ChrisWeigant.com

A Short Greek Drama, For Your Amusement

[ Posted Thursday, March 1st, 2018 – 17:42 PST ]

The box had been opened quite a while ago, if truth be told. It was a big box, of course -- a beautiful box, a tremendous box, a box like nobody had ever seen -- with such alabaster construction (although strangely tinged with orange, in a certain light) that people took to calling it the White Box. Promises were made early on that only the best would be allowed to be inhabit the box.

But then the lid of the White Box was pried up from within. The beings within the box crawled slowly out, one by one, making their escape (either in terror or in shame). Soon it became a flood of entities exiting the box, each with their own various reasons for their departure.

Some left under a very dark cloud, such as the cabinet secretary whose wings had to be clipped for flying too high (and too expensively). Others with similar high-flying habits remained, however, so there wasn't any hard-and-fast "Icarus Rule" or anything. Some were forcibly expelled from the White Box, such as the F.B.I. director who didn't kowtow properly to the White Box's orange-tinted deity. For various reasons (some involving sheer exhaustion with the drama continually swirling within the White Box) a chief of staff flew away, as did two deputy chiefs of staff, a national security advisor, two deputy national security advisors, a staff secretary, a longtime personal aide, a deputy assistant, and a partridge who immediately roosted in a nearby pear tree. Others were mightily goaded to leave, but to this day still cling doggedly to their position, such as Beauregard The Wee Elf (with his adorable southern accent) who still refuses to go no matter how much scorn the White Box's deity heaps upon him. To this day, the Wee One blindly grasps the scales of justice in true masochistic fashion, ignoring the cutting nature of the slings and arrows launched against him (some of which come from a small bird twittering in the early morn). Somewhere, Sisyphus laughs.

Lies were a common thread in many of the departures from the White Box. Three escapees eventually pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I., and a fourth has been charged with doing so but vehemently denies it (although nobody in their right mind believes him anymore, not even The Boy Who Cried Wolf). A demigod related to the White Box deity's family just got booted a long way down Mount Security Clearance's slopes, but even in his battered state he continues to bow and scrape and curry favor with his divine father-in-law. What else can he do at this point, really?

Throughout it all, though, Hope remained within the White Box. She kept as low a profile as possible, so that she would be overlooked among all the evils that had made the White Box their home (or fled it in disgrace). But then her swain was exposed as a serial domestic abuser (which, incidentally, had led directly to the demigod's demotion on Mount Security Clearance, so it was hard to ignore). Hope was forced to talk to the Special Counsel of Olympus, which bound her to tell the truth about what had been going on within the White Box since Day One. This was swiftly followed by a secret session in front of the law-givers, where she let slip an ugly truth about what Hope was routinely expected to do by her lord and master. "They were only white lies," she protested, "intended only to deceive the world of the lowly humans!" She swore that there were no lies told about what happened in the White Box itself, or about how her deity-in-chief seemed to be best buddies with the evil leader of the northern Land of the Steppes. Perish the thought! Lying about such things would be different, she insisted, from telling lies to the human heralds and town criers, who were, after all, mere mortals.

The Orange Deity was not amused, it seems. Even though Hope had lasted longer than any previous holder of her divine duties -- a whopping 19-plus Scaramuccis, by ye olde calendar's way of reckoning -- she finally announced her exit from the White Box. At this point, nobody is even sure if her admission that her job required her to lie to all of Mankind had anything to do with it. Was it a temper tantrum from His Orangeness? The gods are notorious for such emotional outbursts, after all; him more so than most. Was she pushed out or did she decide to flee on her own? Did her boyfriend's ignominious downfall have anything to do with it? Or is she just getting out while the getting is still good, before the wrath of the Special Counsel of Olympus begets an increase in the spectacular lightning-bolt indictments hurled at those still clinging to the White Box's sides? No one can really tell, at this point.

Since the Orange One's political birth -- when he descended from the heavens on a magic golden stairway -- there has always been Hope. The White Box may have seen turmoil and strife within it on a daily basis, but Hope remained. There was always Hope to turn to when the days got darkest.

Now there is none. Hope will henceforth reside in the fabled Elysian Fields (of Connecticut), never to inhabit the White Box again. Yea, even Pandora now hides her face in abject despair for the future of humanity. Because the White Box is now officially Hope-less.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

82 Comments on “A Short Greek Drama, For Your Amusement”

  1. [1] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I’m kinda hoping Jessica Rabbit will come out of retirement to be Trump’s new day nurse. She’d be perfect for the job — plus a cartoon character joining this administration just seems like the natural progression of things!

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any chance we will get the Mooch back now Hope has left?

    Or even better, Alex Jones - I'd watch that White House briefing every day!

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Classic! Chrispis Hesiod of Weigantia, circa 7th cent. BCE, Shirks and Daze? Think I read a translation in the 9th grade English...or maybe it was just a comic book at camp....Or maybe it was a Mister Magoo TV musical.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale - admit it - did you nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize? Twice?

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:
  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Much like most everything you hear about Greece these day, it's basically all bankrupt!

  7. [7] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Gotta admit, I'll miss the great legs and the short skirts!

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This has been one awful week for Trump. All the domestic stuff to be sure, but
    Putin is making quite an effort to show the US and the rest of the World that he owns Trump's ass.

    Examples:

    1) Workers from the Russian troll factories are openly giving "how we did it" interviews to US news media.

    2) Putin's threat of "unstoppable" nuclear missiles, cruise & ballistic.

    3) Putin's threat of the doomsday robotic sub.

    Trump's lack of response to this saber rattling makes him look as impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner. The Cold War is back baby, and the US Executive Branch is floundering at best, bleeding out at worst.

    The US isn't beaten, but we've been humiliated, mussed up and better wake up while it still matters. Not looking doesn't make the bad man disappear. I think the US military leadership is going to put some real pressure on Trump. They take an oath to defend
    The Constitution, not the Executive Branch. Checks and balances. At least in theory.

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    As the White Box, bereft of Hope, is riven by yet more turmoil millions of Cassandras look at their befuddled, wracked-with-denial opponents and say "we told you so". But they cannot be heard...

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4]neilm: good one.

  11. [11] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    See, this is what happens when you don't teach people #whiteliesmatter,or for that matter #all-liesmatter....

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    GT,

    See, this is what happens when you don't teach people #whiteliesmatter,or for that matter #all-liesmatter....

    That is AWESOME!!! You win the Internet today with that one!

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [1] -

    "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
    -JR

    Heh.

    TheStig [3] -

    No, Sirrah, it was Daizd and Confusèd, verily so!

    Heh.

    neilm [4-5] -

    Heh. Saw that too, but didn't come to the same conclusion. But now that you mention it...

    :-)

    TheStig [8] -

    Don't forget:

    (4) Trump imposes sanctions on 27 shipping companies who we suspect are still dealing with North Korea. The 28th on the list, Trump refused to sanction. It was the only Russian one on the list...

    Paula [9] -

    Dang! I knew I should have worked Cassandra in there somewhere...

    Heh.

    Hope (there's that name again...) everyone had fun with this one, I certainly did.

    :-)

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [9]

    You are quite the bard, giving CW a run for his money!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suspect in 'white powder' letter to Trump Jr. donated to Dems, posted anti-Trump rants on Facebook
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/02/suspect-in-white-powder-letter-to-trump-jr-donated-to-dems-posted-anti-trump-rants-on-facebook.html

    Dumbocrats.. :^/

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    This has been one awful week for Trump.

    It's hilarious how ya'all say this EVERY week..

    And yet, Trump's approval numbers are HIGHER than Odumbo's were at this point in his presidency...

    I would be laughing my ass off if ya'all's suffering from HHPTDS wasn't so sad..

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    that's factually incorrect. we've all stipulated that the approval poll we consider most valid is RCP's poll-of-polls average.

    here's barry's numbers from 3/2010:

    48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5

    and here's donald's numbers now:

    41.2 / 55.2 / 3.6

    JL

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's factually incorrect. we've all stipulated that the approval poll we consider most valid is RCP's poll-of-polls average.

    YOU have stipulated that.. I have stipulated that.. But no one else has...

    They still keep quoting individual polls when those polls say what they want to hear..

    The days of adhering to one agreed upon reliable poll are long gone in the streets of the People's Republic Of Weigantia...

    Sad to say, my friend...

    So, playing the game by THEIR rules, Trump's approval is higher than Odumbo's was at this point in Odumbo's presidency...

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Yea, even Pandora now hides her face in abject despair for the future of humanity. Because the White Box is now officially Hope-less.

    The moral of the tale it seems
    One cannot escape the law.
    As more and more Hicks abandon the Box,
    Perhaps there is Hope for us all. ;)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The days of adhering to one agreed upon reliable poll are long gone in the streets of the People's Republic Of Weigantia..

    That SHOULD read

    The days of adhering to one agreed upon "reliable" poll are long gone in the streets of the People's Republic Of Weigantia..

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    2

    Any chance we will get the Mooch back now Hope has left?

    Or even better, Alex Jones - I'd watch that White House briefing every day!

    Hey, this is an excellent idea. While Alex wouldn't exactly be allowed to hawk his supplements from the West Wing podium, he's now got Milo Yiannopoulos back home in his basement to pull up the slack.

    https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/966317833675264001

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    GT (11)-
    Do all lies really matter? What about Blue lies, like pretending that they can take Big Money and not be influenced by it?

    "Can blue men sing the whites, or are they hypocrites* for singing blues?"

    Can Blue Men Sing the Whites
    -Bonzo Dog Band

    * pronounced to rhyme with whites

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dressing up another Trump is bad article in the pretty box of the short Greek drama seems kind of empty when there never seems to be an offering of the tragedy that is the story of the Big Money Democrats.

    "We are not amused."
    -stereotypical English Queen

    What's it gonna take to get you back from the dark side? I'm not giving up on you.

    "I'm gonna get you in my tent, tent, tent, tent, tent
    where we can both experiment, ment , ment, ment, ment
    ...We'll fill his footprints with cement, ment, ment, ment, ment, ment
    Let's take a taxi to my tent!"

    Tent
    -Bonzo Dog Band

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's factually incorrect. we've all stipulated that the approval poll we consider most valid is RCP's poll-of-polls average.

    YOU have stipulated that.. I have stipulated that.. But no one else has...

    Liz probably stipulated that as well..

    But that's it...

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You are all so concerned with the polls taken about the CMPs when you should be concerned about the poles taken from the CMPs and where you are taking them.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    9

    As the White Box, bereft of Hope, is riven by yet more turmoil millions of Cassandras look at their befuddled, wracked-with-denial opponents and say "we told you so". But they cannot be heard...

    Paula wins the "Internets" today. :)

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT
    11

    See, this is what happens when you don't teach people #whiteliesmatter, or for that matter #all-liesmatter....

    Okay... GT wins the "Internets" today too. Y'all can share them. ;)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    12

    That is AWESOME!!! You win the Internet today with that one!

    GMTA ;)

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are all so concerned with the polls taken about the CMPs when you should be concerned about the poles taken from the CMPs and where you are taking them.

    And CMPs would be....????

    "And Santiago would be.....???"
    "The victim..."
    "Great. Write that down.."

    -A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The PBS series Nova ran an episode on probability and statistics on Wed. of this week. Itis the best short treatment on the subject I've ever seen and fully up to date. Polling, and specifically 2016 election polling,were explained in tlhe last quarter of the broadcast. Anybody interested in polling ought to take a look, especially some of the most prolific and least informed botflies who post at CW.com.

    Look for this episode on your local PBS rerun channel or the PBS Passport on line.

    One other recommendation while I'm here. The Tick on Amazon Prime. All the many Tick variants are great, but the latest is greatest.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The PBS series Nova ran an episode on probability and statistics on Wed. of this week. Itis the best short treatment on the subject I've ever seen and fully up to date. Polling, and specifically 2016 election polling,were explained in tlhe last quarter of the broadcast.

    In other words, spin to "prove" that all the polls were accurate and Hillary really is POTUS.. :D

    Whatever ya'all have to tell yerselves to make it thru yer day.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CMP: Current Major Parties

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    In other words, spin to "prove" that all the polls were accurate and Hillary really is POTUS.. :D

    In other words, don't try to educate Michale, he is just here to feel good, and if reality doesn't feel good, then he has no quarter with it.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    CMP: Current Major Parties

    "OK Great... Write that down"

    :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, don't try to educate Michale, he is just here to feel good, and if reality doesn't feel good, then he has no quarter with it.

    Says the guy who STILL can't accept President Trump as President. So much so, he's afraid to even SAY President Trump's name.. :D

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Says the guy who STILL can't accept President Trump as President. So much so, he's afraid to even SAY President Trump's name.. :D

    Read comment [4] Michale.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You were SERIOUS about that??"
    -Vinny, MY COUSIN VINNY

    President Trump winning the Nobel prize is not anymore ridiculous or moronic than your Odumbo winning he Nobel Prize..

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    So we're threatening to start an idiotic trade war. All because we have a large import/export deficit.

    Or do we.

    Take Apple iPhones (I know, my favorite).

    We import them from China at $600/piece. But China only added $10 of value to them (about the cost of assembly, packaging etc.) The real money was already made in the U.S. (paying designers, engineers, etc., plus, of course, Apple's gargantuan profits). So it really isn't $600 from China per phone is it.

    And it gets better.

    China also "export" iPhones to e.g. Germany. Again the profits go to an Irish subsidiary of Apple where Apple parked their patents (you might want to double check this before repeating - there have been some opaque pieces of paper recently that have been messing around in this, I hear).

    Again, the bulk of the profits go to Apple, but are not recorded in the trade figures.

    And don't get me started on Financial Services.

    We need to stop trying to prop up industries like steel production that are not a good fit for our economy and invest (yes - somebody has to pay those steel tariffs - and basically it is all of us) in education and innovation where we are winning.

    It isn't guaranteed that the U.S. will remain the innovation leader - we have a good head start but we can blow it in a decade of stupidity ... and we are in year 2 of a decade of stupidity at the moment.

    Rant over. Dumb ass cracks about Michale to resume momentarily.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumb ass cracks about Michale to resume momentarily.

    I am happy to see you concede that your remarks ARE dumb ass... :D

    There is hope for you yet.. :D

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale [37], not very good at admitting you are wrong, but very good at claiming everybody else can't.

    Admit it, you were completely, utterly, demonstrably, wrong, totally-out-of-the-ballpark, brain-in-another-zip-code, viking-helmet-with-the-horns-on-the-inside wrong.

    Claiming that I never used 45's name was so wrong that I suspect your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants; if a cannibal tried to eat your brain there wouldn't be enough to cover a water cracker; your history in the department of "Being Right About Things" is about as impressive as Stumpy O’Leg McNolegs’ personal best in the Market Harborough marathon.

    (Credit to Blackadder writers.)

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [13] Chris: Yes, enjoyed this!

    Kick - Listen: Thanks!

    [40] neilm:

    Admit it, you were completely, utterly, demonstrably, wrong, totally-out-of-the-ballpark, brain-in-another-zip-code, viking-helmet-with-the-horns-on-the-inside wrong.

    Yep!

    Blotus, btw, backtracking mightily re: gun-control. So much for my trying to process how I'd feel if he actually did something that would benefit the country. The sad thing is, he actually could. He, as he said, doesn't need the NRA like the G(uns) O(ver) P(eople) denizens. But he just can't sustain an intent to act for any length of time if the action isn't about him. After the nightmare ends and his place in history is solidified it will be entirely tarnish, without a single particle of glitter.

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    When we restrict imports, a few hundred people, or maybe in the case of steel, a couple thousand people, benefit from higher wages, but all 325 Million of us lose, in the form of more expensive steel for cars and infrastructure. And it must also be noted that it's not a zero-sum thing, meaning the losses to the 325 million losers are infinitely greater than the gains of the couple thousand winners.

    Trump is FAR too dumb to understand that, which doesn't surprise me in the least. He's basically a simpleton in most all instances.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Admit it, you were completely, utterly, demonstrably, wrong, totally-out-of-the-ballpark, brain-in-another-zip-code, viking-helmet-with-the-horns-on-the-inside wrong.

    Yea.. You keep saying that.. That's what you said on 6 Nov 2016...

    And yet the FACTS continue to prove ME right and ya'all wrong...

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/03/02/russian-roulette/

    Most Americans only have a cursory knowledge of the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, particularly when the media sometimes presents the story in a piecemeal, context-free fashion. But opponents of Trump need to make the connection between Russiagate and the shootings a talking point. Linking school shootings and Russian interference through the vehicle of the NRA would not only give millions more Americans a reason to be concerned about what they may feel is an overly complex and confusing “foreign” issue, it would also increase the popular disgust with gun lobby. Because how are Wayne LaPierre and his ilk going to pose as true American patriots and constitutionalists if they’ve been unmasked as eager tools of Vladimir Putin?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, Russian collusion is with everyone the Left DOESN'T like....

    BBBWWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It's doubly hilarious because of the real and factual connections that CLINTON has with Russians.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yea.. You keep saying that.. That's what you said on 6 Nov 2016...And yet the FACTS continue to prove ME right and ya'all wrong...

    Subsequent EVENTS have proven you and everyone else who voted for Orange Toad wrong, and you know it.

    Too bad Trump didn't turn out to be a brilliant businessman and financial savant, like y'all kept saying he was. At least we wouldn't be facing a massive deficit and crashing economy on top of a dysfunctional government.

    Paula: Keep in mind that Putin isn't really pro-Trump (not in the way that Trump is pro-Putin anyway). Putin is pro-American dysfunction. Anything he can do to get us at each others' throats is in his wheelhouse. He backed Trump AND Bernie, remember.

    His interview with Megan Kelly today is a great example. When pressed about why Russia would want to suddenly re-start the arms race (which nearly bankrupted them once, remember), he said, (paraphrasing) "your congress re-started the arms race when it abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty." Which Republicans absolutely did, in order that they could put short range missiles in Poland.

    This is sure, he assumes, to provoke yet another fight about arms control, which the GOP hates, and the Democrats dote upon (being a sort of extension of the gun control debate, which in the end is a sort of dick-measuring contest in the US). Obama, who knew a thing or two about ballistic missile treaties, called Putin on this bluff years ago, and found - no surprise - that Putin was not about to give up claims to eastern Europe in return for a missile treaty.

    Indeed, with his stooge in the White House, Putin might be figuring that this would be a good time to press the US to abandon eastern Europe's defense in exchange for a promise that he won't build his fictional missile. Hey, it worked for Reagan.

    Luckily, the old hands in the State Department will see through this....waitaminute...oh shit, they're all gone!

  47. [47] 
    John M wrote:

    Trump is the orange (red) queen: punishment first! Trial and verdict second! Investigation is a witch hunt waste of time! Croquet anyone? All while the mad hatter screams "fake news!"

    Tariffs on steel. Bring back the coal industry! Even though neither one makes much economic sense. The major users of coal, electric utilities, switched to natural gas for economic reasons like it being cheaper, and won't ever be switching back to coal. Sorry to say also, Wyoming and its big open pit strip mining of coal, has also captured market share from West Virginia and Pennsylvania which voted for Trump over coal and steel job loss. Wyoming is not about to give back that market share either.

    Meanwhile, while the President talks about 1980's solutions to industries who passed their prime 20 years ago, not one word is mentioned about new emerging high tech industries that the USA could excel and lead the world at, like artificial intelligence and genetic engineering.

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    [46] Balthasar: Agreed that Putin is so much pro-Trump as he is pro-U.S.-political-turmoil. He was most definitely anti-HRC and anti-Obama.

    The biggest question is how cooperative Blotus is? IOW, is he doing Putin's bidding willingly? Is he doing it under some form of duress? Is he doing it accidentally?

    Meanwhile, is the RNC/GOP knowingly taking laundered Russian money? Unknowingly? Ditto the NRA? Is the NRA deliberately laundering Russian money and then giving it to the GOP so that the GOP can claim plausible deniability?

    If so, is LaPierre (or someone else at NRA) doing Putin's bidding willingly? Under duress? Accidentally?

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/2/1745997/-FBI-Investigating-Whether-Russian-Politician-Funneled-Cash-To-NRA-To-Help-Trump-Win

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    I mean NOT so much pro-Trump as...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Subsequent EVENTS have proven you and everyone else who voted for Orange Toad wrong, and you know it.

    In YOUR opinion...

    But you have been wrong so many times before.. :D

    How much do you want to bet that Trump will win re-election?? :D

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html

    Big study by Rand just released about what is possible to know, right now, about gun policies.

    RAND's Gun Policy in America initiative provides information on what scientific research can tell us about the effects of gun laws. Our goal is to establish a shared set of facts that will improve public discussions and support the development of fair and effective gun policies.

    We analyzed thousands of studies to examine the effects of gun policies on defensive gun use, hunting participation, suicide rates, and other outcomes. We also evaluated the views of gun policy experts who have opposing perspectives on the likely effects of gun laws to understand where disagreements exist and where compromise might be possible.

    By exploring this project, you can view summaries of our key findings, delve into our analysis of the existing evidence base, learn how the experts think policies would affect outcomes, download our historical database of state gun laws, and access the supporting research reports.

    WAPO does a summary review and concludes: "The best available evidence suggests NRA-backed gun policies are making crime worse." The study's purpose was to establish "proven" outcomes of policies and they found some. But they also determined that there are a number of unproven areas due to lack of rigorous studies.

    What DID they find?

    1. "There is moderate evidence, for instance, that “stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement for gun owners to attempt to retreat from a situation before using lethal force, increase total rates of homicide."

    2. "RAND's researchers also uncovered limited evidence that on balance, permissive concealed carry laws increase overall rates of violent crime...There is also evidence showing that permissive concealed carry laws increase rates of accidental firearm injury."

    3. "The RAND findings diverged from the NRA's preferences in other key areas as well. For instance, the group has lobbied against laws intended to prevent children from getting their hands on unsecured guns. RAND's researchers uncovered strong evidence that these laws prevent unintentional firearm injuries among adults and children, and that they're effective at preventing suicides as well."

    4. "The research compiled by RAND shows moderate evidence that dealer background checks decrease rates of firearm homicide and limited evidence that background checks decrease violent crime and total homicide rates."

    5. "RAND found moderate evidence that mental health-related prohibitions on gun ownership lead to a decrease in violent crime."

    The WAPO piece ends:

    Setting individual policies aside, the chief argument of the new RAND report is that there is an urgent need for more, better research into gun violence and how to prevent it. “Many of the possible effects of gun policies that are raised in policy debates have only rarely — or never — been studied rigorously,” RAND's Andrew R. Morral, the project's leader, writes.

    The report calls on Congress to eliminate the current restrictions on federal funding for gun research — restrictions that were put in place largely at the behest of the NRA.

  52. [52] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?

    Admittedly, the discharge of the firearm makes more noise than the ingestion of pills or the inhalation of carbon monoxide, but that doesn't translate to 'violence'.

    Anyway, isn't suicide a 'civil right'? We should quit demonizing it. Nobody should have to go on living who prefers not to.

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the tick is back??????

    SPOON!!!!!!!!!!!

    JL

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [22] -

    OK, you just got monster big points for quoting the Bonzo Dog Band.

    Well done!

    It must be a week for obscure rock outfits, the Washington Post, in a regular column where they pick one song to reflect on the week, picked a number from the Thirteenth Floor Elevators...

    Anyway, both made me smile...

    :-)

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [52] C. R. Stucki

    "Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?"

    Because people who are suicidal and choose guns as their device are far more likely to succeed at ending in either catastrophic damage or fatality more than by any other method.

    "Admittedly, the discharge of the firearm makes more noise than the ingestion of pills or the inhalation of carbon monoxide, but that doesn't translate to 'violence'."

    But the catastrophic damage that it causes does. Pills or carbon dioxide leaves a person looking as if they are just sleeping for the most part. Guns leave blood, bone, and brain matter splattered all over the place, as well as gruesome looking bodily remains. Seriously, you need that explained to you and don't describe those results as violent?

    "Anyway, isn't suicide a 'civil right'? We should quit demonizing it. Nobody should have to go on living who prefers not to."

    You are CONFUSING suicide by someone who is often temporarily mentally ill with a medically treatable condition with euthanasia by someone of sound mind who is terminally ill with a non medically curable disease.

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    The amount of physical damage depends on the weapon used, and the specific way it is directed. Doesn't have to be severe at all if the person isn't trying to make a mess of himself.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,
    Somebody else here says two and two make five, so your response is to insist that two and two must make three, just to balance things out?
    JL

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Somebody else here says two and two make five, so your response is to insist that two and two must make three, just to balance things out?

    You jump on the ONE person who says two and two make three and ignore the DOZEN people who say, DOZENS of times, that two and two makes five...

    Perhaps balancing things out is not a bad idea, no?? :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?

    For the same reason hysterical gun nuts classify as a "school shooting" an accidental discharge of a gun at midnight on school property that has been closed as a school for 20 years....

    Because hysterical anti-gun nuts KNOW that they will LOSE any honest and factual argument about guns and gun safety...

    It's NOTHING but fear-mongering, pure and simple...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the same reason hysterical gun nuts classify as a "school shooting" an accidental discharge of a gun at midnight on school property that has been closed as a school for 20 years....

    Of course, that should read hysterical ANTI gun nuts...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the catastrophic damage that it causes does. Pills or carbon dioxide leaves a person looking as if they are just sleeping for the most part. Guns leave blood, bone, and brain matter splattered all over the place, as well as gruesome looking bodily remains. Seriously, you need that explained to you and don't describe those results as violent?

    In other words, forget the FACTS and the REALITY...

    Optics are what's important here...

    You are CONFUSING suicide by someone who is often temporarily mentally ill with a medically treatable condition with euthanasia by someone of sound mind who is terminally ill with a non medically curable disease.

    A distinction without a difference..

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [51]

    That Rand report couldn’t have come at a better time! If do not support repealing the Dickey Amendment, you aren’t in favor of ending gun violence, IMHO.

    Democrats need to erect billboards in places like Texas with a picture of Trump and the quote "We need to take away guns first and worry about due process second"!

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A distinction without a difference..

    So you see no difference in a 70 year old suffering from brain cancer for over a decade wanting to end their suffering and a 16 yo teenager who is depressed after his first real girlfriend dumps him choosing to take his father’s gun to end his life, is that it???

    One has lived a long life and, with no chance of getting better, decides that the constant pain is more than they can handle; the other has just started living his life and is experiencing his first real “heart break” and doesn’t feel like he can go on....even though we all know he would get over it in time. No difference in your eyes?

    Don’t you have grand kids?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you see no difference in a 70 year old suffering from brain cancer for over a decade wanting to end their suffering and a 16 yo teenager who is depressed after his first real girlfriend dumps him choosing to take his father’s gun to end his life, is that it???

    Insofar as the end result...

    No, there is no difference. Someone killed themselves..

    No difference in your eyes?

    There is no end result in the context of the gun issue..

    I get it, I really do. You want to make an emotional argument.. 99.9% of the time, an emotional argument is the wrong side...

    Democrats need to erect billboards in places like Texas with a picture of Trump and the quote "We need to take away guns first and worry about due process second"!

    Like this one. An emotional argument that's completely out of context..

    Like I told CRS.. You hysterical anti-gun fanatics CAN'T win in an honest and rational argument..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no end result in the context of the gun issue..

    Grrrr....

    There is no differnce in the end result in the context of the gun issue....

    And in the gun issue, listing suicide as part and parcel to the overall gun violence "problem" is, AT BEST, disingenuous... At worst, it's blatant lying..

    As I said, lying and disingenuous-ness..ness is the ONLY way the anti-gun nuts can make an "argument"...

    I mean, if a person can't shoot themselves with a gun, they may jump off a bridge and kill a couple more people in addition to themselves..

    Is THAT preferable to you??

  66. [66] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    There are do degrees of death. The dead guy is equally dead whether his brains are still in his skull, or scattered all over. The way a dead body looks has significance only for the living. The dead guy couldn't care less.

    Listen When etc.

    I do have grandkids, but none of them is as dumb as the ones you describe.

  67. [67] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, make that [66] line read NO degrees of death, not "do".

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?

    Do you have examples and can show that these are the norm or do you just feel that this is right?

    I try to use two classifications:

    1. Gun deaths - which include suicides
    2. Gun violence - does not include suicide

    There is an argument that guns make suicide seem more instantaneous/less painful and thus lowers the bar at a crucial time. If my memory serves, this impact was teased out of statistics after Australia put more restrictive gun laws in place.

    Another statistic to look at is the number of unsuccessful suicide attempts where the person does not instantly try again - i.e. the failure was because the attempt was never meant to be successful and a cry for help, or the person got over their depression.

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Like this one. An emotional argument that's completely out of context..

    What is taken out of context by quoting Trump directly? How do you know what context the reader will take the statement under?

    I say put them up next to billboards with his pussy grabbing quote.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are do degrees of death. The dead guy is equally dead whether his brains are still in his skull, or scattered all over. The way a dead body looks has significance only for the living. The dead guy couldn't care less.

    Exactly.. That's why all the anti-gun arguments crack me up.. They think that dying by something OTHER than a gun i somehow better than dying by a gun.. :^/

    Dumbocrat "logic"..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is taken out of context by quoting Trump directly?

    That fact that you DIDN'T quote him directly and entirely..

    I say put them up next to billboards with his pussy grabbing quote.

    ANOTHER quote that is completely out of context and doesn't even say what ya'all claim it says..

    Once again, proving you simply CAN'T have a discussion without out of context quotes and outright bullshit...

    Par for the course around here...

  72. [72] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?

    Why do conservative make broad generalizations about wide swaths of the population that is blatantly false?

    A mystery that may never be solved...

    I always differentiate between homicide and suicide when discussing gun violence. Mainly I like to show that statistically you are far the greatest danger to yourself if you own a gun. Also, if you look across many countries that have banned or made guns difficult to own, they typically have 15-20% less suicides than the US. A lot more suicide attempts fail without access to convenience and lethality of guns even though the number of attempts are similar.

    The press actually have gotten much better not using the combined number. I guess they found the shock value of the much larger number was not working?

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do conservative make broad generalizations about wide swaths of the population that is blatantly false?

    I usually assume with CRS that he just thinks he is being smart and trolling the discussion.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I usually assume with CRS that he just thinks he is being smart and trolling the discussion.

    You mean, like you just did?? :D

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i initially thought CRS was a clever acronym, like 'win the future'

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    i initially thought CRS was a clever acronym, like 'win the future'

    Or like 'Star Trek Discovery' :D

  77. [77] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    Michale
    [43] And yet the FACTS continue to show ME right and y'all wrong....

    I found this as the best explanation of the Australian gun ban results while researching your claim that there has been no real change in their mass shooting deaths:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/austalia-gun-ban-shooting.html

    Can you point me to your source(s)? Thank you.

    (The preview doesn't show the clickable link, but I think I followed the directions. Here goes.....)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I found this as the best explanation of the Australian gun ban results while researching your claim that there has been no real change in their mass shooting deaths:

    I never claimed that there was any change in mass shooting deaths...

    If you make up what I say, you can prove or disprove anything. :D

    And if your "proof" is the Left Wing NY Grime, then you have already lost the debate. :D

    Now, what I *DID* say is that there was no change in the number of dead due to mass murder incidents.. And even THAT is not factually accurate..

    The number of deaths in mass murder incidents actually was HIGHER in the 20 years after Port Arthur/Gun Ban than they were in the 20 years prior to Port Arthur/Gun Ban..

    So, what can we logically deduce from this FACT...

    That people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do so, even if you take the guns away...

    But if you address the PERSON and not the tool they choose to use, then you have a MUCH better chance of preventing ALL mass murder incidents..

    "Simple Logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    But, of course, addressing the PERSON will not push the Dumbocrats unpopular anti-gun agenda and violates the Dumbocrat tenet of social justice...

    So........

  79. [79] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    Michale, The numbers you cited in a previous comment were 75 deaths in mass murder incidents pre and 79 deaths post the massacre, if memory serves. Whether or not one considers population growth or not, that is an insignificant "change".

    I looked at several reliable sources and found no mentions of Australian mass murders post Port Arthur. I concede that I might have missed something. My polite request to you was to correct my possible error. You have not yet answered the question. Perhaps an oversight? Other reasons?

    I'll ask again: Please let me know the source of your now twice-alleged FACT. I will appreciate that ever so much.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, The numbers you cited in a previous comment were 75 deaths in mass murder incidents pre and 79 deaths post the massacre, if memory serves. Whether or not one considers population growth or not,

    What does population growth have to do with anything??

    There were 79 deaths from mass murder incidents post Port Arthur, even if Australia had 1,000,000 population growth and there were 79 deaths from mass murder incidents had -1,000,000 population decline..

    that is an insignificant "change".

    Yer right.. It IS insignificant.. There was statistically NO CHANGE after the gun ban...

    And yet, to hear the anti-gun groups tell it, Australia became a peaceful utopia after the gun ban..

    But the FACTS clearly show that it hadn't.. MORE people were killed in mass murder incidents than BEFORE the gun ban..

    So, obviously, the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that gun bans DON'T prevent mass murder incidents..

    My polite request to you was to correct my possible error.

    And I *AM* correcting your error.. You claimed I stated that there was no real change in mass shooting deaths..

    I never made any such claim...

    You have not yet answered the question. Perhaps an oversight? Other reasons?

    Other Reason.. You are asking a question based on what you THINK I said, not what I actually said..

    I'll ask again: Please let me know the source of your now twice-alleged FACT. I will appreciate that ever so much.

    Which FACT are you alleging I alleged???

    Once we clear THAT up, I'll be happy to share my sources for the FACT I really stated, rather than the FACT you want me to have stated, but never did..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. Getting you people to admit yer wrong, even in the face of inarguable facts, is impossible..

    I can't post the relative FACTS because the formatting would be impossible..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    Read 'em and weep...

    Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel Massacre

    15 people killed..

    Churchill Massacre

    10 people killed...

    Both killed by fire, so OBVIOUSLY the *ONLY* recourse is to ban fire... :^/

    Lin Family Massacre

    5 people bludgeoned to death. So, obviously bludgeons MUST be banned...

    Melbourne Massacre..

    6 people killed.. 30 people wounded. Car attack.. So, Australia MUST ban cars..

    "It's the only way to be sure.."
    -Ripley, ALIENS

    You see the point??

    You can ban guns and psycho scumbags will STILL find a way to kill in mass murder sprees...

    Banning the tool simply forces them to choose a new tool...

    But if you address the PERSON... If you address the CAUSE and not the symptom, you save ALL lives...

    Ya'all's anti-gun hysteria is nothing more than a political agenda...

    It's NOT about guns.. It's about control..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you address the PERSON... If you address the CAUSE and not the symptom, you save ALL lives...

    Ya'all's anti-gun hysteria is nothing more than a political agenda...

    WHy won't Democrats support a convergence of mental health databases with gun own/carry applications??

    Because Democrats are social justice warriors more concerned about social stigma and potential scumbag shooter's FEELINGS than they are about actually saving lives...

Comments for this article are closed.