The NY Times editors are back to gun control and back to making stuff up. This morning, their target is Gayle Trotter, who spoke at the Senate hearing last week. Her message, ever so vexing to the Times - women with guns are safer against criminals.
Their intro:
Dangerous Gun Myths
The debate over what to do to reduce gun violence in America hit an absurd low point on Wednesday when a Senate witness tried to portray a proposed new ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as some sort of sexist plot that would disproportionately hurt vulnerable women and their children.
The witness was Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the limits on firepower proposed by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, would harm women because an assault weapon “in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon.” She spoke of the “peace of mind” and “courage” a woman derives from “knowing she has a scary-looking gun” when she’s fighting violent criminals.
The Times editors promptly descend into fantasy and fiction:
It is not at all clear where Ms. Trotter gained her insight into confrontations between women and heavily armed intruders, since it is not at all clear that sort of thing happens often.
What is very clear is that the Times editors either did not read her testimony or chose to misrepresent it. She opened with the story of Sarah McKinley, the Oklahoma woman who spent twenty minutes on the phone with a 911 dispatcher and eventually used her shotgun on one of two intruders. (As to how often this type of incident happens, I would say, more often than Times readers may realize, since their first mention of Ms. McKinely is in this editorial).
Ms. Trotter went on:
Guns make women safer. Most violent offenders actually do not use firearms, which makes guns the great equalizer. In fact, over 90 percent of violent crimes occur without a firearm. Over the most recent decade, from 2001 to 2010, “about 6 percent to 9 percent of all violent victimizations were committed with firearms,” according to a federal study.1 Violent criminals rarely use a gun to threaten or attack women. Attackers use their size and physical strength, preying on women who are at a severe disadvantage.
So Ms. Trotter talked about violent criminals who are equipped with typical male size and strength and specifically noted they are unlikely to be carrying a firearm. In TimesWorld, that became "heavily armed intruders". Hmm, maybe the editors meant "heavy armed" intruders - sort of a "Popeye guns" thing.
The editors continue:
It is tempting to dismiss her notion that an AR-15 is a woman’s best friend as the kooky reflex response of someone ideologically opposed to gun control laws...
Hmm, it is tempting to dismiss this editorial as the kooky reflex response of someone who thinks banning scary looking guns will make scary things go away. VERY tempting...
The editors then offer an argument that makes sense if you don't think about it:
The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.
That is good intel for women in an abusive relationship, but maybe not so important for the rest of us. Which, as an aside, is an ongoing problem for the Nanny State - good advice for the population as a whole (Don't be in an abusive relationship with a guy with a gun!) may not be relevant advice for many members of that population. I'm not an epidemologist but this seems like an example of the Prevention Paradox, where a frequent puzzle is whether to attempt to treat the whole population or just high-risk sub-groups (and a Rose by any other name would still be fascinating).
Pressing on:
Regulating guns, on the other hand, can reduce that risk. An analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that in states that required a background check for every handgun sale, women were killed by intimate partners at a much lower rate.
They don't provide a source and I can't run down that reference so I don't know what to conclude from their assertion, but here is a Mayors Against Gun Violence White Paper, which includes in the footnotes this paper:
Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study
Among the conclusions overlooked by the Times editors:
Although the abuser’s access to a firearm increased femicide risk, victims’ risk of being killed by their intimate partner was lower when they lived apart from the abuser and had sole access to a firearm (adjusted OR = 0.22).
To be fair, that was inconclusive:
A victim’s access to a gun could plausibly reduce her risk of being killed, at least if she does not live with the abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects.
In any case, with these statistics the Times is not promoting the assault weapons ban but instead is arguing for broader background checks, which looks like a winning idea with the public.
They close with a strawman:
The idea that guns are essential to home defense and women’s safety is a myth.
"Essential"? No one is arguing that guns are a "must have", only that they ought to be a matter of individual choice.
It should not be allowed to block the new gun controls that the country so obviously needs.
They led with their assault on 'assault weapons' and magazines and closed with statistics about background checks, so I guess it is still obvious to the editors that their full agenda is urgently and obviously needed. As to whether broader background checks would actually stop abusive males from obtaining guns (legally or illegally), I have no idea.
NOTE TO SCHOOL ADMNINISTRATORS EVERYWHERE: If an earnest teacher overhears two teen lads talking about "Popeye guns", don't take 'em down too hard without a bit more info.
First
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 03, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Hemenway, another one of Joyce's trained mannequins, seriously TM,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Illustrated here;
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/joyce_foundatio_5.php
they set loose an army of rabid squirrels to ignore the point that Mrs. Trotter is making,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Nice work, TK, but too late.
Obviously, guns are not essential to self defense or those providing such defense to the rich and privileged would use guns.
Let the Progs propose to amend the Second Amendment. Who'll go first?
Posted by: MarkO | February 03, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Now I'm not saying that Joyce Foundation funding leads to sloppy thinking, and biased sampling, but many of the commenters come to that conclusion;
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-by-barrel.html
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:22 PM
NB: This is the exact opposite reasoning the left uses in defense of "partial-birth" abortion. For that, they say "it doesn't happen very often, so it's not worth legislating against".
In any case, instances of a woman defending herself with a firearm are common; reports of it making it into the news is rare. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 03, 2013 at 12:31 PM
it is not at all clear that sort of thing happens often
I suspect it happens a lot more often than mass shootings like Sandy Hook, which of course, has triggered (if I may say) the NYT's latest round of pro-gun control opinions.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 03, 2013 at 12:37 PM
a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women.
Ya gotta love that sentence. Journalism at its finest.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | February 03, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Well there are all sorts of methodological mishaps in the linked paper;
At least 2 potential proxy informants, individuals knowledgeable about the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator, were identified from the records. The proxy who, in the investigator’s judgment, was the most knowledgeable source was then sent a letter explaining the study and including researcher contact information. If no communication was initiated by the proxy, study personnel attempted telephone or (in the few cases in which no telephone contact was possible) personal contact.
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:39 PM
So they are basing this, from a microfraction of a sample;
English- and Spanish-speaking telephone interviewers employed by an experienced telephone survey firm completed sensitivity and safety protocol training.15 A total of 4746 women met the age and relationship criteria and were read the consent statement. Among these women, 3637 (76.6%) agreed to participate, 356 (9.8%) of whom had been physically abused or threatened with a weapon by a current or recent intimate partner. Thirteen abused control women were excluded from the analysis because they reported that the injuries from their most severe incident of abuse were so severe that they thought they could have died.
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Journalism at its finest.
The NYT seems to operate under the rule that on the "Opinion" page, completely unsupported assertions, ad hominem arguments, and the cherry-picking of data are all perfectly acceptable. And that's true if all they want to do is preach to their own choir. Of course, that only makes the Opinion pages barely distinguishable from the "News" sections.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 03, 2013 at 12:45 PM
"a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."
or from their own perspective:
"a fellow at the Rosa Luxemburg Institute, a centrist public policy think tank promoting family values such as partial birth abortion, transgender equality, single mother families and other positions held by all right thinking people"
Posted by: matt | February 03, 2013 at 12:48 PM
So, they didn't even review police reports, from my understanding, and the control groups, are rather ludicrous, as well.
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 12:50 PM
. . . but many of the commenters come to that conclusion;
Ooh, tough crowd! And it looks like they caught him with some straight-up data fudging on one of his claims (i.e., "The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twenty-five years of age"). At first blush, Hemenway does not appear to be a reliable source; and he is certainly biased enough to rate a disclaimer label.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 03, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Looking up Mr. Wiebe, he seems to be part of this august group;
http://www.theiacp.org/PublicationsGuides/Projects/GunViolenceReduction/GunViolenceReduction/GunViolenceReductionProjectAdvisors/tabid/334/Default.aspx
Which includes the Cook county and Detroit (wouldn't that be Wayne county) sheriffs, and Mr. Henemway, among others.
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 01:05 PM
He does seem to put the cart before the horse, as TM points out;
http://www.cceb.upenn.edu/news/?id=29&category=2
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 01:18 PM
For all you fans of Jazz and baseball, there is a lovely essay on the parallel lives of Brubeck and Stan the Man over at NRO. LUN
Great Pieces, as usual Clarice. I'll get the gyro stabilized trap machines figured out for the SS St. Jane.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | February 03, 2013 at 01:22 PM
I wonder how long before we all get really sick of each other on a ship.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | February 03, 2013 at 01:41 PM
Depends on the size of the ship Jane.
And probably how well stocked the bar is too.
It will help if we can easily access the ocean for swimming and scuba too.
Posted by: rse | February 03, 2013 at 02:00 PM
TM is doing a bang up job of linking epidemiological surveying techniques and applications but the efficacy of knowledge that a potential victim is or may be armed as a deterrent would seem even more insusceptible to measurement than the equally valid (and finally proven) common sense observation that capital punishment saves lives.
ISTM the statistical blather promoting Black Rifle paranoia is even more difficult to peddle than SkyDragon totems after seventeen years of essentially flat temperatures.
President Obama has driven sales of firearms through the roof - where's the corresponding increase in injuries and deaths correlation?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 03, 2013 at 02:26 PM
Some gun company should make a pink AR-15. Safety for women; not "scary looking." Win-win.
Posted by: boatbuilder | February 03, 2013 at 02:27 PM
http://tinyurl.com/3pljs9
It's been done
Posted by: xbradtc | February 03, 2013 at 02:31 PM
it is not at all clear that sort of thing happens often.
That comes two and a half weeks after they approvingly quote Barry, "if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try."
Posted by: bgates | February 03, 2013 at 02:34 PM
Boatbuilder - so we'd read stories like this:
AP - Darien, CT
Early this morning Sue Smith was awoken by two male intruders breaking into her home. She quickly grabbed her pink Bushmaster Hello Kitty Special from its bedside rack and shot both of them as they entered her bedroom. One assailant was pronounced dead at the scene while the other, severely wounded, was quoted by EMT personnel as saying If we had known there was a Hello Kitty in the house, we would have just kept going..
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 03, 2013 at 02:42 PM
I won't take this personally,Jane.
And I will be honored to be at the helm.
Posted by: caro | February 03, 2013 at 02:43 PM
This does not change my longstanding objections to his original appointment;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339633/panetta-enhanced-interrogation-helped-get-bin-laden-daniel-foster#comments
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 03:09 PM
The left spent several years trying to discredit John Lott's definitive and dispositive studies on the net benefit of firearm ownership and failed.
Now they simply ignore him and substitute hack bullshit in its place.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 03:34 PM
'Category error, is a definite sign of a nazgul, in the LUN, plus the soul less part
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 03:38 PM
Imagine being a lefty, reading that NYT piece, and not wincing in shame?
Posted by: Extraneus | February 03, 2013 at 03:44 PM
I won't take this personally,Jane.
LOL - and you shouldn't.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | February 03, 2013 at 03:46 PM
RickB help me out with that sue smith story. Don't get it?
Posted by: NkoniPad | February 03, 2013 at 03:47 PM
NK,
xbradtc's link is a pic of a gal with her pink AR 15 complete with Hello Kitty sticker on the buttstock.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 03:56 PM
NK-
On the previous thread I mentioned that Linda Darling-Hammond who was bo's ed advisor in 2008 but was considered too radical to be ed secretary laid out everything that CT as a state started piloting starting in 1990. She was writing in 2000. It was to be the pilot for urban districts everywhere. Which I knew and is now the model for the actual national implementation.
She may not realize paper is available on a server. I was actually looking for a 1992 essay of hers when I found this instead.
Posted by: rse | February 03, 2013 at 04:03 PM
Jane@12:38 - I thought that sentence was very well reasoned and bereft of emotion... But honestly, could it be any more insulting?
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 03, 2013 at 04:20 PM
Is this the "grabbing the ankles" prelude to "grabbing his arms" in order to throw Hagel under the Obama bus?
Robert Gibbs weighs in with a less than positive analysis of Hagel's Senate testimony.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | February 03, 2013 at 04:24 PM
Ig@3:56 - Not quite as hot as chicks with guitars (or on bikes) but it'll do.
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 03, 2013 at 04:34 PM
But honestly, could it be any more insulting?
BOE,
I'm sure it wasn't the least bit insulting to fans of the NY Times, and for the rest of us, no one will take them seriously enough to be insulted.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | February 03, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Is there a single person here who hasn't known a woman who has been abused and battered and sometimes killed by an abusive man?
Seems to me the solution is to encourage women who are being beaten and threatened to shoot the sons of bitches far more frequently than they presently do.
Gun used to prevent crime, one less criminal: talk about a win/win.
I personally know a gal who took her psycho husband's abuse for years until one night as he was tossing her about the room again she grabbed her pistol and put several holes in the bastard.
More power to her and I wish there were more like her.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 04:55 PM
Happy Birthday 16th Amendment.
These were the original 1%'s. Also note that the Conservatives were the stupid party even back then 100 years ago.
"In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income."
Posted by: Jim Eagle | February 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM
JiB - Very much so!
Jane - Completely agree...
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 03, 2013 at 05:08 PM
Crap, I meant to say that my question was rhetorical. Quit heckling me! lol
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 03, 2013 at 05:10 PM
Thanks to all for the well-wishes yesterday. I spent most of the day at a pool tournament, and since I returned the internet has been mostly down.
::grrrr::
Posted by: hit and run | February 03, 2013 at 05:38 PM
More power to her and I wish there were more like her.
The only lesbian neighbor I didn't like ran a shelter for battered wimmenz out of her shithole house that was supposed to be a big secret but I knew about it so how secret could it have been. The last thing that I needed was a sketchy skeezer that had a lifetime of bad decisions dropping to her deadbeat abuser where the place was so I'd have WW3 spilling over to my house endangering Mrs H and the Hatettes. Fortunately it never came to that because she moved out for whatever reason; maybe the socialist republic complained about such a commercial use or exceeding the maximum occupancy although I'm sure the PC content would've trumped such zoning concerns.
But yes, those types of situations are best handled by Smith & Wesson LLC.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 03, 2013 at 05:49 PM
Ditto Ignatz, ah Goodell didn't dissapoint, by that I mean, he always does,
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cia-and-state-department-accounts-benghazi-attack-contradict-gen-dempsey-s-explanation
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 05:56 PM
His learning curve is better then his old man;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/03/Rand-Breaks-With-Ron-All-Options-On-Table-To-Prevent-Nuclear-Iran
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 06:08 PM
Who does he think he is fooling, rhetorical question;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/03/soros-obama-trying-to-split-the-republican-party-push-the-tea-party-out-into-the-wilderness/
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 06:12 PM
Nice to see that Rove is doing Soros's work for him. More compassionate conservatism brilliance.
I finished Middlemarch today and thoroughly enjoyed it although I thought it was pretty funny how nobody ended up being particularly well-matched; kind of like real life. Btw has anybody here read Europe Central by William Vollmann
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 03, 2013 at 06:17 PM
OK, here goes a post I will probably hope noone remembers about four hours from now. My prediction: Flacco throws a 17 yard TD pass to Torrey Smith with 23 seconds left in the game to lift the Ravens over the 49ers 31-27. Flacco takes game MVP honors, with Torrey Smith and Ray Lewis also receiving votes.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Yes, in retrospect, she shouldn't have gone with
Casaubon, nor the other with Vincy, this was the social circle Eliot was in,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 06:20 PM
Yes, Cap'n, she doesn't make it all pretty and symmetrical in the end. I'm so glad you enjoyed it.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 03, 2013 at 06:23 PM
Not lip synched and Alicia is a two tool Anthem performer (voice and piano).
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 06:23 PM
Is Keyes' National Anthem over yet?
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Porch, I read that Virginia Woolf called it "one of the few English novels written for grown-up people". There are very good reasons why you maximize your chances for enjoyment by reading from the canon.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 03, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Smith and Bolden already are giving the Niners fits.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 06:41 PM
Thanks everyone for the sweet messages to me. I miss all of you.
BREAKING: WH releases second image of President Obama shooting a gun:
Posted by: Ann | February 03, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Good Morning!
First gross and inappropriate TV AD. Danika Patrick for "Go Daddy" involving some feminine pimply nerd smooching a blonde binbo. We had the sound muted and it was still gross.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 06:48 PM
Montana man made up sob story that got him a pizza
And some wings.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 03, 2013 at 06:48 PM
My favorite ad so far is the M&Ms ad.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 06:49 PM
And a 20 oz. Pepsi, according to the affidavit.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 03, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Great photoshop, Ann. Obama goes after the firearm and quarterback vote at the same time!
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 06:52 PM
Wish I had made that, T.C, but I stole it. Should of h/t: http://michaeldeppisch.com
Hey daddy,
Look what my hubby brought me back from China:
He brought my daughter back a fake luxury item that he had to haggle with a Chinese man with a Hello Kitty calculator. Very scary!
Posted by: Ann | February 03, 2013 at 07:05 PM
With the sound muted, the new Budweiser Black Beer Ad looked the least appealing and most sordid of the 2nd bunch of Ad spots.
Believe it or not, I am a big beer fan, but it somehow that one turned me off. At least the Captain Morgan ads have some saucy looking gal in 17th Century clothes looking hot. This one just looked dark and unappetizing.
Daughters laughed at the actors from Big Bang Theory wearing football uniforms.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:06 PM
Sirius XM Ad looks to me to be the 3rd SuperBowl Ad presenting a White Male as a complete dimbulb door-nob, (he's jogging behind a Pekinese in a purple outfit) but I may need to throw the replay flag and see if I missed one.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:11 PM
a fake luxury item that he had to haggle with a Chinese man with a Hello Kitty calculator.Very scary!
Ann, I don't think there's any other kind over there,---merchants, merchandise, or calculators:)
Hope he had a fun trip and that he became one of "the usual suspects" by trips end at my favorite haunts.
BTW---The Dorito's Ad--Cross Dressing Idiot Dad. By my calculation, that's 4 to zero on SuperBowl Ads painting White Male fathers as imbeciles---and we are the ones who supposedly stereotype and can't think outside of the box.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:18 PM
well the commercials are horrible., but the game ain't bad. Go 49ers
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 07:21 PM
As soon as I typed it, teh Ravens score.
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 07:23 PM
The same people who do Hollywood movies and TV shows must be doing the commercials this year.
Even the sophomoric humor is poorly done.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 07:25 PM
What are all you guys watching? Why the focus on the commercials?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM
49ers are having problems. I have never seen a superbowl with so many fistfights
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Pro wrestling has broken out on the field.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Well I tried to post about an American Thinker piece that was linked by Ace of Spades, but it seems to have been eaten by Typepad.
Courage, Cowardice and the Wordsmiths
A very interesting insight into why most "people of words" are leftists.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Sound still muted, but I think I just saw Louis Farrakhan on a throne in a white top hat as the authority figure for a Bud Light Ad. The Ad is called "Bud Light Journey". Beats the hell out of me what it's about.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Why the focus on the commercials?
Rob C, I'm just on a riff, as the daughters are sitting around studying so we have the sound muted, but some of the early commercials made me think there's a war on White Male Fathers by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and that slant seems to be continuing as the game goes on.
Ravens are way tough today. If they win this I will be amazed.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:35 PM
daddy -- I'm joking on my having no interest in the Super Bowl or its commercials. Last time I cared about either was... '98? '99? When I worked at an ad agency and the commercials were the talk of the office the next day.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 03, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Just saw I think the 2nd Ad that included Guns---for some Cop Show. Good guys had rifles and I believe it was the bad guys pointing a pistol. Earlier I think the Movie trailer Ad with the crashing and exploding C-130 had scary looking guns in it.
I take it back. Just this minute The Coke Take-Off Ad, themed on Mad Max the Road Warrior, has New Age Cowboys on horses firing pistols into the air. So that's at least 3 Ads sporting firearms, but the problem of course is not Hollywood or movie Gun Violence, its the NRA.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 07:44 PM
Baltimore scores again.
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 07:50 PM
'Fast and Furious' has just jumped the Megalodon,
seriously, yet another generic cop show,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 07:51 PM
That's a great article you linked in your 7:29 PM post, Extraneus.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 07:54 PM
Extraneous,
Thank you for the link to that excellent piece. It makes a nice juxtaposition with Rove's plans to bury the revolting peasants with money garnered from the Nonexistables.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 03, 2013 at 07:59 PM
Flacco's more extensive experience in playoff football pressure situations is showing.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 08:00 PM
Dear Chris Wallace,
Look at the places in this country with the biggest gun violence, they have lots in common:
1. The are heavily liberal enclaves.
2. Kids have grown up with full government support, welfare, food stamps, school lunches, aid, etc. etc.
3. Everything in their lives has been run by left wing liberal government for decades.
Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, etc. etc.
4. Their favorite culture is rap, hip hop, hollywood and aggressive sports.
Why don't you ask yourself, what is it about this culture makes them want to grab a gun and start killing people?
Posted by: Pops | February 03, 2013 at 08:07 PM
I expressed my concerns about Flacco when they crunched the Patriots.
When it matters he's almost perfect, this post season anyway.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 08:14 PM
2 Ads in a row for CBS Cop show previews featuring quick shots of "Automatic Weapons": 1 in the Ad for the Mark Harmon Cop show, and pistol brandishing guys in another, called I think "Golden Boy." That's at least 5 commercials featuring guns thru the first half of the most watched Broadcast in the World, but of course anybody wanting to have a gun to protect themselves is obviously clueless.
So its a tough contest, but by my count the score is 5 Gratuitous Gun sightings and 4 Dumbass White Male Daddies at the Half. Current odds seem to favor the Violent Asault Weapon's Lobby, but anybody who doesn't think HollyWood and Madison Avenue can't come roaring back in the 2nd Half with some serious dissing of White Male Daddies as Numbskulls, don't know MSM.
Get your bets in quick before Beyonce's Wardrobe malfunction.
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 08:14 PM
I bookmarked that one Extraneous. Couple of therapists I think I'll forward it to.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Nice Eric Hoffer quote, too, Ig. (Thanks for introducing me to that guy.)
Posted by: Extraneus | February 03, 2013 at 08:20 PM
There is something squirrely about Oprah voicing that Jeep commercial.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 08:24 PM
I'm going to save the wordsmith article for a day I can concentrate. Tonight I found it . . . wordy and glib.
There were some of us who applied for a CO status with a good foundation who were rejected.
There were some of us who were rejected to serve as corpsmen in the field, and that is not where cowards go to serve.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 08:31 PM
The point of the exercise, is to get people to buy the product, I think they've missed it more then not. Speaking of which, where were the Niners on that last play,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 08:33 PM
--Nice Eric Hoffer quote, too, Ig. (Thanks for introducing me to that guy.)--
A freedom loving, autodidact, stevedore-philosopher; what's not to like? :)
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 08:35 PM
SBW,
He was talking about pointy headed phonies who were trying to get out of service altogether by faking mental illness.
Not sure how that applies to your caae; in fact it doesn't even come close.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 03, 2013 at 08:37 PM
I hate to be so confident here but its all over but the crying. Young Mr. Kapaernick has finally met a team not impressed by his artwork or running ability.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (On his iPad) | February 03, 2013 at 08:39 PM
e-Trade baby is still around. He must be in elementary school by now.
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 08:41 PM
With the lights going out, I thought the networks had instituted a during the 3rd quarter show to add to the halftime show.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 08:42 PM
Perhaps Beyonce can do an encore until all the lights return.
Posted by: Thomas Colins | February 03, 2013 at 08:44 PM
Dumbass White Male faints at his wedding for Century 21 Ad, (Line Judge rules the groom counts as a White Male daddy.)
and Ironman 4 Preview had no guns, only exploding Air Force One's, so the score is now tied: 5 to 5.
There's Louis Farrakhan in the Bud Lite Commercial again. Where's Kate Upton? Did I miss her?
Posted by: daddy | February 03, 2013 at 08:44 PM
Ig, I'm glad they all weren't pointy-headed phonies.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 08:45 PM
The power outage is not doubt Bush's fault.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 03, 2013 at 08:46 PM
Ext, thanks for that post.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 03, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Looks like the SuperDome electrician is a 49ers fan.
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2013 at 08:50 PM
I think it's a sign, the Niners can't possibly make up 26 points,
Posted by: narciso | February 03, 2013 at 08:52 PM