last two Sundays.

My, what a surprise! Aren’t you surprised? I’m sure surprised.

Read it.

I’ve written before about the study of Arthur Webb and Paul Kench regarding the fact that coral atolls are not being swallowed by rising seas. Their conclusion in that study was that the claims of sinking atolls were contradicted by the actual measurements of the islands in question. The measurements showed the islands were mostly either growing in size or staying the same (emphasis mine)….

Read it.

I had the privilege of carrying out field research among the Baluchi tribes of Iran.

However, anthropologists, including those studying the Middle East, gradually moved away from a scientific perspective toward a more subjective and politicized view. They were influenced in part by Edward Said, who in Orientalism (1978) argued that Western accounts of the Middle East were fabrications invented to justify imperialist invasion, colonial imposition, and oppression of local peoples. This “postcolonial” view blames Western imperialism for myriad problems worldwide, a view that neglects the cultures and agency of people around the globe.

This intellectual revolution has infected anthropology (among many fields) with a dangerous, self-contradictory nihilism that rejects the possibility of objective Truth toward which we may move and posits many different truths held by different peoples — all equally valid. Yet they behave as if their belief in many truths must be treated as The Truth that must not be questioned.

Read it.

That’s a win in my book. Now he knows how we feel about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Bloomberg Business Week, Voice of the Crust, carries the water.

When Peter Thiel has the first move in a chess game, he lifts his e2 pawn, the fifth from the left and the one directly in front of his king, and advances it two spaces. It’s an aggressive tactic, putting the bishop and queen into play, which is why Thiel likes it.

Note that this traditional ‘pawn to King 4‘ move is how an overwhelming majority of chess games start. Warning! Thumbsucker ahead!

His status as ringleader of the PayPal Mafia, the network of former employees and co-founders that includes SpaceX’s Elon Musk and LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, makes him one of Silicon Valley’s most influential and admired figures; his iconoclastic politics make him a subject of amusement. Not coincidentally, and disconcertingly to many of those close to him, Thiel is also one of Donald Trump’s most prominent backers.

When he was just another gay tech CEO, presumably fashionably progressive, he was one of the crowd; endorsing Trumjp, however, makes his politics ‘strange’. All Hail the Narrative!

Read it.

Professor Gregory Jay’s personal website is devoted almost entirely to questions of whiteness and racism, with some whole essays on topics of “whiteness studies” addressing questions like “who invented white people?”

Needless to say, the guy is himself white. One is strongly tempted to say ‘You first’.

Imagine what the reaction would be to someone advocating the ‘abolition of whiteness’. Then find the racist in this picture.

Read it.

As it was clearly intended to do.

‘Index I took from old Vladivostok telephone directory.’

Read it.

You can’t make this shit up.

There are three respects in which Pokemon Go is regarded as racist by those in the know in the BLM movement. The first respect, is that it’s much safer to play Pokemon Go, which requires you to walk around your own neighborhood; if you’re white and living in your own neighborhood. Second, if you’re black and you play Pokemon in Beverly Hills, chances are the police are going to stop you, question you and see what you’re REALLY up to.

The third respect in which Pokemon Go is racist is that you can set yourself up as a white Avatar, hunting down and collecting–or shooting–the black monsters in your own neighborhood.

Bet you didn’t know that.

Read it.

The New York Times continues its uninterrupted string of lectures on how you ought to do things their way.

What most people picture when they think of flour — that anonymous chalk-white powder from the supermarket — is anathema to Jones. Before the advent of industrial agriculture, Americans enjoyed a wide range of regional flours milled from equally diverse wheats, which in turn could be used to make breads that were astonish­ingly flavorful and nutritious. For nearly a century, however, America has grown wheat tailored to an industrial system designed to produce nutrient-poor flour and insipid, spongy breads soaked in preservatives. For the sake of profit and expediency, we forfeited pleasure and health. The Bread Lab’s mission is to make regional grain farming viable once more, by creating entirely new kinds of wheat that unite the taste and wholesomeness of their ancestors with the robustness of their modern counterparts.

This may seem to contradict the usual ‘progressive’ attitude that what is old is bad and what is new is good. But it really doesn’t — it is founded in the deeper ‘progressive’ attitude that what we do now is inadequate so we have to change. This allows ‘progressives’ to make noises that in any prior century would suggest deep-dyed right-wing reactionary attitudes. Let them eat cake is okay so long as it’s understood that it is locally-sourced artisanal cake using heritage strains of flower and gluten-free, which only the 1% could possibly afford.

Read it.

For a while I thought we were re-living the 1970s, with Carter era stagnation and weakness. Now we seem to be moving back in time to the 1960s. That was when the Democrats first tried to claim that “law and order” is code for racism. The Democrats lost that one. It turned out that Americans really do care about upholding the law, and really are opposed to crime.

So now the Democrats want to re-enact their losing strategy, believing, apparently, that this time it will win for them. If I were a Democrat, I would attempt an intervention. But I am not a Democrat, so I am happy–well, not happy, since the whole thing is inexpressibly sad–but willing to let them go down the same sterile path to defeat.

As a wise man once said, ‘If you can hear the dog whistle, you’re the dog.’

Read it.

For a fail-safe indicator of media bias, it’s hard to beat labels. The little words the reporters stick in to describe institutions often turn out to tell more about the bias of the reporters and news organizations than about the institutions to which they are being applied.

A good recent example — a good example, but bad journalism — of this phenomenon comes in a news article by Patricia Cohen that appears in the business section of the New York Times under the headline “What Trump and the G.O.P. Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich.”

Ms. Cohen mentions three research organizations or think tanks in her article. One, the Tax Policy Center, is a joint venture of two center-left organizations, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Ms. Cohen refers to it as “the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.”

Two others, the Tax Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, are also nonpartisan, but they are on the center-right of the ideological spectrum. Ms. Cohen refers to them as “the conservative American Enterprise Institute” and “The conservative Tax Foundation.”

Got that? The Times describes the center-left think tank as “nonpartisan,” but it describes the center to center-right think tanks as “conservative.”

Read it.

If you relied on accounts by the mainstream media of the Chilcot Report regarding Britain’s decision to participate in the toppling of Saddam Hussein, you might easily conclude that it supports the “Bush-Blair lied, people died” narrative so cherished by the left. You wouldn’t know that the Report actually rejects this claim.

This account by Steven Erlanger and David Sanger of the New York Times doesn’t say so. Neither does this account by Geoff Witte of the Washington Post. He claims that the Report “offer[s] official validation to the views of the Iraq War’s most ardent critics.” But those critics insist that Bush and Blair lied. The Report finds otherwise.

Witte also asserts that “the report will give ample ammunition to the war’s toughest critics, including those in Britain who have called for war crimes charges to be brought against Blair.” Witte doesn’t even try to explain how the Report’s finding might support a war crimes charge. Witte is simply indulging in leftist rhetoric (and, perhaps, wishful thinking).

Hey, if it doesn’t fit the Narrativ e, it’s not really ‘news’.

Gavin McInnes connects the dots.

As the chaos unfolded late Thursday night in Dallas, I was struck by how many members of the media insisted the protest was peaceful and we have to remain calm. Who are these people, my high school teacher? I’m tuning in to learn how many cops are dead. My reaction to it is none of your business.

The reason these reporters were acting like teachers is that’s how they see themselves. They don’t just report the news, they Voxplain it. Of course, the problem with thought control is you need to keep correcting the course. First they tell us “racism is alive and well” and we should be disgusted with our country, but when that starts a riot, they backpedal and tell us we’re overreacting. This is how socialism works. You circle-kick the pendulum away from a problem and when it goes smashing through the cuckoo clock, you scramble to swing it back the other way. The clowns on TV went to Cultural Marxism school so they’re not trained journalists. They’re trained socialists. This means they’re experts at propaganda and controlling the populace while having little or no interest in the truth.

Read it.

About a year ago there was the usual fanfare about a new study that purported to show that hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for natural gas led to unsafe levels of local air pollution and increased cancer risk. Newsweek covered it, for example:

Living near to active fracking sites could increase the risk of cancer as the process harmful chemicals into the air, a new study has found.

Researchers from Oregon State University (OSU) and the University of Cincinnati found that hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, releases polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are linked to cancers and respiratory diseases.

The study found that moving just one mile away from active sites reduced the levels of the dangerous chemicals in the air by up to 30%.

Well guess what, mom? The study has been retracted. Not corrected or revised, but fully retracted because a “spreadsheet error” resulted in completely incorrect findings.

Read it.

You knew it had to happen. Black snipers shoot cops in Dallas and it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.

Funny how all of the violence at Trump rallies is caused by Hillary supporters. That includes the guy who tried to assassinate Trump.

Read it.

The BRG’s response “acknowledges that political speech is free and protected,” though there is a but in there, enabling the BRG to condemn the messages:

As a group, though, we are committed to the idea that political speech is open, engaged, and part of a public debate. These seemingly connected reports suggest a pattern of using the idea of political speech to target specific members of the Skidmore community with biased messaging. As such, the BRG does not interpret these messages as political speech but as racialized, targeted attacks.

The hysteria is similar to chalking incidents revealing pro-Trump messages at universities across the country in the spring, which is when the messages appeared at Skidmore. The overreaction from the first message at Emory University led to a contest in which numerous schools participated with chalk messages of their own.

As a wise man once said, ‘If you can hear the dog whistle, you’re the dog.’

Read it.

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

Steve Sailer scratches his head over Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The various mainstream media frenzies over Donald Trump are becoming increasingly bizarre. For example, today’s seizure was over a Trump tweet about Hillary’s crookedness, which became widely seized upon by pundits as proof of Trump’s virulent anti-Semitism.

Why?

See the red star highlighting the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”

It’s a … six-pointed star!

Obviously, Trump is using the red star to subliminally point out the fact that, as everybody knows, Hillary Rodham Clinton is Jewish!

Everybody does know that, right?

What? … Hillary’s not Jewish? … Really? …

Okay, never mind …

Hey! But what about red being the Jewish color?

Oh. I see.

As a wise man once said, ‘If you hear the dog whistle, then you’re the dog’.

Read it.

And why should they? It’s more important to value diversity and study people of color and transgenders.

Read it.

Hint: It didn’t work.

The hit Disney kids’ movie Zootopia about a city where talking lions lie down with talking lambs came across to me as something that must have started out culturally rebellious but then got throttled by the test marketers and executives into the usual You-Go-Girl fare.

Here the creative team talks about their original vision, which is pretty great: the prey have subdued the predators with “tame collars” that shock the predators any time their predatory instincts start to kick in (much like the Ludovico Technique does to Alex in A Clockwork Orange). The hero fox, Nick Wild, discovers when a doctor temporarily removes his collar that he feels free and happy. So he comes up with the idea of a Chompers Only speakeasy / amusement park, Wild Times, where predators can get their collars illegally removed and enjoy their innate selves.

In A World Where white guys are publicly resented, incessantly, for still having much of the talent, it’s not surprising that the talented are getting tired of being the rhetorical punching bags just for being white guys. This surreptitious rebellion of the talented explains a lot about what’s going on.

Read it.

Did I say “ignorant”? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. If so, the party of accepting reality must be prepared to take on the party of denying reality, and its enablers among those who know better. If that is the coming realignment, we should embrace it.

Unfortunately, this is not from The Onion. These people are serious.

Read it.

Now that Ben Rhodes has confessed that the Obama administration’s narrative about an Iran in which “moderates” wield significant influence was “largely manufactured” for the purpose of selling the nuclear, you might think that the mainstream media media would stop peddling this narrative. You might think that at least the New York Times, which broke the story of Rhodes confession, would stop doing so.

You would be wrong.

Read it. And watch the video.

The #Brexit hasn’t just captivated the news over the weekend, it’s led to all manner of apocalyptic scenarios being painted by folks sympathetic to the REMAIN position.

My favorite so far? Rachel Maddow’s long monologue on her Friday show, where she effectively argues that the only thing standing athwart World War III is the European Union. Take a peek (and take a chill).

Update: The embedded vide0 (and its link) appears to have disappeared from the article, and I’m not wading through a week of Rachel Maddow to find it. (I’ll do anything for love, but I won’t do that.)

Read it.

Worldwide, liberals are convinced that conservatives are poor and uneducated. Here in the U.S., any survey will tell you that on average, Republicans are better educated and have higher incomes than Democrats, and can answer more questions about public policy issues correctly. It doesn’t matter: ask a liberal, and he will tell you that conservatives are poor and uneducated.

…

In Europe, anyone with reservations about mass immigration is “far right.” This attempt to rule debate about immigration out of bounds has been a serious mistake. Note, too, that liberals will never admit that conservatives have arguments against unrestricted mass immigration. It is always a matter of “fear.”

Read it.

Do not be fooled by the title of this publication, ‘Business Insider’ — they have very little to do with business. What they are Inside is the Crust, and they are one of the most reliable Voices of the Crust on the Internet. (Such publications love to adopt titles that suggest that they are businesspeople talking to businesspeople, whereas they are actually ‘progressives’ talking to their base.)

This sort of headline, from the Peter Jennings school of ‘journalism’, is meant to suggest that voters are too stupid to know what to do, which is why the Crust needs to provide some ‘adult supervision’ and save them from themselves. It usually isn’t quite this blatant, but these occasional flashes of honesty lets you peer behind the curtain and see the guy working the dials and levers that make all of the noise and smoke.

Read it.

Perhaps because the ‘journalists’ in the Drive-By Media all think it’s a good idea?

‘Dog Bites Man’ is never news.

Read it.

CBS thinks it amazing that an American citizen could — again, legally — purchase a semi-automatic rifle in the state of Virginia (not a machine gun, bazooka, or fully automatic Uzi) after . . . well, after doing everything you’re supposed to do in order to legally buy a semi-automatic rifle in the state of Virginia.

“Throughout most of America, you could go into a gun store and buy an AR-15, just like you’d go into a Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee,” UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told CBS.

Actually, no. By CBS’s own account, the producer 1) provided two forms of identification to prove state residency, 2) a passport to prove U.S. citizenship, 3) filled out the required state and federal forms reporting her name, date of birth, social-security number, and past criminal convictions or restraining orders (if any), and finally 4) passed a federal background check.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had to do any of that when buying a cuppa joe at Starbucks.

Jason Richwine speaks truth to sleaze.

Do you have a political opinion that you wish would get more traction? Here’s some cynical advice: Call it a “public-health issue.” It’s the quickest way to seize the mantle of Science, which these days is the ultimate moral high ground. Remember, you’re not a political activist — you’re just a scientifically informed citizen with a concern about public health.

Yeah, right.

The American Medical Association (AMA) upped the ante on Tuesday by formally declaring gun violence a “public-health crisis” [my emphasis] and reiterating its support for various gun control measures. Unfortunately for the AMA, affixing the “public health” label on an issue adds no value to the debate. Most political issues have some relationship to people’s health, but that doesn’t mean that Science automatically comes down on one side or another. The AMA’s declaration is another exercise in science-gilding, which is the covering of one’s political beliefs with the veneer of scientific objectivity.

I looked for their calls for further research into cars, airplanes, and motorcycles, not to mention alligators in Florida, but (oddly enough) didn’t find any.

Supporting waiting periods and background checks, as the AMA does, is not a “medical” position. It’s a political one, and it remains a political position even when an organization with a fancy professional name adopts it.

I’ll say it: More junk science from the modern clerisy

If the AMA politicizes guns, on what issues can it be trusted at all?

Hint: Damned few; and only those that (surprise!) deal with actual medical matters.

Steve Sailer reads crap so that you don’t have to.

If I do text searches on the NYT Editorial, I come up with:

“Muslim” — zero

“Islam” — zero

“immigra” — zero

Read it.

“Enough talking about being tough on terrorism; actually be tough on terrorism. Stop making it as easy as possible for terrorists to buy assault weapons,” Obama said.

Obviously, Obama has never tried to buy an ‘assault weapon’. (Not that anybody would sell him one.) Besides, he wouldn’t pass the background check.

None of his proposals would make it more difficult for terrorists to get (not buy) ‘assault weapons’; they would just make it more difficult for normal Americans to buy such weapons to defend themselves.

‘Actually be tough on terrorism’ means getting rid of potential terrorists, who overwhelmingly happen to be (wait for it) Muslims.

(Student loonies who shoot up schools and movie theaters aren’t ‘terrorists’ — they have no political agenda, and aren’t trying to terrorize people — they’re just loonies.)

Read it.

It was a race to see which Democrat politician could say it first.

Republicans’ refusal to consider tougher gun laws makes them “complicit” in the nation’s mass shootings, Democratic leaders charge in the wake of the shooting in Orlando.

“These 49 victims joined a long list of victims and families that are hurting because their Congress will stand for a moment of silence but do absolutely nothing,” Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Tuesday morning after a closed-door meeting of the group in the Capitol.

“They would rather these events just continue to happen, I guess. I don’t know what the answer is,” Crowley added.

I do. Get rid of the Muslims who are actually committing these crimes.

Donald Trump does, too. That’s why they hate him.

Read it.

Especially when the obvious answer is off the radar of everybody asking the questions, because CrimeThink.

The chief question being asked by the Crust, of course, is ‘How can we blame this on white people? Or Republicans? Or both?’

Read it.

Check out this stunning statement from an Erratum published in the January 2016 edition of the American Journal of Political Science:

The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.

In plain language, they exactly reversed the results. According to the actual results of the study, Liberals are more authoritarian. Conservatives were inclined towards “social desirability.”

Read it.

Hoo-wee, the New York Times will really have to extend itself to top the boner and mother-of-all-corrections at the American Journal of Political Science. This is the journal that published a finding much beloved of liberals a few years back that purported to find scientific evidence that conservatives are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness, and that the supposed “authoritarian” personality of conservatives might even have a genetic basis (and therefore be treatable someday?). Settle in with a cup or glass of your favorite beverage, and get ready to enjoy one of the most epic academic face plants ever.

Steve Sailer blows the whistle.

I first wrote about why Crop Rot Fever is an evergreen media assignment back in 2006.

…

In contrast, the lowest unemployment rate at the moment is in Ames, Iowa (2.0%), where a different agriculture productivity model prevailed.