Morning Ed: Government {2016.04.20.W}

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

83 Responses

  1. Avatar j r
    Ignored
    says:

    That Bloomberg piece on regulation is quite good. In general, the only people so concerned about their post-government career prospects that they sell out the public interest are the folks in the legislature or the political appointees in the executive branch. They exist in an ecosystem where they owe their livelihoods to who they know and who owes them favors.

    The civil service just doesn’t work like that. At least, I’ve never witnessed it at the federal level. Can’t say what’s happening at state and local government. There is something called Miles’ Law, which says that you “stand where you sit.” Mostly, I saw this invoked in regards to the State Department, where it is not uncommon to have different offices within the building pushing in different directions on an issue. It’s applicable across the government and into the private sector as well. When someone’s job is to regulate, they tend to act like regulators. And when someone’s job is to run compliance at a bank, they tend to act like compliance officers. That’s how you get ahead in your career.Report

    • Avatar Damon in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      ” the only people so concerned about their post-government career prospects that they sell out the public interest are the folks in the legislature or the political appointees in the executive branch”

      Not true. The military has a big problem with higher ranking folks revolving in and out. Federal prosecutors bail out after prosecuting cases and work for the other side. I think there’s a lot more revolving door than just what you’ve captured.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Damon
        Ignored
        says:

        The military people move out and cash in, but they never move back in. Once you’re retired, you’re retired. (All the big scandals now, like Fat Leonard, are people that cashed in *before* they moved out)Report

        • Avatar Damon in reply to Kolohe
          Ignored
          says:

          True enough. They don’t re-enter the military. But they can and do join the administration, become civilian advisers to the pentagon, become department heads (like nsa or cia)Report

          • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Damon
            Ignored
            says:

            Petraeus had to retire before becoming head of the CIA. (Hayden though, was still on the books when he was in charge of NSA (edit – and CIA, I forgot he was there before becoming the overall intel grand poobah). Still, an SES/govt appointment job making 200 something K is not the same thing as a ‘revolving door’.

            There is the scam of an O-5/O-6 or an E-7/E-8 separating from the service and being rehired as a contractor doing the exact same job for 3 to 4 times the pay. (And I don’t begrudge the E-8 for this, because he or she is underpaid as an E-8, but it’s slimy as hell for the O-5/O-6).

            Yeah, there’s a potential conflict of interest if say, Greenert would come back into the Pentagon as a political appointee muckity muck after being on the board of BAE. On the other hand that’s the paradox of finding experienced management for government high government jobs. A well rounded candidate for a high level muckity muck *should* have experience in the defense contracting side of things, as well as policy think tank and some uniformed experience themselves. A candidate that’s unsullied by prior connections may not have as good of a grasp how everything works. (which, btw, is the excuse that Obama’s apologists i.e. Jeff Goldberg, use to explain why anything in his administration went sideways on the diplo-military policy front).Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Damon
        Ignored
        says:

        Are prosecutors who become private defense attorneys using their contacts and influence or just their experience, though? And does their plan to do so in the future affect their faithful execution of their jobs while they’re in office? Neither one of those seems like a major concern–at least not nearly in the same class as legislative staffers working with lobbyists who later hire them for their own firms.Report

        • Avatar Damon in reply to Troublesome Frog
          Ignored
          says:

          I’d agree it may not be in the same class, but it’s similar enough. And if you are prosecuting the same party/industry you later go to work for, I’d suggest shenanigans.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Damon
            Ignored
            says:

            It feels like, after a couple of iterations of the game, there would be all kinds of unspoken rules (well, when one is not at the bar after work, anyway) that deal with such things as “oh, the smart guy who does what he’s told and demonstrates that he knows how to play ball is always someone our corporation will have room for” and “the wiseguy who leans rather heavily on ‘the process’ will find himself stuck in our process for weeding out the ones who wouldn’t make a good fit… we’re sure he’ll understand.”

            And we’ve had a lot more than a couple of iterations of the game.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      One of the arguments I’ve heard (and found interesting) is that the depression and WWII changed American Government fundamentally insofar as government jobs were pretty much the best jobs that the best and brightest could reliably try out for and reliably got and, once everything had played out, we were sitting at 1950 and business was kicking in and doing its thing and the best and brightest were not, at that point, inclined to quit en masse and get private sector jobs (some did… most didn’t).

      And so we had one of the smartest, best, and brightest governments in the world for a few decades there.

      Which started it’s long regression to the mean right around the time that the great depression/WWII generation started retiring.Report

      • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Megan McArdle offered that thesis. Production per capita, per capita personal income, and per capita private consumption had all returned to the trendline by 1941 and the labor market had cleared by 1943. At the same time, the bulk of the male population born during the years running from 1910 to 1925 had to trudge through the military. Some in the civil service would have had occupational deferments, to be sure. The cohorts to which McArdle’s surmise would have applied would have been born from about 1900 to 1910, or perhaps 1900 to 1918. Your posited regression to the mean would have been over 30 odd years ago.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I think there is something to this. The government might have been the only employer for many of them during the Great Deoression and WWII. The Depression also hurt white-collar employees.Report

  2. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    The entire point of democracy is to produce mediocre or average officials and policies. Spectacularly good politicians and policies depending on how you define them might be rare but also are spectacularly bad politicians and policies. Democracy is supposed to produce an average level of competence rather than a spectacular one.Report

  3. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    USA Today: Jeebus. We’ve been talking about guns and gun control for decades and reporters STILL cannot understand / use the correct terminology…or don’t due to an agenda. “It seeks to criminalize the sale of a legal product — the military-style AR-15 assault rifle” An assault rifle is “An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine” and is a generic term for any weapon so described. The AR-15 is a Colt product that is “semi automatic rifle“.

    Women Binders: Sure, unless that’s the only binder that you look at. Then that’s something called discrimination.

    Broadband: “Shovel ready”. Sure.

    “The little cabinet department that could, and did, and almost never found reason to stop doing anything.” That’s the definition of a bureaucracy existing for it’s own sake, but I repeat myself.

    Democracy: “The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it.” I don’t understand where the authors came up with that idea. Far as I recall, democracy was viewed as better than being ruled by a king and that people would have the opportunity to determine the laws they would be governed.Report

    • Avatar notme in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes, despite all the other errors in the USA Today article, it is nice that they were able to see the fact that the suit is ill conceived.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      I too have noticed that a lot of reporters seem to misunderstand gun jargon. I don’t credit this to a conscious political agenda so much as to a cocktail of disinterest and intellectual laziness.

      Not all reporters are disinterested in weapons. But it seems the case that a large number are. There may be some selective memory here: those familiar with the nomenclature will quickly move through reporting that uses terminology correctly, but seeing it used poorly sticks out in the mind the way one’s hand feels a zit on the face. Your face is not covered with zits, but you remember feeling one in the shower this morning so it lodges in your mind and it doesn’t take much recollection before your memory tells you that reporters always get it wrong when it comes to guns.

      Some reporters take the time to dig down into the subject matter areas of their stories, and turn those stories into beats. But these well-intentioned reporters with both good work ethics and substantial editorial resources backing them up may nevertheless have an epistemology framing how they do that work that doesn’t set up acquiring this knowledge with the kind of detailed accuracy you’re hoping for. Stories that address issues of potential restrictions or registrations of firearms are typically categorized as “political,” and given to reporters on “political” beats. So the background information a thorough reporter will want to accumulate is political in nature. The action is in the political conflict between Democrat and Republican, between NRA and Brady Foundation, between private gun owner and crime victim. The distinction between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon is categorized as “technical,” and is thus tangential to the story. Getting a “technical” detail wrong is not optimal, even so, but also not so bad that the paper won’t run the story.

      This assumes a reporter who is going to do the intellectual work of gathering and processing a significant amount of background information in the first place. Many reporters care more about meeting deadlines with articles of the assigned length, and many editors assign reporters stories along a wide variety of subject matters, and many papers don’t have enough reporters with enough strings out there at any given time to fill the blank space between the advertisements, so they just need to pump out product, now, quality of reporting being only one and probably not the most important factor. Acquiring subject matter expertise in a new field full of both unfamiliar jargon and generally distrustful people using that jargon while under time and deadline pressure while you also have to get at least 800 words about the pearl-clutchers who want to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries because witchcraft, and another 800 words on the Congressional aide who teaches a hang-gliding-for-the-homeless class on weekends, all before the 6:00 p.m. deadline, is a stressful challenge. Granted, I expect that AP and USA Today have more resources and so don’t need to stretch their reporters out like that, but that’s an expectation that might not necessarily meet reality.

      None of this would be praiseworthy were it true. But to the point, none of it is politically agendized against gun ownership rights, either.Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        I find that any time they report on a field I know well, reporters generally get important details and concepts wrong unless they’re specialists (and even then, quite often). I try to remember this whenever I read an article about a field I don’t know very well.

        Some of it is also to be expected when people try to report on stuff that just isn’t their regular field. This particular problem has to be laziness, though. Rather than checking with experts or quality source material, non-experts simply “look up” a fact or term in their own heads and share it with the public. I’m far from being a gun expert, and there’s a ton of cringeworthy reporting out there that even I notice. Ken White’s attack dog analogy rings very true to me here.Report

        • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Troublesome Frog
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s Gell Mann amneasea:

          In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

          Report

      • Avatar notme in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        I disagree. Words like “assault rifle” are politically agendized against gun ownership rights because they are purposely used to make the weapons seem dangerous, scary, unnecessary and illegitimate. In any argument the first thing you have to win is the language victory, by defining terms favorablably to your side you make it easier to win the overall argument. This is why many 2nd amendment folks refuse to use the term “assault rifle” b/c it is the other side’s term.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to notme
          Ignored
          says:

          The Bushmaster rifle was designed and marketed specifically to be menacing and scary. It had no real value for anything else. It was and is a prop, a status and signaling symbol for men to feel powerful.Report

          • Avatar Damon in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            There’s something called “taticool”. That’s what it was all about.

            This is a good example:

            https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkHO2pMkZy8/VxOd_JugALI/AAAAAAAAhI8/aYK_nb-xDpUhS0LYuYT5YDOc6FRDueGUgCLcB/s1600/geardo.jpg

            Of course you also see this in other areas too with guys.Report

          • Avatar notme in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            The Bushmaster rifle was designed and marketed specifically to be menacing and scary.

            Assumes facts not in evidence. The Bushmaster rifle was designed to outwardly look exactly like the Army’s M16 or new M4 carbine, no more no less. It is no more menacing or scary than either or those weapons.

            It had no real value for anything else.

            Your opinion and not supported by facts.

            It was and is a prop, a status and signaling symbol for men to feel powerful.

            Your opinion and not supported by facts.

            Surely you can come up with something better?Report

          • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Interesting how you give us “nomenclature can be specifically selected to induce a particular emotional response in the recipient” and present it like that refutes notme’s statement about how “assault rifle” and “military-style weapon” are specifically chosen for effect.Report

          • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Granted, I haven’t spent much time around the militia/prepper crowd, but I have spent time around guns and people who shoot and hunt. And the only group of people I know of who amass loads of scary-looking gear with the intention to intimidating people is the police.

            Even in the army, too much tacticool is looked down upon. Or at least it was ten years ago.Report

            • Avatar greginak in reply to j r
              Ignored
              says:

              There are plenty of citizens who like the tactical look. You don’t bring an AK to starbucks or walk down the street with your AR in a tactical sling because Tacticool is cool ( for some).Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to j r
              Ignored
              says:

              In the suit being pressed against Bushmaster Firearms, their own marketing copy is being used as evidence against them. They didn’t market this to hunters, target shooters, police or SWAT teams, to the military, or even for the foreign paramilitary groups.

              It was marketed openly and specifically to establish (their words) a “Man Card”.

              Which is why the pedantic no-such-thing-as-an-assault-rifle argument is so absurd. People vehemently insist that a Bushmaster is a reasonable tool for personal protection by sober reasonable people…then the rest of us look at a hundred Travis Bickles posing on Facebook with their Bushmasters, wearing camo and their best Rambo scowls, with matching blood curdling “come and take it” copy.
              We look at that and understand perfectly well what the purpose of the rifle is.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Seems to me that in order for this case to succeed, they’d have to show a link between the advertising and the massacre.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                It seems clear to me that Nancy Lanza was trying to get her man card, elongate her penis, make up for her erectile disfunction, and all of those other motivations we (respecfully) attribute to people who buy guns.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Will Truman
                Ignored
                says:

                Just wait, soon we’ll see car makers sued because their advertising makes use of themes that show fast and (arguably) reckless driving alongside suggestions regarding personal worth, and somebody drove fast on the I-5.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Would you find it persuasive if I insisted that a Corvette is not a status symbol for men, but instead is a reasonable vehicle choice for commuting to work, or hauling potted plants from the nursery?Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Not in the least. So clearly Corvettes are merely vehicles meant to go fast and compensate for something. Obviously we should make them illegal, lest someone drive one too fast and kill a family in a minivan.

                Or we could sue GM, for advertising them as such and making machines with way more horsepower than any untrained person should be allowed to control.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                If Corvettes were designed to go 200 miles per hour like a Formula 1, they would in fact be illegal.

                At the moment, a Corvette isn’t a danger, and the trivial and silly purpose for their existence doesn’t harm anyone.

                But if we experienced a rash of people driving their Corvettes at absurdly high speed and killing large numbers of innocents, it would be perfectly reasonable to decide that they don’t belong on the streets.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “If Corvettes were designed to go 200 miles per hour like a Formula 1, they would in fact be illegal.”

                Why? What law would they be in violation of? As it is there are vehicles that are designed to go close to that, legal in all 50 states. For something to be illeagal, it has to have some aspect that is against the law. Looking scary, having advertising that some consider offensive, etc. do not meet that catagory. In fact they are perfect examples of the first amendment.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m using the Constitution-is-not-a-suicide pact argument.

                Whatever moral logic underpins the right to own something, has to be balanced against the right to public safety.

                That’s why the 2nd Amendment covers semi auto, but not full auto, why the First does not cover incitement to riot, and so on.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Constitution-is/is-not is just a bunch of bull. What the Firearms Control Act of 1934 (FCA) did was create a tax stamp and law enforcement approval request system for Full-Auto, Short Barrels, and Silencers. This was due to gang activity. It did not outlaw anything (though that was its purpose DeFacto) And in the meantime states such as Montana have allowed its citizens to have some of these items, as long as they don’t cross state lines, which is what the FCA really was regulating. That is completely within the scope of federal power.

                And you can own Full-Auto weapons even in CA, you just need a tax stamp, and state approval. The movie business has specific exemptions for this. It simply requires a CADOJ descretionary permit. In other words, be connected.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Constitution-is/is-not is just a bunch of bull.

                I’m not sure what you mean here, but it gets me thinking….

                The idea that the constitution is NOT just a bunch of bull**** is best expressed (perhaps, in my view!) by one of two ideas: 1) that the principles upon which the constistooshun is founded are so obviously – or nearly obviously – true that they need do justificatory argument, or 2) that even if wrong, those principles constitute an essential, necessary cornerstone in the foundational structure upon which our Republic is built to the extent that undermining them entails a real and significant cost.

                Personally, I think each view requires argument. But that makes sense since I’m the kind of guy who thinks that reality isn’t really all that simple. 🙂Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                While I appreciate your argument that African-Americans in the South are being systematically disenfranchised by these new voting laws, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

                Fascinating.

                It’s got a lot of similarities with the “it’s (the current year)!” “argument”.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                While I appreciate your argument that African-Americans in the South are being systematically disenfranchised by these new voting laws, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

                WTF?

                Edit: I take it your rejection of libertarianism hasn’t compelled you to take off the Liberal Decoder Ring, eh?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, if I were playing “liberal decoder ring” games, I would have gone for changing out the word “Constitution” for “Social Contract”.

                As it is, I was mocking a particular argument, not a particular world view.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What argument were you mocking, Jaybird? It’s opaque to me. And I was the person you responded to.

                I mean, if you wanna have a private conversation with other Others out there, that’s fine. Otherwise I think some clarification of the argument you think you’re making is in order, since I have no ******* idea what the **** you’re talking about, and I’m the person you’re ******* responding to.

                🙂Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I apologize. I had intended to respond to Oscar (the comment currently below this one, the one timestamped 12:34) and not to you.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                For me!? Aww, you shouldn’t have!

                As I said below, it’s an Appeal To Emotion, a very bad one absent some very real threat to the republic. And yeah, I can totally see it applied to voting rights.

                Voter fraud is a big deal, the CINASP! We need very strict voter registration and ID to combat it.

                Whenever an “argument” works so well across so many topics, it’s validity is suspect.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh I love the Constitution is not a suicide pact argument! What a delicious bit of rhetoric to justify any and all manner of abuse!

                Torture violates the 8th amendment? Well the Constitution is not a suicide pact! We need that information from the terrorist!

                That police search violates the 4th Amendment? Well the Constitution is not a suicide pact! We need that evidence to put the bad guy away!

                You want to evoke the Constitution is not a suicide pact, you need to actually formulate something having even a whiff of an existential threat to the nation AS A WHOLE before you start deciding to weaken rights & protections because it leads to some bad ends.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure every possible argument has an absurd boundary.
                Which is why virtually every constitutional issues revolves around the idea of balance..Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                In your argument, your balance is using the wrong set of weights.

                But back to my point. For Constitution is not a suicide pact to be a valid argument, the topic at issue needs to represent an actual threat to the republic, or it is nothing more than an empty Appeal To Emotion.

                It’s a bad argument.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know how strong the lawsuit is, IANAL, and all.

                My target is the very idea that there is a legitimate purpose for these sorts of weapons, a purpose that elevates them to 2nd Amendment protection.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, semi-auto is old tech, been available to civilians for a long time. Everything else is just window dressing. They clearly fall under the 2nd.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Argh…both sides of this argument bend towards the silly. Lots of gun advertising, especially the Man Card stuff, does make gun owners look like bad stereotypes. That in itself is meaningless. Most advertising makes everybody look like maroons. Dumb advertising doesn’t’ invalidate or validate, for that matter, anything.

                But obviously style and tude and stuff matters to gun owners. Some choose guns because they are cool or look mean or whatever. That is just the nature of any consumer good. Style and look matters.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Which is why the pedantic no-such-thing-as-an-assault-rifle argument is so absurd.

                What are you talking about? There is absolutely such a thing as an assault rifle. And the Bushmaster AR-15 is not one.

                This is the second time in as many days that you’ve said that an empirically true statement is “absurd.”Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                The argument I’m referring to is that the military styled weapons are only cosmetically different than hunting rifles so attacking them is wrong.

                Its true, technically, but an absurd argument. The cosmetic military styling is precisely what attracts the mentally unstable to them.

                They aren’t really meant to be military grade weapons, they are only meant to mimic military weapons, for people who are not in the military.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “The argument I’m referring to is that the military styled weapons are only cosmetically different than hunting rifles so attacking them is wrong.”

                Sorta. 1) most “military style rifles” are in caliber .223, the same as the current military rifle. A .223 is not a great hunting caliber. Folks will of course quibble, but a .223 is good for small game and varmints. Yes, you CAN kill a deer with one. Better calibers for deer and for animals bigger-mule deer, elk, moose are 30-06, .308, etc. One of the reasons .223 is popular, other than being the same caliber as the military and thus getting the “taticool” stuff, is the ammo is considerably lighter, allowing you to carry more of it, and it’s a good “man size” caliber.

                “The cosmetic military styling is precisely what attracts the mentally unstable to them.” Citation?

                “They aren’t really meant to be military grade weapons, they are only meant to mimic military weapons,” I could be wrong here, but I expect that other than the selective fire option, and a few other particulars related to state/fed law, they are VERY similar to the current military grade weapons in terms of materials, accuracy, ruggedness, etc. Someone with more time with an AR-15 and an M-4 will have to speak more on that though.Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to j r
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ve run across the tacticool folks with more firearms than sense (at least, I deduce their lack of sense from their behavior at the range or shooting pit). Drawing a line from them to massacres is more Hollywood than anything, even if I do think such people are an issue in their own right (i.e. if they are reckless with a firearm at the range, they are going to be reckless with it elsewhere).Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Not all animal torturers become serial killers but almost all serial killers begin with torturing animals.

                Not all Man Card holders become Adam Lanza, but all Adam Lanzas crave a Man Card.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You do know that you are butchering statistics here Chip. Complete puree, just a data smoothe.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                but all Adam Lanzas crave a Man Card.

                That is going to require some manner of evidence to support. AFAIK, Lanza didn’t do it out of a sense of emasculation. I don’t know that anyone has any clear sense of his motivations, unless you got evidence to share with the class…Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Damaged Masculinity’ May Help Explain Columbine And Other Mass Shootings

                This story is actually coincidental, but there have been others like it, connecting spree killers to emasculation.

                Not every single one certainly, but enough to see a pattern.

                Enough to see how, in the darkness these young men inhabit, a “Man Card” that can strike terror into their enemies shines like a flame to a moth.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What does liberal psycho babble have to do with the price of tea or the 2nd amendment?Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s evidence? No offense, Chip, but it’s becoming clear in this thread that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

                As an aside, it makes perfect sense that the Washington Post would deploy the work of a psychiatrist in this case. Psychiatry/psychology is increasingly becoming the taxonomy of choice that we deploy in cases when we really have no idea how else to classify behavior. Which is fine, I guess, but far from meaningful or authoritative.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                The public image of the disturbed gun nut acting out his fantasies of power and revenge, of earning his Man Card was not invented by me.
                It’s on display splashed across a hundred Facebook pages for all to see.

                They even hold public gatherings, where they dress up in costume and brandish their reasonable tools of personal security, while they order a Frappucino.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                So… They are ren-faire fans?Report

      • Avatar Damon in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        Burt,
        I was not equating the poor writing with some anti gun agenda, although given the political leanings of the majority of journalists, it can’t be rules out. However, I attribute it to lazy journalism. After all, it took me 15 seconds to confirm via google what the definition of AR-15 and assault rifle was. If you’re too lazy to get your facts correct and have it go though editing/publishing as well, then your whole reputation / body of work is suspect.

        Not that this is a gun specific issue. Anyone with specific industry knowledge or of a craft, can often read news reports and realize the reporter had no clue about what they were writing. I believe you even had some posts about that on this site. Or it was Razanda or Popehat.Report

        • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Damon
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m just suggesting some things that might be in play other than an overt political agenda. Even if you accept everything I offer, that doesn’t rule out that indeed there might be bias in play too.

          I offer the ideas I do because there are many things out that which I too find infuriating. I’ve found wisdom in presuming attribution of such things to the imputed incompetence of others, rather than to their imputed malice.Report

  4. Avatar Will H.
    Ignored
    says:

    IN an on-going video project, I decided I wanted more women in it.
    To enhance the audio, actually. Children’s voices would have done the same thing, but defeated credibility.
    There are a number of trade-offs, but not on all occasions.
    In fact, on most occasions, there isn’t any significant trade-off.
    That said, there was a functional core which was immutable.
    Outside of the core is where the additions, substitutions, and trade-offs occur.

    And it doesn’t surprise me that the effect is immeasurable.
    Those additions, substitutions, and trade-offs yield a different set of strengths to build off of.
    Also, playing up a strong point often involves downplaying a weak point; i.e., an adjustment of strategy is called for, with different target points.Report

  5. Avatar notme
    Ignored
    says:

    If true, I’m quite surprised that such enlightened folkswould be upset at a unisex bathroom. If they can’t enjoy it what makes liberals think the rest of us want this?

    http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/19/transparent-transgender-bathrooms/Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *