"Survivors of Church Shootings Run as Gun-Rights Candidates: Three men in Texas are seeking public office in March’s Republican primaries"

1 day ago
Stephen Willeford who stopped the 2017 church shooting in Sutherland Springs Church shooting.
Pastor Frank Pomeroy, who lost his teenage daughter, in the Sutherland Springs Church shooting.
Jack Wilson who stopped the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting near Fort Worth.

All three are Republicans. They are following in the footsteps of Suzanna Hupp, who served in the Texas state House.
In Colorado, the state House minority leader, Patrick Neville, was a student at the Columbine High School attack.

Here is a Wall Street Journal article on the top three and a long list of Democrats who have run for public office after these types of attacks.
John Lott

A TV show that puts private companies in a good light?

3 days 1 hour ago
From Fox News:
Is your child's favorite TV show propaganda? Kings College professor Liam Kennedy says his 2-year-old son isn't allowed to watch the popular show "Paw Patrol" because of what he sees as the show's harmful underlying messages. Created in 2013, "Paw Patrol" is an animated series about a group of do-good dogs and a 10-year-old boy named Ryder who rescue various people in tricky situations. But when the Canadian educator watched hours of the show during research for the journal "Crime Media Culture," that's not all he saw. Kennedy published a paper on the subject titled "'Whenever there's trouble. Just yelp for help': Crime, Conservation and Corporatization in Paw Patrol." In an interviewwith London Morning's Rebecca Zandbergen, Kennedy said the depiction of the state and local government officials like Mayor Humdinger and Mayor Goodway are "portrayed negatively." . . . In addition, Kennedy takes issue with the "Paw Patrol" organization as a "private corporation" acting as a stand-in for a government-funded police force. . . .
John Lott

Is it fair that high school girls have to compete against boys?: Conn. high school girls file lawsuit arguing that allowing transgender athletes to compete is sex discrimination

3 days 1 hour ago
From Fox News:
Three female high school athletes in Connecticut, along with their families, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to prevent transgender athletes from competing in girls track and field meets, arguing that biologically male athletes have a physical advantage. Selina Soule, a senior at Glastonbury High School; Chelsea Mitchell, a senior at Canton High School; and Alanna Smith, a sophomore at Danbury High School, announced the lawsuit in a press conference on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford, the Washington Post reported.  “Our dream is not to come in second or third place, but to win, fair and square,” Mitchell said. “All we’re asking for is a fair chance.” The three are arguing that competing against biologically male athletes has denied them the chance to win medals and achieve scholarship opportunities. . . .
John Lott

Comparing Coronavirus to SARS

1 week 1 day ago
The Coronavirus has surpassed SARS in terms of the total number of deaths, and it is spreading much more rapidly than SARS. This graph is out of date, as there are now over 34,800 cases of the Coronavirus as of February 8th, 2020. The Coronavirus seems to still be accelerating.



John Lott

Washington Post: "Sex Suit Could Be Problem for Bloomberg"

2 weeks 1 day ago
Among the allegations in the 2007 Washington Post story about Michael Bloomberg:
_Bloomberg asked the woman who sued if she was giving her boyfriend "good" oral sex.
_He said "I'd like to do that" and "That's a great piece of a--" to describe women in the office.
_When he found out the woman was pregnant, he told her "Kill it!" and said "Great! Number 16!" _ an apparent reference to the number of women in the company who were pregnant or had maternity-related status. . . .
The individual also said Garrison had a tape of Bloomberg leaving a message on her home answering machine, saying he had heard she was upset about the pregnancy and maternity comment and adding: "I didn't say it, but if I said it I didn't mean it." . . .
A less-restrained Bloomberg was also portrayed in a book of quips, quotes and anecdotes attributed to him and put together by employees for a birthday present in 1990. It contains such statements as: "If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they'd go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale's." . . .
A former longtime Bloomberg employee who was familiar with the book confirmed the authenticity of the quotes to the AP and said Bloomberg regularly made similar offensive remarks. The person spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear that Bloomberg would retaliate. . . . .Will Democrats demand that Bloomberg release his employees from their confidentiality agreements?

Here is the view of Bloomberg from a liberal perspective in the Atlantic. 
John Lott

Michael Bloomberg's proposal for a $5 trillion increase in taxes

2 weeks 1 day ago

Higher taxes on individuals and corporations are the highlights of Michael Bloomberg's tax plan. It is pretty clear that his tax proposals won't generate the tax revenue that Bloomberg claims for the simple reason that the proposals assume that as tax rates go up they won't alter people's behavior. The one part of the Trump tax reform that Bloomberg won't reverse is the $10,000 cap on state and local deductions because reversing that would lower tax burdens for some people.

From the Wall Street Journal, here are the main points:
-- raise the top tax rate to 44.6% for income, the next highest rate would be 39.6% up from 37%.-- Corporations would pay a 28% tax rate, up from the current 21% rate -- would tax capital gains and ordinary income at that same rate for the top taxpayers-- his top income-tax rates on individuals would be higher than those proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden-- Unlike Mr. Biden, he would not repeal the $10,000 cap on state and local deductions because the benefits of that change would flow mostly to high-income people, according to the campaign.-- The plan released Saturday doesn’t address changes to Social Security taxes or the carbon taxes that Mr. Bloomberg favors.
John Lott

When the left is attacking Mark Zuckerberg for being too friendly with Trump, you at least know that Facebook won't be quite as pro-Democrat

2 weeks 3 days ago
In an op-ed, George Soros claims that Facebook got Trump elected in 2016 because it didn't censor what he claims was incorrect news. He also claims that FB is trying to help out out Trump again.
More recently, direct contact between the two men has raised serious questions. Mr. Zuckerberg met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 19, 2019. We don’t know what was said. But from an interview on the sidelines at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 22, we do know what Mr. Trump said about the meeting: Mr. Zuckerberg “told me that I’m No. 1 in the world in Facebook.” Mr. Trump apparently had no problem with Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political ads. “I’d rather have him just do whatever he is going to do,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Zuckerberg. “He’s done a hell of a job, when you think of it.” The president’s 2016 campaign mounted a robust data-centric communications effort and has continued to build on that program over the past few years, using Facebook as a key part of their strategy. Facebook’s decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates’ advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements. Such content is rewarded with prime placement and promotion if it meets Facebook-designed algorithmic standards for popularity and engagement. . . .  I expressed my fear that with Facebook’s help, Mr. Trump will win the 2020 election. The recent hiring of a right-wing figure to help manage its news tab has reinforced those fears. . . . 

John Lott

DNC changes rules so that Michael Bloomberg can enter Democrat debates

2 weeks 3 days ago
How come the DNC has changed the rules to help Bloomberg but not to help other candidates? Not everyone is pleased by the double standard. From Politico:
“Now, suddenly because Mr. Bloomberg couldn’t satisfy one of the prongs, we see it get changed?” Weaver said. “That’s the definition of a rigged system where the rich can buy their way in.” . . . Steyer — like Bloomberg, a billionaire — has also been accused of buying his spot on the debate stage, having spent well over $150 million of his own money to fuel his bid, including spending eight figures to solicit donations from enough individuals to qualify. But Steyer and Bloomberg are taking two very different paths to trying to secure the nomination: Steyer is competing extensively in the four early states, while Bloomberg is skipping them entirely to focus on Super Tuesday and beyond. Steyer, like Weaver, the Sanders' adviser, accused the DNC of changing the criteria to benefit Bloomberg. "Back in December, I called on the DNC to open up the debate requirements so that more candidates, including candidates of color, would be able to participate, he said. “Instead, they are changing the rules for a candidate who is ignoring early states voters and grassroots donors.” . . .Michael Moore has gotten quite vexed about this.
"They removed it so that [Bloomberg] could be in the next debate," Moore said about the donor requirement. "...He can just buy his way onto the debate stage!" Billionaire Tom Steyer had to spend dollars convincing ppl to donate to his campaign, but not Bloomberg.
John Lott

Truly massive campaign spending by Michael Bloomberg

2 weeks 4 days ago

From Politico:
Michael Bloomberg’s big-spending, shock-and-awe TV ad campaign has made politicking more expensive for everyone from his 2020 rivals to Senate, House and state legislative candidates around the country. Eight weeks into his presidential campaign, Bloomberg has already spent more money on advertising — $248 million — than most candidates could spend in years. That amount has squeezed TV ad inventory in nearly every state, lowering supply and causing stations to raise ad prices at a time of high demand, as candidates around the country gear up for their primaries. . . . Bloomberg’s ad onslaught comes with benefits to Democrats around the country, too: His ads have pushed issues that are critical to the party, like health care and climate change, and he has attacked President Donald Trump relentlessly in key swing states where Democrats might not have aired ads for months, softening up the Republican incumbent before the 2020 election. . . .And $100 million has been spent just on attack ads against Trump. Of course, with all of Drudge's attacks on Trump, this shows how close Drudge is to the Bloomberg campaign.
Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has already dropped a fortune in support of his 2020 presidential bid — including, reportedly, $10 million for ad time during Sunday’s Super Bowl. Now, the exact figures are coming to light. And they are staggering. . . . Drudge, reporting through a Bloomberg campaign source, says the campaign has spent in excess of $25 million on digital ads, and has topped $85 million in TV buys. The Bloomberg source called the massive spending a “down payment” on the former mayor’s effort to take down Trump in November. . . . All this is on top of the $60 million that Bloomberg's Everytown will spend pushing gun control issues. It is nearly double the $36 million that the NRA spent in 2016, but it ignores the fact that Bloomberg funneled even much more money through other liberal groups (environmental, abortion, and other similar groups).

John Lott

Democrats turn on Facebook and Zuckerberg

4 weeks 2 days ago
CNN is making it clear that its Democrat allies hate Facebook.
Facebook has also faced mounting scrutiny on both sides of the political aisle — but especially from Democrats — over what is seen by lawmakers as its market dominance as well as the perception, expressed in an interview published this week with Democratic presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg, that Zuckerberg has too much power.  Facebook's refusal to remove a doctored video of Pelosi last May clearly irked Democrats, including Clinton, who called the video "sexist trash" and suggested the argument for taking it down "wasn't even a close call." But what really hit a nerve with Democrats more recently was Facebook's insistence last September that it would not fact-check ads from politicians — a policy many Democrats saw as beneficial to Trump's reelection campaign.  Facebook, the Democratic National Committee said, was allowing Trump "to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded." Sen. Elizabeth Warren ran a deliberately false ad to highlight what Democrats saw as the ludicrousness of the policy. The false ad claimed Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump's reelection campaign. When Biden's campaign demanded Facebook remove a false ad from the Trump campaign accusing Biden of corruption of his role in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration, Facebook refused. "Our approach is grounded in Facebook's fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is," Katie Harbath, Facebook's head of global elections policy wrote in response last October. . . . But Facebook often appears to be the Democrats' favored target — even as leading Democratic candidates for president continue to sink money into the platform for their campaigns. . . .
John Lott

Checked

12 hours 44 minutes ago

Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
SubscribeSubscribe to John Lott Blog feed