Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2014

I feel that this quote should be sent to every member of Congress.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Sarah Palin gives interview about new faux hunting show, Fact calls her CPAC speech mooseshit, while Jimmy Fallon mocked the fact she plagiarized Dr. Seuss.

Courtesy of Access Atlanta:

 Politician turned pundit Sarah Palin says vegetarianism "is an old Indian word for poor shot" in a new interview appearing in the April issue of the magazine Guns & Ammo. 

She also shares wisdom from her father, who advocated taking children on hunting expeditions. "I'm really blessed that all my kids love a rugged outdoor lifestyle," she says. 

You know that whole "Indian word for poor shot" joke is as old and used up as Palin's lady parts.

Oh and by the way we call them Native Americans today.

For the record there is virtually nobody in Wasilla who has ever known Sarah to hunt, and seasoned hunters who have seen her hold a rifle all agree she could not hit the side of a barn if the barrel were pressed up against it. I have little doubt that his interview will be chock full of the same fake family mythology and bullshit as ever other one she has ever given.

Speaking of bullshit, here is what reported about her comments about Obamacare at CPAC: 

Sarah Palin told her fellow conservatives at CPAC that “there are more uninsured today than when Obama began all of this,” referring to the Affordable Care Act. But there is no evidence of that. Annual Census surveys show the percentage of uninsured Americans in 2010, when the ACA became law, was 16.3 percent. It dropped to 15.7 percent in 2011 and 15.4 percent in 2012. Gallup surveys show the percentage of uninsured Americans hit a five-year low in the first two months of this year. 

It is too early to determine the full impact of the ACA, but the fact is that the percentage of uninsured Americans has been on the decline since the law took effect — and, conversely, the percentage of the insured has increased. Congressional budget experts project that the law will reduce the number of the uninsured by 13 million by the end of this year. 

The Census Bureau’s annual Current Population Survey shows 16.3 percent of Americans were without health insurance in 2010, when the law took effect. Since then, the rate has fallen to 15.7 percent in 2011 and 15.4 percent in 2012. (The raw numbers have gone down, too, from 50 million uninsured in 2010 to 48 million in 2012.) 

As for the state of the “uninsured today,” which was Palin’s time frame, Gallup regularly conducts a survey called the Well-Being Index of more than 28,000 Americans. On March 10, Gallup issued a press release on its latest survey that carried the headline, “U.S. Uninsured Rate Continues to Fall.” The survey, which covered Jan. 2 to Feb. 28, shows the percentage of uninsured Americans hit a new five-year low at 15.9 percent, down from 17.1 percent in the final quarter of 2013. 

By the end of 2014, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the law will reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 13 million people. The report says there will be 25 million fewer uninsured Americans in 2024 because of the law.

In other words, piles and piles of Palin's signature brand of moose poop. 

In fact the Affordable Care Act is doing quite well, and one can only imagine how much better it would have done if the conservatives had not been pissing on it from the moment it was passed, and had actually worked to help make it more successful.

But what am I saying, that would have meant doing something good for their constituents.

Now in the comedy arena Palin provided much inspiration, especially for Jimmy Fallon.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Now what does this remind me of?

You know I often get blowback when I refer to religion as superstition.

I have never understood that.

After all this is the definition of superstition:

1: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation 
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

So how is that definition any different than religion? Or to the definition provided above for myth? 

Saturday, March 01, 2014

The hypocrisy, it burns.

This was posted on Palin's Facebook page earlier today.

The idea that a group of people, who literally started their own news channel so that they could be protected from facts that do not meet their ideology, think that it is liberals who do not entertain other points of view is so ridiculous that I don't know if laughter or pity is the appropriate response.

 After all it is not the fault of liberals that facts tend to have a liberal bias.

And let's not forget that this is from the Facebook page of Sarah Palin, a woman who gets all of her points of view from whichever hand is shoved up the back of her shirt and working the  string attached to her mouth hinge.

The only thing that would shock liberals about this ignorant Right Wing bomb thrower would be watching her stand in front of a real reporter, and answering actual questions without having to read them off of a teleprompter, off her hand, or from cue cards flashed to her by RAM from the crowd.

P.S. By the way isn't it nice to see that Keith Olbermann is still getting under their skin after all this time?

And don't you miss this? "That woman is an idiot."

Thursday, January 02, 2014

The Math of the Great Flood

Courtesy of the YouTube page:  

I was surprised to find very few places where the math of Noah's flood was discussed, so I made this video to illustrate the scale of what the bible describes. Seeing it calculated out makes the myth seem a lot more fantastical and less feasible. After researching this video, it became clear to me that the people who wrote this myth originally did not understand how outlandish their claims were at the time, because they didn't know how big the planet was, or how tall the highest mountain was, or how many species there are, or what that much rain looks like. Once you do the equations, you can see that this is all made up. For the ignorant desert tribes during the time of Gilgamesh, there was no danger that anyone would call the authors out, but the people of modern times have no excuse for blindly accepting it.

The fact that the Creationist use Noah's flood to explain virtually everything about the fossil record, the geographical  landscape, and the importance of avoiding sin, is mind boggling.

As the video demonstrates the facts simply do not support the possibility of anything like a great world encompassing flood ever having taken place. But beyond that, at least to me, the story demonstrates an almost psychotic rage on the part of God that he would drown potentially billions of people, many living in cultures that had never heard of the Jewish god, simply in response to the disobedience of a comparative few.

In my opinion anybody hoping to convince people about the compassion of the Christian, Islamic, or Jewish god would want to ignore this story, and multiple others, like the plague.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Every once in while it's important to remind everybody of these facts.

Remember the conservatives can make up whatever they want but the history of this country has been written down. You just have to take the time to look it up and refute the BS.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Something for religious Americans to keep in mind.

And on a related topic.

For many Americans it simply does not matter how much data scientists present concerning the fact of evolution. Because if it creates that "extremely uncomfortable" feeling, or questions the foundation of their faith, they simply cannot allow themselves to consider that it is true.

Monday, November 04, 2013

First century references to Jesus, "Zero! Zip!"

You know many years ago I engaged in a marathon of a debate with a seminary student who claimed vehemently that there were several references to Jesus to be found in ancient texts outside of the Bible.

At the time I lacked the resources to argue against his assertions effectively, however in the years since my findings are much like those expressed by Dr. Ehrman.

Kind of seems odd for a man who supposedly had such an incredible impact on the century in whihc he lived, don't you think?

P.S. I am aware that there are some of you who will disagree with this, but if you do please cite your sources so they can be verified.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Another anti-Obamacare myth bites the dust.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

For those committed to destroying the Affordable Care act by any means possible, who can blame them for seeking to misdirect based on using only a small part of the data as it pertains to employment when telling the full story blows up the entire meme? Such a claim is, after all, ear candy for an audience looking for any reason to hate the law, even if they don’t quite know why they so are so displeased. 

The problem, however, is that this popular line of attack comes with a rather significant flaw—the claim is provably false. 

A more careful review of the latest BLS jobs report out last week—a review in which the anti-Obamacare forces do not want you to engage in—reveals that while we do, indeed, currently have 27 million part-time workers in the economy, only 8 million of these people are working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job. 

That means that 19 million Americans are working part-time because that is all the work they desire to have. 

What’s more, not only does the September jobs report reveal that the number of part-timers wishing for full-time work showed no increase when compared to the previous month’s numbers, the report provides a piece of data far more important— 

In September of 2012, the number of part-timers seeking full-time work comprised 6 percent of the workforce. One year later, the September jobs report reveals that the number has shrunk to 5.5 percent.

This idea that the Affordable Care Act is inspiring employers to hire part time workers over full time workers is one of the major talking points. So recognizing that it is based on a misrepresentation of the facts is something that EVERY mainstream journalist should do but doesn't.

These GOP "facts" require darkness and loads of bullshit to grow, the best way to fight them is to shine a light on them and watch them wither away.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Sarah Palin blames the looming debt default on the President, and then says if he does anything on his own to solve it he will be impeached, and if he does nothing, he will be impeached.

Phony hair, phony patriotism, and phony Facebook posts. About sums her up.
Courtesy of the Painfully Puerile Political Pinhead's ghostwritten Facebook page:

Obama’s Debt Default is on His Shoulders While We Shoulder His Impeachable Offenses 

Apparently the president thinks he can furlough reality when talking about the debt limit. To suggest that raising the debt limit doesn’t incur more debt is laughably absurd. ( It does NOT directly incur more debt. Only allows the debt already owed to be paid on time. Moron!) The very reason why you raise the debt limit is so that you can incur more debt. Otherwise what’s the point? (The point is to pay your bills on time and not default, which would send the message to the world that America is not trustworthy to do business with. Does she not remember what happened in 2011 when we DID eventually raise the debt ceiling but the argument leading up to it resulted in the lowering of our credit rating for the first time in the country's history?)

It’s also shameful to see him scaremongering the markets with his talk of default. There is no way we can default if we follow the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, requires that we service our debt first. We currently collect more than enough tax revenue to service our debt if we do that first. (No that is called "Prioritizing" and in this case it is essentially unworkable:"The U.S. government’s payment system is sprawling. It involves multiple agencies. It involves multiple interacting computer systems. And all of them are designed for only one thing: To pay all bills on time. The technological challenge of trying to adapt that to some other system would be very daunting, and I suspect that if we were forced into a mode like that the results would be riddled with all kinds of errors.") However, we don’t have enough money to continue to finance our ever-growing federal government (with our $17 trillion dollar national debt that has increased over 50% since Obama took office). That’s why President Obama wants to increase the debt limit. He doesn’t want to make the tough decisions to rein in government spending. So, he’s scaremongering the markets about default, just as he tries to scaremonger our senior citizens about their Social Security, which, by the way, is funded by the Social Security Trust Fund and is solvent through 2038. (Might be a good place to mention that Ronald Reagan raised the debt Ceiling 18 times, more than any other President. Was he also "scaremongering?")

It’s time for the president to be honest with the American people for a change. Defaulting on our national debt is an impeachable offense, and any attempt by President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit without Congress is also an impeachable offense. A default would also be a shameful lack of leadership, just as mindlessly increasing our debt without trying to rein in spending is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill. 

- Sarah Palin 

So to be clear, in Palin's stunted and ill informed point of view, the President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Apparently Palin's only solution is for the President to surrender his presidency and hand it over to the Tea Party.

Go ahead bitch, hold your breath.

The possibility of this President being impeached for the political malpractice demonstrated by the Republican party is an outlandish fantasy dreamed up by a band of politic sore losers who simply cannot accept that they lost, and the President and the American people won.

Every day the Republicans lose ground in the polls, and every day the President looks more and more like the only adult in the room.

And don't forget, HE is not up for reelection ever again. The same cannot be said for those who are actively trying to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States of America. 

Friday, September 13, 2013

Fox and Friends invite authors of book about Benghazi onto the show, assuming they will help support their conspiracy theories. Yeah, not so much.

Courtesy of Media Matters:  

This morning, Fox & Friends hosted the authors of Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi, former diplomatic security agent Fred Burton and journalist Samuel M. Katz. 

Co-host Brian Kilmeade hoped to continue to perpetuate the myth that no help was sent to those in Benghazi: 

KILMEADE: When we saw Gregory Hicks last, he said that he did believe that they could have been saved, at least help could have been sent on the way sometime in the hours of the attack that went on. What did your research reveal? 

Katz's reply was clear: "Help did go to Benghazi, and I think one of the untold stories of the attack in Benghazi a year ago today, was the fact that when word hit the embassy in Tripoli, the CIA staffers, the contractors, as well as two JSOC operators didn't hesitate for a moment." 

Katz continued, "They made it there under Libyan circumstances, as quickly as humanly possible. ... The embassy relentlessly tried to figure out transportation. They used a Libyan air force C-130, and at Benghazi airport, controlled by one of the militias, they were held up in Benghazi for four hours." 

The entire conservative line of attack fell apart in a single sentence: "Help did go to Benghazi." Kilmeade attempted to dig deeper only to be rebuffed again: 

KILMEADE: They just couldn't get anywhere? They were held up by government officials? 

KATZ: It wasn't government. It was militia. Everything was divided among the local gangs and warlords and everybody had to be paid his due, everybody had to be served in the very Byzantine fashion that became post-Gadhafi Libya.

 "Help did go to Benghazi." Wait, what? Somebody actually using facts on Fox and Friends?

I am surprised Kilmeade's head did not pop right off his body in response. 

There is a reason that the President calls this a "phony scandal" and why hardly ANYBODY shows up to Benghazi scandal rally, on the one year anniversary of the tragedy. Simply put, there is NO scandal, and there is NO White House culpability.

But hey, maybe the folks at Fox can find some way to resurrect the Fast and Furious "scandal" again.


How about the IRS "scandal?"

Yeah let's admit it, they got nothing!

Sunday, August 25, 2013

It's Sunday, so let's talk religion. More specifically tax exempt religion.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:

If, all of a sudden, churches, synagogues, mosques and the like lost their tax privileges, how much tax revenue would that generate? 

Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist at the University of Tampa, and two of his students, Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega, took it upon themselves to figure it out. They’re not exactly disinterested parties; their research appeared in Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. But Cragun is a serious sociologist of religion and the data seems to check out. The full scale of subsidies religions get is pretty staggering:

When people donate to religious groups, it’s tax-deductible. Churches don’t pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don’t pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don’t pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don’t pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get “parsonage exemptions” that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they’re doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits). 

Cragun et al estimate the total subsidy at $71 billion. That’s almost certainly a lowball, as they didn’t estimate the cost of a number of subsidies, like local income and property tax exemptions, the sales tax exemption, and — most importantly — the charitable deduction for religious given. Their estimate that religious groups own $600 billion in property is also probably low, since it leaves out property besides actual churches, mosques, etc. 

The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious groups, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion.

83.5 billion a year. Just imagine how much actual good could be done with that money.

And I mean REAL good, not the fake charities that these organizations set up to launder their money and sheer the sheep, but rather money spent on improving roads, school, and infrastructure.

But why should we care if people want to try and buy their way into heaven by giving these charlatans their hard earned money you may ask?

Here's why: 

Religious exemptions from taxation is no trivial matter. It is estimated that churches and other religious bodies may own anywhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of all of the land in the United States. This represents a huge portion of the possible tax base and billions of dollars in potential revenue which could be used to fund schools and other portions of the social infrastructure upon which the churches depend, just like the rest of us. The assets of the Roman Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year. 

Every dollar not paid by churches or other religious organizations must be made up from some other source. When all tax exemptions are taken into account, it is estimated that the average family may pay up to $1,000 in extra taxes every year to make up for the lost revenue not received from churches and religious groups. This includes sales taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, personal taxes, and ad valorem taxes.

They get 83.5 billion in subsidies,  they own upwards of twenty five percent of the country, and this costs the average American family $1000 per year.

Now as a non-religious type this infuriates me. Especially as I have made it one of my goals in life to NEVER, even accidentally, support any religious or church group. As it turns out apparently I have been subsidizing them my entire life.


Sunday, August 18, 2013

Perhaps the most blatantly disingenuous anti-Obamacare ad EVER!

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

The conservative group Americans for Prosperity is up with a new radio ad that decries the law as an impending disaster. Yet when you unpack the ad it’s actually more revealing about the strategic game plan behind this sort of political attack than it is about the law itself. 

The ad features a worried mother who says the following: “Two years ago, my son Caleb began having seizures…if we can’t pick our own doctor, how do I know my family is going to get the care they need?” took a look at a previous version of this ad, and pronounced the claim that “we can’t pick our own doctor” under Obamacare to be false. What’s more, the invocation of a preexisting condition is a particularly audacious move in an ad that attacks a law that bans discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. 

But perhaps the most revealing thing of all is the ad’s warning of public confusion about the law. To buttress the impression that the ad is a catastrophe, the ad claims: “ABC News says confusion and doubt are prognosis for Obamcare.” 

And it’s true: The ABC News article in question does bear that headline. But the article actually presents this not as a sign that the law itself is flawed, but as a sign that the public remains ignorant about what’s actually in it. The article is about how many Americans, even those who stand to gain from the law, are not yet aware of its benefits. 

This neatly underscores the game plan behind ads like these: spread confusion about the law — in a deliberate effort to prevent folks from learning what’s actually in it — while simultaneously citing confusion about the law as evidence that it’s a disaster in hopes that folks will give up on it.

This is the kind of thing that we, as progressives, have to make our responsibility to refute at EVERY opportunity. 

The real flaw in the Affordable Care Act is not that it won't work, the flaw is that it won't work if not enough people believe in it and sign up for insurance, ESPECIALLY young people.

The conservatives are going to do EVERYTHING in their power to misinform the public and it is the duty of those of us who understand the incredible potential of the program to correct that misinformation.

As you know I do that quite often here at IM but we need to get it onto Facebook, Twitter, and every social media outlet there is in order to help make the plan a success.

Our success translates into lower insurance costs, lower medical future medical costs, and a healthier environment for our children. I cannot think of a more worthy cause right now.

P.S. Here is a resource for more information to help you access the program and also to provide information to help you shut down that Right Wing talk radio listener in the family.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Lawrence Krauss: "Stop validating ignorance."

The thing that always bothers me about the idea of not challenging people's faith when it conflicts with science, is that by not doing so we demonstrate that we do not have the confidence, knowing that there will be an angry backlash or hurt feelings.  And that does them a terrible disservice in my mind.

Many years ago I was having a conversation about the existence of God and the validity of the Bible with my roommate in college, who was studying to be an Episcopal priest, when a, newly "saved," young lady wandered into the room ans sat down to listen.

After about fifteen or twenty minutes she suddenly jumped up and fled the room in tears. I had absolutely NO idea what had happened, but shrugged my shoulders and went back to eviscerating my opponent.

Later I learned that some part of  my argument had hit her pretty hard, and she was now questioning that which she had been so certain of before walking into my dorm room. In fact she had gone to this new church of hers and demanded from the pastor that he explain away my argument. Something that he was apparently unable to do to her satisfaction.

My girlfriend, a Catholic, was very angry at me and tried to make me feel bad for scaring her about her new faith.

But I DIDN'T feel bad. I felt that, somewhat accidentally, I had served an important purpose by opening up her eyes and introducing her to critical thinking.

I have no idea what ultimately happened concerning her faith, but I do feel that if she decided to continue attending that church that she did so with a much more critical attitude than she might have if she had walked by my dorm room that day. At least that is what I would like to believe.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

The reason that conservatives never have their facts right.

Just in case you thought this was a joke, let me assure you it is not.

Some of you may remember that the website was started by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, after he determined that Wikipedia was too liberal. In other words it offered actual facts with citations to back them up.

So ever since2006 Schlafly has been offering up HIS version of truth.

What we in the reality based world call "lies."

By the way here is how Conservapedia defines the Bible: 

The Bible is a collection of the most logical books and letters ever written. It includes the most beautiful book ever written, the Gospel of Luke, and the most profound book ever written, the Gospel of John.

Yep nothing slanted or nonfactual about that!

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

It must be pointed out.

But hey, don't let the facts interfere with your unquestioning faith.

After all where would we be without unquestioning faith.

Besides on Mars of course.


Sunday, April 28, 2013

Want to piss off a Teabagger? Sure you do!

Then read them this list compiled by the good folks over at Forward Progressives:  

Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we’re a Christian nation. 

In fact, no where in our Constitution does the word “Christian” appear even once. 

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—it also doesn’t specify any particular religion. 

The 2nd Amendment actually refers to a “well regulated militia.” While it says the right for Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers that this right doesn’t come without regulations. 

Our Constitution doesn’t mention anything about our nation having to be based on pure Capitalism. 

A corporation is an entity, not a person, and our Constitution wasn’t created to protect the rights to entities—they have none. 

Education is more important than national defense. What’s the point of a strong national defense if there’s nothing worth defending? 

There are far more poor and middle class Americans than rich. If you continue building a society based on taking from the many to benefit the few, then we’re not going to have a nation much longer. 

Rich people didn’t become rich by giving away their money, Trickle Down Economics is the biggest con our country has ever seen. 

Decades ago we all paid a much higher tax percentage, and our economic policies protected the people more than businesses. During these times our nation saw historic growth and unheard of economic prosperity. None of that was done by basing our policies on giving more to the rich. 

Perhaps most news seems liberally biased because your news sources refuse to report facts. 

Being Muslim doesn’t mean someone isn’t American. Islam is a religion, not a nationality. 

George W. Bush actually did double our national debt, President Obama has not. 

Bush also inherited a balanced budget. It was his tax cuts and unfunded wars which sent us back into budget deficits. 

Social Security and Medicare is socialism—and millions of Republican voters benefit from, and receive, these benefits. 

Health insurance is you paying for another person’s health care—in fact all insurance is you paying for someone else. 

We had record oil prices under Bush, not Obama. 

The “Great Recession” started in 2008, while Obama took office January 20, 2009—you know, after the recession started. 

If Obama is the cause of our economic problems, why do Republicans avoid, at all costs, being associated with George W. Bush?

Okay now THAT was satisfying.

Though I think reading it aloud to one of your conservative family members might result in an actual physical altercation or perhaps they will simply put their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, I can't HEAR you!" until your lips stop moving.

It's funny how facts have a liberal bias, don't you think?

Sunday, April 21, 2013

New study totally refutes claim that gun ownership keeps people safe.

Courtesy of Violence Policy Center:  

VPC Executive Director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann states, “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines. This new data exposes the fallacy of such arguments and clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.” 

Key findings of the 19-page study include the following. 

Firearm Justifiable Homicides by Private Citizens Occur Rarely 

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. This ratio does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year. 

Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Violent Crimes 

For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense. 

Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Property Crimes 

For victims of both attempted and completed property crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.1 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property crimes. During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And that number as well may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, new data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010. 

Total Number of Actual Self-Defense Firearm Uses are Only a Small Fraction of Pro-Gun Claims 

According to the NCVS, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year). 

More than a Third of Persons Shot and Killed in Justifiable Homicides in 2010 Were Known to the Shooter 

In 2010, 35.7 percent (82 of 230) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 56.5 percent (130) were strangers, and in 7.8 percent (18) the relationship was unknown.

I don't think I have anything more to add to this data, but I encourage you to read it and disseminate it far and wide.

The only hope we have of EVER passing some effective gun legislation in this country is to educate those who are on the fence about gun ownership, as the gun nuts are essentially immune to facts or logic. Once people know that the NRA and gun lobbyists are essentially lying to them, perhaps we can start to have a real impact on public opinion and do something to reduce the number of guns in the hands of lunatics and the effectiveness of those guns to massacre great numbers of our fellow citizens

Monday, March 18, 2013

In yet another blow to NRA talking points report shows that background checks for gun sales can dramatically reduce the number of suicides.

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

US military brass have been spending a lot of time and money looking at how best to reduce the suicide rate among US troops, which has skyrocketed in recent years. They have concluded that it's false to assume that people intent on killing themselves will find a way to do it even if they can't get a gun. 

In a report to Congress in July, the Military Suicide Research Consortium noted that "Studies demonstrate that method substitution is rare." That's why simple things that can delay access to a gun, like mandatory background checks for all handgun purchases—including private sales—like those that would be required by a new bill recently passed by a Senate committee, can make a big difference in preventing suicide. States with such a requirement have a gun suicide rate 50 percent lower than states that don't, even when their non-gun suicide rates are about the same. 

One reason this holds true is that, research shows, suicide is often an impulsive act, and one that people haven't given much thought. That's especially true in gun suicides, where the majority of victims don't have a documented serious mental illness. If some in a crisis simply can't access a gun quickly, they may not try suicide at all, or they may try a less-lethal means that offers more chance that they'll be saved. And most people who survive a suicide attempt don't go on to take their own lives at a later time.

 In other words it is not preventing those with a previously diagnosed mental health condition from getting guns (The option promoted by the NRA) that prevents suicides, it is providing a waiting period for ALL gun buyers that gives the temporarily unbalanced the opportunity to rethink their decision and make a better choice.

No wonder they say that facts have a liberal bias.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Republicans attack tax report because it uses something called "facts" which they claim are biased.

"Facts? We are Republicans, we don't need no stinking facts!"
Courtesy of the Hill:

The Congressional Budget Office is defending a recent report on how U.S. multinational corporations are taxed, after a top Republican criticized the analysis as biased. 

Doug Elmendorf, the CBO chief, told House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that the office believed the report “presents the key issues fairly and objectively and that its findings are well grounded in economic theory and are consistent with empirical studies in this area.” 

The taxation of multinationals has become one of the more prominent sticking points in the broader debate over tax reform. 

Camp and other Republicans prefer a so-called territorial system, which would essentially shield most or all of a corporation’s offshore profits from U.S. taxation. 

Camp had criticized the January CBO report for taking sides in what he said was a controversial discussion. 

“This report purports to provide an even-handed review of different policy issues related to the taxation of foreign source income,” Camp wrote to Elmendorf last month. 

“However, a closer analysis of the report reveals that it is heavily slanted and biased in favor of one specific approach to the taxation of foreign source income – and relies heavily on sources that tend to support that conclusion while ignoring sources that support a different conclusion,” he added.

Sadly in response to this criticism CBO Chairman Doug Elmendorf, has caved to the pressure somewhat and said the following: 

“Because of the complexity of the subject and the diverse views of experts in the field, we agree that it would have been desirable to seek comments from more outside reviewers.” 

That to me is an unnecessary acquiescence in the face of an attack on facts, which as we all know have a liberal bias.

These are the same tactics employed by the disinformation outlets utilized by the Right Wing  to muddy the waters and keep their audiences confused about the issues, and voting the way they want them to vote. In my opinion Doug Elmendorf would have been better served in the long run to stand his ground and let the facts speak for themselves.

Didn't we just talk about the different ways the liberal and conservative brains work just yesterday?