Reference:Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/referenceguns-and-self-defense-by-gary.html
via feedly.com
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/referenceguns-and-self-defense-by-gary.html
via feedly.com
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Obama’s Misleading Obamacare Claims
Link: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-misleading-obamacare-claims/?utm_source=AIM - Daily Email&utm_campaign=5495ae5eb9-email072513&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ddfc8d9d-5495ae5eb9-221577449 (via shareaholic.com)
The New York Times, in its oft-cited article, said that "State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York."
"Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly."
At least the Los Angeles Times had the conscience to write that these types of "savings" are an aberration. "New York, for example, announced this week that the average premium will be 50% lower for individuals who buy health coverage on their own, in large part because the state has some of the highest rates now," they report (emphasis added). "New York may have been more ripe for savings than other states," notes Bloomberg.
And even The Washington Post, a champion of Obamacare, points out, "But it shouldn't be shocking: New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country." USA Today led with the title "Most states won't see N.Y.'s drop in insurance rates." This The New York Times cleverly left out of its reporting.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Look deeper at preconceptions about race and self-defense - Cathy Young
Link: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-look-deeper-at-conceptions-about-race-and-self-defense-1.5744782 (via shareaholic.com)
As proof of pervasive bias, some cite a June 2012 Tampa Bay Times report based on a study of cases involving self-defense claims since 2005, when Florida passed its "stand your ground law": 73 percent of defendants who killed blacks were cleared, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white person. Yet, since most homicides were between people of the same race, this also suggests black defendants were more likely to win. Indeed, the study found that "black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants." In mixed-race cases, "four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free."
Of course, one study in one state and a few anecdotes do not prove a national pattern. Critics point to an Urban Institute analysis of FBI statistics for 2005-10 which shows that firearm homicides are far more likely to be ruled justified when the shooter is white and the victim is black than vice versa. But without knowledge of the specific circumstances of these homicides, it's impossible to say how much of the disparity is due to bias.
One Florida case has been widely cited as a contrast to the Zimmerman verdict and a shocking injustice: the case of Marissa Alexander, a black woman said to be serving 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot to scare off her violent ex-husband. But that's not quite what happened. Alexander's "stand your ground" claim was rejected because, after the altercation with then-husband Rico Gray, she went to the garage, returned with a gun and fired a shot that Gray said narrowly missed his head (a claim backed by forensic evidence). Gray was indeed abusive, but Alexander was no innocent; she also assaulted him while out on bail for the shooting. Her 20-year sentence, required by a mandatory minimum for firearm offenses, was a travesty; her conviction was not.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Sunday, July 14, 2013
George Zimmerman Trial | Legal Insurrection blog
This blog has very extensive coverage of the trial.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Political Diary: Democrats' Prop. 8 Veto - WSJ.com
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324328204578569430263679950.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h (via shareaholic.com)
Recall that both Mr. Brown and Ms. Harris declined to defend the initiative against a challenge in federal courts. Thus, the initiative's proponents took on the job, as permitted by the California Supreme Court. However, an ideologically mixed majority on the court (which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) has ruled that they lacked standing to do so.
"Once the District Court issued its order," which was to strike down Prop. 8, "respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything," wrote the chief justice for the majority. Thus, the lower court's decision holds.
Many Californians are no doubt celebrating the decision. Public opinion has swung sharply in favor of same-sex marriage since a bare 51% majority of voters approved the ban five years ago. However, the decision is a huge blow to the principle of popular sovereignty, which underlies California's initiative process.
California's initiative system originated in 1911 to bypass entrenched and often unaccountable state politicians. As Justice Anthony Kennedy points out in his dissent (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor), "the initiative system 'grew out of dissatisfaction with the then governing public officials and a widespread belief that the people had lost control of the political process.'"
As the California Supreme Court has determined, "this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding . . . Giving the Governor and attorney general this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State's governmental structure.
"And in light of the frequency with which initiatives' opponents resort to litigation"—over one-third of the initiatives approved in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington between 1900 and 2008 were challenged in court—"the impact of that veto could be substantial."
The court's ruling means that state officials and a single district court will be able to nullify initiatives on every thing from school choice to tax reform. The danger is particularly acute in California, where federal courts with jurisdiction are notoriously liberal, though the implications extend to any of the 26 other states with an initiative or popular referendum system.
Liberals may rejoice now, but perhaps they should consider the flip side: a Republican governor and attorney general who refuse to defend, say, an environmental initiative which is struck down by a federal court. Liberal proponents would no doubt want to appeal, but by the court's reasoning they couldn't.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The American Spectator : Democrats' BOLO Bonanza
Link: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/26/questions-for-the-irs (via shareaholic.com)
Levin and the rest of the Ways and Means Democrats would love to have you believe that this information relieves the IRS of any wrongdoing, but there are too many things that just don't add up. Before we let Lois Lerner and company off the hook, here are a few questions that IRS officials—and congressional Democrats—should have to answer.
1. Why are we getting these lists now, over a month after Lois Lerner admitted to the targeting in a planted question at an American Bar Association panel on May 10? The IRS had every motivation to make these lists available as soon as possible to prevent any accusation of political bias. Why would Lerner or anyone else choose not to immediately release these lists?
2. Why did Lois Lerner plead the Fifth? If Lerner did nothing wrong, as she has claimed, what motivation did she have to refuse to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee? It seems like she should have been anxious to clear her name, rather than cowering from scrutiny.
3. Where are the progressives telling their stories? A few liberals claimed their tax-exempt groups were targeted under George W. Bush, but the progressive BOLO lists supposedly started in August 2010, long after Bush left office. Since this story broke in May, countless conservatives have told stories of their groups being targeted by the IRS and what the unfair scrutiny cost them. The progressive groups seem to be MIA on this one.
4. Why did conservative groups face so much unfair scrutiny, while there is no evidence that liberal groups received any? As the Ways and Means Republicans pointed out in an email yesterday, being separated through a BOLO list is not the same as being targeted:
Tea Party Progressives On a BOLO Yes Yes Had donors threatened Yes No evidence Had confidential information leaked Yes No evidence Sent inappropriate and intrusive questions Yes No evidence Had applications delayed for over 2 years and counting Yes No evidence Were targeted by the IRS, according to TIGTA Yes No evidence
Table courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee Republican Press Office.
5. If both conservative and liberal groups were on BOLO lists, why were conservative applications put on indefinite hold while liberal groups received 501(c)(4) status relatively easily? A USA Today investigation found that no conservative group was approved for 501(c)(4) status for 28 months starting in March 2010, but applications for liberal groups were waved through.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Despite New Revelations, IRS Scandal is Still a Scandal
Link: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/despite-new-revelations-irs-scandal-is-still-a-scandal/?utm_source=AIM - Daily Email&utm_campaign=971c9e54fa-email062513&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ddfc8d9d-971c9e54fa-221577449 (via shareaholic.com)
Eliana Johnson: The IRS's Best Friend in Congress - WSJ.com
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557274272099196.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (via shareaholic.com)
"The testimony offered by other Cincinnati IRS employees—which I have reviewed in full, un-redacted form—contradicts Mr. Cummings's claims and those of Obama administration officials, such as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has pointed the finger at "line employees" in Cincinnati. The IRS interviews suggest that the agency's officials in Washington closely controlled the review of tea-party cases.
"The testimony offered by other Cincinnati IRS employees—which I have reviewed in full, un-redacted form—contradicts Mr. Cummings's claims and those of Obama administration officials, such as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has pointed the finger at "line employees" in Cincinnati. The IRS interviews suggest that the agency's officials in Washington closely controlled the review of tea-party cases.
Consider Gary Muthert, the Cincinnati IRS screener who told investigators that he began singling out tea-party applications at the request of Mr. Shafer, who told him "Washington, D.C., wanted some cases."
And there is Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati IRS agent who for several months in 2010 was charged with handling all tea-party applications. She told the committee that she understood the "lookout list" used to flag the applications of tea-party groups was also intended to flag those of Republican and conservative groups. When the applications of liberal groups came in, she sent them along for general processing."
A 'Far Broader' BOLO List? | National Review Online
Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351718/far-broader-bolo-list-eliana-johnson (via shareaholic.com)
A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word "progressive," screeners were instructed to treat progressive groups differently from tea-party groups. Whereas they were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status "may not be appropriate" for progressive groups — 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activity — they were told to send applications from tea-party groups off to IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.
That means the applications of progressive organizations could be approved by line agents on the spot, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were "currently being coordinated with EOT" — Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive organizations were not.
To Werfel's account, add the testimony of Holly Paz. The highest-ranking official interviewed by the House Oversight Committee to date, Paz did not contend that the lookout list was politically inclusive. Rather, she told committee investigators that the use of the term "tea party" to flag applications was politically neutral.Thursday, June 20, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
Five IRS Scandal Myths | National Review Online
Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350595/five-irs-scandal-myths-andrew-stiles (via shareaholic.com)
1. It was a few rogue agents in Cincinnati
This claim has crumbled in recent weeks.
....But the notion that the targeting was directed by low-level employees Cincinnati has been refuted on multiple fronts. A number of conservative groups that asked about the status of their applications, for example, were told that the Cincinnati office was awaiting guidance from officials in Washington, D.C.
Employees in the Cincinnati office made clear to members of the House Oversight Committee that they received direction from the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in Washington.2. The targeting stopped in 2012
Jay Carney told reporters last month that the IRS targeting "stopped in May of 2012." Apparently not. After more than three years, some conservative groups are still awaiting a decision on their applications for non-profit status. Dozens of conservative groups report receiving letters from the IRS in the fall of 2012 — and later. Linchpins of Liberty, a student-mentoring organization in Tennessee, which has been the target of numerous invasive requests from the IRS (it was asked to identify the names of its student participants, for example), received another letter on May 6, 2013, days before news of the scandal broke.
3. Liberal groups were also targeted
One way in which the administration's defenders have sought to downplay the severity of the scandal is claiming that the IRS also singled out liberal political groups for extra scrutiny. That doesn't appear to be the case. As McClatchy reported last week, "virtually no organizations perceived to be liberal or nonpartisan have come forward to say they were unfairly targeted" since the scandal came to light on May 10.
In fact, groups with words like "Progress" or "Progressive" in their names were quickly approved, while tea-party groups saw their applications delayed repeatedly.4. Absolutely no political motivations
Democrats also insist that, in the words of former White House adviser David Plouffe, the IRS targeting of conservatives "was not a political pursuit." Although the inspectors general's audit found no evidence of political motivation "at this time," there are numerous factors suggesting a systemic liberal bias within the tax-collecting agency.
Douglas Shulman, who was IRS commissioner when most of the targeting occurred, is a Democratic donor, and he is married to liberal activist with ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement. IRS employees donated twice as much money to President Obama as they did to Mitt Romney in 2012, and nearly 30 times as much to Obama over his 2008 challenger John McCain.5. The case is 'solved'
Elijah Cummings, ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, seems to think so. "Based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved," he said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. "If it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on."
Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), certainly disagrees. And so does the Treasury's inspector general, who has emphasized that the findings of his audit are merely preliminary, and that many details are "still to be determined."Sunday, June 02, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Advice from a Marketing Genius [feedly]
Advice from a Marketing Genius
http://robertringer.com/advice-from-a-marketing-genius/?utm_source=feedly
http://robertringer.com/advice-from-a-marketing-genius/?utm_source=feedly
"Know how to sell your wares. It is not enough that they have intrinsic merit, for everyone does not bite the substance nor look within."
This was the first time I can recall consciously thinking about the reality that it's not enough just to have a good product. When people buy through direct mail, infomercials, or the Internet, no one "bites the substance or looks within."
In other words, it's not the product that sells the prospect; it's what you tell him about the product that motivates him to buy. This was an important first step in shedding my naive belief that if my book was as good as I thought it was, everyone would rush out to buy it.
"Most go where there is a crowd, and go because they see that others go."
Baltasar Gracian's words gave me the idea for the ad campaign I implemented to market my first book. I put a lot of thought into molding a perception that the book had created a worldwide frenzy.
My objective was to make the reader of the ad feel that he was missing out on something big, something that everyone else seemed to know all about. The strategy worked better than I ever could have imagined.
The common term for this phenomenon is "madness of the crowd." It's the same phenomenon that has fueled stock-market bubbles throughout history.
"Also, to offer a thing only to connoisseurs is a means to universal interest, because people either believe themselves to be such, or, if not, they find the lack incites desire."
Subtle or not so subtle, it's always a good idea to let prospects know that your product is only for individuals who are special. The vast majority of people who read your ad see themselves as a cut above the rest of the population.
But, as Baltasar Gracian pointed out, those who feel inferior might still buy because they desire to raise themselves to a new level. Everyone wants to be considered special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)