Risk, Prohibition, and Category 3

This post is insanely long, and it might be too obvious for most people, and some may decide at the end I've wasted their time.

Maybe it is obvious; I don't know. Sometimes I think there's a value in stating the obvious explicitly, because otherwise people tend to assume it, and therefore overlook it -- and therefore its very obviousness makes it inobvious.

You know when a post is long? When it starts with a Roman numeral. If you just want some anti-left invective, skip to VI.

I.

I'm good at seeing plot twists coming in movies because I'm keyed into the basic structure of plot, and I know, basically, there are twenty plots and fifteen subplots and a couple dozen variations and once you know those, you know every plot.

Political arguments tend to follow similar patterns, but there are even fewer "plots." 90% of all arguments about policy are about the existence, or nonexsitence, of "Category 3." Which I'll explain later.

What makes Category 3 such a contentious point of debate is, first of all, that people tend to talk about risk, particularly the risk of death, in ways they know, inside, to be false. We speak, rhetorically, publicly, about the need to avoid risk, and especially death, as if this imperative is absolute. We must do everything we can to ensure there will never be another _____ -- fill in the blank. Today it's Jared Loughner.

In fact, we have never been absolute about death. We all remember from our Drivers' Ed classes that driving ten miles over the limit increases the risk of death in a collision by a nontrivial amount, some increased odds of death that is not so small as to be a rounding error. A number large enough to count -- 2%, 3%, 5%. Whatever it is. I'm not looking up because the actual number isn't important. What's important is that I know there is in fact an increased risk of fatality in a collision for each 10 mph I go over the limit, and I blow this off. I don't think about it. I shoot for a speed that has nothing to do with physical safety; it's really just about what I can get away with without drawing a ticket. Not anything having to do with elevated risk to a life that should, in theory, matter to me.

In the seventies, I think, lawsuits were directed at car companies for "design defects" that increased the odds of fatality in collision. In fact, they weren't defects at all. Car designers could make every car as safe as possible -- with heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers and and the like -- but they don't. They have mathematicians calculating risk, and they pick a risk-level they think is reasonable, taking into account the target cost of the vehicle. And yeah, cheap cars are lighter and smaller and therefore more deadly in collisions.

And to make sense of that risk -- because equations need numbers -- they had to assign a dollar-value to a human life.

The plaintiffs there claimed that it was inhuman and so on to "assign a value to a human life and say that that life will not be protected above a target cost," but the courts wisely ruled against such claims. Because, while we may talk as if each human life has inestimable value and is precious beyond mere dollars, in real life, we know that's not true. We don't act as if that's true. We are well aware of the risk of death when we undertake certain risks, and we go ahead undertaking those risks anyway.

It's not true that we assign life an infinite value, and that value, being infinite, therefore trumps all other considerations. We assign it a limited value, so that some risks do turn out to be "worth it," in our minds. The typical public rhetoric does not match the reality we all understand. You're not allowed to say that a human life only has a value of $10,000,000, or whatever you assign it, in public. You're called "inhuman" or cynical or whatever.

Nonetheless, we all do a quasi-economic calculation when we undertake risks, and whether we assign the value of our lives at $1,000,000 or $50,000,000, there is some number attached to it. Whatever it is, it's not "infinity." It's large, but it's not infinitely large.

It's because of this disconnect between what we say about death and what we actually know about death that Category 3 takes such an outsized role in the public debate.

II.

Category 3 is a simple idea. Anytime we're talking about banning something -- and here we go right now, we're talking about banning 1) all political rhetoric on the right, 2) all people on the right, 3) mags holding more than ten rounds; 4) mags holding more than zero rounds, 5) pot, 6) heavy metal music, and who knows what else by the end of the week -- we argue about whether these various forbiddences, large and small, will reduce the risk of catastrophe by people in Category 3, and the argument generally goes "Category 3 is very large and so we must have a new prohibition" and on the other side "Category 3 is very small, or does not exist at all, so the prohibition is futile."

Category 1 is almost everyone. 99%+ of the public exists in Category 1. People in Category 1 simply are not, under any circumstances, going to do anything spectacularly bad. It doesn't matter how much pot they smoke, how many Judas Priest albums they listen to, how many guns they own, how much Glen Beck they listen to. Prohibitions have no effect on Category 1 people because they're immune from these supposedly-dread inputs in any event.

Category 1 people aren't very important in this debate, then, at least as far as the supposed wonders of new prohibitions, because they don't need prohibitions to avoid going postal.

Category 2 is, I don't know, whatever the percentage is -- 0.01% of the population. The crazies. Those born bad. The people with bad wiring and bad chemicals in their heads. These people are pretty much pre-programmed to do insanely evil things, and there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop them.

Prohibitions also have no effect at all on Category 2 people, because, it doesn't matter what the laws are, or what media they watch. They're psychopaths.

A good example of Category 2 is Jeffrey Dahmer. As you probably know, Dahmer was obsessed with the image of the Emperor from Star Wars seated on his throne in front of that big window out into space. Did anyone suggest that, due to Jeffrey Dahmer, we need to "crack down on Star Wars"? No, not a single person in the world suggested that. We understood Dahmer to be Category 2, and it didn't matter which movies he watched; whether Willow or Weekend at Bernie's or Three Men and a Baby, it didn't matter. Someone who's going to get the idea "I should kill people, and cut up their body parts, and put them in the fridge, and eat them when I want to snack" from Return of the Jedi is, I think obviously, going to get that idea from whatever movie he's watching. Or not watching.

Similarly, while people did in fact fret about the extreme violence in Taxi Driver, very few people suggested that that film "caused" John Hinkley to shoot Reagan. Some did, I'm sure (because Taxi Driver was already controversial), but we didn't have a big national debate over Taxi Driver. We understood that someone who got the idea that Jodie Foster would be his girlfriend if he killed the president was someone who didn't really need much prompting from Martin Scorcese. Taxi Driver "caused" John Hinkley to go crazy in much the same way Catcher in the Rye "caused" Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon -- that is, not at all.

Category 2 people are also irrelevant to the national debate on any suggested prohibition, then, for a reason exactly opposite the reason Category 1 is irrelevant: Category 1 people will not kill people no matter what "temptations" are offered to them; Category 2 people, on the other hand, will kill people no matter what "temptations" are denied to them, so they are effectively unreachable by any public policy response.

Unless you want to ban Taxi Driver, Catcher in the Rye, and Return of the Jedi. And everything else, including Barney the Dinosaur, because, hey, dinosaurs would eat people if they could, right?


III.


Which leads to Category 3, a category of person which may or may not exist, and, even it if does exist, is almost certainly the tiniest category of all. Category 3 people -- a group of about the same size as Category 2, maybe a little bigger, probably a little smaller -- are the people that supposedly are controllable by prohibitions. These are the people who, it is supposed, would not go on shooting sprees but for the existence of some social evil -- guns, pot, heavy metal, violent video games, action movies, a "climate of hate," a propagandistic militarization of American society, take your pick.

These are the ticking time-bombs who, unlike Category 2 nutters, do not light their own fuses. Their fuses must be lit by external actors or external circumstances.

Were it not for the existence of this terrible temptation towards evil, the thinking goes, Category 3 people would not murder people, so if we could just prohibit the stimulus or tool they used in their crime, we would not have the crime at all.

So that's why these arguments about prohibition always are arguments about the existence or nonexistence of Category 3 and about the size of this group. Every argument goes like this: Those against the prohibition say that everyone is in Category 1 or Category 2 -- they either never will commit crime, or always will commit crime -- so no prohibition will have any effect. If pressed, they may admit the theoretical possibility of the existence of Category 3, but will immediately say "but that is such a tiny handful of people there is no compelling reason to reduce everyone's freedom for such a small number of hypothetical situationally-bad actors (that is, good or bad depending on public policy inputs).

Those urging prohibition will swear to the existence of Category 3, and further state it is a rather large segment of the population. They don't usually put a percentage of it, but usually they seem to be talking about a very large slice of the population indeed, if we go by their rhetorical fury -- at least 1%, maybe 10%, and if you're talking about Tea Partiers, approaching 60%.

Every argument goes just like that. Just like that. Prohibitions on enhanced interrogation techniques, a.k.a. "torture," follow the same pattern, but a bit in reverse-- those seeking to ban torture swear there's no such thing as Category 3 -- a terrorist who will not respond to conventional law enforcement techniques, but may respond to tougher measures-- and thus swear every terrorist is Category 1 (will talk, if you just ask him nicely) or Category 2 (will not talk under any circumstances, including actual torture) so there's never, never a reason to waterboard someone, ever.

IV.

Here's my thinking on Category 3: Although it may sound like I'm suggesting it doesn't exist, in fact I generally assume it does. I do so not based on particular "studies" or the like; I just go by the general principle of physics -- if it can happen, it will happen. An idea I think derived from the Law of Large Numbers -- given a sufficient number of trials (a sufficient number of people), any circumstance which is not explicitly forbidden by the laws of nature will, sometimes, exist.

So to me a lot of the absolutist argumentation over Category 3 is a bit silly and off-topic. We don't know whether it exists or not in any case; on the other hand, we can probably guess it exists (all things exist, if not specifically forbidden by the laws of nature) and really the only argument is about how large the group is.

Which we also can't know.

So, after all this arguing about whether Category 3 exists or not, and how big it might be, we really have no idea. We can talk and talk about it but we don't know. I can't say for sure if smoking pot was a necessary pre-condition for Loughner's killing spree. Probably not, I'd say, but I don't know, and can't rule it out.

(Oddly enough, the only thing I can rule out is that a "climate of hate" caused this-- because I know for a fact, based on his writings and testimony of those who knew him, that he was not animated by right-wing politics at all. What we really should be talking about is whether we should prohibit the government from using grammar to mind-control the population, which is really Loughner's complaint. Personally, I'm on the anti-using-grammar-to-achieve-mind-control side of the argument, but I invite contrary arguments on this crucial issue. I'm curious as to how social cons and libertarians might wind up in agreement, or disagreement, about whether the government should be permitted to continuing mind-controlling us through selective and arbitrary rules of grammar. And date-conventions, of course.)

That's how these arguments play out, publicly. Category 3 does exist; Category 3 doesn't exist, or is so small to be a rounding error.

V.

Then comes the next phase. Because no one can prove his position that Category 3 doesn't exist, or is trivially small, or Category 3 does exist, and is frighteningly large, the next step is to argue about the value of the risky thing in question.

A calculation of whether a risk is a justified one depends on two main variables -- one, the odds the risk will result in catastrophe, and two, the value gained by undertaking that risk, even if in some cases it will have a bad result. And here is where people really live, because they have an easy answer about the second variable. This is a remarkably easy inquiry for most people, especially those on the liberal side, as they don't have a strong ideology of freedom to warn them away, generally, from prohibition, since it's really just asking the simple question: Hey, do I like this thing or don't I like this thing?

If you don't personally like a thing, if you find no value in it, it's a remarkably tempting thing to do to just assign that thing zero legitimate value and therefore argue for prohibition: After all, if something has zero legitimate value then it doesn't matter what the exact risk of the activity or thing might be -- as long as the risk is above zero, then it should be prohibited (in thinking that doesn't include a strong pro-freedom element) because in that case the risks, the downside, clearly exceeds the value, the upside. Because, of course, the thing in question has been assigned a value of exactly zero.

If not lower.

Don't like pot? Don't enjoy it? Assign it zero legitimate value and ergo any and all risks of pot-use exceed any legitimate value of thing and it's an easy call. Ban it.

Don't like heavy metal? Don't dig it? Assign it zero legitimate value and ergo all risks of depression, suicide, and social isolation -- all the claims made about the ills heavy metal "causes" -- far outweigh the value of it, because the value is zero and the risks -- however tiny -- must exceed zero, even if only barely.

Guns? Oh my oh my, is this an easy one for liberals! Guns have zero legitimate value, for hunting, for pleasure, for home defense, for defense of the person; and obviously they have high risks associated with them! This is the easiest call of all!

This is all too easy, and leads to too many prohibitions. You cannot just assign a thing a value of zero, for all other people, because you don't like it. A proper evaluation of risk and value must take into account the value experience by the people who do find value in it.

Everyone's bad like that, but liberals are generally worse, because they tend to have absolutely no respect -- not even a token nod of it -- for anyone thinking differently than they do.

And they're taking that to the ultimate step now.

VI.

In the case of Loughner, a tragedy welcomed ghoulishly by the left, leftists have even bigger ambitions in mind than they've ever admitted before.

Guns? That's nothing. Banning guns, or at least a lot of them, is a minor step on the way to a much bigger goal: What they're seeking to do in the current debate is prohibit any and all expressions of right-leaning political belief.

And it's an easy call for them, of course. Right-leaning political belief has zero legitimate value -- negative value, really! -- and the risks of such dangerous thought are frighteningly large!

Ban it. Ban the right. Ban them entirely. They contribute no positive value to society and in fact impose unbearably-high risks.

That is, essentially, what this is all about. Never has the left been so brazen or ambitious in the scope of what it seeks to prohibit. In this case, their rhetoric indicates they seek nothing short of the muzzling of the right, the entire right, everyone who disagrees. The risks of our opposition to Obama, that some people will be dangerously upset by our use of the word "socialist," are simply too high.

Oh I suppose we'll be permitted, as formalistic nod to the old, outdated Constitution, to offer token resistance. Ineffectual resistance. We'll be permitted to say things that are so non-inciting they fail to incite any genuine persuasion in the public.

But anything more than that? We're not allowed to say it. The risks are simply too high.

Jared Loughner proves that, in fact, by not proving it. Loughner clearly was not watching Glen Beck or listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading Sarah Palin's tweets. We know this for a fact. The leftist media even admits this, sometimes, when they have no other good options.

But that just proves that our provocations are even more dangerous. For if such provocations tilted the mind of a right-leaning politically-involved sort of Category 3 person, well, that's the paradigmatic situation you're looking for to prove your thesis. In that sort of situation, you'd have the proof you were looking for.

But -- follow the leftist logic here -- Loughner is not a Tea Partier, or a conservative, or even right leaning at all. This proves that not only can our provocations influence our own crazies (which is 60% of us, to hear them talk) but in fact are so potent they can even drive those who don't listen to us to kill.

Do you see that next argument taking shape? Taking shape? Having taken shape, I should say, past perfect. Krugman and all the rest of them, having called this as a deranged right-winger (and been proven wrong) simply make their argument more all-encompassing. They're no longer arguing that right-wing invective can have an unbalanacing effect on right-wingers who hear it.

Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.

That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people.

And not only does Category 3 exist, it's quite large -- like I said, I really believe they really believe that upwards of 60% of Tea Party are ticking time bombs ready to kill upon receiving Rush Limbaugh's next coded message.

And Laughner proves how scary all of this is. If even a left-winger can't resist Rush Limbaugh's commands to kill when he doesn't even hear them, what possible chance is there that the 60% of the Tea Party which is primed to murder will resist his call when they do hear it?


Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM



Comments

1 I read every word of that!

Posted by: Chuckit at January 12, 2011 10:35 AM (tUFnv)

2 I still remember that accidents over 70mph 3/4 of them involve a death.

Posted by: Zakn at January 12, 2011 10:41 AM (zyaZ1)

3 Is it just me, or is the call to ban overheated rhetoric dangerously close to Laughner's "grammar mind control?"
"Follow the leftist logic here..." c'mon, Ace! It's not serious, heart-felt logic, it's just sopishist bullshit to convince/hoodwink the masses. Don't give them the honor of your five paragraphs to disect their "arguments."

Posted by: ProfShade at January 12, 2011 10:44 AM (CC3vq)

4 I often lurk but had to post this time. Brilliant, bloody good essay.

Posted by: Dixie at January 12, 2011 10:45 AM (ye++F)

5 >>You know when a post is long?

When the post starts off with the words "This post is insanely long.." I've got an inkling.

But you're right. The left has been attempting to do what they accuse the right of doing, creating a climate where their opinions become facts and dissenting views are not so much not welcome as not even considered relevant.

They are all about projection and emotion. Facts don't enter into the equation.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 12, 2011 10:45 AM (TMB3S)

6 Ace,

If you wanted to save yourself some time and connect to Morons all over in an easy way, just condense all of the above into this:

Loughner is the Mason character from CoD: Black Ops.

Posted by: EC at January 12, 2011 10:46 AM (mAhn3)

7 And that is what makes Palin's video so near pitch perfect: She sees this not as an attempt to smear her for the sake of political points, this is a larger movement to shut down and silence any and all non-liberal thoughts and actions.

Posted by: Jimmuy at January 12, 2011 10:49 AM (ets+s)

8 Category 3?

Awesome. Ace is finally posting about rape movies from Hong Kong.

Posted by: King Friday at January 12, 2011 10:50 AM (f+oEY)

9 Red to Kill is a must-see movie for aspiring morons.

Posted by: King Friday at January 12, 2011 10:51 AM (f+oEY)

10


Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.
For example, the oft-repeated phrase (as if by memo) was,"When you hear the same hateful rhetoric being repeated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it's going to have deadly consequences."
The implication is: the rightwing media is brainwashing people and it must be stopped.




Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 12, 2011 10:51 AM (WmBF6)

11 Good read on a snowy day. The best nugget in there, though, is the discussion a bout how liberals assign zero value to things others hold dear, like guns. They are so insulated in their social world - why, I don't know anyone who owns a gun! Guns are icky. Guns are valued only by icky rednecky ignorant hayseed people, and only used by crazy people to shoot up college classrooms and shopping centers! New York City has banned handguns since, like, forever! See how enlightenedand sophisticated that is? We don't need guns in the most densely popluated city in the country! Why do yahoos in Arizona need them?
Literally every liberal I know thinks this way about guns. Most of them also think this way about values many of us hold dear, like sexual chastity, personal responsibility, thrift, respect for women and girls, etc. They drink each other's bathwater and do not ever attempt to understand how others think about anything.

Posted by: rockmom at January 12, 2011 10:52 AM (w/gVZ)

12 I think you've more accurately described the "who's to blame?" and "what were the damages" aspects of the stupidest lawsuits.

Posted by: t-bird at January 12, 2011 10:52 AM (FcR7P)

13 I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.
Fired employees are notoriously capable of snapping. Although such snapping is a good sign there was an underlying problem, there's often no reason to suppose they ever would have snapped had they remained gainfully employed.

Posted by: A Reasonable Man at January 12, 2011 10:53 AM (xxqLI)

14
Yesterday, Laura Ingraham played a clip of that idiot liar Larry O'Donnell: "My mother watches to Glenn Beck every day. She's not going to go out and kill somebody, but..."

O'Donnell went on to say his mother is being influenced by all the 'scary' things Beck is putting on his chalkboard on his tv show.

Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 12, 2011 10:54 AM (NwOSU)

15 So we should ban abortions because of the people who shoot abortion doctors, right?

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 12, 2011 10:54 AM (XdlcF)

16 When talking about "risk" in industries like Nuke Power it is beneficial to first define it. Mathematically:

Risk = probability x consequences

So when discussing something like an auto accident you look at the probability of an accident. It is very high. Then you look at the consequences. The overall averages show that almost all accidents occur within 10 miles of home a low speed. IOW fender benders with minimal health consequences and some financial effects, largely dependent on your deductible.

People instinctively know this which is why they think nothing of getting in their car and going down the road. On the other hand, a lot of people have an fear of flying. There are two reasons for this. First the aircraft is not in their control therefore they are at the mercy of others, but primarily because of the calculation.

The probability of an air accident are low, however the consequences are dire. It is almost certain death.

As for category III people who will be influenced to do bad shit because of external stimulae. I say the umber is infinitesimally low. This nutbag would have done the killings here regardless of external and that shows in his writings.

Posted by: Vic at January 12, 2011 10:55 AM (M9Ie6)

17 In fairness, I am usually crying too much to send out my coded messages.

Posted by: Glenn Beck at January 12, 2011 10:55 AM (zgZzy)

18 "Those urging prohibition will swear to the existence of Category 3, and further state it is a rather large segment of the population."

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. The prohibitionists say these people exist, let them prove it. Until then hands off our liberties.

Oh, and I call BS on the "fact" that you can't put a dollar value on human life. Insurance companies do it every day of the week.

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 10:55 AM (02uN6)

19 I think what this boils down to, what this always boils down to is that today's liberals have become everything they railed against as dirty hippies of the 60's. Mainly, The State and The Man. As a political entity they are almost unrecognizable some forty plusyear later.
And I have more respect for the pigfilth hippies of the 60s.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 10:57 AM (Y5+Z3)

20 Hmmm. Hezbollah government of Lebanon resigns. This is going to add some shit stirring to the stew.

Posted by: RedneknSC at January 12, 2011 11:00 AM (x8U/s)

21 Re:21

Well how could you possibly argue with that?

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 11:00 AM (02uN6)

22 This post is excellent. Also, I want to second this:

I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category
Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social
cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being
fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.
...which, in my experience (5 years as a special ed. teacher), goes double for people with mental illness like Loughner. I worked with a number of kids who absolutely fell apart over these sorts of disruptions in their personal lives.

Posted by: AndrewR at January 12, 2011 11:01 AM (APD1F)

23 "The crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe"
Frank Zappa

Posted by: Dave at January 12, 2011 11:03 AM (Tqcuj)

24 Fascinating how the whole debate over Category 3 changed when the shooter was a white kid of indeterminate religious/spiritual background allegedly consuming conservative rhetoric from AM radio or PAC websites, compared to the events where the shooter was a Muslim (black or Middle-Eastern, prison convert or native, doesn't matter) provably consuming anti-infidel rhetoric in a Mosque or from books or from personal communications with an imam.

So we should ban abortions because of the people who shoot abortion doctors, right?

And the Koran, because of the people who kill infidels.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 12, 2011 11:03 AM (4ucxv)

25 Oh my God! It's full of words.

Posted by: Andy at January 12, 2011 11:04 AM (veZ9n)

26 Very well said. An excellent exposition of both the reality of human naturewith the inevitability of serious defectives being present in the distribution, and also the real goal that the Left is seeking here. In their desperation, they grow ever more strident, angry, and irrational. They crave the opportunity to use the force of law to crush opponents.
We already have plenty of laws to cover the evils man can do. Too many, really. No amount of additional legislation will prevent people from doing extreme things, all of which are already prohibited.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 12, 2011 11:05 AM (xUM1Q)

27 I really believe they really believe that upwards of 60% of Tea Party are ticking time bombs ready to kill upon receiving Rush Limbaugh's next coded message.


Some one posited on an earlier thread that if the left really believed this they would bow to our every whim as they do with muslims.

The opposite position is that if they really do think that is true, imagine how they would react if we successfully dissuade them of that notion.

I think that neither are true. They unconsciously let them themselves believe something they know to not be true because the debate is more important than fact.

Posted by: ef at January 12, 2011 11:07 AM (c7Pp2)

28 Category 3: Islam gone old-time-religion. Biggest Category 3 group out there.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at January 12, 2011 11:07 AM (dYKl3)

29 I've been trying to follow the lefty logic on this over at Daily Kooks.. Luckily, I have been banned from commenting.. since their blatherings drive me up a fucking wall, I'm sure I would get newly banned anyway...

You pretty much have it right in section VI here. They truly believe we are all ticking time bombs awaiting our coded "telefon" message to pick up our automatic-silenced assault rifles and go on a spree.

I do believe a Category 3 exists.. but in very very small numbers. The proof of that would be to look at the anti-islamic violence after 9/11. There was some.. but very little. Anti-Islamic sentiment was feverishly high.. and should have brought out many more Category 3 types and spurred them to action. It didn't. Militia groups are potential Category 3.. the radical lefty groups of the 60's and 70's were potential Category 3 types. But, the percentage of people who can be infected with hate-speech to go violent in action has proven to be infinitesimally small.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 12, 2011 11:09 AM (f9c2L)

30 We must do everything we can to ensure there will never be another President like Obama

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at January 12, 2011 11:09 AM (tvs2p)

31 They unconsciously let them themselves believe something they know to
not be true because the debate is more important than fact.

It also makes them feel good about themselves to believe it. After they finish posting vicious celebratory bile to Facebook after Cheney has surgery or Rush has a heart attack, they pat themselves on the back for not being evil brain-washed haters like those stupid teabaggers.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 12, 2011 11:10 AM (4ucxv)

32 I read the whole thing. For Ace, that is a rater succinct post. Yes, Ace has a good solid grip on the insanity and ambition of the left.

Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (OlN4e)

33 Every action, good or bad, needs three components..
Motive, Opportunity, and Means....
Category 1 does not, because they do not have the motive...
Category 3 does not, because they lack means...
Category 2 will break other restrictions, to overcome the lack of opportunity or means...
Prohibition is all about taking away the means to perform an act... but that very prohibition limits any other use of the proscibed Object.... AND if there is a large enough group in Category 2, they will provide the means to enable Category 3... (think child porn, or pot) rendering the prohibition unsuccessful.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (AdK6a)

34 More cheerleader pics.

Posted by: nickless at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (MMC8r)

35 This is a very though-provoking post. One of the thoughts it has provoked in me is that we might not be looking at this in quite the right perspective. The question is not, IMHO, the relative value of life vs. the odds of the existence of Category 3 people but rather the relative values of the two things we stand to lose: Life or Liberty, the existence of Category 3 people really doesn't enter in to that equation.

Once again IMHO, and this may sound cold hearted but I don't know of any other way to say it- Liberty is more valuable than life.

Why?

Because many (too many) good people have given their lives to preserve Liberty. The value of Liberty is measured in lives and to willingly surrender it is to dishonor those who have sacrificed their lives for it.

That's my $0.02

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (02uN6)

36 I see what you mean. Thanks.

Posted by: Sheriff Dupnik at January 12, 2011 11:12 AM (gbCNS)

37 You really should stick with the decaf, Ace.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:13 AM (SJ6/3)

38 Rush is learning about risk and reward from Hank Haney. Actually doesn't have that bad of a swing. Better than the Golfer In Chief by a mile.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 12, 2011 11:13 AM (70v0o)

39 29 Category 3: Islam gone old-time-religion. Biggest Category 3 group out there.
Posted by: Mr. Dave at January 12, 2011 11:07 AM (dYKl3)
I think its the level of motiviation which puts you in one category or another... and Religions do change Motivation levels.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 11:13 AM (AdK6a)

40 Good post, listener. I must be conscience dreaming.

Posted by: Thinking things over at January 12, 2011 11:14 AM (4o/Qp)

41 They can have my heavy metal music when they take it from my cold, dead fingers.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at January 12, 2011 11:14 AM (OmlsY)

42 Roger Simon:
The right wing is the supposed source of all violence and violent rhetoric. Of course, we know that’s not true and of course there hasn’t been any real right-wing violence, none whatsoever associated with the tea party movement. It’s all a charade.
But the left persists in believing it. Well, not entirely. Some are following an Alinskyite trail of deception. But a good percentage — as this past few days have demonstrated as never before — are genuinely convinced they are surrounded by a bloodthirsty mob of semi-illiterate rednecks out to polarize the country.
This is one of the more clearcut demonstrations of mass projection I have seen in my lifetime.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 12, 2011 11:15 AM (XdlcF)

43 I'm sorely tempted to copy pasta this article into an argument I'm having with a couple of lefties about "overheated rhetoric". But I'm afraid no one will read it. Might have to summarize this one.

I think it's a great argument, and it clarifies exactly what I was thinking.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at January 12, 2011 11:16 AM (hhCaF)

44 Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.

Indeed. But go back to Loughner's view - that words can control reality - not by persuading people to do or not do things, but by their very use.

The left is making a variant of Loughner's argument RIGHT NOW.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 12, 2011 11:16 AM (bgcml)

45 They should ban pot. None of this would have ever happened if they.....No wait.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:17 AM (SJ6/3)

46 I think it boils down to most people are willfully ignorant.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at January 12, 2011 11:17 AM (OmlsY)

47 Roger Simon.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 12, 2011 11:18 AM (XdlcF)

48 Rahm stated the leftard methodology very clearly; never let a crisis go to waste. Use every possible happening as an excuse to push totalitarian socialism.

Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 11:18 AM (OlN4e)

49 I'm firmly in Category 1. I've smoked pot, listened to heavy metal (a LOT of it), and I have lots of guns. I've also read The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, the Art of War, von Clauswitz' "On War", 1984, Animal Farm, and a host of other books that would make most people take long sideways glances at me. I firmly believe in Sun Tzu's philosophy that you should know your enemy as well as you know yourself, which is the reason for my reading list. You can look at everything that I've ever written, and it will lead you to only one conclusion: I am the Sanest Man on Earth.

Posted by: Smokey Behr at January 12, 2011 11:18 AM (QyeW7)

50 of Spades: Ace

My mind-thoughts agree with your word-thoughts.

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 12, 2011 11:18 AM (h6mPj)

51 Well done, Ace.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 12, 2011 11:19 AM (NjYDy)

52 Congressional approval numbers have catapulted up to 20%.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:21 AM (SJ6/3)

53 Here's a simple game I like to call "projection."

Go into the wayback machine and try to remember every single thing that the Left accused Bush of wanting to do.

Then realize that is their intent and they are enacting it now.

Freedom of speech?
Looks like it's going away for conservatives.

/never let a good crisis go to waste.

Posted by: shibumi at January 12, 2011 11:21 AM (OKZrE)

54 so ... if we don't get our shirts, we get to go on a spree killing?

Right?

Posted by: The Guys at January 12, 2011 11:21 AM (h6mPj)

55 Epic.
I just wish there was an easier way to forward this damn thing....

Posted by: JollyRoger at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (NCw5u)

56 Democratic Underground
Sat Jan-08-11 **09:35** PM
46.Shooters dad is 58 year old Randy Loughner from Tucson, AZ
Could this be who accompanied him to the meetings?
We've
searched like crazy for the shooter - Jared - but let's see if we can
some up with any FR or tea party stuff about his dad Randy Loughner.
I'll be searching as well and let you know if I come up with anything.

http://tinyurl.com/4rb87w7




Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (8x3SC)

57 Ace: "You know when a post is long?"
No, not really. Well, if it starts with "Once upon a time...," then maybe.

Posted by: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (swuwV)

58 The harder they push, the stronger the TEAparty will become. We draw energy from their assults.

Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (OlN4e)

59 Do you see that next argument taking shape? Taking shape? Having taken shape, I should say, past perfect.

Wait a sec... that was a clear attempt at nefarious, mind-controlling grammar usage.

Posted by: Sheriff Dupnik at January 12, 2011 11:22 AM (gbCNS)

60 very...very good post
One thing though...should there be a separatecategory ...or maybe sub-category...for those who respond to pressures or encouragement to commit violent acts they would not have done with a leadership vacuum....
..think union thugs here

Posted by: beedubya at January 12, 2011 11:23 AM (AnTyA)

61 "A proper evaluation of risk and value must take into account the value experience by the people who do find value in it."

And this becomes ultimately impossible because preference aggregation ends up being nonsensical.

here is one classic example 'x>y' means 'prefers x to y':

person 1:
a>b>c
person 2:
c>a>b
person 3:
b>c>a

Lets aggregate by giving 1 vote each:
Between A and B: A wins
Between B and C : B wins
Between A and C: C wins

So A is better than B wich is better than C which is better than A. It just makes no sense. This is just one reason why we cannot meaningfully aggregate individual preferences, and why the free market were every person gets their own preferences is better than trying to use government were we have to pick some specific preferences for people.

Posted by: Doc Merlin at January 12, 2011 11:24 AM (MIaPf)

62 Excellent post, Ace. Something can only be too long if it is complete blather, like An Inconvenient Truth and any speech by Odipstick.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 12, 2011 11:24 AM (xQAv5)

63 Free weed in Cali.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:24 AM (SJ6/3)

64 Paranoid Schizophrenics don't have politics. They have voices.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at January 12, 2011 11:24 AM (kb0wl)

65 18
In fairness, I am usually crying too much to send out my coded messages.

Posted by: Glenn Beck at January 12, 2011 10:55 AM (zgZzy)

Wait, the tears aren't a code?

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 12, 2011 11:24 AM (eCAn3)

66 left-wingers, even

Ah ha! We now know the identity of Ace.

Jokes, aside it was a good read. I agree with most of it. I would suggest though that there's no reason that the Left, who just showed their irrational hatred of us, would leave us around if they gained total power. We'd all be in a mass grave behind the work/re-education camp.

The only thing I'd strongly disagree with is lumping in Islamic terrorists with those influenced by media in Category 3. Someone who swerves into a sidewalk of pedestrians because he played Grand Theft Auto for days on end is far removed from a someone stripped of all humanity and civility and turned into a murderous barbarian bent on destruction in the name of Allah.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 12, 2011 11:25 AM (6ftzF)

67 "I really believe they really believe that upwards of 60% of Tea Party are ticking time bombs ready to kill upon receiving Rush Limbaugh's next coded message."

I don't. Not the people doing most of the talking anyway. They know full wellthat they're using lies and false accusationsto foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'dremain silent. Think of how they deal with Islamic terrorists, or even cartoons.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 12, 2011 11:26 AM (hUf/c)

68 OT
Come on. Cirque Du Soleil is without a doubt the gayest Circus on Earth. In fact, the only gay circus. And Fwench to boot.

Posted by: maddogg at January 12, 2011 11:27 AM (OlN4e)

69 I have nothing original to add to this thread, so I'll attempt to cut & paste something completely irrelevant.

Look at me! I'm a dancing monkey.
[trollbusted]

Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2011 11:27 AM (9L1z6)

70 I don't. Not the people doing most of the talking anyway. They know full wellthat they're using lies and false accusationsto foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'dremain silent. Think of how they deal with Islamic terrorists, or even cartoons.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 12, 2011 11:26 AM (hUf/c)
Yep... made this point in an arguement last night...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 11:28 AM (AdK6a)

71 Ah look! It's Dan Dan the shitstain Romney spam!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:29 AM (Y5+Z3)

72 And Fwench to boot.
Actually, they're Canadian...which is worse

Posted by: beedubya at January 12, 2011 11:30 AM (AnTyA)

73 73 Kickball on ice.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (SJ6/3)

74 As to the terrorist interrogation question. Al Bibi (sp?) was interrogated under the regular order rules for quite awhile, after that did not work they let one of the "happiness and good works" will get us what we want fellows try their hand. (Seriously, this guy posited that by building "rapport" with the suspect and giving him cookies when he is co-operative we would be successful.)
After that failed (ie did not turn up anything useful) they waterboardered him. He immediatly gave up the location of the safe house where Khalid was found.
The guy with the cookies still regularly makes public appearances stating that his methods are, better, faster, and more accurate.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (mV+es)

75 Wait a minute? Rush has secret messages on his talk show? Where do I get a code key?

Posted by: CDR M at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (y67bA)

76 Very well put, Ace.

I think a lot of this is specifically targeted at FoxNews. The Left wants to make the people who work at FNC -- the hosts, the producers, the staff, everyone -- feel personally guilty for being inflammatory in the hopes they tone it down and shut-up.

FNC has 10x the influence of talk radio. Especially since the iPod generation no longer listen to radio.

The tactic has in the past proven to be effective in turning right-wing Senators, Governors, Supreme Court Justices, and even Presidents to the left.

Posted by: bobbo at January 12, 2011 11:33 AM (QcFbt)

77 Wait a minute? Rush has secret messages on his talk show? Where do I get a code key?
Posted by: CDR M at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (y67bA)
It's the old enigma machines.

Posted by: robtr at January 12, 2011 11:33 AM (hVDig)

78 I'd chime in with appreciation of the post Ace, but also agreement with A Resonable Man.


I think Cat III folks undeniably exist. Statistically I think the number is vanishingly small.



Extending your law of large numbers however, you will see that sum of Cat III types grow larger and more capable of threatening larger numbers of innocents.



So there is an interesting hypothetical to debate in some respect.

But that debate needs to be had at precisely the point Nighthawk says above: around the weighing of the cost of Liberty against the cost of Life.



Liberals are notoriously bad actors in such a debate for precisely the reason Ace highlights: they place a negligible to zero value on the concerns of Conservatives.

Posted by: krakatoa at January 12, 2011 11:34 AM (a0Jhx)

79 Posted by: nickless at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM (MMC8r)

Stars on ice on water.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at January 12, 2011 11:35 AM (kb0wl)

80 I like long posts, especially this one. I really like the way it begins, to let you know it's a long post:
"It was the best of posts, it was the worst of posts"

Posted by: Michael Steele at January 12, 2011 11:35 AM (5qBd2)

81 To put the number of loons that go on killing sprees into perspective. They are less frequent than lottery winners of more than $100 million.

Which to me means there is no freedom I will trade to be protected (even with the assumption the prescribed protection would be effective which it wouldn't)

Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 12, 2011 11:35 AM (tf9Ne)

82 It's the old enigma machines.

Posted by: robtr at January 12, 2011 11:33 AM (hVDig)

B_ Sur_ _o Drink Your O_al_in_
son of a bitch...

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 12, 2011 11:35 AM (eCAn3)

83 Think Jug Ears will try to work in his "sittin' back sippin' on a Slurpee" line in his speech tonight????

Posted by: beedubya at January 12, 2011 11:36 AM (AnTyA)

84 Prohibitions create artificial market distortions and instant opportunities for profits as a professional smuggler.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:36 AM (84Grz)

85 I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category
Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social
cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being
fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.

Those people are actually Category Two with respect to the proposed ban, because their violence would occur with or without the thing to be banned .

Posted by: The Monster at January 12, 2011 11:37 AM (yMxwG)

86 I'd just add that I think there are a significant number of Category
Three people. It's simply that their violence isn't triggered by social
cues like music and movies, but rather by personal tragedies like being
fired or losing a girlfriend or some such.

Such as losing an election and watching their world view implode? Who can have watched the appalling spectacle of the last few days without concluding that these people are losing it?

Posted by: pep at January 12, 2011 11:37 AM (GMG6W)

87 76
You have to subscribe to the 24 hour EIB option.

Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 11:37 AM (5qBd2)

88 They should ban prohibitions.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:37 AM (SJ6/3)

89 If Category 3 people two people do exist, where is the proof?

Why isn't the Shrink Community trying to prove that they might exist?

Who has existed as a Category 3 killer ?

Some people are crazy and killers and have political motives. Hello, John Wilkes Booth

Other Category 3 people are just crazy and killers: Self-absorbed lunatic narcissists like Hinckley and Mark David Chapman. They fix on Something / Someone and listen to the Crazy Voices in their head


Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 11:38 AM (UqKQV)

90 'two' shouldn't have been in the first sentence

( the voices are strong in me today )

Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 11:38 AM (UqKQV)

91 Are you guys talking about diabetes?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (SJ6/3)

92 Oh goodness. More of their meme seems to be evaporating.
It's pretty clear at this point that newsrooms have replaced reporting Style Guides with a print-out of Alinsky's Rules.
We know they've already gone with the rule on 'keeping the pressure up'. Same goes for 'picking the target, freeezing it, and polarizing it'.
And it's not really working for them, now is it?
So now what?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (Y5+Z3)

93 I think the number of Category 3 people is likely increasing. Dur mainly to the fact that parents and society is now more concerned about nurturing little egos instead of adequately preparing young people to deal with the world as it is. These kids then get out into reality and can't cope.

Posted by: Mandy P. at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (vGmv/)

94 The guy with the cookies still regularly makes public appearances stating that his methods are, better, faster, and more accurate.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (mV+es)

Actually I'm sure that he gets the terrorists to talk, but what he's NOT telling you is that another group of interrogators water-boarded the bastard first, THEN he went in with his cookies and said "look, you know I'm on your side and I want to help you, but I can't keep those sadistic sickos from water-boarding you again unless you give me something good.- here have a cookie and let's talk..."

I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (02uN6)

95 I"m worn out. We needs some etcha-sketch.

Posted by: Beck's Chalkboard at January 12, 2011 11:40 AM (EL+OC)

96 I had to take the morning off to read it, but I really liked this post and had not considered this arguement in the light Ace presents it.
thanks for the ammo Ace.

Posted by: Shoey at January 12, 2011 11:40 AM (ehKDD)

97 Posted by: AndrewR at January 12, 2011 11:01 AM (APD1F)

See, I don't think those people fall in Category 3. Maybe 2, or maybe they deserve their own category.

I think the Category 3 to which Ace refers is not the guy who walks in on his wife and another guy- sure, he'll use a gun, but he'd use a knife or a bat if it was what he had. I don't even think it's the super-severely Mentally Retarded or super-duper Autistic kid who is so unable to interact with the world in any rational way that they finally (and, with MR and Autism: repeatedly) snap into violence of some kind.

I think he's talking about a theoretical category of person who would never commit murder- except that guns exist. And another category of person who would never commit murder- except he watches Glen Beck and listens to Rush.

The difference between the latter group and the former is that they are otherwise fully functioning, and whatever sets them off isn't some immediate stimulus, but a long series of "stimuli" which accrue over time.

In the case of the guy who wouldn't commit murder except for the existence of those icky guns, the "theory" (to give it a name it hasn't earned) would be that the constant temptation, day after day, eventually wears him down and his "better nature" eventually just fails him. Or whatever.

In the case of the guy walking in on his wife- that's a sudden and specific stimulus to violence. For the MR and Autistic, they kind of fall into the "series of stimuli" camp, but there is always one final straw. "Category 3," to my interpretation, is not anyone who we can point to a final straw (because that would actually give us a specific reason for whatever happened that we could debate instead of a "climate of hate"), but rather someone who is just "worn down" into violence.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 12, 2011 11:40 AM (8y9MW)

98 86
Under my administration, we will be banning "firing people" and "breakups."

Posted by: Sir Golfsalot at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (5qBd2)

99 Up until McVeigh's OKC bombing, the largest US mass murder in recent history was accomplished with a gallon of gas and a match. Human beings are damned creative when they're truly bent on murder.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (84Grz)

100 Great post, Ace.

Posted by: blue star at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (xqyiz)

101 Interesting.
I think we have to accept that:
1. Most politicians have an urge to expand government. They ARE government
2.The Right is anti-government expansion.
3. Therefore, outside of war debates, we will most often be the anti-government side.
4. We also are the side that defends gun rights.
5. In the current environment, # 3 and #4 result more often in appeals for “armed resistance” than liberal rhetoric.
6. ???
An idea I think derived from the Law of Large Numbers -- given a sufficient number of trials (a sufficient number of people), any circumstance which is not explicitly forbidden by the laws of nature will, sometimes, exist.

Similar to the Law of the Internet: If you can’t imagine it, it’s on the web. So, Rate My Turban.

Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (9KqcB)

102 Excellent post, and Pep may have a point.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 12, 2011 11:42 AM (5/yRG)

103 Excellent piece. You have put into very eloquent words what I've been saying for years. Life=risk. And it's not always "someone's fault" that a bad thing happened to you - hence the need for tort reform. Crap happens and as you said, we all have taken risks for things WE thought were worth it. That's called having a free will.

Posted by: Christine Bongiorno at January 12, 2011 11:42 AM (6QC41)

104 76

Wait a minute? Rush has secret messages on his talk show? Where do I get a code key?

Posted by: CDR M at January 12, 2011 11:31 AM (y67bA)

You have to drink a lot of Ovaltine and sent in the labels....

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 12, 2011 11:43 AM (02uN6)

105 100
Up until McVeigh's OKC bombing, the largest US mass murder in recent
history was accomplished with a gallon of gas and a match. Human beings
are damned creative when they're truly bent on murder.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (84Grz)

Hey, I did pretty good with a surplus tank and some tear gas!

Posted by: Janet Reno at January 12, 2011 11:43 AM (eCAn3)

106 93

Oh goodness. More of their meme seems to be evaporating.


-----


I know. Next up on the democrats banning block? Loughner's friends.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 12, 2011 11:44 AM (8x3SC)

107 My life is worth around $ 220,000.00, give or take a few dollar.

Also, in section I, i remember this being a part of Fight Club, where the audience was supposed to be disgusted. Ed Norton's character was one of the people for the auto industry who decided whether or not there should be recalls or if it would be cheaper settle law suits. And the company would then choose whichever cost less.

Posted by: Ben at January 12, 2011 11:44 AM (wuv1c)

108 93
And right there, we're all proven correct by ABC.
"Laughner began his spiral downward aftera high school girlfriend broke up with him."

Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 11:45 AM (5qBd2)

109 They know full wellthat they're using lies and false accusationsto foment hatred. If they really thought there'd be a violent backlash then they'dremain silent..
I agree to a point. Nobody has called me complicit to murder to my face (and they should not.) They may feel they are protected from backlash somehow, maybe because they rarely leave the basement. It's really hard to say how many are the worst kind of liars and how many actually are buying this shit. Remember that many just repeat what they hear and never put two brain cells to work thinking critically about much of anything.

Great post, good and long.

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 12, 2011 11:45 AM (rplL3)

110 If they honestly believed that 60% of Tea Partiers are dangerous enough to start going postal and take out government officials the current media sh*t storm wouldn't be happening. They'd be to busy cowering behind their desks and tax-payer funded bodyguards to be talking all this crap.
All prohibition does is make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: AdamPM at January 12, 2011 11:45 AM (/83rF)

111
That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people.

Now, watch me make Krugman cluck like a chicken simply using the power of my mind.

And the Force. Sith Lord and all that.

Now watch as I make Krugman think he is The Chicken.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at January 12, 2011 11:46 AM (1hM1d)

112 So now what?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:39 AM (Y5+Z3)
We're gonna double down, baby....double down!

Posted by: Libtards everywhere unite! at January 12, 2011 11:47 AM (VuLos)

113 Great, thought provoking post, Ace.
Have to agree, though, with the camp that feels as if the majority of the moonbats (the ones who are most fervently stirring this pot) truly thought there was any real danger in prodding and provoking the right, they would cease and desist.
I saw a comment (after Krauthammer's op-ed in NR Online for cripes sake) from a moonbat who confessed a "vague uneasiness" about there being crazy conservatives out there, and cited "studies" about how conservatives were more prone to fear-mongering, authoritarianism, etc.
Yeah, there is probably someuneasiness about us because they have no concept of what makes us tick. What they feel is more like the slight uneasiness you feel when you turn over a dead Man of War on the beach and try to make sure you don't touch a tentacle, but I think they feel very, very safe in their continued demonization. Just like flag burning, demonstrations that trash the military or US traditions. If theythought there were scores of silently waiting Jack Bauer types out there ready to reap vengeance, they would NEVER be as bold as they are.

Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 11:49 AM (1kwr2)

114 Hey, I did pretty good with a surplus tank and some tear gas!
Posted by: Janet Reno at January 12, 2011 11:43 AM (eCAn3)
Piker - we almost destroyed an entire game with just a little good ol fashion greed.

Posted by: The 1909 Chicago White Sox at January 12, 2011 11:49 AM (OWjjx)

115 Being crazy, I am sometimes influenced by political messages and announcements that I do no hear or see

Happens all the time.......

The Great Thing about crazy people is that you can say anything about them and it will be difficult or impossible to prove you're wrong / full of chit


Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 11:50 AM (UqKQV)

116 ACE WIN

Posted by: GnuBreed, thinking 2 x 4 is too long at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (h0RtZ)

117 You were right. Anything starting with a Roman numeral should be skipped. By the way, the "light" cars that you describe that have a calculated "death" value attached do not exist simpley because Detroit wanted to make "light" cars. "Light" cars exist because of Federally mandated CAFE standards. Period. Improvements in energy throughput for internal combustion engines have come a long way in the last 40 years. But the car companies knew they wouldn't come fast enough. They shaved the weight and the size of the car to get more mileage per engine.
Understand that the car companies made rational calculations. Undertand also that TheLeviathon responsible for thisnever did, never will, and so far, has not been held accountable.

Posted by: Donald J. Morrissey at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (GkYyh)

118 Wimmin problems maybe? But I'm more inclined to rip from the Dem's playbook. I'll use Alinksy Rule #4- Make the Enemy live up to its own set of rules...
I blame every Democrat that pushed for HC legislation over job creation-
"The online-forum messages exhibit a growing frustration that, at 22 years of age, Mr. Loughner couldn't land a minimum-wage job and was spurned by women."
From the WSJ

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (Y5+Z3)

119 Also, confirmation bias.
The last few months they've been toying with the idea that Obama really needs another Tim McVeigh. Which has been a reliable argument on so many issues for sixteen years. Every time someone mentions Islamic terror they counter with Tim McVeigh, for one. And they truly believe there are many wannabe Tim McVeighs in their political opposition.
So when a congresswoman underPalin's"crosshairs" was actually shot,after thewave midterm favoringtheprimitive prole conservatives, the circle wassquared. Then the stubborn facts started to trickle out. But due to the confirmation biaswe'rewatching them struggle to debate the facts. Always a losing effort unless you canchange the facts a la Orwell or Stalin.

Posted by: Beagle at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (sOtz/)

120 This is not about craziness; it's about politically-motivated shit-bags creating a crisis out of a tragedy and then not letting it go to waste

that is all..........

Posted by: HUMAN UNIT-DESIGNATE: SantaRosa of : Stan at January 12, 2011 11:52 AM (UqKQV)

121 I think if they manage to get right rhetoric banned, we'll be the hottest thing since Woodstock baby. Everyone will want to be right, we'll be the resistance, we'll be the rebels...we'll be to cool for school.

Posted by: AnnaH at January 12, 2011 11:52 AM (7mMUX)

122 Smart article - and I mean Bill-Whittle-smart. Well done.

And the most prosaic thing I can think of saying was "If Loughner was Category Three, then this might have been better dealt with if more of the Category Ones in the crowd were also Condition One."

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 12, 2011 11:53 AM (Jdtsu)

123 Changing the Facts has never posed any particular problem for the MFM or the Left.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 12, 2011 11:53 AM (o3bYL)

124 The only thing I can't resist is temptation.

OW

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 12, 2011 11:53 AM (70v0o)

125 Excellent post, Ace.

I'd only note that there are probably a good chunk of Category 3's who are really Category 2's who just lacked opportunity or drive. IOW, the same imbalances exist that would make them 2's, but they were denied by events not of their control.

Not that this proportion changes the calculus of your argument at all. If there are any Category 3's, even a hypothetical construct of one as manufactured by thinkers for convenience, then the liberal (and I mean non-liberal, actually) impetus to intervene exists.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 12, 2011 11:53 AM (swuwV)

126 Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 11:41 AM (9KqcB)
I'm sorry, but your Post is outside the Guidlines of AOS Posting rules.
#3 must ALWAYS be PROFIT

Posted by: Self Appointed Moron Cop at January 12, 2011 11:54 AM (AdK6a)

127 cited "studies" about how conservatives were more prone to fear-mongering, authoritarianism, etc

Probably, but its always been the hard left that was more prone to filling mass graves and body counts in the tens of millions.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 11:55 AM (84Grz)

128 Everyone will want to be right, we'll be the resistance, we'll be the rebels...we'll be to cool for school.

Will we get to wear Che t-shirts?

Posted by: pep at January 12, 2011 11:55 AM (GMG6W)

129 that's like... a lot of words and stuff. no onze gonna get it after like, a long time. LOL!

Posted by: Ezra Klien at January 12, 2011 11:56 AM (N1KWs)

130 The main difference is that the Right believes people act at their own prodding. They are independent and own their own thoughts.

The left believe people are cattle. They believe no one owns their own thoughts/actions and that if they are stupid enough o believe the shit the MFM spews, well then, they are stupid enough to be prodded to violence.

Posted by: momma at January 12, 2011 11:57 AM (penCf)

131 "couldn't land a minimum-wage job"
Loughner Driven to Kill by Minimum WageLaw

Posted by: Beagle at January 12, 2011 11:57 AM (sOtz/)

132 "Laughner began his spiral downward aftera high school girlfriend broke up with him."
Posted by: The Q at January 12, 2011 11:45 AM (5qBd2)

Und now we get to ze root... ze cause...
Its all a Womans fault...
/runs out of the thread giggling...

Posted by: Siggy Freud at January 12, 2011 11:57 AM (AdK6a)

133 Ace, excellent post. Rational thought is being supplanted by motive bound liberals. The liberal response to the Arizona tragedy is duplicitous and perverse. Yet, it is being advanced bythe unscrupulous mainstream press.
The degree to which the liberal meme is being advanced is alarming to reasonable minded people i.e. conservatives.

Posted by: Journolist at January 12, 2011 11:57 AM (LwLqV)

134 This guy could not get a minimum wage law......more proof we need to raise the minimum wage......or something............

Posted by: Zombie Ted Kennedy, Fetching Satan Smokes From Hell at January 12, 2011 11:59 AM (OWjjx)

135 Wow - just read this on my lunch hour. Very interesting and, as always, a great post, Ace.
mac :]

Posted by: macbrooks at January 12, 2011 11:59 AM (J+MD4)

136 During WWII, the allies dropped stamped sheet metal single shot pistols all over Europe for the resistance. I think they cost about $3/each.

The idea wasn't to use the pistol in active acts of organized resistance, rather for the individual finding it to use it to ambush a single German soldier from whom you could obtain a quality high-capacity weapon to use in your resistance operations.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 12:00 PM (84Grz)

137 Another wonderful Ace essay. In my opinion, the only difference between category 2 and 3 is whether or not their lawyer is a liberal.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at January 12, 2011 12:02 PM (YjQWV)

138 #3 must ALWAYS be PROFIT
Posted by: Self Appointed Moron Cop at January 12, 2011 11:54 AM (AdK6a)
I'm taking it in a new, exciting direction.
My point is, generally speaking,conservatives feel much stronger about arming ourselves and about stopping the perpetual growth of government. So, there will always be a Category 3 risk for us. There just is. And if someone acts out, and the link to the right is proven, what do we say?
We say: "Living with the risk is more important that altering our views." We should start saying that now, rather than harping on the fact that no link has been found in this case.

Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 12:03 PM (9KqcB)

139 I'm in category 4.

Posted by: Twinkie defense dude at January 12, 2011 12:04 PM (70v0o)

140 Liberals are simply incredibly lazy thinkers.
The answer to the question of cost/benefit is that things liberalslike have infinate value. Things they don't like have zero value. The problem is...because conservatives have no value to liberals...then their complete erasure from Earth makes no difference. And because understanding what conservativeswant or think has no value, it is easiest for liberals to assumeconservatives think the same thing about them! But liberalshave infinate value!They can't not matter! Ergo, the only solution is that liberals musteliminate all conservativesimmediately!
Sorry, but the cost benefit thingy says you gotta go!

Posted by: Alaskan caribou at January 12, 2011 12:05 PM (1vG6v)

141 This goes along with 'the right is clueless and should be banned' meme:

Clyburn: 'Intellectually, [Palin] seems not to understand what's going on here'"She is an attractive person, she is articulate, but i think
intellectually she seems not to understand what is going on here," he
said.

Posted by: momma at January 12, 2011 12:06 PM (penCf)

142 Spot on Ace.

This whole brouhaha inst about "public safety".

Its is about shutting people up.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 12, 2011 12:06 PM (J5Hcw)

143 My guess would be that by 12:05, PA's 12:00 post about the single shot pistols will be in his permanent record in the memory vault at the Ministry of Truth. It will be likely be used as direct evidence of attempted brain-washing and implanting just before he is duly sentenced to the re-education camps. It has been a wild ride.

Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 12:07 PM (1kwr2)

144 We say: "Living with the risk is more important that altering our views." We should start saying that now, rather than harping on the fact that no link has been found in this case.
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2011 12:03 PM (9KqcB)

Its the fight between saftey, and Liberty... and the Progresives are always pushing saftey in order to take away Liberty... even if the thing has no Real benefit.
Like the TSA grope downs. Theres has not been a single terrorist plot stopped at a US airport by all these searches, yet they expanded them.
I just started rereading Crichton's Climate of Fear last night... whose basic premise is that the Gov must always keep its Citizens in Fear, in order to expand its powers.... Note that the Left, is using that exact tactic now. They are trying to use a single incident of a whacko, to put MORE limits on Liberty (both Guns, and Speech)...
The Government, and Media, are perpetuating Fear....

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 12, 2011 12:08 PM (AdK6a)

145 Ace said:
"Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers -- left-wingers, even -- who don't hear it.
That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people."
And here you have the essence of the sickly mind-thoughts that are driving the Climate Alarmists. (See:anything and everything observable supports our climate theory.)
Nice post Ace. Can't believe I read it all.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 12, 2011 12:10 PM (fLHQe)

146 Romeo13: "I just started rereading Crichton's Climate of Fear last night... whose basic premise is that the Gov must always keep its Citizens in Fear, in order to expand its powers..."

That's why we have Israel and subsidize Palestinians.

Posted by: The Middle East at January 12, 2011 12:14 PM (swuwV)

147 Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people

The hard left (which is most of the left these days) isn't really concerned about lefties being driven to kill. The BIG fear is the middle third who arent drinking all the kool-aid are being driven to the right.

The town halls last summer and Beck's ralley in DC absolutely suprised the professional left and frankly.... scared the bejeebus out of them. Remember all the flak about those "crazy violent tea partiers"???? This response to the Arizona on the part of the left is a continuation of last summers efforts.


Posted by: fixerupper at January 12, 2011 12:18 PM (J5Hcw)

148 This is an amazing essay, Ace. Thanks for posting it. The only thing I would add is this: I am not convinced that the stated, intentional goal of most on the left is really the banishment of conservative speech. I think that, mainly, they harbor a prejudice against conservatives that we are as a group gun-totin' lunatics (near 60% as you write), and that when something like the Tucson tragedy occurs, they get scared and immediately retreat to their comforting prejudice to explain it all for them. So when a liberal demagogue like Krugman comes along and says "the Right-Wing Culture Of Hate(tm) is to blame", it all ties in together with their prejudice and they follow along like sheep with Krugman's recommendations, all the while patting themselves on the back that they are the educated, intellectual, civilized ones in the world. So they don't even realize that they are signing up for essentially fascist tyranny until it's too late.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 12, 2011 12:19 PM (PaSAU)

149 Category 3 does not exist. People are either in category 1and will never commit a crime or they are in category 2 and they are destined to commit some crazy act eventually. Category 2 people don't need a catalyst to go off the deep end, they merely need to allow their craziness to percolate and hit critical mass for them to strike.
Category 2 people generally have great difficulty holding on to jobs. They struggle to achieve and maintain romantic, familial, and friendship relationships. The weight of being a loser eventually causes the crazy person to formulate a fantasy plan of violence that they believe once carried out, will magically transform their lives into relevancy.

Posted by: dri at January 12, 2011 12:20 PM (4uWkx)

150 Thought I was doing pretty good, you know, hanging in there. But the length of this post has filled me with a searing, white-hot rage. A post that long, with that many control-bot trigger words on the heels of 1/11/11? You're not as smart as you think you are you bastard.

Posted by: Category 1000 energy bolts at January 12, 2011 12:22 PM (+lsX1)

151 I sense a Vast Conspiracy at the root, probably Right Wing in nature.

Posted by: Democrats at January 12, 2011 12:22 PM (QgmBR)

152 150 Category 3 does not exist. People are either in category 1and will never commit a crime or they are in category 2 and they are destined to commit some crazy act eventually. Category 2 people don't need a catalyst to go off the deep end, they merely need to allow their craziness to percolate and hit critical mass for them to strike.
Category 2 people generally have great difficulty holding on to jobs. They struggle to achieve and maintain romantic, familial, and friendship relationships. The weight of being a loser eventually causes the crazy person to formulate a fantasy plan of violence that they believe once carried out, will magically transform their lives into relevancy.


Posted by: dri at January 12, 2011 12:20 PM (4uWkx)

In other words, categories 1 & 3 don't exist.

Posted by: A Velvet Painting of Al Franken at January 12, 2011 12:27 PM (C1wuB)

153 There are way more category 3 types than you give credit. consider the massacre in rwanda. conducted by category 3 types. East european progroms. etc. We are just fortunate to live in a country with a political atmosphere and civic culture that does not promote lunatic violence. the shameful part of all this is that the rhetoric being critisized is the healthy democratic kind that promotes this environment.

Posted by: murray at January 12, 2011 12:29 PM (mmN+q)

154 I see Drudge has "Accused Shooter Wrote on Gaming Site of His Job Woes, Rejection by Women..."

We need to immediately pass some legislation to prohibit rejection by women.

Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 12:35 PM (kaalw)

155 And let me add. In this country Al Sharpton incited race riots in which people died. The riot would likely no have happened without a the charismatic spark

Posted by: murray at January 12, 2011 12:37 PM (mmN+q)

156 see Drudge has "Accused Shooter Wrote on Gaming Site of His Job Woes, Rejection by Women..." We need to immediately pass some legislation to prohibit rejection by women.
Posted by: cthulhu

Easy for you to say. You have tentacles.

What?

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 12, 2011 12:38 PM (R2fpr)

157 It's a great essay. That said, My thinking is that if we take a step back and look not at the promotion of the whole 'rightwingers are causing the death of innocents" meme, and evaluate just how effective it is, we will find that it is not being accepted wholesale. So far in my admittedly small sample, most reasonable lefties are not buying it. The signal has been strong - the NYT is certainly an opinion leader on the left, and they pushed the meme strongly, and it is certainly being pushed hard by the fever swamp levosphere, but most people, even liberals, can think for themselves.I talked to a few people at the office yesterday, and less than half of them were buying it (the office politics are overwhelmingly liberal, and the herd mentality there is strong). So if I am seeing a number of strays from the promoted meme in that environment, it seems significant to me. I think this is a 'jump the shark' moment for the meme-setters of the liberal media (of all stripes), and most everyone, including many of their usual compadres-in-thought, are actually taking a step back and realizing just how insane the whole 'Sarah Palin caused this guy to kill people from 6,000 miles away!' idea is.

Although I was really, really pissed off for the past two days over this, I am beginning to realize that reasonable heads will most likely prevail, after all. And most people really are reasonable. So the vast majority of Category ones out there are going to reject this bankrupt school of thought and it will die of starvation, as it ought, except in the same people and outlets that are pretty much
in category two in the first place, sans the violence (mostly).

Except, of course, my wife, who upon reading an editorial headline or two the other day, completely bought the whole "We must reduce the rhetoric' thing hook, line, and sinker. Oh, well, I'll keep working on her - she's worth it.

Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 12:38 PM (ilOUE)

158 The top headline on Drudge -- in large type, in red -- reads: "HE DID NOT WATCH TV. HE DISLIKED THE NEWS. HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO POLITICAL RADIO."

So, there you go.

We need legislation to mandate that people watch TV and listen to political radio, and those who dislike the news should be put on a watch list.

Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 12:41 PM (kaalw)

159 Category 3 tends to overlap with Category Four: People who only exist in the minds of those for whom it's convenient for them to exist. Not entirely, but substantially.

Implications are left as an exercise to the student.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© works for the University of Planet, natch at January 12, 2011 12:44 PM (GBXon)

160 And Laughner proves how scary all of this is. If even a left-winger can't resist Rush Limbaugh's commands to kill when he doesn't even hear them, what possible chance is there that the 60% of the Tea Party which is primed to murder will resist his call when they do hear it?

This alone couldhave been typed and all the rest avoided.

Posted by: rightzilla at January 12, 2011 12:46 PM (ujT7B)

161 Nice.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 12, 2011 12:49 PM (yjWUo)

162 Yeah, my wife has very conservative instincts but gets her info from the MSM and tilts a bit left emotionally. She knows about the tragedy, of course, but isn't following this whole side of the debate about the "rhetoric".
She is OK with Palin, but kind of buys into the meme of her not being "qualified". However, last night she heard someone chattering on TV about whether Palin should forego a run for President after the past days' events and said "WHAT? WHY"

Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 12:49 PM (1kwr2)

163 #153 " In other words, categories 1 3 don't exist."

No category 1 exists because most people who's lives take a nosedive will not resort to a crazy violent "solution" to their problems.

Category 3 people are in essence just category 2 people who's lives have fallen apart to the point that they become despondent. Despondent and crazy add up to violent action against others.

Posted by: dri at January 12, 2011 12:50 PM (4uWkx)

164 Here is some support for my position about how the media push is not working:

http://tinyurl.com/45eaqen

(safe link to Gateway Pundit)

And we know who that 28% is - the hardcore left, who despite my heartfelt confidence in most people to do some basic reasoning on their own recognizance, will believe anything: A. that they are told by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo B. that demonizes their political opponents.


Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 12:50 PM (ilOUE)

165 We need to immediately pass some legislation to prohibit rejection by women.
Posted by: cthulhu at January 12, 2011 12:35 PM (kaalw)
Oh! I absolutely agree!

Posted by: maddogg's stiffening whanger at January 12, 2011 12:51 PM (OlN4e)

166 #163 RM

If only I could get that far. My wife is a knee-jerk liberal, very emotionally driven. But she married me, so there is hope.(well not for HER, she still has to live with ME, but for bringing her over to the Dark Side, I mean).


Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 12:55 PM (ilOUE)

167 Since 95% of accidents occur within 10 miles of home, I never go home.

I also stay out of chest deep water, thus avoiding 90% of shark attacks.

Posted by: toby928™ at January 12, 2011 01:00 PM (S5YRY)

168 Toby, along those lines, I never drink water. It is a gateway liquid, and only leads to the harder stuff.



Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 01:02 PM (ilOUE)

169 "The last few months they've been toying with the idea that Obama really needs another Tim McVeigh."

What he needs is a Reichstagsbrand, so he can have his Ermächtigungsgesetz. Everyone knows you can't have an Ermächtigungsgesetz without a Reichstagsbrand.

Posted by: The Monster at January 12, 2011 01:02 PM (yMxwG)

170 Outstanding post! Wow.

Part of the strength of the left is their ability to convince large groups of people that chaos and tragedy can be defeated legislatively.

If you accept that chaos and tragedy will always still occur at some frequency greater than you like, no matter what laws are passed, you are less willing to throw everyone's liberty away for a small percentage decrease in life's lethality.

Posted by: lauraw at January 12, 2011 01:15 PM (DbybK)

171 This is a very good post. I liked the part about right-wing rhetoric being so powerful and dangerous that it animates good and pure left-wingers who don't hear it.

Posted by: bour3 at January 12, 2011 01:15 PM (D1E3j)

172 Simply fantastic, Ace.

Posted by: jakeman at January 12, 2011 01:18 PM (POByM)

173 I like Palin's video from facebook today. Most of it anyway. But especially the parts where she reminds us of Reagan and personal responsibility. That man was a genious!

Posted by: rightzilla at January 12, 2011 01:23 PM (ujT7B)

174 West, I think all one can ask is that (like you say) a wife or whoever does some basic reasoning before formulating hard and fast positions on important issues.
When she sees an outtake of Obama at a baseball game talking about what a great country this is, she kind of buys it. But she also is well capable of looking at the taxes we pay and how hard we work, and then seeing an acquaintanceof hers extend her unemployment for another half year so she doesn't have to work, and realizing it isn't right.

Posted by: RM at January 12, 2011 01:24 PM (1kwr2)

175 Outstanding stuff. Best comment so far #24:

"The crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe"
Frank Zappa

Posted by: tokingjoe at January 12, 2011 01:31 PM (f3Tf1)

176 119
Wimmin problems maybe? But I'm more inclined to rip from the Dem's playbook. I'll use Alinksy Rule #4- Make the Enemy live up to its own set of rules...
I blame every Democrat that pushed for HC legislation over job creation-
"The online-forum messages exhibit a growing frustration that, at 22 years of age, Mr. Loughner couldn't land a minimum-wage job and was spurned by women."
From the WSJ
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM (Y5+Z3)


from brutally harsh experience, i have learnedsome things that turn women off.
1. Dungeons Dragons - I'll never understand why, but pretty women can sense a DD player from miles away, if you ever want to get laid put down the 20-sided dice.
2. Major mental illness - creeps them out even slightly more than being short and unattractive (but only slightly)

Posted by: Shoey at January 12, 2011 01:33 PM (ehKDD)

177 There are a lot more category 3 people you you suppose Ace.
1.2 billion Muslims is not a trivial number. That's why the Left is constantly worrying about not provoking them. The Left is a least consistent in their belief that category 3 people shouldn't be provoked, I'll give them that.
By the way, great post.

Posted by: Speller at January 12, 2011 01:35 PM (J74Py)

178 Excellent essay - didn't nod off once, but did have to read out loud once or twice on the difficult parts.

I've been curious about the progression of this latest lunacy of theirs as well. I think that pretty soon, they will start to back away from this as they see it's not really working out for them - all the stories coming out about how the kid didn't like news, etc.. They will say stuff like, "Well, rhetoric didn't matter in this case, but it's still important to watch what we say, and by the way, how about those Yankees..."

I think instead of letting them get away with changing the subject, the right needs to keep throwing this in their face at every opportunity. Opps, sorry for the 'throwing' thing...maybe 'gently reminding'?

Posted by: Greg at January 12, 2011 01:37 PM (wBUxE)

179 . In fact, they weren't defects at all. Car designers could make every
car as safe as possible -- with heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers
and and the like -- but they don't.

Heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers is how cars were built in the 1930's; they were horribly unsafe. A big strong vehicle will itself survive - while killing you.
All of this was discovered in the 1950's by Mercedes which thought that
their energy absorbing technology was so important that they released
it to all the other car manufacturers without patenting it.


When people are buying big cars with strong frames and bumpers like Hummers they are buying CARS which will survive an accident NOT cars which will protect them in an accident.

The safest car you can buy is a 3500 lb sports sedan like a BMW - Mercedes - Infiniti etc.. This is because there are two factors in safety: 1. How well are you able to avoid collisions in the first place. 2. How well are the passengers able to survive a collision.

Factor one is inversely proportional to vehicle mass.
Factor two is proportional to vehicle mass.

In other words a 50000 lb vehicle does better in a collision than a 3500 lb vehicle but it is much more likely to get into a collision than the smaller vehicle; 18 wheelers can't turn, they can't stop - they smash into things. The bottom line is that you are much more likely to die driving an 18 wheeler than you are if you are driving a 3500 lb sports sedan. As a result the most dangerous job in the continental 48 states is driving an 18 wheeler.

Conversely vehicles smaller than 3500 lb sports sedans are more likely to avoid collisions than bigger vehicles - but they do so poorly when they do get into a wreck that they are more likely to kill you than a 3500 lb sports sedan.

A 3500 lb sports sedan is small enough, has good enough handling and brakes to avoid most collisions - while being large enough to protect you in a collision it can't avoid. Bottom line; lowest death rates of any vehicle types driven in general purpose driving. It is why BMW's have lower death rates than Volvo's - even though the latter are designed to survive collisions. (The Ford Aerostar van has a lower death rate than any other vehicle, but that is because it is the 'soccer mom' car which is rarely driven more that 35 mph)

All a big vehicle provides is the illusion of safety. Don't buy a big car because you think it will make you safe; it won't.

Posted by: An Observation at January 12, 2011 01:47 PM (ylhEn)

180 Of all the brilliant formations I just don't have time to respond to adequately!

AGH! The timing of it all.

Quickly don't have time to read all the comments, but some have pointed out that not only is this (likely) the smallest category of people (that the left wants to use to set the rules for us all), but the influences in question are the smallest influences in their decisions (personal events, family, relationships, and of course onset of mental illness being vastly larger drivers).

So basically they want to set laws and social rules based on the least relevant possible information.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 12, 2011 01:55 PM (bxiXv)

181 Yeah, I got through III and had to quit.

Sorry Ace, but I agree with what I read so far, but that seems like so much psychology that it really made me contemplate category 2.

Posted by: Sponge © at January 12, 2011 02:18 PM (UK9cE)

182 Thanks for the long form post to make your points.

Great ACE!

Posted by: MoJoTee at January 12, 2011 02:21 PM (uGBn8)

183 RM -

My wife is no dummy. I think she voted for the O, but she has been very quiet since he took office. I would bet that she would not vote for him again. And she was never supportive of the health care bill - she is well aware of what more bureaucracy will do the the industry and our hopes for effective health care, she works in a related industry. I am also sure that she is well aware of the other factors you mention.

So, she qualifies in your "basic reasoning" department (except she married me - nobody's perfect)

But she was brought up liberal, her parents and friends are liberals, and we live in the bluest of blue states. So there is lots of momentum and ingrained thought patterns involved.

We have a great marriage, BTW, she is the love of my life.

Posted by: West at January 12, 2011 02:37 PM (ilOUE)

184 Nice crystallization. I hadn't actually given it much thought; I'll chew on that for a while.

Posted by: moviegique at January 12, 2011 02:51 PM (1y5Vr)

185 I just had this argument with a lib. He wants to ban all guns that can fire multiple bullets. He said a one-shot gun was OK.???

So I said that if you go down that slope of banning guns & ammo then the result will be far worse then if you had the status quo.

He disagreed. How wrong he will be proven is up to the left now.

Posted by: izoneguy at January 12, 2011 03:11 PM (83mM1)

186 Michael Savage the independent for president!

Posted by: Meg Mass at January 12, 2011 03:19 PM (f4Ndo)

187 So lemme see if I am hearing you right...

You're saying that there are some people who don't like Heavy Metal?

Man, I need to chew on that for a bit. I've never considered the possibility....

Very good piece BTW. read every word, and couldn't agree more.

Posted by: IronDioPriest at January 12, 2011 03:22 PM (R5UWl)

188 Wow! You're on a roll lately, kid!

Posted by: Beckaholic at January 12, 2011 03:25 PM (x3oLQ)

189 Who could ever forget those blood-soaked ObamaCare town-hall meetings perpetrated by those unhinged gun-toting Tea Party Radicals in the murederous summer of '09?

Oh wait......

Posted by: PFFFT at January 12, 2011 03:26 PM (wFMDa)

190 He wants to ban all guns that can fire multiple bullets.

I think I'd look pretty dapper with a brace of flintlock's tucked into my belt.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2011 03:32 PM (GhHlR)

191 I read the whole thing and thought it very well done.
For years, I've summarized liberalism with two phrases:
- Liberalism is all about feeling good about yourself (and bad about those who disagree).
- Being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry (Love Story, anyone?)

This thesis is entirely consistent with those phrases, albeit more concrete and explicit.

Posted by: TommyC at January 12, 2011 03:37 PM (8PLYI)

192 You are precisely correct in your conclusion.

Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2011 03:41 PM (MODaN)

193 Wow, thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 12, 2011 03:44 PM (QxSug)

194 "That's how insidious this all is. That's how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don't even hear it to kill people."
But not just "people" but other left-leaning people! I.e, that expressed, conservative opinion can cause left-wingers to kill their own kind! In other words, if you call person X a socialist, and I agree and am happy that person X is a socialist, because I am too, I'm still so infuriated by Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, et al. (despite never hearing them) that I will kill, not kill Limbaugh, Beck orLevin but my hero, my compadre, the socialist!

Posted by: HardcoreCon at January 12, 2011 04:00 PM (YMTtc)

195 So, the implication is that the Left is stupid. So stupid they're brainwashed by their opponents' rhetoric. Funny, that.

Posted by: DAve at January 12, 2011 04:09 PM (jpunE)

196 I read every word, too, @Chuckit! Brilliant in its logical simplicity. Even a liberal should be able to grasp it, now. I have only one bone to pick with it: I am totally behind governmental mind control through grammar. Or, maybe I don't mind governmental grammar control. I'm not sure. I have to get back to my Ozzy LP.

Posted by: Charlie at January 12, 2011 04:17 PM (yxpFA)

197 Ace,

Very good and thorough assessment. In law enforcement, they say that 20% of people will not steal something no matter what, 20% will steal something any time they can, and 60% will steal something only if it is tempting enough and they think they can absolutely get away with it.

I think you missed something small, but incredibly important, though.

I. The loud, obnoxious voices on the left (not to say all of them, though it is tempting) started trumpeting this supposed cat #3 tie before anyone knew anything. It is inductive reasoning at best, situational eisegesis at worst. They are looking for a reason to silence opposition, so they wait for a convenient time. It is a one-way train. There is only one suggestion, and if anything fits (in their opinion) it will be made, regardless of its veracity.

II. Further, their world-view dictates that since their opinion is the only valid one, then those who hold an opposing one must either be stupid or insane. Conservative ideas are dangerous, because they are ignorant, wrong, and evil. Those who aren't smart enough to resist those ideas (cat $3) must be protected from those who are insanely voicing them.

III. What they cannot entertain is the idea that the ideas themselves could be either equally valid, or more valid than their own. I think that is the greatest and best hope for evangelical conservatism (not to be confused with conservative evangelicalism). If we can turn off the invective just a tad, and get people to realize that conservatives simply have a different paradigm of government, then our ideas can speak for themselves. For when your ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, shouting loudly at the opposition is the last resort.

Posted by: Ryan at January 12, 2011 04:21 PM (8hxNA)

198 You lost me with all that I and V stuff. What happened to regular American numbers? 1,2,3 you know. Let me see if Barack knows anything about this.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe at January 12, 2011 04:32 PM (ocHBO)

199 Good.

Posted by: X at January 12, 2011 05:03 PM (lfsVE)

200 right wingers have to die to save the rest of us.
itworked out good in russia.

Posted by: proreason at January 12, 2011 05:13 PM (+8dSJ)

201 "Fired employees are notoriously capable of snapping. Although such snapping is a good sign there was an underlying problem, there's often no reason to suppose they ever would have snapped had they remained gainfully employed."

Are you KIDDING ME? By that logic there should be a tremendous murder rate right now. Hundreds of thousands of people get fired EVERY YEAR and a tiny (less than a hundred) snap in some lethal fashion. So .001% for you is equivalent to "notoriously capable". Awesome. Try turning off the evening news sometime and learning math in the newfound spare time.

Posted by: Artemis Fowl at January 12, 2011 05:37 PM (unNgC)

202 One benchmark that might be useful is alcohol. I think it's apparent to most reasonable people that there exists a number of Category 3 people who wouldn't commit violent and/or antisocial acts were it not for the availability of alcohol. We also know that prohibition of alcohol didn't work, its costs were too high and its payback too low. The conclusion is that banning item X because of its effect on Category 3 people must at least meet the requirement that the number of people susceptible to its behavior-altering effects must be greater than the number of people so influenced by alcohol.

And none of the so-called 'causes' of Laughner's rampage the Left has implicated is anywhere close to that threshold.

Posted by: Socratease at January 12, 2011 05:42 PM (Cw79V)

203 Ace, that was easily worth reading. I read every word of the post, and I hope others do, as well.

Bravo ... and please keep up the good work; without people like you in the trenches, we on the right will be frickin doomed. The movers and shakers over there get desperate enough they'll do just about anything -- desperate times call for desperate measures, and as we've seen, all too often, some of those fools will say or do anything for political gain.

A waste of time? Nay. Not at all!

Ace you are a
great thinker and you communicate complex things like this very, very
well. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Bill in TN at January 12, 2011 07:01 PM (5KYBU)

204 Thanks Ace, very good work.

I've been trying these last few days to understand the liberal cacaphony with little luck. This helps me understand their mindset and explains their actions. Now if you would just quit using grammer to control my thoughts..........

Posted by: Hammer at January 12, 2011 07:06 PM (hVGDL)

205 Excellent. Definitely one of your greatest hits, Ace; this should be in the sidebar permanently.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 12, 2011 07:07 PM (bvfVF)

206 So why are they constantly pushing us? Why the constant need for liberals to push our face into their lifestyles and demand our acceptance?

They want the violence. They need the violence.

The election of BHO with a near-super majority in both houses of Congress proves that without a Reichstag fire, they can't pull it off. Their Socialist Utopian dreams can never succeed in the United States without some event so horrendous that the Socialists can permanently change the laws to forever tip the balance in their favor.

Like the Hungerford massacre irreversibly disarmed the Britash people, the Left in the US must have in incident so appalling that they can convince just enough Rinos to join with them to pass a slew of liberal laws that are, at this very moment, already written and ready to be brought to the House and Senate floors.

But alas, their time has passed. Rejected after only two years. All that remains is the playbook.

Posted by: Cooter at January 12, 2011 08:06 PM (BcLJD)

207
1.2 billion Muslims is not a trivial number. That's why the Left is constantly worrying about not provoking them. The Left is a least consistent in their belief that category 3 people shouldn't be provoked, I'll give them that.Posted by: Speller at January 12, 2011 01:35 PM (J74Py)
Which puts the lie to the idea that they honestly think conservatives are category 3.They attempt to provoke us with lies, abuse and false accusations on a pretty much daily basis.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 13, 2011 01:04 AM (bxiXv)

208 Very good and thorough assessment. In law enforcement, they say that 20% of people will not steal something no matter what, 20% will steal something any time they can, and 60% will steal something only if it is tempting enough and they think they can absolutely get away with it.
Posted by: Ryan at January 12, 2011 04:21 PM (8hxNA)
I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing you personally, but that's about the most insane over-assessment I've ever heard in my entire life.80% of people are thieves of habit or opportunity? Holy shit, are these LEOs or prison guards? 80% of the inmate population, maybe.Think about it, if that were even remotely true, your car would be stolen every week, or you'd be burglarized every other day.I might buy 2% and 6%.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 13, 2011 01:07 AM (bxiXv)

Posted by: doowop at January 13, 2011 01:51 AM (dfZlP)

210 I checked out the Facebook pages of some Leftard friends/colleagues; most are panting hysterically that Sarah et cie. are guilty of "violent eliminationist rhetoric," and that the Patriots' (or as they call us, the Right Wing) public pronouncements are creating a "TOXIC SOUP" in which, like oysters, nutzos like Loughner are just marinating. One particularly perfervid poster said that, even though there was no particular EVIDENCE (tiresome thing, that evidence business) that Loughner was ever even exposed to anything Palin had done or said, he MUST have been incited to kill by the conservative-curdled zeitgeist.

I'd say to them, "Look in the mirror, laser-brains." It's amazing, let's just call it Fudd's Law, that whatever they're guilty of, they accuse us of the most heatedly.

Posted by: Beverly at January 13, 2011 03:41 AM (rGZlj)

211 youneedbuy.com Thanks for sharing!Replica breitling watchesThanks for sharing!

Posted by: Cheap Replica Watches at January 13, 2011 08:51 AM (Nsann)

212 Shorter version of "their new argument": Second-hand Hate

Posted by: VekTor at January 13, 2011 02:08 PM (N7DZ0)

213 yeah, who could think that using innocent, commonly used expressions like "second amendment remedies", demanding universal access to firearms for the express purpose of fighting the government, screaming to all and sundry about how the current administration is dedicated to bringing us under the heel of tyranny (despite having nothing to say about the previous administration's far worse expansions of government power), and dressing up, bellowing slogans, and waving flags as though it were the second coming of the Revolution might have something to do with a paranoid with delusions of the government intruding on people's thoughts might legally purchase a firearm and shoot a politican of the offending party, unless you can show a single instant where said paranoid listened to one of the professional paranoids in the media and announced he had been converted.

Posted by: gzuckier at January 13, 2011 08:32 PM (gAs/7)

214 hair extensions suppliers charges against Mr. Loughner. Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have
hair manufacturers been able to lawfully by the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six peo
human hair manufacturers

Posted by: hair extensions suppliers at January 18, 2011 05:41 PM (tpvde)

215 It's so pleasure that you can visit our site for shopping some nice watches, you know sucha as the gold luxury watches, the luxury watch dealers or the luxury watch straps and so on. Look at the luxury watch makers, they sell luxury watches, and look at those luxury watch manufacturer, they designed for the best swiss watch brands, and then made the world luxury watches, the most expensive luxury watches in the luxury watch shop.

Posted by: luxuryfashion at January 19, 2011 02:26 AM (nGRjq)

216 We are original Authentic Jerseys OEM wholesaler in china, and this is our online shop here, and also do Wholesale NHL Jerseys business with worldwide customers, all our jerseys have top quality and our factory wholesaler price is the lowest in the world. USA, CANADA customers do a long term business with our company because our Cheap Jerseys have anthentic quality.
In our factory, we also manufacture other Sports Jerseys, just like Football Jerseys,Hockey Jackeys,Basketball Jerseys,Baseball Jerseys. The Basketball jerseys often sell to America NBA match and what the basketball player dress is from our online shop.

Cheap NFL Jerseys,
Cheap NHL Jerseys,
Cheap MLB Jerseys,
Cheap NBA Jerseys.

Wholesale NFL Jerseys,
Wholesale NBA Jerseys,
Wholesale MLB Jerseys,
Wholesale NHL Jerseys.

Cheap Blackhawks Jerseys,
Cheap Canadiens Jerseys,
Cheap Capitals Jerseys,
Cheap Flames Jerseys,
Cheap Maple Leafs Jerseys,
Cheap Oilers Jerseys,
Cheap Penguins Jerseys.


Cheap Blue Jackets Jerseys,
Cheap Blues Jerseys,
Cheap Bruins Jerseys,
Cheap Canucks Jerseys,
Cheap Coyotes Jerseys,
Cheap Devils Jerseys,
Cheap Ducks Jerseys,
Cheap Hurricanes Jerseys,
Cheap Islanders Jerseys,
Cheap Jets Jerseys,
Cheap Kings Jerseys,
Cheap Lightning Jerseys,
Cheap Nordiques Jerseys,
Cheap Olympic Canada Jerseys,
Cheap Olympic USA Jerseys,
Cheap Predators Jerseys,
Cheap Rangers Jerseys,
Cheap Red Wings Jerseys,
Cheap Sabres Jerseys,
Cheap Senators Jerseys,
Cheap Sharks Jerseys,
Cheap Stars Jerseys,
Cheap Thrashers Jerseys,
Cheap Whalers Jerseys,
Cheap Wild Jerseys,
Cheap Youth Jerseys.

Posted by: sellfootballjerseys at February 14, 2011 04:39 AM (8P+nt)

217 The left has been attempting to do what they accuse the right of
doing, creating a climate where their opinions become facts and
dissenting views are not so much not welcome as not even considered
relevant.
Buy thesis.


Posted by: buy thesis at March 29, 2011 01:15 AM (8oNL+)

218 A major goal of this research paper writing is the development of effective technical research paper writing skills. To help you become an accomplished research paper writer, you will prepare several research papers based upon the studies completed in research lab. Our research papers are not typical "lab reports." In a teaching lab a lab research paper report might be nothing more than answers to a set of research questions. Such an assignment hardly represents the kind of research paper writing you might be doing in your eventual career.

Our expert research paper writers provide a range of research paper help; they’re perfect to ensure YOU get a top degree mark. Don’t let your research paper pull you down after you’ve invested so much into your university course. If someone is eager to discover the long awaited research degree and just a step away from it and that step is research paper writing, then one should acquire professional help for getting satisfactory outcome. So to take professional editing help for your papers' approval is not a bad idea.

Written and oral communications skills are probably the most universal qualities sought by graduate and professional schools as well as by employers. You alone are responsible for developing such skills to a high level research paper writing help.


Written and oral communications skills are probably the most universal qualities sought by graduate and professional schools as well as by employers. You alone are responsible for developing such skills to a high level. custom research paper want to buy research paper buy MBA research paper marketing research papers need to buy research paper college research papers masters research paper writing PhD research papers research paper samples business research papers law research papers | undergraduate research paper | graduate research paper | history research paper | economics research paper | arts research paper | medical research paper | science research paper | physics research paper | biology research paper | An objective of organizing a research paper is to allow people to read your work selectively. When I research a topic, I may be interested in just the methods, a specific result, the interpretation, or perhaps I just want to see a summary of the paper to determine if it is relevant to my study. To this end, many journals require the following sections, submitted in the order listed, each section to start on a new page.

There are variations of course. Some journals call for a combined results and discussion, for example, or include materials and methods after the body of the paper. The well known journal Science does away with separate sections altogether, except for the abstract.

Posted by: Jane at May 07, 2011 01:04 PM (MQmw3)

219 Welcome to Our Cheap jewelry online Stores , We wholesale and retail sterling silver jewelry , discount jewelry , replica brand name jewelry with 100% guarantee and hard-to-beat prices.

Posted by: cheap jewelry online at May 13, 2011 04:17 AM (vSIuF)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0582 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0301 seconds, 228 records returned.
Page size 161 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat