Have a comment?

Article here. The more the government does, the more psychs create programs, the worse it gets. A head scratcher? I don't think so. Increasing psychopharmaceutical use. Multiple deployments. Too many women (some research has been done on this, but of course it's not terribly PC.) Stop looking at whether obesity exacerbates suicidal ideation, or hoping to find some kind of pre-enlistment mental weakness. If rate of suicides has changed, look for what else has changed.

"Special Operations Speaks enjoyed a fine time at CPAC 2013. We had the chance to meet and chat with hundreds of people concerned about the failure of the Obama Administration to respond effectively to pleas for help from American spies and diplomats attacked on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. We met some of the conspiracy theorists spinning various tales of intrigue. Most find the truth hard to accept, but the truth is the truth. And there are several layers..." Read the post at Larry C. Johnson's No Quarter.

Revisiting feminists', progressives', and liberals' never-ending frothing, baseless, hypocritical, ignorant, misogynistic, envious, or just plain-old personality-disordered attacks on and lies about Sarah Palin, commencing with the 2008 election. What a wake-up call. She is the epitome woman of achievement.

(Now I'll wait for more of the "But Liz, she..." rejoinders from friends who, incredibly in some cases, actually believe something they read or heard that is false.)

First listen to the (who is rude?) nincompoop talking heads. (People think they get information from crap like this!) Then listen to the man who actually wrote the amicus brief in Heller signed by 31 state attorneys general, and argued the companion case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Afghan soldiers using their U.S. supplied weapons and humvees to kill our soldiers. May they all rot in their 7th century hell of a society.

School administrators refused to serve kid's birthday cupcakes because they were decorated with those little green WWII plastic soldier toys. Eeeeeeek, guns. Apparently "educators" now consider classic toys modeled upon sacrificing heroes to be symbols of demented criminals. At another elementary school this week, administrators punished a little boy for eating his pop tart into the shape of a gun -- and then offered trauma counseling for the students.)

Obamacare death panels? Just a right-wing extremist hysteria. Neil Cavuto speaks with Dr. Manny Alvarez about a government-funded study outlining a "Mortality Test" for patients. (People have an obligation to not waste our money and just die when it's their time, don't you think? You don't? The federal government is planning to decide just that.)

Organizing for America? What is this crap? A special interest lobbying group for the president who is supposed to represent everyone? (Isn't that like having an employee who spends his work time on his own company instead of that of his employer?) CBS slams new OFA for plans to sell access to the president to donors. Pushing the golfer-in-chief's "agenda"? (If it really were all that popular, it wouldn't require this kind of effort. Really.)

And the TSA: "An undercover TSA inspector with an improvised explosive device stuffed in his pants got past two security screenings at Newark Airport -- including a pat-down -- and was cleared to get on board a commercial flight, sources told The Post yesterday." More useless government in action.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Excerpt from "It's time for psychologists to put their house in order":

"In 2005, the epidemiologist John Ioannidis provocatively claimed that "most published research findings are false". In the field of psychology -- where negative results rarely see the light of day -- we have a related problem: there is the very real possibility that many unpublished, negative findings are true. Psychologists have an aversion to some essential aspects of science that they perceive to be unexciting or less valuable. Historically, the discipline has done almost nothing to ensure the reliability of findings through the publication of repeat studies and negative ("null") findings. Psychologists find significant statistical support for their hypotheses more frequently than any other science, and this is not a new phenomenon. More than 30 years ago, it was reported that psychology researchers are eight times as likely to submit manuscripts for publication when the results are positive rather than negative..."

The article is good, as far as it goes. (Although it's a rare psychologist who even knows what the null hypothesis is.) But the article also makes a whopper of an assumption: that psychology is, in the first place, a science.

The first problem with psychology is that psychology is, ultimately, the study of something that does not exist at all: the mind. (By contrast, if and to the extent we discern how the brain functions -- which is not what psychologists are studying, that's biology or neuroscience, not psychology.) The second, and corollary problem with psychology is that to be a field of "science" the discipline must be based upon and developing knowledge derived from at least one core theory, supported and expanded upon by empirically testable falsifiable hypotheses, with replicated studies with findings able to be applied consistently to predict phenomena. Psychology doesn't do this. It's merely the description of observable behaviors and reported thinking, as ostensibly reflecting upon the functioning of that non-existent entity called the mind.

So even if (as the article urges), psychologists "got their house in order" and started honestly and consistently using sound scientific methodology, psychology still would not be science. Isaac Newton spent decades using scientific methodology to research ALCHEMY. He was not working in a field of science. He scientifically tested every single possible hypothesis he could and came up with "null".

Psychology would be on a par with alchemy, but for one thing. When Newton investigated alchemy it was based on investigating real, tangible things. His findings therefore did contribute the the later development of an actual field of hard science: chemistry. Psychology, on the other hand, based as it is upon the study of the mind, is more equivalent to astrology. If you don't understand, see Paul Lutus's excellent website, arachnoid.com.

Ohforgodssake.

"I started noticing that some of the details the media was talking about didn't fit the released manifesto I've read everywhere... What's the difference between posting 11 rambling pages and 21 rambling pages? Look at what's taken out...

"News regurgitator Bill Handel is reporting on the KFI radio show that news outlets have been specifically told to post a "redacted" version of the manifesto, in order to protect the names of the police men and women targeted by the murderer... However, it must be noted that the redacted version ALSO doesn't have the Obama and liberal references..."

More at PJTattler: Suspected L.A. Cop Killer Posted Pro-Obama, Pro-Gun Control, Leftist Rant on the Web "A man steeped in typical Think Progress, Media Matters style leftist thinking".

(Don't skeet usually sail through the air a smidge higher?) UPDATE Feb 03, 2013:

More photoshops, collected from around the internet by the National Review (originally linked here), who provided no credits or permalink to their gallery of other people's work. If one is yours, please let me know.

Professional soldiers, Protecting the Second Amendment - Why all Americans Should Be Concerned: "We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012)."

"There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear."

Meanwhile, excellent presentation from Ted Cruz:

Piers Morgan is either a deliberate liar or an idiot. An AR-15 was not used in the Sandy Hook school shooting.

UPDATE Jan 30, 2012: Incredible media bias in the false meme about Second Amendment supporters heckling the father of a Sandyhook victim. (Why does Lawrence O'Donnell "need" his First Amendment rights?)

There arguably already are too many women in the military, and this excess isn't adding a whit of value. It's one thing to celebrate tough women exceptions to the rule (my mother was a Marine), but this has gone too far into the absurd at severe detriment to our military readiness from both deployment issues and from affirmative action promoting of less-qualified women over more qualified men (not to mention the unnecessary taxpayer expense.) The military does not exist to provide individuals with personal job satisfaction or to provide a training internship for future Pentagon careers.

We went totally wrong with regard to the military "equal opportunity" thing when the courts did not throw out the cases of women demanding to have special physical fitness standards and to not have their heads shaved. I don't want to hear the specious arguments from man-wannabes. I know all of them, and have about as much patience for this propaganda as I do for the misrepresented fatherhood research.

Contrary to the claims of some, physical training to be in combat is NOT merely about "physical fitness" or how well you can shoot a weapon. It is about how much goddamn WORK you can do, how much constant lifting, how much tolerance for a lack of sleep, how much constant moving -- and how fast -- while carrying heavy weight, how much stamina for personal misery from lack of hygiene and privacy, how much pain resistance, how much and how fast you can fill and haul and carry sandbags, or dig a trench or climb that hill or obstacle, how much abuse your body can take without injury, and how much RISK you will actually take (like aggressive young men "stupidly" -- in other venues -- not infrequently do). The rude reality is that there are NO women, no matter how much training, who can get above the bottom quartile of trained men. Not to mention myriad other issues. Why do we want this? We don't.

"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of
man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand."
    -- Susan B. Anthony, Francisco, July 1871.

Mark Levin blasts the media, here in the person of Bob Schieffer, on idiot gun control blathering.

"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive
of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
    -- Louis Brandeis dissent, Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928).