The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Some interesting data out of Ohio. 20 percent of the people that voted in the primary said race was an issue. Basically, they didn't want to vote for a black candidate.
I fully expect Hillary (a la Scooby Doo villain) to pull back her mask and reveal.............
Hey Kevin- nothing to do with this post, but Stephen Dutch has a DAMN good new essay up over hyah on economics.
There is a woman named Maggie Mahar who runs a blog "Health Beat" and today has posted some of the discredited nonsense such as 3000 children a year are killed by firearms, a gun in the home is 43 times as likley to kill the owner etc.
I don't have the specifics of the rebuttals at the tip of my tongue as it were so if you can you might respond to her so the response will be timely. The link is
What's scary to me is the messianic turn the Campaign has taken under Obama, and whether that's the tone the Left plans to use in the future - because it's a lot like the Messianic inevitability and adherence adopted by the Islamists and their cadre.
My reply to her piece (not that I think she'll let it actually stay on her post):
I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your information. You state "How many of the nearly 3,000 children who are killed by firearms in the United States each year does the good of hunting justify?"
Whew! This one sentence raises a couple of questions. First, how do you define "child" in this context? According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005 (the latest data available) there were 1,490 "children" ages 17 years and younger killed with firearms - less than half of your "nearly 3,000." The actual statistics are bad enough. Why would it seem necessary to inflate them? Of those 1,490, a total of 127 were accidental deaths, and 412 were suicides. The rest were intentional homicides. What (if anything) does this have to do with hunting?
You also state "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine." I'm sorry, but that is NOT what that report said. In fact, that report, authored by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Don Reay in 1986 studied gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983 in homes where someone owned a firearm. There were twelve accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides, 333 suicides, and three from undetermined causes, plus nine self-defense homicides. That's a total of 389 accidents, suicides, and homicides to nine defensive homicides, or 43:1. Unfortunately the deaths recorded did not all occur "in the home," nor were they all performed by the firearm in that home, which throws off the statistics somewhat.
Second, since when has the measure of a successful defensive gun use been limited to someone's death?
I'm sorry, but that study has been thoroughly discredited in both method and analysis, and even Dr. Kellermann has admitted (in print) "If that were my wife [being attacked]would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah."
Finally, you note: "Meanwhile violence continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men." Indeed it is. In fact, death by gunshot is epidemic among young, urban black men. They die (and kill) at a rate six times that of the rest of the population. This fact severely skews our national violent crime statistics.
Young black men make up less than 13% of the national population, but they make up 53% of the victims of homicide.
Doesn't this suggest anything to you? Like, for instance, if we attacked that specific problem we might save some lives? Instead, you and people like you constantly urge "gun control," which (and if you think about it honestly, you'll admit) only disarms the people you don't need to worry about. Gun control, as an acquaintance of mine puts it, is what you do instead of something.
If you are interested in continuing this discussion, please email me. I would be more than happy to provide you links to the pertinent information I' have given you here. Apparently hyperlinks are not allowed in this comment area.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak my piece.
20 percent of the people that voted in the primary said race was an issue. Basically, they didn't want to vote for a black candidate.
Or maybe they wanted to vote FOR a candidate based on race?
Do you have a copy of the poll questions?
Thanks for the excellent reply to Maggie Mahar. She does have some good stuff but after this one wonders about the accuracy of it.
"Or maybe they wanted to vote FOR a candidate based on race?
Do you have a copy of the poll questions?"
My thoughts exactly. I live in Ohio and have yet to hear anyone state any opposition to Obama based on his race. Maybe my acquaintences are more enlighted that the average, but I find it hard to believe that someone would admit to having a racist sentiment against him to a pollster and never drop a hint to peopel the talk with every day.
I've seen and heard many in local media state that his race was a factor in their voting for him. But of course, THAT is not racist.
An aside, I voted for Obama in the primary. It was a strike against Clinton in that I think she is far more dangerous. Their policies are basically the same, but she is petty, vindictive and has has more experience in abusing government access to intimiidate, black mail and commit charachter assasination. And he hasn't had 8 years of access to FBI and IRS files to build up files on opponents.
Well, here are the poll questions.
Scroll down towards the end for the question of race. The first question was about whether or not it was a factor. The second one was about whether or not role was important or not important. 20 percent said it was important. Now you could say that black people said it was important because they are pro black but take a look at how it breaks down between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. It was more important for Clinton supporters than Obama's.
"It was a strike against Clinton in that I think she is far more dangerous"
Thank you, Randy! And I agree completely with you that she is dangerous...albeit for different reasons.
I've been wondering how many retread hippies have relished the chance to get Clean For Gene all over again...
I don't see how anybody coming out of the hardball arena of Machine Politics as so notoriously operated in a city as famously corrupt as Chicago can be seen as *not* dangerous, among other things.
DirtCrashr, I didn't say he wasn't dangerous, only that he's not *as* dangerous as she is.
Just because you prioritize your targets doesn't mean that you don't intend to take them all out eventually.