“I’m not making any predictions, but I think [the Russians] have got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” said Hillary Clinton on her former campaign manager’s podcast. “They know they can’t win without a third party candidate.”
Was Clinton referring to US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, CNN asked? “If the nesting doll fits” her spokesperson replied.
Nearly three years after losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton’s still trying to find someone other than Hillary Clinton to blame.
If it’s not women voting the way their husbands tell them to vote, it’s James Comey’s unconvincing job of “exonerating” her for her grossly negligent handling of classified information.
If it’s not the media taking too much notice of her scandals, her health problems, etc., it’s Bernie Sanders supporters staying home instead of going to the polls for a candidate who hated them as much as they hated her.
Whatever it is, it can never, ever, ever be the fact that she’s among the most disliked and distrusted politicians of the last century, or that she ran an incredibly inept campaign, or that she failed to pay sufficient attention to Rust Belt voters upon whom Donald Trump lavished attention and promises to “bring the jobs back.”
And sooner or later it always comes back around to !THEM RUSSIANS!
!THEM RUSSIANS! spent a miniscule amount of money (a fraction of a percent of what Clinton’s campaign spent, and far less than !THEM RUSSIANS! donated to Clinton’s family foundation) on cheesy Facebook ads.
Donald Trump made a secret deal with Vladimir Putin! He’s a Kremlin “asset!”
!THEM RUSSIANS! backed a third party candidate (Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party), who “stole” enough votes from Clinton to throw the election to Trump.
And now !THEM RUSSIANS! are at it again. The long arm of the Kremlin is reaching into the very heart of the Democratic Party itself to once again wrest a presidential election away from Hillary Clinton (or from someone, anyway).
There’s no obvious evidence that Tulsi Gabbard plans to defect from the Democratic Party and run for president as an independent or on another party’s ticket.
On the other hand, given her treatment by the Democratic National Committee — including gaming polls to try to keep her out of primary debates and out of the running — and now by Hillary Clinton, who could blame her if she did?
Furthermore, in what universe is an independent or third party presidential candidacy any less legitimate than a Democratic presidential nomination?
Votes belong to voters, not to parties. Democratic and Republican candidates aren’t magically entitled to your vote. Whether or not they’ve earned that vote is your call and no one else’s.
If Democrats are interested in winning next year, they might want to consider publicly dissociating themselves from Hillary Clinton, who’s gone in a mere three years from even whinier than Donald Trump to even loonier than Lyndon LaRouche.
The magnitude of anxiety seems to be equal to the delta between expectations and self-assessment.
That means there are two variables to work on to reduce anxiety. Expectations and assessment.
On the expectations front, sometimes it helps to step back and remind yourself that you owe nothing to anyone, status in the eyes of others is a distraction, and there are really only a few things that matter.
It’s good to have expectations that exceed current reality. The discomfort it creates is the necessary impetus for action and progress, without which life is really depressing. But expectations can’t be so far out of reach that they leave you hopeless.
Self assessment is a bit trickier. Trying to believe you are closer to your expectations is tough. The old positive thinking stuff doesn’t work very well. Just telling yourself you are good isn’t super effective if your subconscious doesn’t believe it. Your inner self needs evidence along with intention. One of the best ways to raise your self assessment is to pair positive thoughts with small tangible accomplishments. Just bite sized bits of progress along the dimension of who you want to be.
Reducing the gap between expectations and self assessment is the key to anxiety reduction.
It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control – especially when those reporting on the topic are not firearm owners themselves. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among the “urban elite” who have very little personal experience with guns and yet write for influential newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Despite this bias, law-abiding private citizens owning guns does have positive impacts on American society that often go unreported – many of which are significant.
Criminals and the Armed Citizen
Perhaps the most notable impact of gun ownership on American society is how it influences the behavior of criminals.
The fact is, criminals fear armed citizens more than they do the police. There’s many reasons for this, but here are the most prominent:
Police are rarely onsite during a crime.
Police are bound by policy and procedures, and are trained to only use their firearms if it’s absolutely necessary.
Civilians are also less trained.
In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed over 1,800 incarcerated felons, asking how they felt about civilians and gun ownership. Thirty-three percent of these criminals admitted to being scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a gun-owning victim. Sixty-nine percent of them knew at least one other criminal who had similar experiences. Nearly 80 percent of felons also claimed that they intentionally avoid victims and homes that they believe may be armed.
This shows that at least one in three criminals has been deterred because of an armed citizen, and that four out five avoid victimizing people that have guns.
Law-Abiding Gun Owners & Defensive Gun Use
Advocates of civilian disarmament tend to scoff at the capabilities of everyday gun owners. Many believe that guns in the hands of normal people are crimes waiting to happen. However, thanks to the research of individuals such as John Lott, we now have evidence showing that gun owners are some of the most law-abiding segments of the American population.
Lott drew the example of concealed license holders when compared to law enforcement:
Concealed-handgun permit holders are also much more law-abiding than the rest of the population. In fact, they are convicted at an even lower rate than police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, from 2005 to 2007, police committed 703 crimes annually on average. Of those, there were 113 firearms violations on average.
With 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees nationwide in 2006, we can infer that there were about 102 crimes by police per 100,000 officers. Among the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher than the police crime rate over those years – 3,813 per 100,000 people.
Not only are gun owners very law-abiding, they are also quite capable of defending themselves against criminals. Criminologists Dr. Gary Kleck and Dr. Marc Gertz carried out a study that found 2.2 to 2.5 million cases of defensive gun use (DGU). Around 1.5 to 1.9 million of these cases involved handguns. There is reason to believe that DGU numbers completely overshadow the criminal use cases of guns.
However, in today’s era of outrage politics, many incidents of DGU go under the radar because of their lack of shock appeal that does not make for good headlines.
A Sense of Security
Most people realize that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, yet so many rely on nothing but a 911 call to protect both their home and those inside it. For those who live in remote areas, it can take an hour or more for first responders to arrive after an emergency call, but in most cases, even five minutes is too long. But when a homeowner is armed and trained, the sense of security increases.
Thanks to modern psychology, we know that people need this sense of security in order to grow and develop into healthy adults. Not surprisingly, privately owned guns provide that. Sixty-three percent of Americans now believe that having a gun in the house increases safety. While some may dismiss the importance of feeling secure and safe, or claim that another person’s desire for safety makes them feel unsafe, it is by far the most basic of human needs. And without it, people are left feeling frightened, angry, and defensive – often unable to reach, or even focus on, higher goals.
[T]he just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order, and is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regards to rationalizing people’s suffering on the grounds that they “deserve” it.
One of the main forms of (alleged) evidence in favor of the Just World Hypothesis is that people derogate and blame the victims of crimes. But I’ve simply never noticed this in real life. All I’ve seen, rather, is that people claim that other people derogate and blame the victims of crimes.
To explore these doubts, I ran three Twitter polls. Yes, I know this is far from decisive evidence. But I still trust it more than many of the studies that got the Just World Hypothesis off the ground.
I started with two paired survey questions:
In the typical U.S. crime, how blameworthy is the VICTIM?
Responses match my expectations. Virtually no one thinks that crime victims are “highly” or even “somewhat” blameworthy. Almost everyone thinks that crime perpetrators are “highly” or at least “somewhat” culpable.
Well look at that! Disbelievers in the Just World Hypothesis outnumber believers by over 2:1. Only 3% of respondents think the world is “Very just.”
Are my respondents atypical? Indubitably. Nevertheless, I have much more confidence that my results will replicate on a national representative sample than the published academic work on this topic. If anyone wants to try, feel free to use my questions!
While I’ve spoken about this many times, it keeps coming up so I figured I would do a formal analysis. I’m well-aware this will have no impact on those who use this tactic to avoid discussion, such as lawyers and bureaucrats; this is for those who may be victims of this pernicious method of shouting down a valid argument. Ironically, as will be shown, it’s those screeching “frivolous” that are usually raising a truly frivolous argument. Yelling frivolous is a distraction technique, don’t be fooled by it.
Anyone who has ever challenged the legitimacy of government and the application of their sacred writ, called “laws,” will be familiar with this tactic. When the accuser admittedly has no evidence, they just start shouting “frivolous argument” as if that magically creates facts to support their claim.
What is a frivolous argument? There are usually two constants, it’s not just an argument lacking in merit or arbitrarily denied by a traffic court judge: “An appeal [argument] is not frivolous just because it has no merit” Applied Business Software, Inc. v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 1108, it must also be brought in bad faith:
“frivolous. So clearly and palpably bad and insufficient as to require no argument or illustration to show the character as indicative of bad faith upon a bare inspection…Strong v Sproul, 53 NY 497, 499.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., page 503.
Black’s Law Dictionary adds to this (also quoting Strong v Sproul):
“…where it does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent…” 4th Ed, page 796.
A frivolous argument has three elements:
doesn’t controvert the material points; and
is brought in bad faith.
Now let’s look at an argument I wrote that’s been labeled “frivolous” by an administrative law judge in California and see if it meets this criteria.
“…the legal claims made against me have no factual support, the FTB knows this, and is proceeding against me anyway.” The legal claim referenced is the claim the laws apply because the target of the assessment is physically in California or has a California source of money. The FTB argues their laws created an obligation, it’s a foundational claim.
We know this because several agents told us, this includes counsel for the FTB. When asked for the facts they relied on, they admittedly had nothing, counsel admitted this was an assumption (video below). Those are the facts my argument is based on, the argument follows directly from the facts.
1. Does the claim have merit? Yes; the FTB and IRS operate under the same presumption, they admit it; they claim their laws apply, gives them jurisdiction and creates obligations.
My argument is based on their admissions they don’t have evidence and don’t need evidence to support their claim. So with the FTB claim, where they admit they have no evidence and the foundation of their assessment is an assumption, there is solid factual support. Therefore, the argument is valid, it has merit because the facts support it.
The FTB and IRS are required to have evidence to support their assessments; lacking a foundational basis is referred to as a “naked assessment” to wit:
“The determination of tax due then may be one “without rational foundation and excessive,” and not properly subject to the usual rule with respect to the burden of proof in tax cases. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 US 507.” United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433.
The challenge is based on this principle, while my challenge is not spelled out in this or other cases I’m aware of, the legal principle is what’s relevant. The FTB’s assessment is “without rational foundation” by their own admissions.
The argument has merit because it is based on a sound legal principle, supported by the agents’ own admissions.
2. Does it “controvert the material points” made by the FTB or IRS? Yes; by their own admission they operate under the presumption the laws apply because you’re physically in California or have a California source of money; and by their own admission they have no evidence, it’s an assumption. It’s logical and consistent with the facts.
3. Is it brought in bad faith? No; it’s based on facts, and a sound legal principle that “controverts the material points” raised by the FTB or IRS. It’s a logically, legally, and factually consistent argument.
None of the three elements of a “frivolous argument” are present proving the argument is not frivolous; it may be wrong, but it’s not frivolous. It’s possible the facts as alleged are not true, but that is what a hearing is for, to determine if the alleged facts are true. In the above video you can hear the agent admit the assessment’s foundation, the applicability of the laws, is an assumption. An assumption is not a “rational foundation.”
If it’s obvious it’s not a frivolous argument, then why do tax agents and their lawyers (with and without black robes) insist it is and threaten thousands in sanctions? Because they have a vested interest in the system taking property by force (taxation). They are the ones raising an argument that has no rational foundation and is brought in bad faith. I’ve had tax agents claim they don’t need evidence. That’s frivolous, not pointing out their claim lacks factual support.
What they are really saying is just challenging their foundational claim is somehow a frivolous argument or calling out their frivolous argument is itself frivolous. That is proof of bad faith.
What they do is strawman the actual position claiming:
“Appellant’s inquiry is entirely nonsensical, and while we are unsure of the exact import of this statement, it appears to be based on the meritless contention that California does not have jurisdiction to impose a personal income tax on appellant.”
No, the contention is: the FTB admitted their foundational claim is the constitution applies because there was California source of money. When asked for evidence, they admittedly had none and agreed it was an assumption. We have never made the above claim, this is done to justify ignoring the actual issue. They know what the actual issue is because the “entirely nonsensical” argument is cited just before the above quote:
“Moreover, in her briefs, appellant states that she had previously contacted FTB staff and [FTB counsel] regarding the proposed assessments at issue, and that these individuals failed to provide evidence that the “constitution” applied to her.”
First, the claim is not “entirely nonsensical” it’s based on the FTB’s own admissions and used as an insult, they also use “legalistic gibberish.” What this administrative law judge really thinks is frivolous, is challenging the FTB’s claim the laws apply to appellant. Questioning the FTB’s legal claim is the frivolous argument to him. This cow is so sacred to this bureaucrat he’s threatening a five-thousand dollar sanction for just questioning it and pointing out it’s admittedly an assumption. Like the pope admitting he just assumes the gods are real and anyone quoting him is raising a frivolous argument. By the way, this is the same bureaucrat allowing the FTB to lie with impunity in their pleadings. No bias there I guess.
Some claim the courts have already ruled the argument frivolous for decades as if that changes anything, it doesn’t. Because just as this ALJ is wrong, so are the courts for the reasons above.
It must also be noted they are not addressing this actual argument in those cases, just like the ALJ does here. If you look at the cases, the frivolous arguments are all arguments of legal interpretation, not issues of fact. This ALJ cites Appeals of Dauberger (82- SBE-082) 1982, as support; the type of arguments included are: wages not income without meaning of statute, not a taxpayer within meaning of statute, federal reserve notes are not legal tender, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits the requirement to file a tax return. Not a single issue of fact cited as a frivolous argument.
If it’s truly frivolous to challenge this legal claim, then that’s proof the system is rigged. Irrefutable presumptions are unfair and violate due process because they cannot be challenged, there is no defense, even against an assumption, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 US 441. Yes, this is about legislative presumptions, but the principle of fairness is what is relevant because due process requires notice and opportunity to defend at a meaningful hearing, Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970).
It’s not a so-called “frivolous argument” to point out someone’s foundational claim is admittedly an assumption, it’s a statement of fact.
So when they start chanting frivolous, call them on it, ask them what makes an argument frivolous and not just wrong. Ask them to point out what part of the argument is false; because the underlying facts are not and since the conclusion is drawn directly from the facts, the conclusion is accurate.
The argument the FTB or IRS has failed to support their claim the constitution applies, has merit because 1) it is based on their own admissions, 2) it controverts material points because they admit to not having evidence, and 3) because it’s based on a sound legal principle and the FTB’s own admissions, there is no bad faith.
Regardless of the chants from lawyers and bureaucrats, the argument is not frivolous.
It is too easy to examine an anecdote, and then make grandiose generalizations from it. Isn’t there a dear cost for exploiting such couplings? Doesn’t TANSTAAFL apply inexorably? The first cost is to risk the value of your reputation for credibility. The foremost long term cost may be the opportunity cost in failing to seek more precise knowledge. Today I was with a group that was in danger of reaching consensus on the idea that our language was deteriorating, and the blame lay primarily with youth. Then several stories were shared to show the overwhelming presence of the problem. But then several inputs were added to counter the anecdotes, so we drifted toward a greater probability — that language is constantly changing, sometimes looking distressed or appearing immortal.
How many people today sound like Shakespeare? The thing is that language sounds like whomever is speaking it, and therefore there are billions of manifestations of communication. Just as Shakespeare was unique, so are all humans unique — but the fact likely remains that 99.9% of humans are lesser communicators than Shakespeare was. This is not a sign that language is deteriorating — only that Shakespeare is not still alive. The alternate evidence of his words being with us daily, more than 400 years later, is worth noting. And this is not a sign that language advances at all times.
It was observed that an Internet game, WordScapes, now accepts the word “rad” (short for “radical?”). It is ironic that “radical,” itself, is a mishmash from earlier languages referring to various forms of roots, vegetable that is. Originally, I think it meant fundamental, but now it seems to mean departing from the fundamental.
Well, the main fact is that “rad” means whatever its users (senders and receivers) find practically useful.