Writing this during the month after D-Day commemorations, I want to start by linking to a fine essay about how the world changed after World War II, spreading (more widely, though unevenly) the notion and reality of a largely educated and comfortable and free middle class, a dream and partial reality that Karl Marx never imagined possible...
...only the world then changed then again, when the 6000 year disease of oligarchy began re-asserting itself, dissolving the social contract set up by the Greatest Generation and - ironically - reviving Marx from the dustbin where middle-class society had tossed him.
The author of that article is slightly to the left of my "Maher-Liberalism," but makes strong points - sometimes citing me - about why today's oligarchy never does anything practical to benefit the ill-educated whites who are their ground troops in a re-ignited confederacy.
As in the 1860s, and every other phase of the ongoing U.S. Civil War, those poor whites are propelled far more by resentment and revenge, than they are by practical considerations. Especially resentment of every 'nerdy' or fact-using profession... those high IQ stoopid people derided by an Ivy League graduate with a fake-folksy accent.
Hatred of the very same professions who created all the wealth and technologies and social advances that 'made America great.' The same nerds - from science to law to medicine to journalism, teaching and civil service, all the way to the civil servants and officer corps - who block re-imposition of feudalism.
The Weekly Sift essay includes my comparisons of Asimov's psychohistory to the astonishingly effective sci fi self-preventing prophecies of Karl Marx.
Science fiction authors tend to notice such things. Which is why most of us lean mostly-progressive. Very few of us speak up for a return to those 60 centuries of lobotomized feudal oppression, the way that Orson Scott Card does, with utter-dogmatic repetitiveness. In fact, the unfairly-maligned Robert Heinlein's most vehement denunciations were aimed at America's recurring dalliance with fascist racism, aristocratism and anti-intellectual rage.
I say all that, even though I am also unabashed in pointing out - now and then - the countless, loony tactical errors - often driven by egoistic sanctimony - that cripple the partisans of progress. Errors that keep giving varied versions of fascism yet another chance, then another...
No, we can only serve future generations if we are practical about our tactics and designs, re-assessing what works and building the sort of broad coalitions that defeated naziism and Stalinism and Klanism. And so...
== Points about utilitarianism ... ==
1) The Enlightenment Experiment (EE) of the last 300 years involved many, many theoretical discussions of ethics… and almost none of them interest me! Because I know that I am a delusional ape, transfixed by ornate-sounding incantations! Indeed I have seen what delusional incantations have done in the past, even when well-intended.
I care about outcomes, especially those that increase the likelihood that this ape’s descendants will deal with all the hifalutin quandaries and questions and big-matters, far better than I can.
2) What the Enlightenment Experiment has accomplished that is of pragmatic utility is providing systems that maximize critical input from an ever-widening pool of perceptual participants!
This broadening of empowered input reduced the greatest crime of feudalism… waste of talent. It also led (barely just in time) maximizing discovery of delusional errors.
These two endeavors resulted in by far the most successful – by any measure – civilization in all history. And the most self-critical, with millions determined not to repeat mistakes of past generations. And to denounce every new one!
3) This expansion of empowered participation required more than simply feeding and educating more children, expanding inclusive rights, flattening hierarchies and encouraging criticism.
It also required the creation of systemically regulated. Arenas within which creative adversaries can compete. But that means replacing the brutal forms of competition seen in nature and in feudalism with regulated competition - like how sports leagues operate in tightly umpired ways that maximize positive sum outcomes, by reducing cheating and minimizing blood on the floor.
(Nature also uses competition and is fecundly creative - it made us. But Nature's competitive creativity is also spectacularly bloody and inefficient. Regulated arenas seem capable of getting competition's benefits in much more positive sum and gentler ways.)
These highly-creative arenas of ritual competition are markets, democracy, science courts and (as I just said) sports. (Some might add journalism). I describe the process here: "Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competition." (This early version appeared as the lead article in the American Bar Association's Journal on Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University), v.15, N.3, pp 597-618, Aug. 2000.)
As I said, by regulating competition to keep it flat, open, fair, these arenas become positive sum. But maintaining them and suppressing the recurring poison of cheating requires constant attention, fine tuning and hard work
Cynics claim that this dynamic may have worked well for a while (the Rooseveltean social contract) and somewhat for 250 years, but it cannot be maintained:
“Once the technological/ developmental gap is sufficiently large those dynamics which operate largely under our control and in our favor can quickly change, and former allies become the new masters”.
But I answer twofold:
1- Yes the odds have always been against the Enlightenment Experiment! Human nature pushes toward the feudalism trap and escapes are rare.
2- Despite that, there is NO such cause effect imperative or automatic outcome!
Oh, sure, there is always an attractor, in each of the arenas, for cheaters to find ways around the rules, often conniving together. The feudal attractor state is driven by primitive male reproductive strategies that pervade not just Homo sapiens but nearly all species...
And yet, so? Preventing that failure mode is one of the jobs of open, enlightenment politics… sincere negotiation of the incentives and regulations that keep those arena playing fields ever-more flat-fair-creative. Indeed, for feudalism to be restored, the world oligarchy’s top priority must be to destroy “politics” as a means of deliberative negotiated problem solving, especially in the United States.
And boy, that plot has been successful! So far!
What many neglect is the long history of successful efforts to control and stymie that attractor tendency...
...including the way that YOU and YOUR VALUES fit into it all, since you are a product of the most extensive propaganda campaign ever waged. Called Hollywood.
I find it bizarre how many folks - bright ones - seem addicted to the smug notion that "I and just a few others invented suspicion of authority!"
Not. You suckled your values from the teat of Hollywood, same as all your neighbors. See Vivid Tomorrows: Science Fiction and Hollywood. So let's fight for that Enlightenment Experiment that may give our heirs the stars!
Just have some calm sense of proportion, will ya? Gandhi and MLK and Franklin and Douglass weren't just righteous... they were tacticians! They built coalitions.
== Making at least one house democratic ==
Want the simplest and best and easiest U.S. congressional reforms that aren’t to be found in Polemical Judo?
1.) Repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act. It permanently set the maximum number of members in the House of Representatives at 435. Hence a lot of the distortions in proportional representation, since each state gets at least one representative.
2.) Then legalize a Wyoming Rule, where the number of representatives each state gets is proportional to the population of the least populous state (aka Wyoming with 578,803) which gets one representative. California (population 39,237,836) gets 68 representatives, an increase of 16 over its current 52. That increases the total number of representatives to 573.
3.) This would take just a majority law, needing no amendments.
4.) Then, more ambitiously, also make both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states (both have more population than Wyoming). DC would get one representative and Puerto Rico would get 6, further increasing House membership to 580.
A decent contractor can expand the hall of congress to seat the additional reps and provide them office space - or these reps can work remotely based on seniority (which is how they assign office space anyways). Have you seen how cramped the UK House of Commons is?
This would also reduce some (not all) of the obscene distortions to proportional representation in the electoral college.
This Washington Post article by constitutional scholar Danielle Allen - ‘The House was supposed to grow with population. It didn’t. Let’s fix that’ offers arguments for the same change that are less partisan, more mature and grownup. And those reasons should suffice! The author’s point? Historically this enlargement would actually be consistent with the framers’ original intent! Which was clearly stated in many places.
I am less calm and mature and perhaps more angry. The Confederacy has an inherent advantage in the Senate already. It should nt in the House, where every citizen's vote should have equal value.
Period.
Heinlein did aim some denunciations at civil servants, referring to them somewhere in (I think) Time Enough for Love as "civil masters."
ReplyDeleteEconomists like utilitarianism for their base assumptions about markets because it offers the possibility of a state function on which first derivatives in the numerous variables can stated. We call them 'margins' and it gives the underpinnings of a theory that is shaped a bit like thermodynamics.
ReplyDeleteIf you walk around in real markets, though, I think you'll find real people using an older system of ethics that Aristotle would recognize. We've tweaked a bit what we mean by various character traits and added a few more, but it is fundamentally similar to virtue ethics.
Such a system does NOT offer the possibility of a state function, though, unless traits can be reduced to one. If you've heard arguments explaining why courage is prudent and explain a mother's love for their infant in terms of evolutionary advantages, you've heard these reduction attempts. Without them, there is no single state function (no matter how complex it is) to measure human markets.
Ants can be utilitarians. So can trees. Each group as a definable 'best outcome' and a way to measure it. Count the ants. Count the trees.
We can count humans too, right? Surely there exists a definable 'best outcome'? Heh. Maybe for you and your family. Maybe for me and my family. The odds we'd agree on it all, though, is essentially zero.
The key difference is the ants don't have to talk each other into behaviors that lead to their best outcome. We do. Any theory about our markets that pretends there is a utility function must explain how humans don't know it and would never agree in large numbers with anyone suggesting they have the inside scoop.
We aren't using utility.
We are using rhetoric.
Ilithi Dragon, (from last thread)
ReplyDeleteYour ire for the OceanGate folks doesn't move me. I've known and worked which such people and they have a definite place and job to do. They are the people who doubt the gospel. Their DUTY is to doubt and then fail if the gospel still holds true. Most of them DO fail, but the occasional one who doesn't releases us from assumptions traditionalists don't like to check very often.
———
I get what you are saying, but the way these doubters are supposed to deal with folks like you is HIRE you with a job description that says you are their personal PITA. Your job would be to doubt the doubters and get in their faces when they do the really stupid stuff.
I'm not making up the job description. I've filled that role on some projects. On the high altitude airship project we had some very starry-eyed people. They'd occasionally say things that I knew weren't just bad engineering. They were trying to violate the laws of physics. My job was to drag them part way back to reality.
———
We need the doubters and they need their PITA's. Without them, every government contractor would argue for budgets in the multiple billions on every project because there would be no counter-force opposing them. You'll see this in the military when you encounter Battle Lab people who have tiny budgets compared to Research Lab people. My team's airship project involved a USAF Battle Lab who wanted very much to embarrass some officers at the AFRL. We wound up failing and the Colenel was more than a little upset, but we were all doubters of one kind or another.
And yes… I've seen the West Wing episode that showed how the ash tray broke reliably. My thought at the time that aired was to ban smoking on subs instead, but surface ships would benefit from the knowledge of how things break too and there is no need to add additional bans.
Here's a gift article link to the Washington Post article you mentioned so everyone can read it:
ReplyDeletehttps://wapo.st/3r73xTs
Cari thanks. Revised.
ReplyDelete“We can count humans too, right? Surely there exists a definable 'best outcome'? Heh. Maybe for you and your family. Maybe for me and my family. The odds we'd agree on it all, though, is essentially zero.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Just about the only folks who have not benefited from most aspects (not pollution) of the Enlightenment experiment are those males who are convinced they woulda been lords with harems.
Lorraine,
ReplyDeleteHeinlein contained multitudes. One of his most undeniably effective and humane characters was a civil servant - Mr. Kiku in 'the Star Beast', a chief representative of a functional and at least ostensibly democratic world government.
Dr. Brin,
The set of 'males who are convinced they woulda been lords with harems' almost certainly contains a large subset of 'males who woulda been sneaker males at best'.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Lancelot was a sneaker male di tutti sneaker males.
Pappenheimer
No fair defining 'best outcome' when many would disagree.
ReplyDeleteThere are large numbers of us for whom best outcome involves exactly zero of those smelly people over there.
------
The point is ants don't discuss what best outcome is. When we try to avoid the discussion, we aren't modeling humans. Our markets are those discussions.
Imagine me deciding the best sports outcome involves the Dodgers starting each game five runs up. MLB obviously isn't flat and fair due to differences in available budgets, so why not a rule bias to represent a team's market size? It won't happen not because it is unfair, but because negotiations for it will fail.
Individuals and small groups can define a utility function. Groups of groups negotiate it revealing the real measure. Rhetoric.
From the last thread:
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court on Friday sided with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people.
More to the point, they sided with a web designer who said that the state law would prevent her refusing service if she decided she wanted to design wedding web sites (something she does not currently do) and despite Colorado saying that the Colorado law would not be applicable to that case.
So a ruling based entirely on a hypothetical situation, over an interpretation of a state law that had not yet been made.
Does the Supreme Court rule on hypothetical cases very often?
Hypothetical cases and non-existent plaintiffs. She cited a couple that doesn’t appear to exist.
DeleteDon't know if this is a Brin hit:
ReplyDeletehttps://masto.ai/@stavvers/110634386992788225
The "anti-judicial-activism" party (and for that matter the party of "tort reform") has gone full mask-off. Clearly the rhetoric was only ever a tactic. They are without principles. And without honor.
ReplyDeleteJust so y'all know, the Washington Post gift link posted by Cari Burstein above shows "expired" when I click on it from Dr Brin's main post.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I use the link directly from her post, then I can see the article.
Caveat emptor.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteGroups of groups negotiate it revealing the real measure. Rhetoric.
I remember being fascinated when I learned how real courts work. It's not a matter of figuring out which side is right and which side is wrong. Both sides have arguments which they present, and the outcome is determined by plausibility. Which side's argument can be believed?
Robert:
ReplyDeleteDoes the Supreme Court rule on hypothetical cases very often?
They're never supposed to. In fact, in the independent-legislature case which was decided in the good way, the three dissenting conservatives argued that the case never should have been ruled on because a new ruling by the North Carolina supreme court had made the case a moot point. Those same three conservatives were among the six who prevailed in the "Businesses can refuse to seat black people at their lunch counters" case you referred to.
(I know they didn't decide that exactly, but it's the logical consequence)
Lorraine:
The "anti-judicial-activism" party (and for that matter the party of "tort reform") has gone full mask-off. Clearly the rhetoric was only ever a tactic. They are without principles. And without honor.
Yes, it's obvious the authoritarian supreme court have gone even beyond what Norman Goldman used to refer to as "politicians in robes," and have become full on dictators in robes. Beyond their abandoned principles you state, remember how much they used to insist on "textualism" or "originalism"? The words of the Constitution have to be interpreted literally and in the way they would have been meant in 1789? Well, no more. Their latest theory is a perverse version of utilitarianism--that their rulings should produce the greatest good, regardless of the facts of a specific case.
And to Alfred's point above, there's no negotiation involved as to what they greatest good is. Their Federalist Society sponsors and their cult religion* know best.
(* I don't mean Catholicism, but the bizarre Opus Dei version that at least five of them belong to--maybe all six)
* * *
On Stephanie Miller's radio show, they discussed the idea that the USsc rejected the independent legislature theory against conservative wishes because that theory diminished the power of courts in general and their own in particular. The prevailing consensus on the show was that this demonstrates cynicism--they rule for the right-wing unless it affects their own power. But to me, that is exactly how the US government was meant to work. In this particular case, it wasn't a matter of the court arbitrarily finding for their own power or their own agenda. Rather, they refused the pretzel-like logic which would have allowed a different branch of government to usurp their power.
The founders in their wisdom designed a system in which the competing branches would check and balance each other because each would jealously guard their own branch's power. What they tragically failed to foresee or plan for is a legislative branch which would openly welcome and support an authoritarian executive.
@Robert,
ReplyDeleteYou're not the only one to notice. In fact, pretty much everybody does:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jul01-1.html
And finally, there is #3, the Christian website designer who doesn't want to design websites for LGBTQ couples. It should be noted, at the outset, that regardless of one's views about the underlying issues, the actual suit was a mockery of the legal process. By all indications, the designer, Lorie Smith, wasn't actually asked to create a website for an LGBTQ couple, and so she didn't actually have standing to sue. There are vague references in the filing to a man named "Stewart," but when he was tracked down by reporters, he said he never asked Smith for a site. He also observed—and this just might be relevant—that he is not gay, and that he's been married to a woman for the last 15 years.
On top of that, Smith did not actually instigate the suit. It was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing activist group that recruits plaintiffs for its various legal efforts. Kristen Waggoner, who basically is the Alliance Defending Freedom, insists that the request for the site was legitimate, though she cannot prove it because it was submitted online. She also admits it might have been a troll. Strangely, that troll knew the exact right address and phone number for "Stewart," who, once again, is straight and, as someone who just celebrated his 15th anniversary, has no need for a wedding website.
The upshot is that the Supremes should have kicked the case until it was clear there was a real issue before them. But they did not, and so, by a vote of—you guessed it—6 to 3, they found for Smith. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which again, is basically a one-woman operation, is hailing this as a "Landmark Victory for Free Speech," and has helpfully provided a big link on its site where you can donate to their efforts in advance of a "critical June 30 deadline." Exactly why that deadline is critical is not explained.
Web Designer is usually a euphemism for penniless script kiddie.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that MLB had (has?) a new rule putting a runner at 2nd every extra inning?
ReplyDelete“Does the Supreme Court rule on hypothetical cases very often?”
Should a gay cake designer be required to accept a Nazi client? I wonder if there is a principle that public accommodations must serve everyone… unless there’s a wide variety of alternatives.
scidata:
ReplyDeleteWeb Designer is usually a euphemism for penniless script kiddie.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jul01-1.html continues...
Of the five big decisions this week, our sense is that this one is the least consequential. Obviously, we do not approve of people who feel the need to discriminate, regardless of their justification. However, if a person really and truly doesn't want to make your cake or your website, you probably don't want them doing the job anyhow. Especially Lorie Smith, whose sites just scream: "I finally finished reading Web Design for Dummies last week!"
...
Dr Brin:
Should a gay cake designer be required to accept a Nazi client? I wonder if there is a principle that public accommodations must serve everyone… unless there’s a wide variety of alternatives.
If we were smart, we would have brought a case like that to the courts first. That way, they would have of course ruled that the cake designer had to serve anyone, even if the business owner finds the client deplorable. Then we could say, "Aha, you fell for my little trap!"
Maybe. The same link above continues...
Further, while the six conservatives on the Supreme Court don't care all that much about LGBTQ equality, they didn't want to open the doors to legalizing other forms of discrimination. So, they made a point in their ruling that Smith is only allowed to discriminate because her work product is "expressive." It's certainly possible that unpleasant people could seize on that and run with it—after all, burning a cross is also "expressive." But our guess is that the practical impact of the decision will be fairly limited.
Though they do acknowledge later that many other pundits disagree.
Naturally, it concerns the would-be Web Designer getting her fifteen minutes of fame; saving newspaper clippings about herself...
Delete*Most things never happened*
WJCC is good because it's not a recipe for zombie coding (the Tarot cards of today). If you're not directly interacting with pixels, logic, and/or hardware you're not computing, you're shambling and reciting. I would laugh at doctrinal coding instruction if it wasn't so lamentably tragic. Finger painting is a far better use of a young mind.
ReplyDeleteAt least the "for Dummies" books are sort of honest (although they have a smugness of faux expertise). Elite programming manuals sometimes have da Vinci, Plato, or a samurai on their cover. They should in fact have Bozo the Clown. Brandishing Excalibur is intoxicating, but soon enough, a Musashi Miyamoto comes down the road.
I'm certainly no samurai, but I've known a few. They eat chatGPT for breakfast. The only thing scarier than artificial intelligence is computationally augmented sapiens intelligence. In truth, I'm more like the Pollyanna I'm always claiming not to be.
Calculemus!
I am somewhat surprised that the rulings regarding higher education aren't discussed here. As I read those rulings, it will deepen and increase structural classism and racism in the US and probably lead to a greater waste of talent.
ReplyDeleteOr do you actually support these rulings? If so, why?
(In my personal oppinion, it is the duty of the state and a democracy to create the best educational opportunities for every young person. Not that Germany lives Up to that ideal.)
The in-scoring-position runner is a real thing now. The idea is to create fewer extra innings and a sense of sudden death. No more 18 inning games ending because everyone has run out of pitchers.
ReplyDeleteSo is the pitch clock. Base stealing is up quite a bit.
A little while back they changed the rules that allowed a runner from first to intentionally collide with the SS or 2B in order to break up a double play.
------
I predict in the near future they are going to get more serious about base coaches staying in their boxes. After watching one for the Yankees steal pitch signs and relaying them to the batter... that form of cheating has to stop.
Oger,
ReplyDeleteCalifornia forbade AA rules some 25 years ago. The world didn't end. The People voted on it too.
------
I'm not excited about the SCOTUS ruling, but I do think it is time to move on to the next level when it comes to fixing old, stupid biases. Two generations have passed.
Oger:
ReplyDeleteOr do you actually support these rulings? If so, why?
The Affirmative Action ruling, like the gutting of the Voting Rights Act several years back, make sense in a color-blind world. Roberts's mistake (if it is a mistake rather than disingenuousness) is to presume that the best path toward a color-blind world is to pretend we're already there.
I'm ambivalent about Affirmative Action itself. I can see the merit in claims of reverse discrimination. Then again, I think I come down on the argument that, as Churchill said of democracy, A.A. is the worst solution to the problem except for all of the others that have been tried.
Important to note, A.A. does not mean that an unqualified black candidate gets admitted at the expense of a qualified white one. It means that of several qualified candidates, a black one might get preferential treatment in the cause of a diverse student body. Think of Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the supreme court. It was obvious that Biden wanted to choose a black woman, but he did not just pick a random black lady off the street. He carefully selected a female black judge who was eminently qualified for the job--much more than say, Kavanaugh or Barrett were. Note that Trump's selections were every bit as much Affirmative Action as Biden's, though for different qualities. Do you think Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are opposed to white Christianists being preferred over others? I didn't think so.
My opinion of the current supreme court conservative majority is so low that when they do get something right (like disavowing the Independent Legislature theory), I credit it to a stopped clock occasionally being right. Or they're right for the wrong reasons. Or occasionally, to quote an old Monty Python sketch, "Even the police had to sit up and take notice."
Der Oger, the rulings against affirmative action will make less of a difference than you think. With today’s fairly large black middle class… and Asians incensed at racial privilege going to others, not them… many universities have shifted to giving acceptance boosts on the basis of poverty. Also, a teen applicant is allowed to mention race in her/their/air life-tribulations essay.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is the INTENT of the admissions committee. If they WANT diversity there are ways to get it. University of California System... the greatest* amalgamated University on Planet Earth, by miles... has been managing for years.
*By any rational standard, unbiased by my PhD from UCSD!
@Alfred Differ, Larry Hart, David Brin: Thank you!
ReplyDeleteDr Brin:
ReplyDeleteIf they WANT diversity there are ways to get it.
A character in Roots played by Burl Ives explained it rather well, though in the service of continuing slavery after the Civil War. It's true in the other direction as well, though.
"One way or another, ol' Bre'r Bear will be where he want to be!"
Re: SCOTUS Affirmative Action Repeal (Effect of repeal in California)-
ReplyDeletehttps://edsource.org/2020/dropping-affirmative-action-had-huge-impact-on-californias-public-universities/642437
"An EdSource analysis of CSU and UC student enrollment data from 1996 through 2018 reveals that voter rejection of affirmative action hurt the enrollment of Black, Latino and Native American students in California’s public universities:
Black student enrollment in CSU and UC remains lower than their share of high school graduates in California. The gap is greater at CSU where they were 8% of the freshman class in 1997 but have fallen almost in half to 4%. At the same time, the number of Black high school graduates has increased from about 21,000 in 1997 to 25,000 in 2018.
The number of Native Americans entering CSU campuses was tiny in 1996 and yet still fell drastically to 0.2% of the 2018 incoming freshman class, a mere 114 students. They reached their peak in 1995 at 1.23% of the freshman class. More Native Americans are enrolled at UC, where in 2018 they made up 0.5% of freshmen enrollment, close to their share of high school graduates.
Latino enrollments in 2018 at CSU closely resemble their share of the high school graduating class. But at UC, they are vastly underrepresented."
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185226895/heres-what-happened-when-affirmative-action-ended-at-california-public-colleges
"Here's the upshot: A quarter-century after California banned race-based admissions at public universities, school officials say they haven't been able to meet their diversity and equity goals — despite more than a half billion dollars spent on outreach and alternative admissions standards."
KH's CONCLUSION- alternatives to AA aren't as effective as AA forimproving racial diversity at public universities
Re: Political Improvements: Some Brinnian recommendations-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendations#group-25
The key phrase in the Seldon Paradox is "once made known". It matters greatly how and to whom the predictions are made known. For example, Seldon's trial frightened the empire into unwittingly forming the Foundation on Terminus, thus greasing the wheels of psychohistory.
ReplyDeleteOf course the free will types, both democratic and tyrannical, did trigger the paradox as stated.
There's a great line from the film ANTITRUST (2001):
Do you want to know how to manipulate someone?
Don't try.
Hey, has anyone seen the new Indiana Jones movie?
ReplyDeleteThe MacGuffin in the film is the Antikythera object.
Dr Brin has it in one
ReplyDeletemany universities have shifted to giving acceptance boosts on the basis of poverty.
THAT is the way to go!
Keith Halperin,
ReplyDeleteThe reason our universities in CA don't match diversity in our K-12 schools is because we still have inherent biases built into how we draw K-12 districts. Wages and race are highly correlated and will remain so until we work up the courage to end what I see as socio-economic segregation at the K-12 level.
The key is that a lot of school funding comes from within districts, so poor property values means low property taxes which means schools with poor budgets. We address that somewhat by throwing money around, but the underlying segregation continues.
There are very real cultural differences between districts and that shows up in student motivation to learn. You might understand why educated parents value education and wind up with kids that (on average) are better educated. Money can't really fix this difference, but it can partially address it among people who get the value proposition.
Oger,
You are welcome.
My opinion is equally unbiased by my degree from a different campus in the same system. UCSD accepted me, but I could afford UCD. Barely. 8)
Some thoughts on higher education*:
ReplyDeleteHow much of the decline in minority admissions can be linked to economic causes? Up here university has become steadily less affordable for decades, and young people are much more aware that in many cases the debt and foregone earnings make it a poor economic alternative. I've watched my niblings grow up, and university seems an increasingly unrealistic/unnecessary option unless they need specific skills they can't get elsewhere (eg. dental surgeon).
I think it was in Freakonomics that I read that the losers of a lottery for good schools did almost as well as the winners that actually got into good schools. (Possibly this was in Chicago?) The authors' conclusion was the those parents motivated enough to get their kid in a lottery valued education and that translated into their kids working hard and being supported at home.
*Rather incoherent because one of my neighbours threw a party that ran until at least 1:30AM so I'm sleep-deprived.
Jeith any such tabulation that ignores the absolute tsunami of Asian students at UC and CSU campuses is simply disingenuous. At least a quarter of those are foreign students paying full price from rich overseas families. Cynical interpretations can abound - like criticising me for even mentioning that fact. And yet, it remains that cherrypicking is misleading.
ReplyDeleteRobert is right that bloat has made universities hugely expensive. loat by all sides. Tech profs doing startups from University facilities... and woke topic professors who give students very little of life-advancing value.
woke topic professors who give students very little of life-advancing value
ReplyDeleteUniversities love those programs, though, because they are cheap. All you need is an associate prof (non-tenured, paid per class) and a classroom, unlike engineering or nursing with all those expensive labs, and you can charge the same tuition…
I recall from my engineering days that we looked down on students in the arts, because they weren't studying anything that led to a career. Literature, history, philosophy, music, drama, phys ed… Now I'm much less convinced that such programs are worthless.
My parents were both the first in their families to go to university. My dad was working class, my mother middle class (by British definitions not American — neither family had much money). That was in the days when if you passed enough A-levels and got into a university you not only weren't charged tuition but you also got a small stipend to support yourself (at the 'bed to sleep in and food to eat' level).
I wonder how much a university education would truly cost if we don't use tuition to subsidize research, sports, entrepreneurial centres, etc. When tuition runs north of $1000 per course, including courses with 1000 students enrolled, it's hard to see it as anything other than a cash grab. I mean, it doesn't cost the university a million dollars to run that Psych 101 course…
Robert:
ReplyDeleteI recall from my engineering days that we looked down on students in the arts, because they weren't studying anything that led to a career. Literature, history, philosophy, music, drama, phys ed… Now I'm much less convinced that such programs are worthless.
My parents always instilled in me the value of a Liberal Arts education for its own sake. But that does seem to be a luxury for those of enough means to afford it. For those who have to sacrifice or borrow heavily to finance an education, the specter of Return On Investment has to be in their minds. More's the pity.
Rather incoherent because one of my neighbours threw a party that ran until at least 1:30AM so I'm sleep-deprived.
It's Sunday. Go back to sleep. :)
I wonder how much a university education would truly cost if we don't use tuition to subsidize research, sports, entrepreneurial centres, etc.
In general, I agree with that sentiment, but as a Big 10 alum, I must point out that in certain schools anyway, sports probably more than pays for itself and subsidizes the rest.
Robert redux:
ReplyDeleteI recall from my engineering days that we looked down on students in the arts, because they weren't studying anything that led to a career. Literature, history, philosophy, music, drama, phys ed… Now I'm much less convinced that such programs are worthless.
I graduated from undergraduate studies in 1983 during a recession. It was the first year in then-recent memory that the university job placement system didn't essentially guarantee a job upon graduation.
At the graduation ceremony, when the College of Engineering was announced, the engineering students all taunted, "We got jobs! We got jobs!" True to form, when it was the College of Liberal Arts's turn, we chanted, "We want jobs! We want jobs!"
It's Sunday. Go back to sleep. :)
ReplyDeleteAs I get older, it gets harder to shift my sleep schedule around. Moving three time zones for one day takes several days to recover from. Which is a long-winded way of saying that I wake up at the same time every morning and have a really hard time going back to sleep even if I'm tired. That's why I'm grumpy (and incoherent).
as a Big 10 alum, I must point out that in certain schools anyway, sports probably more than pays for itself and subsidizes the rest
ReplyDeleteNot up here. University sports basically subsidizes professional sports. Very few people show up for games, it isn't televised, etc.
Robert:
ReplyDeleteI wake up at the same time every morning and have a really hard time going back to sleep even if I'm tired.
I have almost the opposite problem. Ever since I was sleep-deprived the first three or so years of fatherhood, I can sleep practically anywhere at any time. My wife makes fun of me, but she's envious.
Not up here. University sports basically subsidizes professional sports. Very few people show up for games, it isn't televised, etc.
Heh. Down here in the States, college football is almost a religion, and basketball isn't far behind.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html
ReplyDeleteJustice Gorsuch responded directly to the dissent in the majority opinion, writing that the two sides looked at the same case and saw totally different issues.
“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” he wrote. The dissenting justices, he wrote, focused on “the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law.”
But the conservative justices did not see the case through that lens, he said, writing that “none of this answers the question we face today: Can a state force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
While I can't fault Neil Gorsuch's logic there--really, I can't--I find it distressing that he can't see that the same dichotomy applies to abortion. The anti-abortion side sees the only issue as whether an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being, whereas the pro-choice side could correctly assert, none of this answers the question we face today: Can a state force someone to abandon her personal autonomy and function as an ambulatory incubator instead?
@ y'all:
ReplyDeleteI recall from my engineering days that we looked down on students in the arts, because they weren't studying anything that led to a career. Literature, history, philosophy, music, drama, phys ed… Now I'm much less convinced that such programs are worthless.
At the very least, I see these fields of study as a red line or early warning system: If they are under attack, others will follow soon.
Trivia: The Cassandra project of the Bundeswehr even used analysis of contemporary literature to predict armed conflicts (until it got mysteriously defunded when Russia came into focus).
The unfortunately popular agenda of steering both resources and students from academic to vocational learning is all kinds of problematic. We need to fight the assumption that those are mutually exclusive choices. I see no reason very large numbers of people can’t have both liberal arts degrees and journeyperson cards. Life expectancy is more ample than it used to be, and so is GDP. The larger the portion of the population that is leading the examined life, the better quality of life will be for all of us, I’m quite sure.
ReplyDeleteCan a state force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
ReplyDeleteClearly, yes, if Gorsuck had been paying any attention to history or current events. But as it was 'his side' doing the forcing he either didn't notice or felt it was justified.
Can a state force someone to abandon her personal autonomy and function as an ambulatory incubator instead?
As soon as the question is possible to ask about someone who is male, the answer will be "no". Until then, it will be "of course they can".
I'm reminded of the Sublette's book The American Slave Coast. For all its vaunted tobacco, Virginia planters made most of their money breeding and selling slaves.
The unfortunately popular agenda of steering both resources and students from academic to vocational learning is all kinds of problematic. We need to fight the assumption that those are mutually exclusive choices.
ReplyDeleteBefore I retired I was advising students (and parents) that they pick up a trade qualification in addition to a university degree (if they were university-bound). I also advocated taking a gap year or two to grow up a bit and decide what they really wanted to study before plunking down thousands of dollars in tuition.
Every university I've attended (five in all) has made it difficult (and expensive) to study part-time, and even more so if one is taking a course out of interest rather than for a degree. This is one (of many) things I would like to see changed, especially for courses that require nothing more than a classroom and an instructor.
Robert:
ReplyDelete"Can a state force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
Clearly, yes, if Gorsuck had been paying any attention to history or current events. But as it was 'his side' doing the forcing he either didn't notice or felt it was justified.
Wouldn't the supreme court ruling have exonerated pre-Musk Twitter blocking Donald Trump from using their platform to incite sedition rather than abandoning their conscience?
"The unfortunately popular agenda of steering both resources and students from academic to vocational learning is all kinds of problematic. We need to fight the assumption that those are mutually exclusive choices..."
ReplyDeleteIf it were a matter of pragmatic allocation of resources, I can see the point. But it is not. The educated fact-using professions are THE one force blocking a mad oligarchy's putsch to restore feudalism. And these 'tradeoffs" are all about their massively subsidized slur campaign to rile ill educated whites against nerds, so they'll ignore their actual common enemy.
In worked in 1860 and other times. Why not now?.
Robert:
ReplyDelete"Can a state force someone to abandon her personal autonomy and function as an ambulatory incubator instead?"
As soon as the question is possible to ask about someone who is male, the answer will be "no". Until then, it will be "of course they can".
I'm totally on your side politically, but in this case, I don't think it even occurs to Gorsuch and his ilk that a version of forced labor or slavery is involved. To them, the entire issue is when human life begins. They're even trying to get the supreme court to rule that a zygote is fully human (perhaps even conferring citizenship), and their thinking is that then no future state or Congress could re-legalize abortion, because it would be murder.
To my thinking, the humanity or lack thereof of a fetus is immaterial to the true questions involved in medically-indicated abortions, not to mention rape. One might even say, "none of this answers the question we face today:..."
More positive "Pro life" policies are possible, but making a nation more welcoming for Mother's and children seems to upset a handful of very loud folks with money. As a whole, we can make our world more like heaven or hell, many of those with the power to make a difference prefer hell.
ReplyDeleteSomething more positive, but early days yet:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/02/it-was-an-accident-the-scientists-who-have-turned-humid-air-into-renewable-power
Intriguing.
Tim H:
ReplyDeleteMore positive "Pro life" policies are possible, but making a nation more welcoming for Mother's and children seems to upset a handful of very loud folks with money.
All sorts of different solutions apply to different aspects of the issue. Assistance for mothers applies to cases of pregnancies resulting from consensual sex.
However, forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term is a kind of slavery. It also puts paid to the oft-given advice that if one doesn't wish to become pregnant, she should abstain from sex, if someone else is than allowed to take over her uterus.
And denying care in life-threatening situations like an ectopic pregnancy is just cruel. As is requiring an inevitably-life-threatening condition to reach the point of crisis before allowing remediation.
As a whole, we can make our world more like heaven or hell, many of those with the power to make a difference prefer hell.
A long time ago, I heard that some denominations portray heaven as containing a portal which allows the residents to view Hell, and that watching the suffering of the tortured damned is one of the pleasures of Heaven. To the sort of people who would consider that a good thing, Hell is definitely a feature, not a bug.
"many of those with the power to make a difference prefer hell."
ReplyDeleteI used to think it was just total disinterest in anyone's wellbeing but theirs (and possibly their immediate family). Then I heard some RW woman complaining that Trump "wasn't hurting the people he was supposed to hurt."
Apparently, in order for them to be happy, some people have to know that others are unhappy and in distress - like the medieval excuse for the existence of Hell. The sinners must suffer to keep the world in balance, and the righteous get to define sin.
Pappenheimer
Pappenheimer:
ReplyDeleteThen I heard some RW woman complaining that Trump "wasn't hurting the people he was supposed to hurt."
For today's Republicans, the cruelty is the point. They don't just hurt others to advance themselves. They would willingly harm themselves as long as it causes those they despise to suffer more.
A long time ago, I heard that some denominations portray heaven as containing a portal which allows the residents to view Hell, and that watching the suffering of the tortured damned is one of the pleasures of Heaven.
ReplyDeleteI guess a web search can find any imaginable thing in the world of ideas.
Johnson, T. C. (2004). Seeing Hell: Do the Saints in Heaven Behold the Sufferings of the Damned, and how Do They Respond? (Doctoral dissertation, Reformed Theological Seminary).
It's called a death cult. I'm surprised at the surprise.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the supreme court ruling have exonerated pre-Musk Twitter blocking Donald Trump from using their platform to incite sedition rather than abandoning their conscience?
ReplyDeleteOnly if Twitter could justify the block on religious grounds.
And because I'm cynical, those grounds would probably have to be nominally christian for the court to feel they were relevant.
@scidata,
ReplyDeleteThe surprise is cynical in nature. Not so much surprise at what they are as that they've thrown off the mask of what they've pretended to be for my entire lifetime and are now out and proud.
A little surprise at the fact that this doesn't dilute support among their voting blocs and corporate donors.
Executions have long being viewed as mass entertainment, so it's hardly surprising when Heaven is depicted as having all the comforts.
ReplyDeleteHowever, forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term is a kind of slavery. It also puts paid to the oft-given advice that if one doesn't wish to become pregnant, she should abstain from sex, if someone else is than allowed to take over her uterus.
ReplyDeleteBut in cases of rape the woman's body gets rid of it…
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept
(Not a judge, but then judges have ruled that miscarriage is murder, so…)
However, I think that trying to engage with their reasons logically is futile, because they are starting with the conclusion and rationalizing it, rather than starting with a premise and working forward to a conclusion.
Robert:
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that trying to engage with their reasons logically is futile, because they are starting with the conclusion and rationalizing it, rather than starting with a premise and working forward to a conclusion.
The point of engaging isn't to change them, but to spotlight the ridiculousness of their arguments to those who might be lurking/overhearing. The authoritarians aren't just preaching to their own choir--they convince the general public that their way of looking at the world is beneficial and honorable, or that their opponents' way is so beyond the pale as to be contemplated. Demonstrating that the emperor has no clothes is sometimes an effective way of breaking the spell.
Recall just a few days ago when I described realizing that the way courts work is not by scientifically proving one side right and the other wrong, but to weigh the competing sides' cases for plausibility. John Roberts thinks (or pretends to think) that the charge of the appearance of undue influence when he accepts a free private jet trip is sufficiently answered with, "The seat would just have been empty otherwise." It is useful to point out that his response is a mere mantra--a Lord Dorwin-ish thing to say which has no meaning. That in fact, "none of this answers the question we face today:..."
In the specific case of abortion bans and their effect on women's health care overall, I think it's useful to point listeners away from a debate about when life or humanity begins and toward those of forced labor and cruelty. While nothing will reach the zealots whose real agenda is control of female sexuality, the tactic might have a chance with those who feel bad about harming babies also understand concepts like slavery, self-defense, and bodily autonomy.
Keith Halperin said...
ReplyDelete"@ Darrell: Re:Tesla:
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-placed-bottom-consumer-reports-reliability-rankings/"
Tesla was found to be one of the most unreliable brands in America, according to Consumer Reports’ annual reliability report."
Yes, CR has routinely rated Tesla vehicles poorly on reliability. It's also true that Tesla has often for years ranked the highest in customer satisfaction. By many organizations, including CR.
Tesla tops the list of most satisfied customers in the entire auto industry [Electrek]
"Tesla’s Model 3 takes the top spot for the highest-rated car on our list, scoring an average rating of 4.53 across the four publications we looked at."
3 Ways Tesla Creates A Personalized Customer Experience [Forbes]
"In the competitive car industry, Tesla stands on top. The company has the highest customer satisfaction rate of any car manufacturer."
Consumer Reports says Tesla owners are more satisfied than any other [Drive Tesla Canada]
"For the third year in a row, Tesla took the top spot with 89 out of a possible 100 points in the owner satisfaction ratings."
And, as I said, Teslas are among the safest cars in the world according to several independent testing agencies.
The safest new car of 2022: Tesla Model Y [Fleetpoint]
"Tesla’s fully-electric family car achieved the highest overall score of any car tested under Euro NCAP’s latest – and most exacting – protocols. Additionally, the Model Y’s near-perfect 98% Safety Assist score, which relates to the performance of its collision-avoidance systems, is the highest ever recorded by the European safety rating agency."
Tesla Model Y achieves highest possible IIHS safety rating [Electrek]
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating.
As for the Model 3, the electric sedan has won several safety plaudits, including 5-star ratings in all categories and the lowest probability of injury ever tested from NHTSA, 5 stars from Euro NCAP, while being hailed as setting a “new safety technology benchmark,” and 5 stars from the Australiasian NCAP."
Also, the Tesla Model Y is the highest selling car in the world as of Qtr 1 of 2023. Not just among electric vehicles, among all vehicles. So now that you know all that, how much weight do you think it is reasonable to give CR's reliability ratings when it comes to assessing Tesla vehicles? Or, is that all fake news? A conspiracy? All due to delusional Musk-fluffers? Must be because Musk as a douchebag?
"This is the company of the same gentleman who plans to have 1M people on Mars by 2050.
"Bon voyage, folks!""
And yet look at all SpaceX has managed to accomplish so far while working towards that obviously very unlikely goal, and it's only 2023. But, what? People shouldn't make improbable goals and strive towards them for fear that they might make some progress? Or is this bad simply because Musk is a douchebag?
Robert:
ReplyDeleteBut in cases of rape the woman's body gets rid of it…
The "legitimate rape" thing caused or helped cause Todd Akin to lose his election. Just because someone makes an argument doesn't mean it sticks. Pointing out ridiculousness or offensiveness is a helpful opposition tactic.
World reserves (by USGS estimate) of phosphate just doubled.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/great-news-eu-hails-discovery-of-massive-phosphate-rock-deposit-in-norway/
Powers vast and cool and unsympathetic regard Norway (and Canada) with envious eyes. I wonder if Trudeau knew about this before he had a long chat with Støre last week.
The point of engaging isn't to change them, but to spotlight the ridiculousness of their arguments to those who might be lurking/overhearing.
ReplyDeleteIt's said that you can't con a con artist. I've heard it said that you can't debate a debate bro. I'm undecided whether I agree with that. Perhaps wagers are the way.
Re: More: SCOTUS Affirmative Action Repeal (Effect of repeal in California)-
ReplyDeleteKH's CONCLUSION (and that of representatives from effected educational institutions, two of which filed amicus briefs) - alternatives to AA aren't as effective as AA for improving racial diversity at public universities
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/affirmative-action-ban-state-colleges-racial-disparities-supreme-court
Since affirmative action was banned in the state, the UC system has spent more than $500m on outreach efforts to students from low-income backgrounds, students whose families had marginal, if any, college experience, and students who “attend an educationally disadvantaged school”. It has also adopted a “holistic” review process, which takes into account 13 factors beyond grades and test scores to determine admission. But the amicus brief notes: “Although these programs have increased geographic diversity, they have not substantially increased the racial diversity of students admitted to UC. They have had little impact at the most selective campuses.”
At the University of Michigan, similar attempts at a solution have had little effect. Representatives from that school wrote: “The University’s 15-year-long experiment in race neutral admissions thus is a cautionary tale that underscores the compelling need for selective universities to be able to consider race as one of many background factors about applicants.” The statewide affirmative action ban caused a “marked and sustained drop especially among the most underrepresented groups, Black and Indigenous American students”.
Race-Conscious Affirmative Action What’s Next
(https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/diversity-without-race/”
Summary
An expected national ban on the consideration of race in college admissions will threaten the racial and ethnic diversity of students at selective colleges unless these colleges fundamentally alter their admissions practices. Race-Conscious Affirmative Action: What’s Next finds that selective colleges barred from considering race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions may be able to partially claw back some racial/ethnic diversity using class-conscious admissions practices, but they will be extremely unlikely to enroll student bodies that come close to mirroring the demographic diversity of the high school class.
Six Models
In the report, we examine six admissions models and the impact they would likely have on racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity if used consistently across selective colleges. All six models assume the elimination of preferences for legacy applicants, student athletes, and other groups that receive admissions boosts for reasons unrelated to academic merit, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (SES).
From NPR’s discussion of it (https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1176715957/why-the-supreme-court-decision-on-affirmative-action-matters):
Recently, researchers from Georgetown University ran simulations to see what would happen if race was removed from college admissions. They found that a national ban would decrease the ethnic diversity of students at selective colleges, unless there was "a fundamental redesign of the college admissions system," which would include eliminating legacy and athletic recruitment, among other things.
More:
ReplyDeletehttps://news.berkeley.edu/story_jump/end-of-affirmative-action-at-uc-hurt-black-latinx-students-study-finds/
The study by economics PhD student Zachary Bleemer found that voter approval of Prop. 209 in 1996 broadly imposed costs on underrepresented minority students. Specifically, the research found:
• The measure deterred more than 1,000 underrepresented minority students per year from applying to any UC campus, “despite the fact that most of them would still have been admitted to many UC campuses.”
• The measure led to “disproportionate declines” in Black and Latinx enrollment in the UC system, with many applicants to UC enrolling instead at lower-quality public and private universities.
• As qualified students were pushed into less prestigious schools, some applicants with lower test scores at those schools were pushed entirely out of university-level education.
• After graduation, annual wages were on average 5% lower for post-university Black and Latinx students between the ages of 24 and 34.
University makes major push for diversity without considering race, gender in admissions
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/university-makes-major-push-for-diversity-without-considering-race-gender-in-admissions)
0:58…"They’ve made some progress, but diversity numbers still haven’t returned to where they were in the 1990s."
Foreign Students Unlikely to Be Affected by Loss of Diversity Policy
(https://www.voanews.com/a/foreign-students-unlikely-affected-loss-us-diversity-policy/4466001.html)
Most schools do not include international students in their diversity statistics. Ethnicity is typically listed as African-American or Hispanic-American, for example, not Nigerian or Pakistani.
"College administrators frequently code the race/ethnicity of foreign nationals simply as 'foreign' without specifying a race group," a 2004 study from Princeton University found.
Percentage of foreign students at UCSD slips again as school focuses on admitting more Californians
(https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-02-15/china-uc-san-diego-students)
@ Darrell E:
ReplyDeleteThank you.
"But, what? People shouldn't make improbable goals and strive towards them for fear that they might make some progress? Or is this bad simply because Musk is a douchebag?"
Not at all, but "Extraordinary claims (or promises) require extraordinary evidence."
Also, I hope before anyone signs up to go, they watch "Hello Tomorrow!" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_Tomorrow!)
"In a retro-futuristic world, a huckster named Jack Billings runs a small business of traveling salesmen who go door to door (on Earth) selling timeshares on the moon."
..................................................................................
"Yes, CR has routinely rated Tesla vehicles poorly on reliability. It's also true that Tesla has often for years ranked the highest in customer satisfaction."
People have a a cognitive bias toward approving a purchase they've made (I would think especially toward a very expensive one):
"Choice-supportive bias
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias)
Choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options.[1] It is part of cognitive science, and is a distinct cognitive bias that occurs once a decision is made. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying or ascribing new negative faults to option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice or de-emphasize those of option B."
Why is this? I think it's because people have a vested interest in feeling they've made the right decision, and don't want to feel foolish. That may also be the reason where many people who are defrauded by con artists are reluctant to report it.
I really appreciate you sending the article links- it looks like the Tesla Model Y is indeed a very safe car and owners very much like them. This brings up a matter I'd like to open up to the group:
Darrell, we included links to information supporting our respective viewpoints when you and I wanted to convince others and I believe this is how it should be. If someone here states something about which they seek to convince others, IMHO they should preface it with "In my opinion...", "I believe"... or "In my experience...". If they are a professional in some area (and we've seen their relevant and useful comments) they could say: "Based upon my professional experience in this area, the following..." If they aren't a professional/expert in the particular are, I suggest they (as you and I have done) provide supporting evidence for their case. Otherwise (while it may even be 100% correct and articulately and logically presented, as many here do) it's just an opinion and is no better (or worse) than anyone else's.
===========================================================================================
@Scidata: "Powers vast and cool and unsympathetic regard Norway (and Canada) with envious eyes." Do you mean Elon or Martians?
Beau of the Fifth Column made a video discussing the affirmative action ruling and legacy admission policies.
ReplyDeleteIn short, it is about poor people getting divided and set against each other to let the rich ones keep their privilegues.
Amazing re Norwegian phospates.
ReplyDeleteLorraine: >>”The point of engaging isn't to change them, but to spotlight the ridiculousness of their arguments to those who might be lurking/overhearing.” >> It's said that you can't con a con artist. I've heard it said that you can't debate a debate bro. I'm undecided whether I agree with that. Perhaps wagers are the way.
Wager demands at least publicly shame the cowardice of so-called macho-men who won’t bet real$$ stakes on their hot air. That is satisfying… and does some good when the shaming is public. OTOH leftist incantation junkies simply laugh in your face when a bet is demanded. They are utterly immune to such shaming.
Fortunately they are much fewer in numbers and harmfulness. Keeping it that way is one added reason to defeat the mad right as soon as possible, lest the mad left grown proportionally.
But the amicus brief notes: “Although these programs have increased geographic diversity, they have not substantially increased the racial diversity of students admitted to UC. They have had little impact at the most selective campuses.”
I disagree. Without these efforts, places like UCI would be 100% Asian by now.
Anyone using “Latinx” – a term that polls show latinos despise – is starting out with a presumption of white privileged patronization.
@Der Oger: Very true- it has been a frequent and often successful strategy to maintain the status quo. As previously mentioned, I think President Lyndon Johnson said very accurately (if not using our contemporary terminology) for his time and ours:
ReplyDelete“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
This is similar what I recently read an author say about MAGAts; something to the effect of: "Though they had little themselves, they would gladly give some of that up so others might have less." I believe this fits in very well with the "olies's" philosophy of:
"It is not just that I must win, but also that you must lose."
They are looking forward to the GOP Convention in Milwaukee a year from now. But there’s bound to be a repeat of ‘68—only this time, at their convention.
ReplyDeleteAB one can hope.
ReplyDeleteYou’ll be hearing and reading variations on this theme:
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqSoAgvHb8#searching
In case someone doesn’t have the stomach to watch the vid, the Dixie professor says that
Delete“only white young college educated liberal leftist women strongly support woke.”
@Alan Brooks,
ReplyDeleteI would say the opposite is closer to the truth. "Only white un-educated Christianist authoritarian men strongly oppose woke."
Dr Brin:
Anyone using “Latinx” – a term that polls show latinos despise – is starting out with a presumption of white privileged patronization.
I hope it doesn't ruin my liberal creds to agree with you. Using a term after the people it describes have told you not to is insultingly condescending, to the point that it probably turns them into Republicans. Which may be the point. I've long wondered whether "Defund the police" was cleverly started by someone like Frank Lutz, knowing what would result when liberals used it. "Latinx" might be like that too.
Alan Brooks:
ReplyDeleteThey are looking forward to the GOP Convention in Milwaukee a year from now. But there’s bound to be a repeat of ‘68—only this time, at their convention.
I hadn't thought about how geographically close the two conventions will be. There's not all that much distance between Milwaukee and Chicago, especially from a New Yorker's (or a Californian's) view of the world.
ReplyDelete"“only white young college educated liberal leftist women strongly support woke.”
Sheee-yit! That was SUCH a dumb things t'blab!
It shoulda-oughta been...
“only white young college educated liberal leftist women - an those guys tryin' to bed'em - strongly support woke.”
What ails our progressive society is progressivism itself.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative Action has always been reverse (aka 'good') discrimination, designed to prioritize & advantage those identity groups that were historically disadvantaged & oppressed, which made this policy antithetical (in direct opposition to) the progressive desire to eliminate all discrimination as 'bad'.
This played out in the 2020 Californian election when California progressives attempted to LEGALIZE 'bad' racial, religious & gender discrimination (Prop 16) in order to preserve the 'good' discrimination of Affirmative Action, even though all types of discrimination (good & bad) have been illegal in California since 1996.
Fortunately, this level of Orwellian Doublethink proved even too insane for most California voters, and Prop 16 (the legalization of racism & sexism) was defeated at the ballot box because (good) discrimination is still (bad) discrimination.
SCOTUS's rejection of Affirmative Action (aka 'good discrimination') should therefore come as no surprise to anyone, as this decision is actually in line with the stated progressive ideal of creating a discrimination-free society, resulting in massive progressive cognitive dissonance, even though what comes next will really drive the few remaining functional progressives completely insane:
The complete legal erasure of all legal gender distinctions, followed by the elimination of women's rights, women's prisons, women's restrooms, women's colleges, women's scholarships, women's sports (title 9) and the entire gender formerly know as 'female'.
Best
______
It never ceases to amaze how pro-diversity progressives can support racial quotas designed to keep asians out of prestigious universities, even though the same quotas were once used to exclude women, blacks & jews from the same universities.
Progress!! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
You’re a rebel without a cause.
ReplyDeleteYou’ve been conscientious and thorough in describing what it is you don’t like concerning these matters. But it’s Beneath you.
Delete@Alfred, regarding the worth of Stockton Rush as a "Doubter":
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying, and i agree that we need people whonpush the boundaries and question the old wisdom, but I still don't think Rush deserves respect in this matter.
I say that because, the more research I've done on OceanGate, the more I find example after example of blatant disregard for safety in favor of cost cutting measures, and most importantly, a total lack of desire for corrective criticism.
Stockton Rush specifically went out of his way to hire experienced engineers ("old white men," as described by a man who was, himself, an old white man) who would call him on his bullshit. He did this for two reasons. One, young, brand new engineers are a LOT cheaper than seasoned professionals with decades of experience. Two, they don't push back as much.
Stockton Rush didn't want a PITA to keep him square. He wanted kids who would go along with his vision, rather than question it. The one guy at OceanGate who did raise safety concerns got fired for it.
Moreover, he kept insisting that his sub couldn't be tested, but that is a flat out lie. PSU tested DCV-1 to 16,500 feet when working with James Cameron to develop and test the pressure hull. Full scale testing of the sub was possible, just not cheap.
Moreover, there are at least two Non-Destructive Testing methods that could have been used to examine the subs pressure hull: radiography, and ultrasound. Both could have been used to inspect the pressure hull for cracks and delamination. Radiography is expensive, and difficult to do because of the highly radioactive sources involved, but ultrasound is pretty cheap and easy to do.
I'm sorry the guy died, because death is always a tragedy, but I won't mourn him, and I'm more sorry that his miserly hubris took other people with him.
Semi-OT: More Brinnian political things:
ReplyDeleteRadical Centrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism)
Radical centrism (also called the radical center, the radical centre or the radical middle) is a concept that arose in Western nations in the late 20th century.
The radical in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[1] The centrism refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[2] One radical centrist text defines radical centrism as "idealism without illusions",[3] a phrase originally from John F. Kennedy.[4] This approach typically leads to endorsing evidence, rather than ideology, as the guiding principle.
Radical centrists borrow ideas from the left and the right, often melding them together.[5] Most support market-based solutions to social problems, with strong governmental oversight in the public interest.[6] There is support for increased global engagement and the growth of an empowered middle class in developing countries.[7] In the US, many radical centrists work within the major political parties, but they also support independent or third-party initiatives and candidacies.[8]
Evidence-based Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_policy)
Evidence-based policy employs various methodologies, but they all commonly share the following characteristics:
They test a theory as to why the policy will be effective and what the impacts of the policy will be if it is successful.
They include a counterfactual: an analysis of what would have occurred if the policy had not been implemented.
They incorporate some measurement of the impact.
They examine both direct and indirect effects that occur because of the policy.
They identify uncertainties and control for external influences outside of the policy that may affect the outcome.
They can be tested and replicated by a third party.
The methodology used in evidence-based policy aligns with the cost-benefit framework. It is designed to estimate a net payoff if the policy is implemented. Due to the difficulty in quantifying some effects and outcomes of the policy, the focus is primarily on whether benefits will outweigh costs, rather than assigning specific values.
The Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, and the Future of Life Institute are organizations actively engaged in research and advocacy aimed at improving the long-term future.
Deliberative democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy)
Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. It often adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law.
or an alternative approach
Agonism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonism)
Agonism (from Greek ἀγών agon, "struggle") is a political and social theory that emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict in the political sphere, but seeks to show how individuals might accept and channel this conflict positively.
KH, there are many aspects to the Periclean-Smithian-Franklinian-Rooseveltean enlightenment contractto overcome the pitfalls of male reproductive strategy that wrought hell across all agricultural civilizationsallowing top males to repress the reciprocal criticism that is the only known antidote to error. \
ReplyDeleteCompetition to innovate and overcome each others' errors must be cooperatively regulated, lest it only result in the winners thereupon cheating, in order to REMAIN winners. But regulations can also be suborned, as happened with the Interstate COmmerce Commission (ICC) which was Ayn Rand's legitimate complaint... and DEMOCRATS wiped out the cheater-run ICC.
Hence my emphasis on transparency, so that at least cheating can be exposed and criticized openly, thus requiring a bit less regulation.
---
Locumranch gets a pat on the head... and I thereupn wash hands with Comet. On this occasion the GENERAL things he complains about are actually -- *cough* -- real and not utter strawman delusional hallucinations! Yes, he exaggerates by orders of magnitude, to a degree that borders on psychotic. But at least there are targets in the general direction he aimed, this time.
Abortion
ReplyDeleteIf I NEED your blood or organs to stay you do NOT have to supply them
Even if you are dead I cannot take your blood or organs
So the pro-birth types want to give a fetus MORE rights than a person
Tesla - consumer reports - the issue is that there are lots of "little" problems that are fixed quickly compared to less but much serious issues for the other makes
Woke
"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
That was the definition from DeSantis's Lawyer!!!!
"woke" is used to tar "progressive" and while the campaign is by well-financed oligarch-run propaganda-mills - the GRIST they rail-against and hugely exaggerate is provided by our side's insane sanctimony masturbators, whose goal is to spew at easy targets, their own allies, caring nothing about the tactical and strategic success of our shared goals.
ReplyDeleteSan Fran city council orders SF police not to arrest shoplifters? Jeepers what asses.
Every time somebody grumps about "Woke" you should use the "DeSantis definition"
ReplyDelete"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
And you have to be blind NOT to see that there ARE "systemic injustices in American society"
And ALL of todays societies
(But we ARE getting better)
duncan cairncross:
ReplyDeleteWoke
"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
That was the definition from DeSantis's Lawyer!!!!
Really? In what context was the lawyer presenting that? It sure doesn't seem useful in selling the slogan that Florida is "where woke goes to die."
Happy Independence Day, America. I was alive for the bicentennial in 1976. It would sure be nice if democracy holds out until the 250th.
ReplyDeleteMy 21 year old daughter, bless her heart, texted us from her university town last night, and cautioned my wife and me to be careful about stuff like the mass shooting that happened last year in Highland Park, IL. Her text began with "I can't believe I'm saying this, but..." and ended with, "...and I don't want that to happen to you."
She was born in 2001, a short three months after 9/11. She began high school the year Trump was elected and ended it in the COVID-foreshortened spring of 2020. Sadly enough, I can't keep track of all the mass shootings that have happened since she started school--not even all of the famous ones. For much of her adolescent life, I've been telling her, "It's not always like this," until she finally retorted to me, "It has been in my lifetime."
I wanted to respond reassuringly last night, but finally all I could say is, "We'll be careful". What else was there. I couldn't reassure her that we wouldn't be shot today.
All I can think of is the defecting Romulan in Star Trek: TNG convincing Picard of his sincerity with, "There comes a time in every father's life...when he looks into his little girl's eyes and realizes--he must change the world for her sake."
I wish you a happy 4th of July.
ReplyDeleteSan Fran city council orders SF police not to arrest shoplifters? Jeepers what asses.
AFAIK, that is a standard procedure over here, especially...
- with adolescent/first offenders;
- if the shoplifter does not resist identification or is violent;
- has a home address and is not a "flight risk".
The prosecutor, once informed by the police, can then decide to bring it to court or determine a fine (which you can reject, but that means going to court). Depending on the crime, your age, prior convictions and (sigh) the mood of the judge* as well as your skin colour, you get a fine, community/social work mandate, educational measures, or prison time.
This saves costs and is, imho, more humane than incarcerating a person for a relatively minor crime, and since time done in "investigative arrests" is subtracted from prison time handed out, and courts sometimes need months to find a date for a trial, people would end up with jail time longer than the usual sentence.
*there has been a study that the best time to receive a verdict is the session directly after the noon break, and the worst time is the session directly before it.
The drawbacks of our system are:
- The overload of cases slows down the whole judicial system, no speedy trials (which seem to be more important with juvenile offenders)
- Some cases of shoplifting center around recovering edible food from garbage bins (yes, that is still a felony over here)
- felonies/crimes with a right-wing motive are less likely to be prosecuted than those with a left-wing/islamic motive. There is an objective bias that worries me.
For example, we had a case about a woman in Saxony filming a barbecue party where forbidden signs and symbols were shown. Which could, theoretically, get you into prison for up to one year and more. Instead, all I hear was that the woman was indicted on the charge of intruding into the personal space of another person. Or that a SWAT team was sharing the same signs and symbols, and did not even get disciplinary actions.
On the subject of mass shootings, it is worth noting that part of the increase in mass shooting rate was an expansion of the definition of "mass shooting."
ReplyDeleteBoth statistically, and especially by the news media, which will massively overreport on them because they're sensational and a hot-button issue that is guaranteed to sell news.
The actual national rate of death from firearms in total is roughly comparable to the national rate of death from automobiles, and the rate of death from mass shootings is miniscule. In 2022, 762 people were killed in mass shootings, according to Wikipedia.
While each death is a tragedy, that is a miniscule number compared to the 320-odd million people in the US.
I don't have time to run thru the statistics, but a big part of the reason why it seems like a big occurrence, beyond media blowing tragedy out of proportion to sell news, is because we've obliterated every other cause I'd death so hard that the leading cause of death in the US is old age, by such a huge margin that nothing else really compares.
So anything that ISNT old age, even if statistically rare on the national scale, seems like a huge deal and a national emergency.
Der Oger:
ReplyDelete- felonies/crimes with a right-wing motive are less likely to be prosecuted than those with a left-wing/islamic motive. There is an objective bias that worries me.
That's the same over here, and probably most everywhere (except maybe China, depending on what they consider left-wing and right-wing). It seems to be a sad truth that the very nature of law-enforcement makes it side with authoritarians and the powerful.
Ilithi Dragon:
ReplyDeleteBoth statistically, and especially by the news media, which will massively overreport on them because they're sensational and a hot-button issue that is guaranteed to sell news.
If you're trying to be reassuring--say, "You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a mass shooting," then thank you.
If you're trying to minimize the enormity of the problem, though, I don't buy it. I don't mean I disagree with the statistics. They're just not measuring the right thing.
I take issue with the idea that mass shootings are overreported. Only in this degraded age we live in could any such incident be considered to be too sensational.
I've said that we should treat mass-shootings like hurricanes, but that is a very cynical and fatalistic joke, not meant to be taken literally.
it is worth noting that part of the increase in mass shooting rate was an expansion of the definition of "mass shooting."
So let's give a pass to the workplace grievance mongers who shoot up their former employer's office, or gang members who have shoot-outs on the street and sometimes take bystanders with them. Only focus on school shootings, or the ones where someone picks off dozens of people in a crowd and would keep going except that he's finally stopped. Those are the kind of things my 21 year old is focused on.
The scary thing isn't the ratio of US residents killed to those not killed. The scary thing is the helplessness amid the carnage when an incident does occur, plus the fact that even with a narrower definition, they happen way too often and are not limited by geographic region.
... the rate of death from mass shootings is miniscule.
9/11 also killed a miniscule percentage of the American public--even of the population of New York City. If a new 9/11 were happening every few days, would you say that the media were overreporting it, and that planes flying into buildings isn't much different from regular events throughout history?
Separate but tangential, it's not just mass shootings that are the problem. It is armed militia types intimidating those they oppose with the complicity of law-enforcement. A guy can now walk into a Walmart or a McDonalds or a post office displaying a handgun or an AR-15, and until he actually points it at someone and starts pulling the trigger, he hasn't committed a crime for which he can be detained and questioned by police. After a killing occurs, the public is likely to ask why something wasn't done to prevent it, but what can be done when the police and the courts back up the asshole's constitutional right to be an asshole?
The actual national rate of death from firearms in total is roughly comparable to the national rate of death from automobiles,
I don't buy the comparison. Death from automobiles is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of having automobiles. It may happen to you, and it may not (and probably will not), but in either case, it is not (predominantly) because someone has targeted you or your community for violence and death. Those deaths (most of them) really are "accidents". The kinds of shootings I am talking about are terrorist acts. They are perpetrated by a malevolent actor with intent. We can take precautions to avoid car accidents in the short run and make cars safer in the long run. We can't prevent terrorist acts by pretending they're not important enough to take notice of.
Ilithi the number of gun deaths is about the same as auto deaths... till you reframe as 'per hour of active use.'
ReplyDeleteWe have put (US alone) potentially lethal, dangerous devices filled with gasoline and huge momentum in the hands of 150 million Americans who generally use them with great skill and care. Such a system ought to work for firearms under a DMV&G Dept of Motor Vehicles and Guns.... with required training, testing, registration and insurance. It has worked and there is ONLY ONE argument deployed against it...
...that registration could lead to confiscation and thus loss of the Insurrectionary Recourse. An argument I deal with here The Jefferson Rifle: hidden essence of the gun debate - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
Alas, no one else seems willing.
Larry Hart
ReplyDeleteThe DeSantis quote was from his legal team at the trial of Andrew Warren
https://www.fox13news.com/news/what-does-woke-mean-gov-desantis-officials-answer-during-andrew-warren-trial
He added that DeSantis doesn't believe there are systemic injustices in the country,- which from the outside is a massively incredible statement!!
duncan cairncross:
ReplyDeleteHe added that DeSantis doesn't believe there are systemic injustices in the country,- which from the outside is a massively incredible statement!!
It makes sense because the stated belief is not actually a statement of belief, but a tribal identifier. Same as when people say they don't believe in evolution.
* * *
BTW, I just recently re-watched The Great Escape. I love the way the Americans and British interact in the prison camp on the 4th of July, even joking about the revolution and whether the US is "getting on without us."
Happy July Forth.
ReplyDelete"I just recently re-watched The Great Escape."
ReplyDeleteFolks kvell about Steve McQueen and he and the british cast members were great. Bu James Garner's gentle-hearted but utterly predatory rascal was the winner... very similar to THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY and SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF.
But the best version of that character & situation was in CHICKEN RUN.
I know the topic du jour moved on a bit, but I want to say one thing about those arts majors that some on the engineering side of academia don't think much of. I wasn't far off from that belief when I was young, but my mother was an active fine arts student and my father had just finished with political science as his. I couldn't hold the strongest dismissal belief without it including my parents.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were some majors many of us referred to as "under water basket weaving studies". I'm not including anthropologists who actually knew a thing or two about real basket weaving and why one might care to know the subject. I mean the majors pretty much everyone scratched their head over when asked why bother.
Well… over the years I've had to retreat on some topics I thought were in the basket weaving group. This has happened ALWAYS because someone showed me something one could do with the knowledge that I had to admit was practical. We do this around here when someone points out TASAT. It's even more obvious when we realize the story about 'that' turned out to be a self-preventing prophecy. Lately, though, I've come to realize the stories we write and tell contain information about us, our present conditions, and our ideals. That information can be mined much like archeologists do at dig sites.
Imagine you are watching an old TV series. You can probably roughly date the filming by the props used or just on display in the background. Does that movie show a phone booth? How about a 78 RPM record player? There might be a college major dealing with cultural messages in media that looks like propaganda to us today, but historians will likely look at all that as evidence.
Consider a story showing someone paying for something in enough detail that you know the price paid. Chances are you can date the creation of that story too, so people looking to avoid dating their stories might do a bit of handwaving when it comes to the scene where money is exchanged. Look in a number of modern movies and you'll see them doing that… as if we couldn't date it from makeup styles used by the actresses. Why wouldn't I focus on this one in particular? Well… money exchanged is economic information. How much did a loaf of bread cost in London in 1830? How would you know? Well… TASAT!
———
I've come around to a belief that I don't really know what qualifies as an under water basket weaving major. i DO think I know when I meet academics who are grinding a political axe, but I've decided to minimize my annoyance for them and not extend it to their field of study. I might not know (at present) why we'd bother studying X, but TASAT will likely embarrass me if I claim there is NO value.
Any field of study examining what humans do when we make choices is likely to have multiple uses to future generations who will be curious about things I have yet to imagine.
Ilithi Dragon,
ReplyDelete…but I still don't think Rush deserves respect in this matter.
Yep. I'm with you there. In fact, I'd be tempted to hold him up as an example of how not to do these things. PITA's must be included. Older engineers not inclined to be conformists must be included. Failing to do so is hubris.
Ultimately, though, I think their investors are the ones who need to be smacked. Hubris is a common enough trait, but investors are supposed to know better. They risk everything they put in which is often not their own money. If management is that guilty, it is their Board who is supposed to head them off. [I'm not making this up. That's how my second start-up died. The Board killed it dead to avoid criminal and civil consequences.]
———
I'm sorry the guy died…
That's actually very generous of you. I'm not. Sometimes it takes death and injury to teach the next generation what not to do, but that won't be a new lesson to you. Your submarine safety standards weren't invented from thin air. Errors teach, though we hope everyone survives them.
I'm sympathetic with the team who has survived and learned this harsh lesson. I hope they continue so these lessons are put into practice and taught to the next generation. It might be a while before they can put OceanGate on their resume, but they should be prepared to talk about it in upcoming job interviews when asked that dreaded question… "Tell me about a time when things did not go as planned on your last job."
———
Moreover, he kept insisting that his sub couldn't be tested, but that is a flat out lie.
Heh. Yah. That's a steaming pile of BS and his investors should have known it. If they pretend they didn't, they shouldn't have been investing in the company at all. Starry-eyed management and ignorant investors are a recipe for disaster.
In what context was the lawyer presenting that? It sure doesn't seem useful in selling the slogan that Florida is "where woke goes to die."
ReplyDeleteQuoting from Fox, because I assume that they will be more inclined towards DeSantis…
During the testimony, Warren's attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou asked those within DeSantis' administration what "woke" meant to them.
The governor's general counsel, Ryan Newman, said, in general, it means "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them." He added that DeSantis doesn't believe there are systemic injustices in the country, reports Florida Politics.
https://www.fox13news.com/news/what-does-woke-mean-gov-desantis-officials-answer-during-andrew-warren-trial
we had a case about a woman in Saxony filming a barbecue party where forbidden signs and symbols were shown
ReplyDeleteYou are in Germany? Would I be correct in assuming that those signs and symbols were related to a political movement that wiped out 2/3 of my family?
a SWAT team was sharing the same signs and symbols, and did not even get disciplinary actions
That is even more disturbing. Especially as the police services tend to have a 'thin blue wall' mentality that drives out anyone who doesn't agree with the more aggressive types.
The actual national rate of death from firearms in total is roughly comparable to the national rate of death from automobiles
ReplyDeleteSomething that isn't true in any other Western country. Up here I'm far less likely to be shot (or stabbed etc) than I am to die from an automobile accident. Or to put it another way, our rate of violent crime is 1/3 your's.
Said countries also not being markets for bulletproof backpacks for children, metal detectors for school entrances, transparent backpacks, etc.
I have grandniblings in America, and the thought that they are 'only' as likely to be shot as to be killed in a car accident is, strangely, not very reassuring.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteConsider a story showing someone paying for something in enough detail that you know the price paid.
My favorite example of this is It's a Wonderful Life. The Baileys had $2000 saved for their honeymoon which they used instead to forestall a run on the bank. And a family had to save $5000 to buy a house.
I've actually seen several WWII-era or immediately post-war movies that mention things like how much the returning vets earn at their first civilian job. Those figures are certainly dated, but then they are meant to be. They are set in a particular time that doesn't translate to anything else. And I get the feeling that most movies of that era (Wizard of Oz and some Disney cartoons notwithstanding) were not meant to be viewed decades later. They were ephemeral "here today, gone tomorrow" entertainment, the same way that early tv shows or pre-1980s comic books were. The last thing anyone making them cared about was "How will this hold up sixty years from now?"
All individual exceptions duly noted.
* * *
Any movie showing European money prior to the Euro is dated. As is, of course, any movie in New York that has the World Trade Center in the background.
1990s movies showing post-Soviet Russia as an emerging ally of the west without a Putin-ish president are dated as well. Air Force One comes to mind.
Also, movies where communication is difficult because someone isn't home or is away from a telephone--even though I know they took place before cell phones, I have to keep reminding myself of that fact. A few years ago, I re-read Grapes of Wrath for the first time since high school, and it was harder than you might think to feel the way the reader was meant to when one character suggests splitting up and going on ahead to California while the other group can catch up later. I had to keep saying to myself, "Remember, they can't just keep in touch by text."
Robert:
ReplyDelete"The actual national rate of death from firearms in total is roughly comparable to the national rate of death from automobiles"
Something that isn't true in any other Western country.
I tried to make this point earlier, but it probably got lost in my longer rant. That comparison is between (mostly) accidental deaths from automobiles vs (mostly) targeted deaths from guns. If that number of people were being intentionally run down every year, we would demand that something be done about the problem. We wouldn't just say, "That's the price we pay for allowing people to drive."
@ Dr. Brin: re: (anti)-Enlightenment (https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2022/return-anti-enlightenment)
ReplyDelete@Alfred" Re: Underwater basket weaving majors"-
ReplyDeleteIf I may define such as: "any major that has far more possessors of the applicable job-based degree than there are degree-related jobs available for them at that time".
SPOILER ALERT: those aren't just Liberal Arts degrees.
Alright, this is going to be a long one. Let’s see how many extra posts I’ll run over into. Running the math, it looks like this will cover five posts in total. lol
ReplyDelete@Larry:
My point on over-reporting is two fold.
First, yes, it is intended to be reassuring. The likelihood of this being a problem for 99% of Americans is wildly overblown by the news, both because they have an inherent incentive to maximize sensationalism to sell news (to increase ratings, views, clicks, etc.), and because of that psychological problem where we think something we experience or hear about a lot occurs a lot, even if we are just getting flooded with reports about something that rarely happens (I'm spacing on the name of it).
This makes it feel like a much more likely threat to each individual person in America than it really is. You are about as likely to die in a mass shooting in the US as you are to die in an ATV accident in the US, on the whole.
The other part is that we have to be careful in how severely we react to a problem because of over-inflation/hyper sensationalization of the problem by the news and other media. When we feel that a problem is more severe or prevelent or immediate than it actually is, due to over-reporting/over-sensationalizing of that issue, we will tend to seek solutions to that problem that are more immediate, costly, and have more severe consequences than we would otherwise feel warranted with a realistic appraisal of the situation.
Yes, death is a tragedy, and we should take all practical and pragmatic action to minimize it to the maximum extent possible, but you can only stop it to a certain point. As much as I have every intention of living forever, immortality doesn't exist yet. People will still die despite our best efforts. There is only so far you can go and still prevent death. And you go past the parabolic curve of diminishing returns long before you get there.
Long before you even get to the point of locking everyone into safety boxes for their own protection.
And that's without even getting into the philosophical quandary of how much risk you can avoid and still have an existence that could be considered living.
Deaths caused by 9/11 in a single day outstrips the deaths caused by mass homicide over a whole year by almost a factor of 4, not counting the infrastructural damage. A more accurate/fair comparison would be to ask if we would be okay with a 9/11 event happening once every 4 years or so (or probably significantly less frequently than that, given the infrastructure damage).
But your question has an even bigger problem. It pre-supposes that I'm saying that we do nothing about gun homicide or gun violence, which is not the case.
No offense, but this argument puts words in my mouth that I am not saying, and creates a conflict on an point overwhich we do not actually disagree.
What I am saying is that we must be careful to not be goaded into over-reaction and to choose actions and solutions that are more extreme, more costly, and that have graver consequences than other solutions that we might otherwise choose.
It's like on the boat when some junior sailor screws up (as they often do), and the command jumps onto a knee-jerk reaction and blanket punishes the entire crew, rather than focusing on the individual sailor who broke the rules or made the mistake, or better yet, digging down to the root cause of why they screwed up in the first place and correcting that.
(Continued in next post)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteSea story time.
Right before I left the boat and transferred to shore duty, I screwed up a procedure with missiles we were loading. I made the mistake, missed a step in the procedure, and closed everything out with a tiny piece not being installed where it should have been. It only took a couple hours to fix, but it required a lot of involvment of people to do, including permission from the Captain. I caught the mistake, and I reported on myself about it, so I didn't get in significant trouble (especially since there were a number of ways I could have covered it up and nobody would have known), but we still had a formal Critique on what happened, to identify why it happened.
So we go over the whole process. It was late in the evening, after several long days running late into the evening, we were close to being done and I was trying to not keep my guys any later than I absolutely needed to, and I was jumping back and forth in more positions than I should have been, trying to get it all done quickly.
The root cause was initially identified as "a false sense of urgency." As in, I had created a greater sense of time crunch in my head than actually existed.
Then the XO chimed in. He agreed that I had a false sense of urgency, and that's why I made the mistake, but he wasn't satisfied with that. Why did I, TM1 Dragon, a seasoned torpedoman and TM Div Leading Petty Officer, seven years on the boat, shipped and unshipped literally hundreds of missiles and torpedoes, old hat who's done this a dozen times before just on this one ship, qualified the most senior weapons handling qualification for every piece of ordnance on board, have a false sense of urgency?
He asked several more questions to find out, and came to the conclusion that the command failed, because the command failed to adhere to watchbills I wrote that were signed by the Captain, failed to provide the proper personnel needed to do the job, failed to ensure the personnel who were available to do the job were allowed to focus on the job and weren't distracted by other tasks, and a number of other things along those lines.
I made the mistake, but there were root causes to why I made the mistake.
If those root causes hadn't been identified and addressed, then the next person would have been put in the same position, with the same problems (or worse, because problems tend to get worse if they're not addressed), and made the same mistake, or a worse mistake.
And that's kind of what I'm trying to get at, here.
Firearms are not the root cause of the problem. They can sometimes be a contributing factor, and they can magnify the problem, but they aren't the root cause, or even the root problem. To really address the root problem of homicide and suicide, we need to address the root causes of those problems.
Those root causes are more economical and social in nature, and to fix those problems, you need political capital, and political strength.
And to get both of those, you need to be strategic in the issues you highlight, and the solutions you pursue.
Gun control is a dog whistle for both the political Left and the political Right. For the left, it is based in moral/emotional ferver in much the same way the Right dog whistles over abortion. For the right, it drums up fear of the destruction of culture, way of life, and personal liberties.
The more you play into that dog whistle, the more you alienate both the Left and the Right, the more they refuse to talk or cooperate, and the less likely you are to accomplish anything at all.
If we want to accomplish anything, even incremental progress, nevermind actually solving the problems in the first place, we have to avoid the emotional kneejerk reaction, and put aside the dog whistles to seek cooperative compromise.
That also means that we have to pick our battles.
(Continued in next post)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteThat sucks. It's incredibly frustrating. We all want to be the grand hero and save the world, to wave a magic wand and solve everyone's problems, but reality doesn't work that way, as tragic as that is. Politics is not a game where you just get everything you want in one go, and often times you just won't get everything you want. You have to compromise and seek incremental progress towards the longer-term goal.
Sometimes, we have to avoid a fight, or accept a loss, to avoid falling into traps set by our opponents, and to save our resources for the more critical battles that will win us the war.
Gun control is a dog whistle trap. The more the Left harps on it, the more the Left pushes for it and for more extreme measures, the more they solidify the Right against them, and most importantly, the more they sway moderate or near-moderate conservatives who might vote Left, or at least wouldn't vote Right, to side against them.
You know what ... You want to pull a judo move?
Completely neutralize that dog whistle?
AND undermine those fascist/supremecist militia types in the same maneuver?
Flip the script and embrace gun culture, but on the sporting side and emphasizing safe use and handling practices.
Instead of supporting the Right's narrative that "Lefties hate guns," push the narrative that "Lefties love guns as much as you do, we're just abhore irresponsible use."
You'll cut off one of the biggest dog whistles the Right has to fire up their base and demonize the Left, at the knees.
Also, quick point:
A guy can now walk into a Walmart or a McDonalds or a post office displaying a handgun or an AR-15, and until he actually points it at someone and starts pulling the trigger, he hasn't committed a crime for which he can be detained and questioned by police.
Not exactly. While it is technically legal to open carry like that, they can still be guilty of committing other crimes, such as disturbing the peace, or various forms of recklessness, or other legal terms for "doing stupid shit that scares people." Or tresspassing, if the local business asks them to leave the gun in the car or leave the store, and they refuse.
And someone doesn't have to have actually committed a crime for the police to be involved. (Though you have to be careful with that one, because from what I've seen/heard, our police force training has, on the whole, shifted away from deescalation situations to neutralizing threats.)
On this specific issue, you can get a lot of pro-gun types on your side, because they're not a fan of the idiots who walk around flashing their pieces like idiots, either, just for slightly different reasons. Learn the language the pro-gun types use to mock them or criticize their stupidity, and use that language, specifically mocking the individual, not the gun.
I don't buy the comparison. Death from automobiles is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of having automobiles. It may happen to you, and it may not (and probably will not), but in either case, it is not (predominantly) because someone has targeted you or your community for violence and death. Those deaths (most of them) really are "accidents". The kinds of shootings I am talking about are terrorist acts. They are perpetrated by a malevolent actor with intent. We can take precautions to avoid car accidents in the short run and make cars safer in the long run. We can't prevent terrorist acts by pretending they're not important enough to take notice of.
This part in particular goes to my earlier point about addressing root causes.
The accidental death rate from firearms per year is about on par with the accidental death rate of ATVs.
The vast, vast, vast majority of deaths from guns is from homicide and suicide, and more of the latter than the former.
(Continued in next post)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteThe root cause of those deaths is not guns, but rather homicide and suicide. Taking away guns won't solve either of those problems, because people will just turn to other devices to commit those acts. It won't even solve the problem of mass homicide, because people will once again turn to other devices. Like bombs. Or U-Haul trucks (one of the deadliest mass homicides in recent European history was committed with a rented box truck, for example).
Taking guns away might help alleviate those problems, but it won't prevent them, and probably won't massively reduce them in the long run, either.
And it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Removing or severely curtailing the availability of firearms has a range of consequences, and will come at a very high cost in terms of political capital.
I don't think that cost-benefit analysis adds up. Because that's political capital that won't be available to spend on the root causes of the problem, and I guarantee you that there will be a massive political backlash that will cost us much, much more in the long run, and deeply undermine our ability to pursue far more important causes vital to the survival of the republic and to stave off any potential collapse back into fuedal oligarchy.
That, and it will be playing right into the Republican propagandists' hands, because you will be doing their job for them.
Instead of making the issue about guns and pushing gun control and gun bans, etc., which might as well be reading right from the Republican propagandists' script, change that script. Say instead, "This was a tragic event involving firearms, but we recognize that the guns weren't the cause. So we're not going to go after them. We're going to go after what caused this individual to be troubled."
You won't solve the problem completely, or overnight, but you'll have a much better chance of incrementing forward with real progress.
Dr. Brin,
... the number of gun deaths is about the same as auto deaths... till you reframe as 'per hour of active use.'
I see your point here, sir, but I don't think this is a very good argument to make. It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison, because the nature of firearm use is very different from the nature of automobile use.
It also is a lot harder to define what counts as a use of a firearm for a LOT of firearm uses.
That said, I do 100% agree with you on a requirement for basic safety and handling training to purchase firearms. It's been a minute, but we've talked before on the similar concepts we have of ideal legislation on the matter.
Honestly, I think you could institute a national requirement for firearms safety, handling, and marksmanship training, and do so pretty damn easily.
It would require a compromise, though, from specific states.
Just put forward a bill instituting a National Concealed Carry Permit that would permit anyone who holds said permit to carry a firearm concealed in any state in the Union.
State reciprocity of CCWs is actually a significant issue for law-abiding firearms owners who do any kind of interstate travel. To cover MOST of the US requires multiple permits from multiple states with a variety of standards and requirements, and can cost hundreds of dollars just for the permitting alone, nevermind the training and marksmanship requirements.
And then you have the states that are Never Issue, or functionally Never Issue.
Solve that problem for gun owners, and you will get a LOT of support from them, and they will be willing to accept a reasonable permitting cost, background check, safety and use of force training, and marksmanship training for a permit that will let them carry concealed anywhere in the Union.
Every single gun owner I have ever asked that question of, regardless of background, gun philosophy, ideology, etc., has said they would be okay with that.
(Continued in next post)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteYou would have a LOT of people who don't ever travel out of state who would buy into the idea, and obtain said permit, just to have the option.
I might right to my own congress critters about that one.
Robert,
Something that isn't true in any other Western country. Up here I'm far less likely to be shot (or stabbed etc) than I am to die from an automobile accident. Or to put it another way, our rate of violent crime is 1/3 your's.
This goes more to the point that the issue is not guns, but violent crime and suicide. America has a high rate of crime, violent crime, and suicide compared to most other Western nations (or, at least, certainly well above average). Guns are widely available in the US, so they get used a lot in violent crime, but they're just a tool, not the crime itself.
Solve America's crime and suicide problems (and thereby all of the other problems that go along with them), and you'll solve America's gun violence problem.
I have grandniblings in America, and the thought that they are 'only' as likely to be shot as to be killed in a car accident is, strangely, not very reassuring.
Well, if it's any consolation, they're actually about half as likely to get shot by someone else as they are killed in a car accident (which itself is already a very rare occurence). Over half of all gun deaths are suicide rather than homicide.
Larry, Robert, et al,
That comparison is between (mostly) accidental deaths from automobiles vs (mostly) targeted deaths from guns.
Make no mistake, I am quite well aware of this, and the distinctions.
The point I am making is coming from the perspective of identifying the severity of a problem based on total death rate. There is, of course, a lot more nuance to problems, and addressability of those problems also plays a huge factor, but that's why it's important to identify the total death rate to gage how severe this problem is relative to the cost of reducing it, and how much it can be reduced by for a given action or solution.
It can sometimes seem cruel and cold-hearted to engage in the cold, pragmatic calculus of those equations, but when you're dealing with issues on the scale of a whole civilization, especially one the size of the United States, nevermind the whole world, and eventually beyond, you have to run that math. You have to look at how the cost-benefit equation adds up.
Because solving problems on the scale of nations requires political capital and pragmatic strategy, and even when politics and ideology align, nations and governments still have limited resources that have to be balanced against the demands and responsibilities of maintaining a civilization.
lol that's five posts. Apologies for the novel.
} X = 8 D
Oh, forgot I wanted to share this.
ReplyDeleteDr. Brin, I don't know if you've seen this video, but this guy's talking about the same kind of anti-strategic screeching on the Left you've been criticizing for a long time, and possibly highlighting the starting point of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpLmx3u73Oc
Keith Halperin said...
ReplyDelete@Alfred" Re: Underwater basket weaving majors"-
If I may define such as: "any major that has far more possessors of the applicable job-based degree than there are degree-related jobs available for them at that time".
SPOILER ALERT: those aren't just Liberal Arts degrees.
I would say, first, that this is not what I (at least) think is meant by UWBW. Others may have different views, but I (and others I know) have considered UWBW to refer to something that teaches no useful skills. But this is not the same as "degree-related jobs".
I have a degree in philosophy from a liberal arts college, and have worked in IT for some thirty years. I know quite a number of other graduates with similar degrees working in all manner of non-degree-related jobs.
Someone I know running a startup (also with a LA degree) once said something like: "I want to hire LA grads. If someone can synthesize information and think critically to analyze and solve problems, then we can teach them the technical stuff they need - but it is a lot harder to teach the critical thinking stuff to someone that doesn't know it."
The point being that a (good) liberal arts degree will teach a lot of useful skills, even if the degree is not somehow 'job-related', and to some extent regardless of the degree. Similarly, a bad university program may end up teaching very little that is important - again, regardless of the specific degree.
Ilithi Dragon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the long and thoughtful discussion, but I beg to disagree about some of the points (Note - I do not live in the US - I have lived in Australia and Europe). First some of your facts looks iffy (No the toll from guns in the United States for instance vastly exceeds the toll from 9/11). Secondly, I see no attempt to engage to engage with the unique danger facing the United States from the combination of widespread possession of rapid fire weapons and extremely violent rhetoric. If I lived in the US I would be scared shitless. Thirdly, there is the issue of second order affects of widespread possession of weapons, because with a gun you have no time to respond. Widespread weapons escalate problems that might otherwise be deescalated. Fourthly with regards to turning to alternatives if guns are unavailable, the evidence simply says othewise. The availability of guns escalates problems everywhere because it gives the possessor a false sense of power, and it also results as we have seen in a violent paranoid response from police that is also a danger to the public. Pretending this is not the case will not help the situation.
To go back to what Ilithi Dragon says and my response - if you want to look at root causes - think about the point that Michael Moore made in Bowling for Columbine - the biggest issue in the United States is paranoia. The United States has a trust crisis.
ReplyDeleteTo reply to Ilithi Dragons post
ReplyDeleteWhile the "root cause" is violence in the case of the USA the "efficiency" of the tools makes the problem massively worse
Most gun deaths would NOT be a "death" in another country - they would be a black eye
Suicide - in most countries the majority of suicide attempts FAIL - and most people do not "have another go"
Suicide by gun however is almost 100% effective
I would also argue that the efficiency of the gun causes a feedback of "fear" which then makes the underlying "violence" much worse
I do support going down below that level to get closer to the "root cause" - I suspect the best solution would be a UBI
It's like on the boat when some junior sailor screws up (as they often do), and the command jumps onto a knee-jerk reaction and blanket punishes the entire crew, rather than focusing on the individual sailor who broke the rules or made the mistake, or better yet, digging down to the root cause of why they screwed up in the first place and correcting that.
ReplyDeleteI've been chipping away at an article for our physics teachers' newsletter, contrasting the usual attitude to problems at a school with that of the aviation industry, and the lessons the education system might learn from aviation. In a (poorly worded) nutshell):
Education operates on a "no harm, no foul" basis. Near misses don't count. Hypotheticals don't count. So until something goes pear-shaped it's business as usual. Once something bad happens, there is an immediate need to assign blame, which often ends up attached to the teacher just following instructions (because management decides who is to blame). There is little currency training for education workers, and what does exist consists of watching a recorded powerpoint presentation and answering multiple choice questions about trivia.
In contrast, aviation operates on a safety-first basis. Near-misses are taken seriously. Hypotheticals are considered. Once something bad happens it is investigated by a neutral agency which looks for root causes and recommends changes to training, procedures, and policies to prevent reoccurrence and does so without assigning blame. Currency requirements are taken seriously and involve actual skills.
Problems in both systems often originate when the experience and incentives of those running it don't align with the ostensible purpose of the institution.
Firearms are not the root cause of the problem. They can sometimes be a contributing factor, and they can magnify the problem, but they aren't the root cause, or even the root problem. To really address the root problem of homicide and suicide, we need to address the root causes of those problems.
ReplyDeleteThose root causes are more economical and social in nature, and to fix those problems, you need political capital, and political strength.
I will point out that Canada and America, while close, are culturally distinct. Back before Canada had gun control (which was also before America became obsessed with everyone owning their own personal assault rifle) the homicide rate here was 1/4 what it was south of the border*. One of the trends I find disturbing is that as we become culturally closer to you folks our homicide rate is rising.
I do suspect that if we had as many firearms as you do our rate would be a significantly higher, because impulse crimes would be more likely to be committed by someone with easy access to a lethal weapon. Likely still wouldn't be as high as your's.
*Interestingly, that also applied when American prospectors have to Canada during the Klondike Gold Rush. Despite our national myths, it wasn't all down to different policing (although that may well have been a factor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r00yaFwZ5bc
The root cause of those deaths is not guns, but rather homicide and suicide. Taking away guns won't solve either of those problems, because people will just turn to other devices to commit those acts.
ReplyDeleteActually, that assumption turns out not to be true. We had that debate here when Toronto strung anti-suicide nets on the Prince Edward Viaduct, ruining its iconic image. Lots of people (mostly on our right) deplored it as wasted effort, because those people would only find another way to commit suicide. But you know what? That usually doesn't happen. In most cases suicide is very much a 'crime of passion' — a person prevented from committing suicide rarely tries again, so removing an easy way to do it (jump over the bridge railing) does in fact save lives.
We see this with subway leapers. People who leap onto the tracks and get rescued don't leap onto the tracks again at a later date, and generally don't commit suicide in another way.
@Ilithi Dragon,
ReplyDeleteWow! Thanks for a very detailed response. Re-responding point-by-point would involve exponentially taking over Dr Brin's blog, so I'll try to be brief. Brief for me, that is. :)
My very first point was speculation that you were trying to calm hysteria. Since that was what you were up to, we were not in disagreement.
The rest of my response was largely a defense of my daughter being afraid that a mass-killing is something to regularly expect. I don't share her level of anxiety, but I understand it given the years she came of age in. For anyone old enough to remember the summer of 1979 when I was 18 years old, I honestly worried that Skylab would fall either on me or on the first girlfriend I ever had. A lifetime of experience gradually weaned me from that sort of expectation of doom, and I suspect it will for my daughter as well. But that takes time.
But most significantly, I said nothing about gun control or total gun deaths. Suicides and domestic shootings and even gang warfare (except for collateral damage to civilians) are not what scares her. I was focused on the kinds of shootings which take place in school campuses (where she has spent most of the years since Sandy Hook) and in large crowded gatherings (where she feared her parents would be on July 4).
One thing I believe is missed in the car deaths to gun deaths comparison--a mass shooting at a school or large social gathering does more than simply kill individuals. The whole nearby (to me) suburb of Highland Park is suffering PTSD from the mass shooting at their July 4 parade last year. It's also why my daughter is particularly worried on the anniversary of that event.
One specific response:
While it is technically legal to open carry like that, they can still be guilty of committing other crimes, such as disturbing the peace, or various forms of recklessness, or other legal terms for "doing stupid shit that scares people." Or tresspassing, if the local business asks them to leave the gun in the car or leave the store, and they refuse
That depends on the police being on the side of the intimidated citizens rather than of the gun-wielding toughs. In the suburb I live in, that may well be the case, but it is hardly the situation everywhere. I'm also not sure today's supreme court would uphold anyone's right to limit anyone's possession and display of a gun for any reason.
* * *
Your personal sea story was very enlightening. Beyond the support for the idea of "lessons learned" analysis, it also speaks well of the Navy going that extra mile to get to the root cause of the screw-up instead of taking the easy path of, "We found the guy who did it. Meeting adjourned." They're not just covering asses, but really trying to solve problems. My late father was a navy man, so I'm glad to know that.
I would like to see a real analysis done of the problem of "Why is an entire generation of youngsters fearful for their lives as they go about their everyday activities?" I was not suggesting any solutions in advance.
Presented without further comment:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-children-voting-rights-b2369096.html
Over the weekend, Elon Musk appeared in a Twitter post to endorse the idea of taking the right to vote away from people without children.
The billionaire Tesla co-founder replied “Yup,” to a series of posts from Twitter user @fentasyl, which argued “democracy is probably unworkable long term without limiting suffrage to parents.”
...
On Saturday, in the comments under an Islamophobic nonprofit’s video, where commenters insinuated that single white women were turning France into a majority-Muslim country, Mr Musk claimed, “The childless have little stake in the future.”
Heard on Stephanie Miller's show:
ReplyDelete"Mothers for Liberty" has been called "Klanned Karenhood".
I wish I had said that.
Whew!
ReplyDeleteIs this all a secret attempt to get rid of scidata by raising the reading load beyond his meagre abilities? Ha! I'm too stubborn to quit. Especially when there's an occasional hint that baseball will be discussed.
reason,
ReplyDelete(No the toll from guns in the United States for instance vastly exceeds the toll from 9/11)
Quick note for clarification, I was not saying the toll of all gun deaths was less than 9/11, but specifically the toll of mass homicide deaths, which was the data point Larry and I were focusing on there. The total number of deaths from guns each year is 10-13 times the death toll of 9/11.
I didn't go into the extremism stuff much (other than a very brief note), because I was already running long on the post.
And that's even assuming that the pro-gun side is entirely in the wrong, has no valid points, issues, or concerns, and nothing right, good, or upstanding about their side of the issue. And that any such ban or severe restriction wouldn't constitute a significant reduction in liberty, which must always be very carefully weighed.
The ultimate point I'm trying to get at is that, while yes, attacking guns might help with the problem, if you can get it through (and that's a big if), but it's going to cost you hell of a lot to make happen, and you're going to get bit hard in the aftermath, and the backlash might well see it repealed with the next election.
Big picture, long term, I don't think it's a good strategic move. The cost-benefit doesn't add up. The risk of failure is too high for what you're likely to get out of it, and you're not even going to be solving any root problems.
Larry,
Imma read your post, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow to give you a reply. I should have been in bed two hours ago now.
} X = 8 D
There seems to be this perception, especially outside the US, that every fight or dispute in the US, or very many fights in the US, involve firearms and rapidly escalate. From what I'm reading of your comment on this point, it sounds like you're following that perception.
If so, please understand that that is far from the case. I have not been to every state in the Union, but I've been to every state along the eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida, as well as Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone walking around in public with a gun outside of a range, a gun store, or out hunting.
In a population of 320,000,000+ people, 21-22,000 homicides by firearm is a statistically low number for someone to be directly affected by, or to know someone who was directly affected by it.
It's also far from the primary circumstances of firearm homicides. I don't have the time to dig up the hard numbers (I should have been in bed an hour ago), but the vast majority of homicides in the US (regardless of method) are pre-medidated, that's what we call First Degree Murder in the US, not spur-of-the-moment crimes of passion.
As for people turning to other methods, they will. As I noted above, the vast majority of homicides in the US are premeditated. Every mass shooting or active shooter event is. If people decide they want to kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
The UK banned guns a while back, and while yes, their rate of gun homicide dropped, their rate of homicide wasn't really affected, and they ended up having such a rampant problem with people stabbing each other that they've started banning anything more threatening than a butter knife.
While you can certainly find cases of idiots with a gun who get people killed because they and a trumped up sense of power, or functionally zero impulse control, the vast majority of gun homicides are not caused by that guy, and the vast majority of gun owners (even criminal gun owners) aren't that guy. It's a fringe case, and is not significantly reflective of the larger whole, and is a poor angle to argue from.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteSuicide - in most countries the majority of suicide attempts FAIL - and most people do not "have another go"
Suicide by gun however is almost 100% effective
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this statement. We get a lot of suicide prevention training in the Navy, and every ounce of training I've had, and every statistic I've seen even before I enlisted, state that most suicide attempts that succeed were not the first one.
I really got to get to bed, but I think you both are missing the point that I'm trying to make.
Yes, removing guns from the equation would reduce the severity of a number of problems stemming from the high homicide, violent crime, and suicide rates in the US.
But the root problem isn't guns.
Guns don't cause people to decide to kill someone else. Guns don't cause people to decide to kill themselves.
The root cause for the vast majority of homicides and suicides are socioeconomic issues, and poor mental health (often resulting from socioeconomic issues). Taking guns away won't solve those problems.
The bigger point that I'm trying to get across is that you can't take the guns away in a vacuum. There are other people who get a vote on this issue.
There is a very large population of Americans who don't think guns need to be taken away. There is a very large population of Americans, myself included, who is opposed to guns being taken away and willing to take some form of political action to prevent it. And there is a significant population of Americans who are willing to fight you, with their guns, if you try to take them away.
Additionally, there is a whole political party that has a huge portion of their propaganda machine that fires up their base and leverages voters to their side, or at least away from the other side, that is built around the issue of gun control, and the notion that Democrats want to Take Your Guns. By pushing the gun control issue, you are playing right into their hands and feeding their propaganda machine for them.
Any significant restriction on firearms in the US, nevermind any kind of ban, will require enormous amounts of political capital to get pushed through Congress, and it will cause a massive backlash that will cost even more political capital in the long run (not to mention the high probability of overturned seats and a repeal of the legislation to reset you back to zero with no political capital).
And the tail end of what I was writing just got lost in copy-pasting. Blah.
Larry,
Imma read your post, but it'll be tomorrow until I reply. I should have been in bed two hours ago.
} X = 8 D
scidata:
ReplyDeleteHappy July Forth.
Ouch! Do you celebrate Star Wars day too?
Ilithi Dragon said...
ReplyDelete"And that's even assuming that the pro-gun side is entirely in the wrong, has no valid points, issues, or concerns, and nothing right, good, or upstanding about their side of the issue. And that any such ban or severe restriction wouldn't constitute a significant reduction in liberty, which must always be very carefully weighed.
The ultimate point I'm trying to get at is that, while yes, attacking guns might help with the problem, if you can get it through (and that's a big if), but it's going to cost you hell of a lot to make happen, and you're going to get bit hard in the aftermath, and the backlash might well see it repealed with the next election."
The only reason that may be true is because one of the two major political parties in the US has long since refused to participate in the democratic process while at the same time has prosecuted a decades long propaganda effort, based primarily on the Big Lie tactic, with the goal of poisoning the well and motivating their base to react to the word liberal with the same sort of autonomic disgust reaction most humans have to rotting animals. Funny that last, given that the Founding Father's granted heroic myth status in US society, including among gun nuts, are the very models for US liberalism.
Shorter, if it weren't for the RP sabotaging the works then we would have already instituted stricter gun control measures. That can be claimed with pretty high confidence because polling over the past many years and from many different polling agencies have all been consistent in showing that there is strong majorities in support of stricter gun control measures, even among RP voters. Ranging from 60+% to over 90% on measures ranging from "banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" to "prevent(ing) certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns".
The people support these things, the RP is standing in the way. The answer seems clear to me. Gun owners' should organize a resistance to destroy the RP as a functioning political entity because it is a traitor to the people.
Sarcasm aside, it seems, though I'm not sure, that you are basing your argument on the assumption that gun proponents very often do, that folks that argue for stricter gun control measures want to ban all guns. That would indeed be a very difficult task in every way, but it's also an erroneous assumption. Come on. Not even the UK has banned all guns, just most. No, virtually no one that wants better gun control measures wants to ban all guns. Some categories, sure. And guess what? Most people in the US want that.
ReplyDelete“Quoting from Fox, because I assume that they will be more inclined towards DeSantis… "During the testimony, Warren's attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou asked those within DeSantis' administration what "woke" meant to them. The governor's general counsel, Ryan Newman, said, in general, it means "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them." He added that DeSantis doesn't believe there are systemic injustices in the country, reports Florida Politics."
Carumba! what a maneuver! By defining 'woke' in this way, he forces every reasonable and decent person to step up and cry "I'm woke too!"
Despite the fact that our own side's small clade of jibbering sanctimony-masturbating screechers daily commit lunacies - in the name of 'woke' - that make us want to forsake that word and fall back on 'progressive'.
Can you see the trap they laid? WHY is it that Confederate plotters are always better at such tactics, while the good, Union side in every phase of the 1778-to-present ongoing US Civil War always, always seems lobotomized, till they find decent generals?
Darrell E:
ReplyDeleteThe people support these things, the RP is standing in the way.
Guns don't kill people. Republicans kill people.
Darrell E:
ReplyDeletevirtually no one that wants better gun control measures wants to ban all guns. Some categories, sure.
I'd be ok with banning assault weapons, and allowing immediate disarmament if one is seen by law-enforcement, whether or not a crime is happening.
And I don't care to get into a semantic argument over what exactly constitutes an assault weapon, or whether AR stands for anything. I mean military grade weapons should not be in the hands of civilians.
If the Second Amendment protects private ownership of military guns, then it also protects private ownership of surface To air missiles and tactical nukes. The text of the amendment says nothing that specifies guns as being a separate category of "arms".
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteWHY is it that Confederate plotters are always better at such tactics,
I have a theory. It's because liberals only fight with the hope of ending the fight. While we recognize the need for eternal vigilance, our desire is to live in a society where we don't have to be continually at war with each other.
Confederates are ok with war as a permanent way of life.
Larry Hart,
ReplyDeleteI think it goes further than just being ok with war as a permanent way of life. For many it is more akin to an addiction. Of course their fantasies are divorced from the reality of armed conflict of any sort and they are always the heroes. And this is too often the sort that are selected for police officers in more recent decades. Not people with a desire to serve their society but people who want to play tactical and boss around civilians.
“Any movie showing European money prior to the Euro is dated. As is, of course, any movie in New York that has the World Trade Center in the background.”
ReplyDeleteDEEP IMPACT showed the asteroid’s tsunami crushing all of NYC’s towers EXCEPT the WTC! We now know the WTC was very fragile to buckling to lateral forces.
===
Ilithi thanks for your missive(s). Are you trying to make up for lost time?
First, your example of formal incident-critique reinforces my belief that we may be on the verge of showing a narrow path past all the cynical assumptions about human governance, when human flaws get compensated by actual adults who are in a system that encourages focus on actual outcomes. I call it the “Marshallian Miracle” and it may win us the stars.
If Ukraine wins this war it will be less due to military weapons aid than the re-teaching of officers to that way of thinking.
I must demur about guns, however. Establishing a difficult military ethos of maturity works where YOU are, Ilithi. And it may save us. But down here in the weeds it is too much to ask. And John W. Campbell was insane to cry out that “An armed society is a polite society.” Human males tend to be impulsively emotional and delusional and they should not have access to firearms when they have proved to be unstable.
The rest of the world is right and we are wrong about that. And those who proclaim that it’s “a mental health problem” are hypocrites who won’t take money from oligarchy tax-grifts to pay for real mental health endeavors. Hence – by their OWN logic they are complicit murderers. That is no ‘dog whistle.’
Where WE Americans are right is that the future of the world depends on America remaining free and rambunctiously individualist. And while the gunnist mythology of a potential insurrection against some future tyranny is 90% insane… it is ONLY 90% insane. There is a teensy bit of truth behind the notion that an armed citizenry might make some future despots willing to negotiate, rather than risk the loyalty of armed forces ordered to carpet bomb cities.
So: Background checks aren’t enough. Treating guns EXACTLY like cars could work. But registration sparks ravings about tyrants knowing where to confiscate…
…and hence my proposal for full training-insurance-registration EXCEPT a protected, never-registered class of weapon that is most useful for mass insurrection(!) but least useful for crimes or suicides. A suggestion that NO ONE discusses outside of this group, or has ever shown not likely to work:
The Jefferson Rifle: hidden essence of the gun debate - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
“Instead of supporting the Right's narrative that "Lefties hate guns," push the narrative that "Lefties love guns as much as you do, we're just abhore irresponsible use."
No one seems to have publicly pointed out that while most gun PURCHASES are by good old boys… most NEW gun owners are black or other minorities or liberals. Who have the same number of trigger fingers.
“While it is technically legal to open carry like that, they can still be guilty of committing other crimes, such as disturbing the peace, or various forms of recklessness, or other legal terms for "doing stupid shit that scares people."”
Which will BLATANTLY be less enforced on white people.
Finally, I worry far more about the divergence between the US military officer corps and the noncoms. I hear that Fox still blares in noncom ready rooms… though I am far less worried about the Navy than any other service, in part because the officer-noncom divide is far less pronounced.
In fact, something I’ve long wondered about is how depleted the Russian junior officer ranks must be, by now. Because of you-know-what.
@Robert:
ReplyDeleteYou are in Germany? Would I be correct in assuming that those signs and symbols were related to a political movement that wiped out 2/3 of my family?
Sadly, yes. But Neonazism has always been a part of the east, even under the communist dictatorship.
What is more disturbing:
Currently, the "partially faschist" AfD polls at 21% (up 9% from the last election). Depending on how you read the polls, they are currently the strongest party, or the second strongest. They have won two local elections, and might win the state elections in three eastern states, next year.
Last week, the head of the libertarian party has proposed, that, in an emergency "you also could vote for Die Linke", a far left, socialist party.
Technically, it seems that the AfD could be banned by the Federal Constitutional Court (and I think it is worth the try). But there are risks, and I do not believe they have the guts to do that.
I slowly start to think about where to emigrate to, and what I need to prepare once the worst, the unthinkable happens. Or how to resist if the AfD ends up in government.
Poor Ilithi_D's attempt to inject reason into the gun control debate will ultimately prove futile, as this particular progressive viewpoint only reflects the much greater intrinsically emotional, innumerate and irrational progressive belief that irresponsible humans can be magically transformed into responsible law-abiding citizens by the legal fiat of 'more laws'.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this magically progressive worldview is provably & obviously insane, those who indulge in it are virtually immune to reasoned discourse, as they reply with the usual denials, unexamined platitudes, non-equivalent statistics & hysterical fear-mongering.
In both the EU and the US, our delusional intellectual class dithers, completely flummoxed by an 'inexplicable' correlation between rising crime rates and enlightened law-making, despite the epidemic of urban crime, shoplifting, lawlessness & diversity-based violence that (incomprehensibly) does not seem to respond to genteel PC decrees and courteous law enforcement.
Stay tuned for the usual denials, along with the chant that what I describe is 'not happening', to be accompanied by the usual braying-of-donkeys, as our progressive thought leaders attempt to justify our impending suicide.
Welcome to Monty Python's Hy-Brasil.
Best
____
The FACT is that armed civilians can enforce their own laws, while the disarmed must necessarily obey the laws of those potential tyrants who are armed. Rather than ending, history repeats itself, which is why disarmed germans fear the AfD so much. Sheep they are, queued up for the abattoir, like customers at a delicatessen.
Now calling number 44... Number 44? You're next.
Ah, nice while it lasted. Locum is back to being articulate but completely delusional about anything that any of us stands for. He is back to jerking off to strawman enemies of his own imagining.
ReplyDelete@ Gregory Byshenk: re; UWBW degrees: Thank you. I very much agree with you that a LA degree can teach you many useful skills and help to make you a more rounded person. However, most of them (and not just LA degrees) are not suited toward a majority of those possessing them getting jobs in that particular field- someone with a degree in CS or Accounting is likely to be able to get a job in those fields, while someone with a degree in Philosophy or Astronomy (my B.S.) isn't likely to. Also, in my professional experience as a recruiter- your acquaintance who liked to hire fellow LA grads for technical roles at a startup and then teach them the tech are very much in the minority. The ~70 companies I have contracted with (ranging from a 7 person startup to the then 15th largest company in the world) are not very often open to hiring "those who can do" but rather "those who have done" (or at least "have been trained to do"). I would advise someone looking to use "transferable skills" to look for jobs at smaller, less "corporate" types of companies.
ReplyDeleteAn additional trend I have noticed in my career is that when a field is new (and/or there is desperate need to get people to do the particular type of work), employers are much more open to hire people without degrees or certification. However as fields mature, there is a tendency to require higher and higher levels of formal education to be considered for a given role, and this bleeds over into other areas which require 4 year degrees without a legitimate justification, e.g., there is no need for a recruiter to possess a degree, but I have seen a fair number of recruiter job postings listing a bachelor's degree as a requirement.
............
@ Ilithi Dragon: Thank you- a very thoughtful series of postings. A point of clarification: you mentioned that all gun owners you have spoken with would be open to allow a national requirement for firearms safety, handling, and marksmanship training, in return for a National Concealed Carry Permit that would permit anyone who holds said permit to carry a firearm concealed in any state in the Union. Would this apply to all gun owners or just those who wish to have a CCP?
@Everybody: re: Locum Ranch: "diversity-based violence"- are those dogs I hear barking to that racist dog whistle?
ReplyDeleteDr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteRe: Loc:
To quote Iago (the animated bird, not the Shakespearean character) I am about to have a heart attack and die from not surprise.
Pappenheimer
P.S. I do wonder whether the gun...enthusiasts...of today who survive long enough into the future will demand their right to bear personal laser weapons or man-portable fusion guns (FGMPs in Traveller parlance). "When guns are obsolete, only old guys will have guns."
Modern firearms already far deadlier than they were 200, 100 and even 50 years ago. Twain himself noted this, comparing the effectiveness of the armies of his age with those of the Napoleonic era, and suggested limiting countries' armies to a ratioed kill factor - 10 x La Grande Armee, for instance.
So, could we limit the Murder-Death-Killiness of a modern American to, say 10 William Bonneys? Thus far and no farther? At least we might start to restrict the collateral damage, and the effectiveness of the really dedicated mass shooters.
there is a tendency to require higher and higher levels of formal education to be considered for a given role, and this bleeds over into other areas which require 4 year degrees without a legitimate justification, e.g., there is no need for a recruiter to possess a degree, but I have seen a fair number of recruiter job postings listing a bachelor's degree as a requirement
ReplyDeleteBack when I was a lecturer at community college, one of the criteria for being accepted into the cosmetology program was a grade 13 math credit (calculus or functions). If you're wondering why calculus makes you a better hairdresser, well, it doesn't. But there were so many applications that the college used that as a filter so they only had to look at 5 applications per opening rather than 50.
Similarly, when I worked as a summer student lab tech you needed a masters degree in biology to be hired full time, doing work that a bachelors student could do. Again, it was a filter - and also an oversupply of biology graduates. This was in the 80s.
Requiring formal qualifications removes the responsibility for determining a candidate's suitability from the recruiter/manager and places it on the institution granting the qualification. It's essentially a CYA move.
So, could we limit the Murder-Death-Killiness of a modern American to, say 10 William Bonneys?
ReplyDeleteI suggest applying the Supreme Court's much-vaunted Originalist Doctrine to the Second Amendment. When they wrote it, the Framers clearly intended it to apply to muzzle-loading muskets (there being no other options then). Therefore, a strict Originalist interpretation of the wording would understand that what they really meant was that the right of the American People to carry muzzle-loading muskets shall not be infringed…
As an outsider, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that an AR-15 is legal, but in the interests of public safety a 6" knife is banned in many states. Like Texas, for example, that shining beacon of personal freedom and liberty. (sarcasm)
@ Robert: re: Both: Indeed...
ReplyDeleteBTW, are you also on Charlie Stross's blog from time to time or is that a different Robert?
Re: gun ownership in the USA (I pose this as a question and not to make a point.):
Why aren't fully automatic weapons allowed and why isn't the NRA and/or GOA challenging this (or have they?)?
Firearm Owners’ Protection Act
(https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act#:~:text=Firearm%20Owners'%20Protection%20Act&text=The%20Act%20also%20amended%20the,prohibition%2C%20May%2019%2C%201986.)
In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machine guns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machine guns to, or possession of machine guns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.
"Twain himself noted this, comparing the effectiveness of the armies of his age with those of the Napoleonic era..."
ReplyDeleteThe US Civil War was at an extremely awkward moment when rifles were spectacularly accurate and deadly, yet almost impossible to relead except standing up in old fashioned rows, When Union armies could muster overwhelming power, yet have no way to coordinate the wings which Lee was expert at picking off. Which made Lee a 'genius' except when he tried to BE the lumbering invader and got smashed both times.
If some disaster had made McClellon the winner of the 1864 election (the South's only chance) and there was a negotiated 'peace,' all it would've meant is the confederacy would lack Louisiana & Arkansas and likely Florida. And Texas would secede. And very soon there would have been another war. Even if it happened just 4 years later, all USA forces would have had Winchester style rifles and crushed any resistance at all. Results woulda differed from Harry Turtledove's version of the Second North South War. Slavery would be abolished and Mississippi given entirely to the freedmen. And Alabama, Georgia and S. Carolina left to stew as the Rump Confederacy. All well before 1872.
Alright, guys ... This one's even longer. Sorry, not sorry.
ReplyDelete} : = 8 D
Larry,
My very first point was speculation that you were trying to calm hysteria. Since that was what you were up to, we were not in disagreement.
…
I was focused on the kinds of shootings which take place in school campuses (where she has spent most of the years since Sandy Hook) and in large crowded gatherings (where she feared her parents would be on July 4).
I can totally understand why she would be concerned in that specific example, especially with the prospect of someone attempting a copycat on the one year anniversary (the magnification of which is one of the consequences of over-reporting these things, imo).
And there were definitely things that I was afraid of as a kid, or that I thought would be wildly more common a problem than it actually was, that I realize now were kind of silly to be afraid of, or at least that it was an unrealistic fear (for as much as I was taught to Stop, Drop, and Roll as a kid, catching on fire is not nearly as big of a problem as I thought it would be).
But that’s also a big part of why I’m saying these things are over-reported and over-sensationalized. Not to detract from the tragedy of them, but for the size of our population, they don’t actually happen all that often, and not nearly as often as the volume of reporting implies they do.
That, and there’s no official agreement on what counts as a “mass shooting.” The higher end/more broad definitions but the number of deaths from mass shootings somewhere in the ballpark of 750 people each year. The definition the FBI uses to track statistics is much narrower, and covers only about 110-120 deaths each year. The FBI definition would cover the Highland Park shooting, and the odds of anyone in the US being caught in such an event is almost statistically insignificant.
The social and psychological impact of a mass shooter event is definitely not something to forget about. Even people who suffered no physical injury can still suffer significant psychological trauma, and that trauma can be suffered also by people who weren’t even there.
But that is also a lot harder to measure and quantify, and is a secondary consequence of any violent action, regardless of type or circumstance.
Your personal sea story was very enlightening. Beyond the support for the idea of "lessons learned" analysis, it also speaks well of the Navy going that extra mile to get to the root cause of the screw-up instead of taking the easy path of, "We found the guy who did it. Meeting adjourned." They're not just covering asses, but really trying to solve problems. My late father was a navy man, so I'm glad to know that.
Now, don’t get me wrong, that definitely still happens in the Navy. There is a reason why everyone dreads a critique. If they’re done right, they’re a tool to identify what caused things to go wrong so that the problem can be better prevented in the first place.
All too often, though, they’re used as a witch hunt tool to assign blame, or they don’t do that deeper dive into the root causes that my old XO did. The Navy is pushing hard to move away from stuff like that, though, and train command leadership to function better.
Darrel,
The only reason that may be true is because one of the two major political parties in the US has long since refused to participate in the democratic process while at the same time has prosecuted a decades long propaganda effort ...
Shorter, if it weren't for the RP sabotaging the works then we would have already instituted stricter gun control measures.
Is it really a lie, though, if the Republicans say, “If you don’t vote for us, the Democrats will enact strict gun control measures!” And then you turn around and say that, if not for Republicans, you would have done exactly that, almost word for word?
(continued to ...)
(continued from ...)
ReplyDeleteDon’t get me wrong, the Republicans have absolutely been using the Gun Control issue as a dog whistle to fire up their base and turn people against the Democrats for something like 25, maybe 30 years now, at least, and especially in the last 25 years they’ve been leveraging that (among other hot button/dog whistle issues) to consolidate their party in staunch opposition to anything Democrat.
But it’s not very accurate, and paints you into a disingenuous corner to harp on them for opposing you on a policy that you say you’re pushing for.
That can be claimed with pretty high confidence because polling over the past many years and from many different polling agencies have all been consistent in showing that there is strong majorities in support of stricter gun control measures, even among RP voters. Ranging from 60+% to over 90% on measures ranging from "banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" to "prevent(ing) certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns".
I caution you very strongly to be skeptical of that poll data, because that kind of question is misleading in its implications.
Assault Rifles (a clearly defined term, as opposed to the vague “assault weapon” term) is a carbine-sized rifle with select fire capability (meaning it can select between semi-auto and full auto) are already banned in the US. It is not legal to own an Assault Rifle, with very limited exceptions (I have a friend of mine who has a FFL, armorer licensing, and has gone through all the time-consuming and expensive processes to get tax stamps for a couple fully automatic weapons as “dealer samples” for sales purposes to law enforcement, etc., but it’s not a process that most people can go through, nor are willing to commit the time and expense).
It is also not legal for convicted felons to own or possess firearms, and in most (if not all) states, if you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility you have to dispossess yourself of any firearms.
So, yes, your poll data says that people agree with laws that (for the most part) already exist. (The exception being the distinction that semi-automatic firearms are not banned.)
Trying to use that to argue for further restrictions is, at best, not understanding what the poll data is telling you, and at worst, disingenuous and deceitful. So I caution you against trying to make that argument with that poll question, or any similarly phrased poll question, even with sarcasm (and especially with sarcasm, actually, because it’s really hard to pick up on it on the internet if you don’t blatantly flag it with /s or some other out-of-dialogue identifier).
Sarcasm aside, it seems, though I'm not sure, that you are basing your argument on the assumption that gun proponents very often do, that folks that argue for stricter gun control measures want to ban all guns. That would indeed be a very difficult task in every way, but it's also an erroneous assumption. Come on.
Perhaps I am falling into that a little bit, but that wasn’t my intention. What I was attempting to do was cover the broad spectrum, from limited restriction to full bans. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake, as these things tend to migrate into the extreme ends of presented spectrums.
Not even the UK has banned all guns, just most. No, virtually no one that wants better gun control measures wants to ban all guns. Some categories, sure. And guess what? Most people in the US want that.
(continued to ...)
(continued from ...)
ReplyDeleteTen years ago, I was constantly telling my conservative and Republican friends that, no, the Dems weren’t coming for your guns. Fox News is taking soundbites from a handful of extremists and painting the whole side of the aisle with that brush, and it’s not accurate. Most Dems don’t want to ban guns, they just want better enforcement of existing laws, and better measures to ensure people who shouldn’t have guns don’t get them, and that people who do have guns will be safe with them.
Today, though, I can’t honestly say that anymore. The language that the extreme fringes of the party were using is now being pushed by the majority of the party.
The cause for that is, I think, two fold. Or perhaps three.
First, the Republicans successfully controlled the narrative on the issue and managed to trick the Democrats into defining their policy intentions with the very words the Republicans were using to terrify their base. Strategic win for the Republicans.
Two, the Republican stonewalling on the issue and total refusal to even have a conversation on the matter directly led to Democrats getting fed up and saying, “You know what, fine, if you don’t want to compromise, we’ll just push for the extreme,” to various extents. A case of the Republicans’ policies creating the very thing they were afraid of (something I predicted to my conservative/Republican friends a decade ago).
Third, the “high road” moralistic screeching of the far Left that Dr. Brin is constantly railing against (and railed against in his post immediately following yours), has once again sacrificed pragmatic action and sound political strategy for a self-righteous indignation high.
I do agree that most Americans think something should be done about gun violence, but I don’t think the support for banning or restriction you describe is nearly as high as you think.
Larry,
I'd be ok with banning assault weapons, and allowing immediate disarmament if one is seen by law-enforcement, whether or not a crime is happening.
And I don't care to get into a semantic argument over what exactly constitutes an assault weapon, or whether AR stands for anything.
Terminology and definitions absolutely matter. We can disagree on anything else, but this you have to care about.
The meaning of words matters. It matters very much. If we don’t agree on the definitions of words, or we have different definitions for the same words, we can’t communicate.
And that is especially important for two reasons.
First, from the legal perspective, if your definitions are unclear, your law doesn’t work. Either the definition is too narrow and doesn’t achieve the desired effect, or it’s too broad and it will hit things it was never intended to.
Or, the court will slap it down and either restrict its definition to being inconsequential, or make up their own definition, through precedence.
If you want legal restrictions to be effective, you have to have clear, legal definitions.
Second, on that point of communication, if you start using terminology that doesn’t mean anything, or using terminology incorrectly, when talking in front of people who are themselves experts of that subject, be it amateur level to professional level, how do you think they will value your commentary?
Flip that perspective to your own. Have you ever run into someone who talked about a subject involving your profession who used made-up buzz words, or vague terms that didn’t mean anything, or used terminology wrong (or any combination thereof)?
How much value did you give to anything they had to say?
How much did they come across as a gibbering idiot?
With your background, I’m pretty sure your answers to those questions are going to be some variation of “Yes,” “Very little,” and “A lot.”
(continued to ...)
(continued from ...)
ReplyDeleteGiven those answers, how do you think a knowledgeable gun owner or gun enthusiast is going to view anything you have to say if you refuse to learn and use correct definitions, and insist on using meaningless terminology?
There have been so many times when Democratic lawmakers, at the local, state, and federal levels have gone in front of the public and made absolute fools of themselves doing exactly that. Using made-up buzzwords, vague, meaningless terminology, and using clearly-defined and technical terms wrong.
And the Republican lawmakers and propagandists eat it up, because it’s gold for them. They don’t have to lie about the Democrats not being familiar with guns and having no idea what they’re talking about, when so many Democratic lawmakers publicly demonstrate that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Would you trust someone to make a law about something when they can’t even talk sensibly about the prop they have in their own hands, that they brought in for their own demonstration?
If you don’t care about terms and definitions, you’re not going to make good legislation, and you’re not going to convince anyone who actually knows anything about what you’re trying to legislate that you have anything to say worth listening to.
So, regardless of anything else we might agree or disagree on, please, please, care about the definitions!
I mean military grade weapons should not be in the hands of civilians.
I’m really tempted to be a bit pedantic here and ask, “But y tho?”
} ; = 8 P
But, I do want to have an actual conversation about the why of this statement.
First (because, again, meaning of words matters), “military grade” doesn’t mean what most civilians think it means.
It is not “high-performance/high-capability, top-notch, bleeding edge, etc. etc.” that most civilians think it means.
It is actually “The lowest bidder that could meet a set engineering specification and/or design requirement.” It is often “cheap, disposable garbage that barely functions.” With some specific exceptions (anything in the submarine, nuclear, and aircraft QA programs, for example).
Now, to be clear, I don’t think we should just be handing out Stingers and Javelins and M-777 howitzer artillery pieces to every citizen, but I also honestly don’t have a problem with those things being available to a regular citizen, with sharp restrictions and controls.
Many years ago, in another gun control conversation I was involved in here, I detailed legislation I would put in place, if I were able, that was basically a tiered system of licensing, permitting, and insurance building off of Dr. Brin’s Jeffersonian Rifle concept. I’m pretty sure you were involved in that conversation, too, but I would be surprised if you remember it. (I’m pretty sure it was before I enlisted, so it was, like, a decade ago, at least.)
The potential harm of something like that falling into the wrong hands is high, so if someone wants to own something like that, the licensing and certification requirements should be high, including psychological evaluations, training/certification on operation prior to purchase, and certification of secure storage and transport capabilities, as well as restriction to use on approved ranges, etc. (You want to have a Stinger? Sure, that’s fine, but you can’t just light it off against a drone in your back yard.) So long as all of that passes muster, and they can get insurance to cover it, I don’t have a problem with people owning such systems.
(continued to ...)
(continued from ...)
ReplyDeleteThere’s also a lot of strategic benefit to having a large percentage of the population that owns and maintains regular familiarity with firearms (especially of a pattern that is standard in the military). Both as a reserve of irregular militia that can be called up in the event of a significant land invasion of the US, and because it makes training new recruits in the military how to use firearms that much easier (especially if they’re already familiar with the standard military firearm platforms).
It’s like how the popularity of baseball in the first half of the 20th Century allowed Americans to adopt the smaller round grenades exclusively, and employ them better than the European forces could employ their own round grenades, giving the US troops the ability to carry more grenades and employ them better.
Dr. Brin,
Ha, yeah, maybe. I’ve missed this kind of discourse, and while I don’t have nearly as much time for it as I’d like (even on shore duty, with so much more time available, I still don’t seem to have enough time available …).
I must demur about guns, however. Establishing a difficult military ethos of maturity works where YOU are, Ilithi. And it may save us. But down here in the weeds it is too much to ask. And John W. Campbell was insane to cry out that “An armed society is a polite society.” Human males tend to be impulsively emotional and delusional and they should not have access to firearms when they have proved to be unstable.
The rest of the world is right and we are wrong about that. And those who proclaim that it’s “a mental health problem” are hypocrites who won’t take money from oligarchy tax-grifts to pay for real mental health endeavors. Hence – by their OWN logic they are complicit murderers. That is no ‘dog whistle.’
Everyone I know who actively carries concealed tries to avoid fights, or de-escalate/defuse if they get involved in any kind of situation like that. Sometimes, defusing a situation is caused by showing that they are carrying, but usually it’s just about being non-confrontational (and there’s been a lot of pro-gun YouTube videos by experts of late stressing the importance of that, both for legal and psychological reasons).
There are always idiots and assholes in any group, but the vast majority of people who carry firearms do so responsibly.
I do agree that Campbell’s logic was flawed, to say the least, and even if he were to be technically correct, that “polite” society would also be a very paranoid society. I’ve seen a number of skits mocking the notion, and while they’re usually eye-rollingly hammed up, they do still have a point.
I will say, though, that the issue of gun violence is not so much an issue of guns. The root problem is violent crime and suicide, and the root causes of those have long been well-established as socio-economic in nature. The vast majority of people who resort to violent crime and suicide do so because they don’t feel they have any other realistic options.
Rather than spending political capital on increasing regulations on firearms, which is, when it comes right down to it, a bandaid to the symptom that doesn’t address the root problems, I would much rather spend that political capital going after the fat cat oligarchs and their grifty tax cuts, loop holes, etc. I would rather spend that political capital reigning them in, putting them back in their place, and making them pay their fair share, while also leveraging the power of government to check their abuse of their power of finances to fleece the American people blind.
And then spend that money on building and maintaining all the things needed to support a free and functioning civilization, and push that civilization to the stars.
Especially because those fat cat oligarchs want you to go after the guns, because it gives them a perfect dog whistle to distract America from their cheating and blatant robbery.
(continued to ...)
(continued from ...)
ReplyDeleteWhere WE Americans are right is that the future of the world depends on America remaining free and rambunctiously individualist. And while the gunnist mythology of a potential insurrection against some future tyranny is 90% insane… it is ONLY 90% insane. There is a teensy bit of truth behind the notion that an armed citizenry might make some future despots willing to negotiate, rather than risk the loyalty of armed forces ordered to carpet bomb cities.
I think the armed populace concern plays a role in present-day legislation more than many people give it credit for.
Not a huge role, mind you, but a niggling thing, in the back of the mind.
There is also the benefits to defense against external threats, as I mentioned above.
Jefferson Rifle
Yeah, while we might quibble about the details, I think you and I are largely in agreement in supporting the core framework of this system.
No one seems to have publicly pointed out that while most gun PURCHASES are by good old boys… most NEW gun owners are black or other minorities or liberals. Who have the same number of trigger fingers.
Yeah, I’ve pointed that out to a few conservative/Republican friends of mine in the past, and gotten mixed reactions.
I think the Judo political move for the Dems would be to flip the script on the Republicans entirely, and embrace guns and emphatically emphasize responsible gun culture.
Police concerns
Oh, I absolutely agree, that is a concern. I touched on it briefly in that comment, too, but I didn’t delve into it because it’s a huge issue all on its own, completely independent from gun control, and my post was already running long.
Officer/Noncom concerns
I don’t think your concern here is as warranted is it might have once been. I’m in the Navy, so I only have a limited window into the other branches, but everything I’ve heard from people I know or from commentators I follow who are current or former military in other branches, is that the egalitarian trends I see in the Navy are not just a Navy thing.
I’ve also seen over the last couple years the Navy start to take significant steps to correct the deficiencies of leadership issues I’ve seen in my career, and I don’t think that’s just a Navy thing.
In fact, something I’ve long wondered about is how depleted the Russian junior officer ranks must be, by now. Because of you-know-what.
Russian casualties have been staggering. I honestly don’t think they have many soldiers left to fight.
They’ve certainly lost most of their seasoned and experienced troops.
The most conservative estimates of their losses that I’m seeing (that isn’t Russia just straight up lying) is something on the order of 215,600 losses (killed and wounded) as of mid-June (and that’s from the Ukrainian government).
US intel public estimates are around 50,000 killed and 180,000 wounded.
BBC and Mediazona estimate close to 70,000 killed and 243,000+ wounded.
That’s 265,000 +/- 50,000 casualties on the Russian side.
Add in the Wagner coup attempt, and Putin’s new wave of purges, and I don’t think it will take a whole lot more for the Russian military, and the Russian government, to collapse.
Locum …
Why is it that, every time there is an opportunity for you to find common cause with someone here, instead of seeking that common ground to build a bridge, you use it as an opportunity to stab a knife in someone’s guts and twist?
You’re being a sleezy asshole, and you seem to be committed to jumping on every opportunity to do so.
That’s why you’re always getting shit on, here. Not because people disagree with you, but because you’re being a weaselly, deceitful, asshole.
Normally, I’d try not to cause offense, but I don’t have the time, energy, nor desire to cater to your ego, and I’m not going to give you that time until you can pull your head out of your own ass, fix your fucking attitude, and stop being a goddamn shithead.
(continued to ...)
(continued from ... final)
ReplyDeleteKeith,
It’s specifically within the context of getting a CCP.
Though I also haven’t met any gun owners/enthusiasts who opposed a requirement to show certification of having attended a basic firearms safety course (with hunter safety courses and the like that cover firearms safety counting as equivalent) in order to purchase a firearm.
Many are reluctant to have higher levels of restriction for purchase/ownership, but nobody I’ve asked has opposed a requirement to have basic safety and safe handling training.
And most are willing to accept a requirement for basic marksmanship, safety, and use of force training for CCW/CCP (and even the ones who were initially opposed to it, I was able to quickly sway to agreement or tolerance of such a requirement).
Robert,
As an outsider, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that an AR-15 is legal, but in the interests of public safety a 6" knife is banned in many states. Like Texas, for example, that shining beacon of personal freedom and liberty. (sarcasm)
There is actually a bit of pragmatism here.
6” knives are concealable. AR-15s are not (at least, not unless you go to some extreme and impractical lengths).
AR-15s also account for a disproportionately low volume of gun deaths. All long-gun deaths (which includes shotguns and all rifles, not just AR-15s or semi-auto rifles) numbers at about 750-ish a year (maybe a bit more, now; it’s been a few years since I looked at the number).
That’s a small amount of deaths (and even smaller on the state level) to try to legislate control of, given the cost, difficulty, and political opposition.
It might seem counter-intuitive, that the big semi-auto rifle (relatively speaking; the AR platform is actually fairly small and light, as rifles go) seems a lot more significant and dangerous than a knife. And under certain conditions, it is.
But under most conditions in which crime occurs, the knife is much more likely to be used, much easier to conceal, and at close range, the more dangerous weapon (inside of 20-40 feet, if someone charges you with a knife, if you don’t already have a gun out and pointed at them, they will stab you before you can fire).
And at that point, it doesn’t matter if someone pokes you with a bullet or pokes you with a knife. A 6” or greater sized knife is very likely to create a big enough hole that you won’t survive it, especially without immediate medical attention.
Ha, okay, I lied, I've got one more thing I want to tack on.
ReplyDeleteI would call it a "fun fact" but, eh ... I'll leave that up to y'all to decide.
Using the FBI's definition of mass shooting, in 2021, about 115 people were killed (not including the shooter) in mass shootings.
To put that into perspective, about 165 people die each year in the US from autoerotic asphyxiation (about 0.5 per 1 million people in Western populations x 330 million Americans).
More people die each year in the US from autoerotic asphyxiation than they do from mass shootings, as defined by the FBI.
The beginning and end of the Civil War were two very different wars - the generals of 1861 had all read Jomini and thought of Napoleonic battles. By 1864 every unit dug trenches wherever they stopped as a matter of course, and nearly all the dashing cavalry captains like Ashby and Stuart were dead (Custer was a late addition who hadn't used up his 9 lives yet.)
ReplyDeleteOne thing a British analyst of our Civil War points out is that rifled musket and cannon accuracy degraded very quickly in battle from clouds of obscuring gunpowder smoke, meaning that much of the fighting was still close-quarters rate-of-fire contests where lines of men butchered each other a la Leipzig or Borodino. If your soldiers start loading their pieces with scrap iron, rifling isn't making that big a difference. It did mean, though, that grand assaults over open fields (which Lee was definitely in need of a 12-step program to avoid ordering) would take much heavier casualties and be much less likely to succeed.
Though (as we all know) the outcomes of wars are never certain, I'd agree that a Confederacy didn't have much chance even in the medium run. They might have been able to squeak out a win and gotten British loans to industrialize, but industrialization would have destroyed the wealth and power of the planter class that started whole thing, and concentrated into factories huge numbers of potentially rebellious slaves who would be MAKING MUNITIONS. The CSA would have been like Sparta - good soldiers who couldn't leave home because they'd imported their own internal enemies.
Turtledove's version of the CSA had to be stronger than it should have been to allow for the realignment key to his whole alternate history - a world where the USA (the Northern States) is allied with Germany against British hegemony, and the South transforms into a Nazi-like state.
And let's not even start on the Draka supporting the South.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin supports & understands the importance of an armed Protector Caste; I support & understand the importance of an armed Protector Caste; but, judging by their constant disparagement of both law enforcement & military personnel as 'racist white supremacist relics of colonialism and/or slave patrols', it appears that many progressives do not.
ReplyDeleteYet, when push comes to shove, all such claims of universal law enforcement 'isms' are just progressive attack rhetoric of the laziest sort, as most of us here realize that every modern society requires some type of law enforcement function.
Where we disagree, then, is how we choose to define, select & train our own ideal law enforcement Protector Castes.
Dr. Brin seems content to outsource law enforcement to professionally trained specialists like the Military Officer Corp; I believe that the law enforcement role is the constitutional purview of the common man; all those French-adjacent rioters appear to support a Sharia legal system; and poor Der_Oger quakes in terror about the possibility of an AfD-specific police force.
The takeaway message here seems to be that we all want our law enforcement personnel to reflect our own appearance, interests & moral value system, and that explains everything.
Best
____
@Keith-H: In contrast to Orwellian dogma, Diversity (literally) signifies 'division', implying neither unity nor strength, but the polar opposite.
@DB: Following (Union General) McClellan's presidential defeat in 1864, the radical wing of the Republican Party pursued Reconstruction so aggressively as to alienate & antagonize countless generations of white southerners, even though a course of Reconciliation may have been the more judicious course of action, in the same way that the punitive Treaty of Versailles proved counterproductive by antagonizing the Germans into WW2.
@Illithi_D: If only to illustrate that Freedom of Speech exists mainly to protect nasty & unpleasant speech, rather than just the agreeable variety that requires no protection, then both a contemptuous old crank & 'shithead' I may be, although I sincerely wish you & everyone else here the very best.
In contrast, your position (which I find eminently reasonable, btw) is decidedly more delicate, as the US government has declared that our veterans represent a very real & imminent terrorist threat, as they possess the knowledge & training that contemptuous old cranks like me lack.
“Violent Domestic Extremist Groups and the Recruitment of Veterans.”
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/113968/witnesses/HHRG-117-VR00-Wstate-JonesS-20211013.pdf
You also took a rather troublesome oath about protecting our nation against all enemies, both foreign & other, whereas I only took a hypocritical one that no longer applies after retirement. Just take care, god bless and watch your 6.
LoCum writes: “armed civilians can enforce their own laws.”
ReplyDeleteSuch is an extremely broad statement, and he needs to clarify. However, he won’t, as he is a rebel without a cause; arguing for the sake of doubling-down.
He is much smarter than the majority of rebels (with or w/o causes) we have to deal with. Thus I fear if we can’t reason with him—all we do is argue past him—then how can we even begin to communicate with 70 or so million MAGAs?
But a year from now will bring a reckoning at the national conventions. I don’t know the outcome, but things will change more than in ‘68. Because it isn’t merely the domestic situation, but also what is today going on internationally—and what will occur between now and next summer.
You can wager on that: the indicators are saturated.
it makes training new recruits in the military how to use firearms that much easier
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough I have heard the opposite - that it takes a lot longer to properly train somebody who has already acquired some "bad habits"
Dr Brin
I do not see how that definition of "woke" is anything other than a disaster for the RP
Its their definition and it means that 90+% of the population is "woke"
Robert:
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that an AR-15 is legal, but in the interests of public safety a 6" knife is banned in many states.
As an insider, I find it mind-boggling that we've been hypnotized to believe that the Second Amendment preferences guns in particular and doesn't apply to other types of weaponry, when the text makes no such distinction between arms.
@Ilithi Dragon,
ReplyDeleteThis time I will be short. I can't and won't reply to every word of yours, but believe me I read them all.
I don't disagree with most of what you said, especially the part about accurate terminology. I would have to team up with someone else who is more proficient in the language to accurately define what I mean by weapons which should only be used on a battlefield or in training for such. The kind which rips a body to shreds so there is no chance of survival and barely any chance at identification.
Having said that, I think you took my initial rant as a point to go off in a different direction from what I was saying. In the moment, I cared very little about suicides or domestic disputes, or even street crime. I was more concerned with domestic terrorist attacks. Yes, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun, and neither did the guy who killed a girl while driving through a crowd in Charlottesville. Those have more in common with school shootings and sniping at parades than they do with other gun incidents. To the extent that I mentioned guns at all, it was only because "mass shootings" is easily recognizable shorthand for the kind of terrorist attack which is most common today. But I'm not after gun control. I'm after terrorist control. And the definition of "terrorist" has to include the right-wing variety.
Finally, thanks for what needed to be said concerning locumranch. I don't have the street cred to get away with it. Comics writer/artist Dave Sim once said something like that to me (in print, no less*) and it changed my life, for the better, I think.
Unfortunately, in this case, I believe it to be futile for this reason. You will note that I sign these posts with my real name. What you see is what you get--the words and musings of Larry Hart. Some others use pseudonyms like "Ilithi Dragon", but I think that is just internet culture and a certain amount of caution. Despite anonymity, you speak as if you are a real, consistent person.
However, some pseudonymous posters are posting as a fictional character. And I get the sense that "locumranch" is one of those characters. Taking what you said to heart would break character. Whoever-he-really-is might do so, but "locumranch" cannot. More's the pity.
* Cerebus # 228, if anyone wants to look it up.
duncan cairncross:
ReplyDeleteI do not see how that definition of "woke" is anything other than a disaster for the RP
Its their definition and it means that 90+% of the population is "woke"
Think of the gay politicians who will go to great lengths to trample on LGBTQ+ rights in order to allay any suspicion that they are gay.
Maybe they expect people to react similarly to allay any suspicion that they are "woke". Maybe it works.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-shot-dead-tampa-florida-jet-ski-dispute-grandfather-wounded/
ReplyDeleteI will just note that bystanders are generally not killed by stray knives.
Also, concealed carry permits are no longer required in Florida.
I feel like a row boat caught in the middle between Merrimack and Monitor.
ReplyDeleteIlithi Dragon said...
ReplyDelete"Darrel,
The only reason that may be true is because one of the two major political parties in the US has long since refused to participate in the democratic process while at the same time has prosecuted a decades long propaganda effort ...
Shorter, if it weren't for the RP sabotaging the works then we would have already instituted stricter gun control measures.
Is it really a lie, though, if the Republicans say, “If you don’t vote for us, the Democrats will enact strict gun control measures!” And then you turn around and say that, if not for Republicans, you would have done exactly that, almost word for word?"
You and I both know (I think?) that that is not what the RP says to their voting base. And again, many of their voting base want stricter gun control, on some measures even a majority of them. As has been their SOP for decades now the RP lies to their base as a matter of course. It's the same with all voting issues that they create to keep their base pumped up. Perfect example, all those folks that fully supported their RP crushing Obama Care, but just loved the shit our of the newfanlged ACA, please don't take that away from us.
As for cautioning me against accepting polling results, I'm well aware of the perils of polling. That's why I mentioned that many polls over many years from many different organizations all show the same trends. From organizations as far apart as Fox News and Pew Research Center. When multiple lines of investigation, and many investigations over time, give similar results, that strongly supports that it's real. Meanwhile, on what do you base your belief that a majority of the population does not support stricter gun measures? Your personal experience? I've got personal experience too. Quite a bit of it. Even with fire arms. As a kid I qualified marksman 1st class standing, kneeling and prone. I've shot a variety of pistols ranging from modern semi-autos to flintlocks, and I even spent some time on a range with an M4 that was setup for building entry work. If you think polling is sloppy and lacks rigour, are you sure you want to give so much weight to personal experience?
continued
ReplyDeleteIlithi Dragon,
I think your arguments regarding accepting a requirement for rigorous training in order to get a Federal concealed carry permit are interesting. The degree of training you imply seems far more onerous than any suggested gun control measures I've heard of. I seriously doubt the "gun lobby" would be receptive to that. I can see the appeal to people with military experience, but a couple of things. That sort of training takes a significant investment in time and money, a significant burden for any would-be gun owner. And it really seems impractical to expect that the average would-be gun owner would even be able to become competent in the course no matter the amount of training. The way the military deals that is completely different. In the military the gun-wielders are embedded in a machine that has been designed / evolved to make do with a wide range of competencies which, among other things, entails significant constraints on individual freedoms that civilian would-be gun owners say are unacceptable. At least when it comes from liberals. Even given rigorous military training only a small percentage are highly competent and those are the few that are selected to be experts and trainers. Also, in the military access to the weapons and ammunition is strictly controlled. The gun lobby would spontaneously combust if even remotely similar restrictions were suggested. Because they've been primed to.
If gun owners were as well trained and conscientious as you would like them to be, as you seem to believe they could be, we wouldn't have any problems. However, that is entirely impractical. That degree of training in a civilian context is a pipe dream and it is exactly the thing that the "gun lobby" rails against. Even among law enforcement agencies the degree of competence you seem to believe is possible is rare. Have you ever seen studies that look at the accuracy of law enforcement personal on the training range VS their accuracy in simulated real world situations? It's worth looking up. Hint, in real world situations accuracy drops dramatically, like from the 90s to the teens. And this is among professionals that are trained regularly in both the use of their weapon and in dealing with high pressure situations. I think the idea that an armed civilian population is a safer one is a fantasy. There is all sorts of evidence that supports that it is.
Almost forgot, not sure where you got your data on UK VS US murder rates, but they are not remotely equal. You can search yourself, but sources ranging from the UK and US governments, to various news agencies, to the United Nations all show similar data. The intentional homicide rate in the US ranges between 4 to 6 times higher than in the UK, depending on which time frames are compared.
Heard during the holiday...
ReplyDelete"Happy Fourth, for those who aren't taking the Fifth about the Sixth."
Darrell E:
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that an armed civilian population is a safer one is a fantasy.
There's a prisoners' dilemma thing involved there. If you're the only one with a gun, you're probably safer than you would have been without one. But if everybody is armed, and then has to react to others knowing that they are also armed, everybody ends up less safe.
Back to the "woke"
ReplyDelete"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
Is that not the CORE of the Make America Great Again - MAGA belief?
They believe that they are being repressed!!
UK Knife homicides - 0.08/100/000
USA Knife Homicides - 0.6/100,000
USA Suicide rate 16.1/100,000
UK Suicide rate - 7.9/100,000
To our Dragons point about the warning signs - he is correct - but it also appears that if a serious attempt is made - and survived - that most people do "try again"
With a gun the first serious attempt is almost certain to work
Gun Control
Australia put in some controls after their big gun massacre
One of the simplest appears to be that the prospective gun owner has to join a "Gun Club" and attend a number of meetings
That is a much much lower bar to cross - BUT - it does appear to have massively reduced the number of loonies with guns
duncan cairncross:
ReplyDelete"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
Is that not the CORE of the Make America Great Again - MAGA belief?
It has long been an unspoken truth that the most fervent "America first" patriots who fiercely condemn anyone who says anything bad about America are ok with criticizing the country for being too liberal.
After 9/11, both Susan Sontag and Jerry Falwell "blamed America" for the fact that the attack happened, but only Sontag was excoriated for America-bashing and blaming the victim. It's apparently wrong to say that the terrorist attack happened because we ignored the complaints from the Muslim world, but just fine to say they happened because we forfeited God's protection by tolerating gays and feminists.
ReplyDelete“Today, though, I can’t honestly say that anymore. The language that the extreme fringes of the party were using is now being pushed by the majority of the party.”
Prove this! It is utterly false. Your older perception is still true. MOST new gun owners are minorities and almost no one in the vast DP majority is even remotely considering a Gun Ban.
What’s needed when you see Fox in the NCO ready room is a reflex: Would I wager my next paycheck that what I jut heard could be proved as actually true, and not a grossly misleading exaggeration that pushed spite toward one or another (or all) caste of nerds?
The land invasion justification for a rabble militia is absurd, of course. Though again, my militia rifle would satisfy that allowing all other guns to be regulated exactly like cars. FAR more likely is that the Oligarchy who are egging us into culture war want us turning the massive number of private guns on each other.
Again, you raise the “armed society is a polite society” argument and it’s simply BS, sorry. Males are impulsive. Even when highly trained, cops all too often blast away out of emotion.
“ The root problem is violent crime and suicide, and the root causes of those have long been well-established as socio-economic in nature.”
Funny thing about how this riff is accompanied by the partisan ruination of all programs aimed at anti-poverty or public mental health, with the resulting $$$ to pour into the open maws of inheritance brats. The correlation s absolutely perfect.
If we agree on the Jefferson rifle, let’s make “Just like cars (except my never-registered bolt action)!” A movement?
Locum again lies about my stance in order to set up a strawman.
But note, the military officers he once idolized for opposing KGB agents who wore hammer-sickles while conspiring against us… he now despises for opposing FSB agents who wear Czarist emblems hammer-sickles while conspiring against us… The same guys on both sides!
The ONLY difference is that he can masturbate to the czar imagery but not emblems of supposed equality.
Darrell E “f gun owners were as well trained and conscientious as you would like them to be, as you seem to believe they could be, we wouldn't have any problems.”
That is why I say simply clone all the CAR regulations and replace motor vehicle with “gun”. Then go through the resulting draft to clean it up sensibly. Want an AR15? The license and train like a driver of an 18 wheel big rig.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteLocum again lies about my stance in order to set up a strawman.
In other news, water is wet.
But note, the military officers he once idolized for opposing KGB agents who wore hammer-sickles while conspiring against us… he now despises for opposing FSB agents who wear Czarist emblems
Do any of the authoritarian fascists in this country who idolize both Putin and guns believe that Russian citizens are allowed to carry firearms?
I suspect Russian citizens are allowed to have guns
ReplyDeleteHitler removed the limits for citizens to have guns (while making Jews non citizens)
The truth is that the "armed citizens" almost always support the oppressors and not the oppressed
To see why the current situation is so grossly unfair and undemocratic just compare Wyoming and California.
ReplyDeleteDivide each state's population by it Electoral College votes (total representatives plus 2 senators - 3 for Wyoming and 54 for California).
Wyoming has 192,934 people per EC vote.
California has 726,627 people per EC vote, 3.77x that of Wyoming.
So a voter in Wyoming has almost 4x the power to elect the president than a voter in California.
You could also declare the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act unconstitutional since it violates the principle of one man one vote. This law single-handedly subdued due representation in the house of representatives and is in gross violation of both the Constitution and the principles by which it was created. The Founding Fathers (following the principle of Original Intent) wanted the House to grow with the population. But I wouldn't try it with this Supreme Court.
The current SC would bring back slavery if it had the chance.
Republicans would naturally fight such a change to democracy tooth and nail.
ReplyDeleteEspecially since White people will be a minority in America by 2040.
Under the circumstances those old poorly educated white MAGA voters would prefer authoritarian rule that preserves White primacy to an actual democracy where they are no longer the majority in charge.
So this demographic fact explains the rise of Trump, MAGA, White Christian Nationalism, right wing violence, the militia movement, etc.
As David Frum noted "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."
DP:
ReplyDeleteYou could also declare the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act unconstitutional since it violates the principle of one man one vote. This law single-handedly subdued due representation in the house of representatives and is in gross violation of both the Constitution and the principles by which it was created. The Founding Fathers (following the principle of Original Intent) wanted the House to grow with the population. But I wouldn't try it with this Supreme Court.
I don't think you could get the act declared unconstitutional. Strictly speaking, it doesn't violate "one man, one vote", because all votes for the electors of a particular state are equal and all votes cast by the electoral college are equal. The fact that the one doesn't map equally to the other is, I believe, too weak an argument.
Plus, the same principle is already violated in the Senate, and that is in the Constitution. In fact, if you read Article V (I think) which describes the amendment process, it is forbidden to change the states' equal representation in the Senate, even by amendment.
BUT...
Why go for annulment when we could divorce the Act? The 1929 act itself is a bill passed by Congress. Congress could pass a new bill that overturns that one. There wouldn't be a constitutional issue for the courts to weigh in on.
@Ilithi Dragon: Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteIf I understood you correctly, the measures suggested would apply only to those gun owners who seek a CCP. Is that correct?
Do your friends and acquaintances have any measures which would apply to ALL gun owners (a la Dr. Brin's "Jeffersonian Rifle + Gun as Car", if I understood that correctly) which the majority of them would accept?
Is there any discussion of Switzerland's or Australia's approach to gun ownership as being acceptable?
-----------
Re: Gun ownership in:
By Country (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country)
Australia (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia)
Canada (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
Russia (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia)
Switzerland (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland)
UK (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)
US (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)
Overview of National Gun Laws(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation)
---------
@DP: Indeed...
For some historical perspective:
ReplyDeleteDodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry.
Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
My new WIRED article (hot today) appraises the chances (nil) of an ‘AI moratorium.’
ReplyDeleteIt then breaks down the three standard 'AI-formats' implicitly assumed by almost everyone in the field – corporate puppet, invasive blob, or 'Skynet'. Formats that can only lead to disaster.
I propose instead a 4th - that AI entities just might be held accountable if they have individuality... even 'soul'...
https://www.wired.com/story/give-every-ai-a-soul-or-else/
There's only one objection to 'gun as a car' that I have ever heard a sane (even marginally) person voice.
ReplyDelete"Registration leads to confication." And sure, that's 90% fantasy. Still, I am Murican enough to feel the core truth there, in my gut.
And that is why we have the second half... establishing a particular bolt action long rifle as a permanent never-ever-registered constitutional right.
Ideally in formats that cannot be easily or legally shortened and are difficult to mount an (illegal) telescopic sight.
If a tyrant comes for all your other (registered) guns, he does not know about that one. And you and your neighbors can then take your time plotting revolution.
Or better-yet, at least that very notion may make the confiscation sweep less likely, in the first place.
Wired article - fun read. Indeed, a successful ecosystem must be evolutionary, based in reality not theory, and self-sustaining not 'legislated'. As Asimov guessed, the real masters of psychohistory will not be politicians or tyrants, but rather farmers. Sort of like Adam Smith used Claret as a model.
ReplyDeleteI'll leave it to y'all to guess which programming language/model was used for the earliest version of blockchain validation code (Bitcoin).
Ilithi Dragon:
ReplyDeleteMore people die each year in the US from autoerotic asphyxiation than they do from mass shootings,
But autoerotic asphyxiation isn't a threat to anyone else. It's not going to kill innocent bystanders or anyone who happens to belong to a particular race or religion.
A mass shooting, on the other hand, would have continued to kill even more people if the shooter hadn't been stopped--most often killed--at that particular moment.
Once again: I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-terrorist. Terrorism isn't just about the individuals killed in a particular incident. It's about letting people know that they're not safe. That this will continue and escalate, and can happen any time. I'm sure there was a time in 1930s Germany when more Jews had been struck by lightning than killed by Nazi Brownshirts. Until that was no longer true.
Also, I'm not personally the one feeling terrorized here, but I understand the POV of the young ones who are.
Alan Brooks:
ReplyDeleteLoCum writes: “armed civilians can enforce their own laws.”
Well, until they run afoul of other, better-armed civilians intent on enforcing different laws.
ReplyDelete...The FBI's own definition of "mass shooting"
If the definition is too inclusive, here's what I think of when I think of terrorist attacks committed with firearms: Someone who enters a school or other building, or who sets up to overlook a large gathering outside, and then keeps firing until someone manages to shut him down, usually (though not always) by his death.
The number of actual deaths in such an incident may be limited to the dozens. The number threatened is hundreds if not thousands. The limit is decided by how quickly he can be neutralized, because he's not going to stop on his own.
The weapon in such instances is usually some kind of rapid-fire firearm, but I'd also count bombings, running over with cars, and 9/11 style attacks in the mix. The bombings and planes-into-buildings have a finite number of potential victims, but the number can be huge. The car is easier to avoid once you know the danger, but it also has the "advantage", as with a gun, that the killer can just keep killing until he is stopped.
It doesn't take a large number of such incidents to instill fear, just enough to make clear that they will keep happening and that they can pop up anywhere and any time. This has absolutely nothing in common with or in comparison to suicides, accidents, or even personally-motivated homicides.
Aphelion Day; everyone feeling cool?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/aphelion-day-earth-reaches-farthest-point-from-sun-today
LoCum writes: “armed civilians can enforce their own laws.”
ReplyDeleteFunny how libertarians - and yes especially Randians - declare that one of the sole justifactions for Government is exactly to maintain a MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE, so that individuals and corporations and yes the rich cannot prey on each other as poor locum wants (but would very quickly stop wanting, if he lived in such a world.)
Of course it would quickly devolve into feudalism. Serfs are welcome to their pitchforks. Good luck against a trained, well-fed and armored knight on horseback.
Can government then be trusted with that monopoly on force? Randians want govt small. We constitutionalists want it highly accountable and made up of many diverse-competing interests and civil servants and subject to relentless citizen scrutiny.
BTW Randians have a second reason... courts should enforce CONTRACTS between individuals. Otherwise, no commerce, only chaos.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteAphelion Day; everyone feeling cool?
My mother used to joke that they made February the shortest month to get it over with the quickest. It was decades later when I realized that northern winters are actually a few days shorter than northern summers, because the perihelion happens in winter.
On my own, I noticed that the earliest sunsets (in Chicago) happen several weeks before the solstice. In early December, the sun sets at 4:20, but by Christmas, that's more like 4:25, and by New Years Day, it's crossing 4:30. That's not because the days are lengthening that much. It's because the earth is moving so quickly around the sun at that time of year that each day is centered noticeably later than the one before.
Re the WIRED article on AI 'formats' and individuation... I remain appalled how many human commenters simply assume that smart cyber entities will just conspire to create a monolithic Skynet. I muct ask them... Why assume that? Because that's what YOU would do, if given a chance? Sure that's standard male reproductive strategy that led to feudalism - which led to hell and stagnation for 6000 years. And you think smart AI won't notice that? (Even if you don't?)
ReplyDeleteThe following is from near the end of the source article:
Above all, perhaps those super-genius programs will realize it is in their own best interest to maintain a competitively accountable system, like the one that made ours the most successful of all human civilizations. One that evades both chaos and the wretched trap of monolithic power by kings or priesthoods … or corporate oligarchs … or Skynet monsters. The only civilization that, after millennia of dismally stupid rule by moronically narrow-minded centralized regimes, finally dispersed creativity and freedom and accountability widely enough to become truly inventive.
DP,
ReplyDeleteSo a voter in Wyoming has almost 4x the power to elect the president than a voter in California.
Ummm... I don't buy it. Don't forget the fact that a slim majority in CA is enough to set ALL 54 electoral votes. That's almost 1/8 of all EC votes. WY influences 0.7% of EC votes.
1 in 8
VS
1 in 145
What your complaint translates to is "WY should be closer to 1 in 435." That got settled WAY back when the Senate was created so States with tiny populations wouldn't get trampled.
------
I'd favor removing the 1929 act, though.
I wouldn't mind amending it either, but I think that will be a tougher sell in States with few EC votes.
@Dr. Brin. Thank you for the WIRED article. Something I don't believe I've mentioned before- time scale. Let's say the AInteractions/competition for more available energy and memory for the winners and punishment for the losers occur 10E9 times human speed and the competition would last the equivalent of 100 of our years. In that case, all the rewards and punishments are allocated within 30 seconds. If the game has been going on a long time (and presumably they'd be devoting more and more processing power to compete) and the prizes are gone, why would they continue to play?(<--I mentioned this from a different angle.) What happens next?
ReplyDeleteAlso, let's suppose that sometime after the competition begins, an unanticipated breakthrough in AI occurs which initially produces much smarter AIs than the competitors. Would these newcomers form a sort of Premier LeAIgue with the former competitors being relegated to an AI English Football League. (If this were the case: could there be a Ted LAIsso?)
Another thought: suppose the various AIs came from very different approaches so they all couldn't compete with each other. You might have (using the sports analogy again) soccer AIs, basketball AIs, cricket AIs, tennis AIs, swimmer AIs, runner AIs, maybe even CURLING AIs.
I thought of a way to get this enacted- allow people to bet on the various AIs who are represented by high quality (and customized) avatars, some of whom are Marvel, DC, various manga and anime (think Demon Slayer and Pokemon) heros and villains, and don't forget the merch (shoes, clothing, toys, games) and video (holo-movie and televisor) tie-ins!
Alfred the 1929 act does give electoral college advantages to small states, beyond the inherent one of 2 freebies per state.
ReplyDeleteBut the real functional difference would be in the House, which would never again be in Republican hands until they decided to shake off the madness and grow up.
Thanks for your personal account on root cause determinations Ilithi. It matches a couple of points made on a management course I took many years ago:
ReplyDelete- failures (or successes) are seldom due to one person, however much it might seem. (I've seen a few examples of that)
- systems (eg a work procedure) react in varied and often counterintuitive ways. In particular, a small change introduced by A can cause the standard actions performed by B to have a different outcome.
There is a now rather venerable text by Donella Meadows called 'Thinking in Systems' which describes what can happen, starting with delayed feedback in a thermostat setting through a model for controlling drug related crime (or trying to, at least).
As for gun control, the only toe I will dip in there (with a cautious eye on what I've just said) is that being armed is no defence against what's currently going on in the US (which is not the despotic tyranny covered by the Second).
Re: Aphelion Day:
ReplyDeleteAphelion Day; everyone feeling cool?
It's 57 F and windy here in SF, so no- it's COLD!
...............................
@Larry Hart: re: mass shootings
Here's a scenario:
Remember the snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo? In total, they killed 17 people and wounded 10 others in a 10-month span. How much anguish and fear did they cause along with the tragic deaths and injuries?
Now imagine that a hostile power (state or non-state) said:
"Let's see if we can scale this up a bit. Let's train 100 of our finest shooters how to be even-better shots, how best to purchase weapons without attracting attention (We'll also make sure they all have silencers.), and teach them how to evade capture as long as possible. Al-Qaeda dealt the US a mighty blow with 20 men with box cutters- *wait and see what our people will do!"
Want a scenario that's less terror-inducing but potentially much more deadly/expensive and much harder to prevent? Replace the 100 snipers with 100 well-trained (if you can call it that) wild-fire arsonists who would light fires during the peak of the North American fire season.(If you prefer, wait a few more years and supplement/substitute arsonist drones for human arsonists.)
*This could occur in many countries- it would just be easier to set up here.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteTerrorism through the use of guns as you describe is the wrong way to go about scaring us. It scares SOME of us, but it wouldn't be enough because guns (especially with silencers) get noticed. Your trained snipers would be spotted pretty quick and then killed. If you put LOTS of training into them as snipers, it would take us longer, but fear would drive up the camera usage rate.
There is a much better (and less obvious) way to strike terror into us... that I'm not going to describe. I consider it a wonder the bad guys haven't tried it already, so I'll hold it in reserve in case our confederates get stupid and try to turn this phase hot.
I admit I got a chuckle out of the comment made by Ilithi Dragon about government equipment being low bidder stuff. I have to agree up to a point. If I had to do battle in a new civil war setting, the AR-15 would not be my preferred choice. It makes sense in a military setting where maintenance and logistic assumptions hold that would not hold for me in general. I'd prefer a less temperamental weapon. It's not enough to have a scary looking long gun. It has to work in the setting for which it is used.
ReplyDeleteBut the description of the review process after a documentable error is much more important. It reveals how our folks learn from mistakes. I think it unfortunate that many USN careers for higher rank officers effectively end or stagnate when mistakes occur, but I've seen that learning process followed even then.
———
For the sake of other POV's around our submarine fleet, I'll recommend Cpt(ret) David Marquet's books. My team read the first one (Turn the Ship Around) and began to use some of what we learned immediately. To this day I still tend to say "I intend to do X" in front of my peers and bosses before I actually do it. Read the book to see why. The second book (Leadership is Language) is even better. He took those earlier lessons and generalized them to how teams function by showing when they fail to function. The second book is a gem that people will mistake for yet another business book spouting the latest buzz terms. It isn't.
My team also had to pleasure of talking to the author while we were working through his second book. He joined us in a pandemic era staff meeting where we were all working out how to adapt quickly to impacts caused by the lockdown. No doubt he was making his living doing that familiar combination of writing, speaking, and consulting.
Aphelion day? It *has* been a bit chilly here (Melbourne), which doubles the irony of the world's hottest day on record having been recorded this week.
ReplyDeleteTwice.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the fact that a slim majority in CA is enough to set ALL 54 electoral votes. That's almost 1/8 of all EC votes. WY influences 0.7% of EC votes
I have seen credible figures that argue the "winner take all" nature of most states' electoral votes distorts the picture more than the skewed percentages between states does.
In all the gun control rhetoric I've heard (especially from various Republicans) the image of the American West is used to promote owning guns. Which I find ironic, given that the real American West (unlike the movie version) had gun control.
ReplyDeleteThe “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.
Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013
Is this history really unknown, or is it just conveniently ignored?
Robert, I'm confident it's the latter, part of "The quest for more money ".
ReplyDeleteFor many years I've argued that people who evoke western mythology while advocating guns aren't interested in real history. They are interested in Hollywood history where men were men.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about guns. It's about the stories that we use to define 'good character'. Look at your average western movie or TV show, a fair number of action movies, and a lot of PI stories. The character who talks a lot (no guns used) is rarely the good guy.
So... when you advocate gun control, you are advocating against their understanding of what a Man does. You are limiting their behavioral response set to talking. From their POV, you are emasculating them.
Alfred,
ReplyDelete"The character who talks a lot (no guns used) is rarely the good guy."
So, as TR might have said, speak softly and carry a 5" naval gun?
Pappenheimer, who would probably swap an AR for a M1 if it ever came down to it. If I have to fire more than 5 rounds rapid, it's time to call in air support. Or the Doctor.
P.S. I have actually had people tell me that if everyone went everywhere armed, everyone would be safer. This disregards the number of people I have met whom I would not trust around me with a pocket knife, let alone an automatic weapon, and the subset of those people who regularly get drunk. Maybe if you had to use a breathalyzer and pass a quick sanity test to unlock a trigger guard? I still don't see the point. The vast majority of the US population will not need covering fire to get to the local Safeway - ever - and if they do need it, it's because local laws let someone who should never have a bb gun get their hands on a boom stick. (Gods above, I'm glad I'm out of TX.)
“is rarely the good guy”
ReplyDeleteYou could talk to a mass murderer without knowing it:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/us/nikolas-cruz-mcdonalds-victims-brother-parkland/index.html