First Holy Communion for the 6-yo tomorrow. He's making first confession today, and pretty psyched about it. I'm like, eh, give it a few decades and see how you feel... speaking of which, made my Easter confession for my Easter Duty. One of my legacy Greek Orthodox ideas I was using the pandemic to smuggle into the Catholic Church was the idea of fewer instances of communion, but greater preparation devotion beforehand. After a year of this project I can report the uptake in the Shenandoah Valley of this ancient discipline: 0.
More work in the woods this weekend... cutting windfall, clearing paths... enjoying the cool spring air as the forest flowers blossom.
Still can't find vaccinations in our part of Virginia... the tech failure here is par for my experience working with Govt. tech... but still pretty embarrassing.
I'll stipulate that Andrew is correct, this is just for show. Fine.
But honestly the comments are pretty terrible. The bill says right there on the front page that the filter can be disabled by an authorized user; if people wanted to argue that the device should default to YES Pr0N! ... fine. What I think is overlooked in all the snark is that Devices and ISP's are, in fact, 'conspiring' to thwart reasonable technology attempts from filtering.
I say this as a tech-savvy father who has tried lots and lots of tech: Web-browser filters? How dumb are those? 3rd Party Apps that monitor multiple browsers? Better, but easily circumvented. ISP Apps on Devices? Those things never work... and break after every update -- it's almost like they don't care about the results, just the additional $9.99/month to pretend something is happening. Router filters? Now we're talking... but guess what... the ISP's don't like DNS changes (because it robs them of some intel about your usage) so there are all sorts of subtle DNS wars going on that even I can't follow that cause your router based filters to randomly fail... or your ISP owned Filter to reboot/reset to default ISP DNS servers, and all sorts of 'shenanigans' that aren't simply the fault of hapless parents. ISP's: We weren't deliberately trying to break your filters, we just updated our firmware to provide you these awsome new features. Feature list: [null] And... phones don't use the Routers you have control over... they go direct to the ISP... which doesn't offer a filtering service. So your Router controls are kinda silly - when they work.
A Law (not necessarily this one) would do some of what this proposes:
1. Devices and Ecoystems have to build-in User based Security and not look to dump/break App level restrictions.
2. ISP's should filter traffic by law (and yes, the router based filters *do* filter for Violence or Guns or the other Snarky bullshit above) -- and by filter I mean offer user-based options and increase the metadata regulations of content providers to support this.
3. Failing ISP's filtering, then the law should favor 3rd parties filtering, and prevent ISP's from playing the games that they do play via Hardware and/or DNS wars.
Obviously, any law has to have auditing, adjudication and fines... and, as far as I can tell, the bill seems to have some concern for the fact that the devices have to have an audit trail of how the filters were set-up, who authorized changes, and when, etc. That's a minimum, and at a minimum it isn't ignored... I'm sure it could be reasonably enhanced to prevent frivolous lawsuits... but that becomes a Tech/Device/ISP engagement issue -- which they would do if they were looking a $10 fines per incident. Absent that? They don't and most tech really doesn't work... or works sporadically with constant vigilance.
At a minimum... as I've said in other threads when this topic comes up... I don't care if the default is ON or OFF... I do care that the Govt. does play a role in regulating the rules so that we can opt to turn it ON or OFF... and honestly, y'all are either blissfully ignorant of the tech games going on to make sure that PR0N data $$ are consumed or disingenuous, or worse. I am disappoint.
There are already background checks... the issue with background checks are the fact that there isn't shared data or a central clearing against which the checks can be made.
BUT... if we're negotiating... then let's make the National ID that we're checking the same thing you need to Vote and is also the Employment check.
I think Vikram put this on Twitter as one of those grand bargains everyone would object to... because at the end of the day, it isn't the background check it's the idea that there's a system that determine who's in and who's out. We just can't agree on the out groups.
I guess I'd think about it this way... if people who own guns look at them and look at what a sensible regulatory regime might look like and drive our own self-legislation, it would reduce the likelihood that negotiating from zero-sum - which is what kills any desire to discus any limitations because there's really no limit to the limitations desired.
The irony in this is to marginalize the negotiating partner that has no interest in negotiating - on both sides. The ultimate benefit is to us who know that the .223 is an anti-personnel round that shouldn't be in the hands of punters.
But sure, let's trade better regulated CC laws and reciprocity for 'shall-issue' laws with greater proof that the carrier is competent and qualified... a reasonable compromise for the 'well regulated' part without going full 'militia' requirement. Couple CC laws with guaranteed, standardized (and maybe expanded) Castle Defense for those who don't want CC.
But yes, I take your point that absent a reliable negotiating partner, what's the point of negotiating is a rational position.
Sure... ballistics people are their own special kind of weird, but the engineering behind ammunition and platform specs is very easy to regulate (if you know how it all works).
Ultimately the ammunition on the shelf (or not on the shelf) is the regulating factor.
Yes. It is quite clearly an approach that works on the margins; but working on the margins is the only approach that makes sense. And, further, one has to start with the margins that the opposition might be willing to concede on. I recognize that the secondary argument, that forcing spree shooters to use under/over-powered arms is a soft-mitigation argument in that we could never calculate whether the next spree that kills 10 people might have killed 14 were it not for the mitigation efforts... but I'm comfortable saying that the .223 round is a pernicious round that we should reduce access to.
I recognize that rhetorically I'm not going to go to the matt arguing I'd rather be shot by a .17 than a .223... but to Michael's point above, if we're doing weird "would you rather" scenarios, I'd rather be shot in the arm by a .17 than by a .223 than by my .50 muzzle loader... but then even if you could automate my .50 the act of shooting it and recoil would enable more people to scatter and run faster than a shooter could recalibrate - esp. these shooters who are buying their guns a week before their spree.
I take your point, of course, about handguns... VA Tech in particular is a horror story of trapped victims and point blank shots. Most all the lessons learned there were about lockdowns and egress. And most 'semi-spree' shootings are acquaintance/family killings with handguns for which this marginal regulation would have no effect. Which is to say, handguns are their own issue.
This is a concession I'd be willing to make recognizing that the .223 and that ballistic profile and platform lowers the bar too low... and the growth of the .223 market, you have to admit, is a real thing over the past 10-15 yrs. But yes, this small proposal isn't anything like a 'silver bullet' but it is something I'd be willing to concede that doesn't fall into the realm of aesthetics or the kabuki theater of divining intentions via background checks (that already happen).
If I, a gun owner, were to craft laws that would make spree killing harder I'd look at ballistics. The .223/5.56 (AR-15) is a pernicious round... the absurdly low recoil and efficiently lethal ballistics make it a fabulous anti-personnel round for military use around the world. I'd work with ballistics teams and gun owners to identify the band of existing (and hypothetical) rounds that make the .223 too easy to handle with no training.
It's a pretty big step-up to a .308/7.62 (AR-10...and maybe that should be included in the evaluation) that would make the firing platform just a bit harder to handle without training. It's the everything in-between that would need review and/or laws. And, ultimately, any round on any platform is lethal in any given situation... but I've seen enough to recognize that the .223 (and the like) should be taken out of circulation. You can't hunt Big Game with it in most states, the .17 is a better varmint round, and there are literally hundreds of other options for home defense that are better (or at least as good)... there's just no place for it outside of sport, military, or unfortunately spree. I'll admit its fun to shoot, sorry Sport shooters.
To be sure, my ol' 336 Marlin with simple 30/30 rounds is plenty lethal... but not in the way the .223 is.
Ballistics experts know what the design specs are... that's the expert you want designing gun legislation.
Handguns are, of course, the single biggest killer... but if we're controlling for a certain sort of spree, then it's the .223 that's really dangerous. At 20 paces, an untrained user won't hit what they're aiming at with a 9mm (most of the time)... but will with a .223 platform (most of the time) and will get off an accurate second or third shot. People vastly underestimate the difficulty of firing a pistol with accuracy at range (especially by someone who hasn't trained with it).
Something to think about... I'm less concerned about regulations around ammunition vs. regulations around the tools themselves. In any case, steel yourselves for endless discussions about the relative lethality of the 5.56 vs. the 6.8 vs. 7.62x39 or x51... vs. etc. At some point the line is arbitrary... but we who shoot know there's a line.
Well, I have a deep vein of hatred for all references. In my line of work it's the dumbest most tedious part of my job.
"Oh? You'd like to talk to one of my hand-picked references about the software that I'm picking them to talk to you about?" Three times?
Do you think you'll learn anything in this day of you-tube videos and tech-sites rating my software? I can see from LinkedIn that you are connected to about a dozen of my other customers... some of them like our software, some don't. You should check with your network, not mine. Or have you not updated your procurement process/spreadsheet from 1992?
For students? Increasingly I'm thinking that a simple testing regime plus a grade rating system (like WAR that accounts difference in ballparks but for grade inflation and school systems) plus a lottery system should be the new admissions regime (at least for state schools). Just pure luck based on minimal qualifications.
Oh, um, well, that should probably settle everything down...
"What there might not be much of a market for anymore is, well, you - college educated, urban, upwardly striving if not economically improving, woke, ironic, and selling that wokeness and that irony as your only product. Because you flooded the market. Everyone in your entire industry is selling the exact same thing, tired sarcastic jokes and bleating righteousness about injustices they don’t suffer under themselves"
... I can feel the waves of self-reflection and self-awareness washing over his critics as my keyboard clicks its mechanical clacks.
Public sins, private forgiveness, virtue/vice, actions/consequences... death, judgement, heaven and hell?
These are all things as old as dirt... it isn't that we get them wrong, but that I'm increasingly reading people who think they are getting them right. That's the distressing point; the point Ms. Bruenig tries unsuccessfully to make to the people who know they've figured out this who public morality thing.
My crypto-catholic thought for the day is that everyone should read the Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy and recognize that the only thing worse than penance is the lack of penance.
Sure... I think the pandemic has exposed some interesting issues in work/society. I suspect that some of what is happening with Schools and Teachers is a reckoning with a deep alienation between K-12 Teachers and the Profession of Teaching.
Not that Teachers don't like to teach, but that K-12 Teaching has become somewhat burdensome as an institution, and the hardship of remote teaching is somewhat less than the exposed hardship of institutional teaching.
Similar too with work vs. remote work. Not that folks don't miss some aspects of the community of work, but that working from home has exposed an unexpected level of alienation from work, in general.
But those would be examples of trying to solve social problems with biological tools.
Masks are a communitarian problem, vaccines less so.
The mask is the classic prior-restraint of my liberties so that your liberties my flourish, and thereby mine as well.
Vaccines are efficacious for *my* protection, so a rational libertarian position would be to get one and damn the others.
The edge case... which everyone is prematurely arguing... is what happens if we have really good vaccine uptake, but not perfect uptake. Do we care if 90% are vaccinated? 80%, 75%, 65%? Is coronavirus a smallpox event that requires eradication or a rubella event which suggests mitigation? At which point we're looking at further edge cases of herd-immunity with the possibility of folks who can't take the vaccine... what level of communal risk are we associating with that?
With millions lining up for vaccinations daily, over 33% vaccinated to date, and insufficient doses for the population wanting them... it's too soon to go full frontal on an (over-)aggressive vaccination policy that is better served by making the simple non-communitarian argument that it is in *your* best interest to get vaccinated. Get vaccinated, get back to life. The odd hostage taking I'm seeing in the public vaccination discussion is disturbing.
I think we are... I'm saying that Trump squandered an oppty for National Conservatism *and* Biden is squandering an oppty to make a case for a stronger National Health program.
Though, I suppose its possible to say that Biden isn't interested in Medicare for All or some such. In which case, fine, he's just running downhill on this whole Covid thing and indifferent to the oppty. In which case, similar to Trump, his indifference to things others in his party might care about is the thing squandered.
BUT... we aren't using the PANDEMIC as a reason to change how FDA/CDC/etc. approve Miracle Drugs that are doing miracles in the UK.
So... if the goal is to use the crisis to further a policy objective of more National Leadership in Healthcare... then show that change is better than Day-to-Day.
I mean, I don't think we're really disagreeing... just that if you write it out, it looks pretty obvious that we're just going to do the same-old-same-old and try to spin this as some sort of Biden policy win... but then wonder why people don't really credit 'The Win' the way we think they ought to. Especially when it gets trotted out as 'remember how we beat Covid... this is why we need National Healthcare'
I'm fine with Replacement-Level-Theory... if even Trump can deliver replacement level results... and Biden's 100M vaccinations in 100 days is literally the run-rate of Replacement-level-Trump on the day he took office. Then agreed... what's there to replace?
I see, that's a throw-away for what I take to be a self-apparent train of thought: Most everyone assumes that Medicare for all will be Medicare quality - which might be sellable to the 156M Americans who have Employer Insurance. And, it sounds like a possible upgrade to the 75M who have Medicaide.
But... if the proposal were to change from Medicare for all to Medicaid for All... or worse, VA for All... then you see support plummet.
Right now our Pandemic experience feels like a VA experience... the goal is to upgrade it to a Medicare experience.
Eh, Trump bought 100M doses of Pfizer and Moderna ... two totally unproven and new technologies... without care for cost (hey, it's other people's money)... or, really, safety. That's Trumpian.
August 11, 2020
"The U.S. government has agreed to buy 100 million doses of Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine for $1.5 billion, or $15 per dose.
Why it matters: The Trump administration, through Operation Warp Speed, has now bought initial batches of vaccines from Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi, Pfizer, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca before knowing whether they are safe and effective. The federal government also appears to own some of the patent rights associated with Moderna's vaccine."
On lots of levels, that's just stupid... and had it gone differently, so obviously Trumpian we'd be adding it to the list of things Trumpianly stupid.
Heh, barefoot is for the tree climbing and exploring/tracking... his (hand-)axe is real, but more of a narrow hammer than cutting implement, only useful for chonking rotting stumps; but yes, for that he's shod. Don't lose any sleep on our account. :-)
[LF2] Contrarian thought for the day... Just as Trump failed to build a response/program for the Pandemic that would have highlighted the benefits of a 'National Conservatism' so too is Biden failing to showcase why a 'National Healthcare' response would be more like Medicare (which people like) and less like Medicaid (which they don't) ... the vaccine roll-out highlights the fundamental gap between National policy and actual delivery... and worse, emphasizes the things people fear about Nationalized medicine... bad technology, centralized decisions that say one thing but do another, the obvious politicization in the name of non-politicization, and just bad execution - of, if you prefer, executing at the exact level of Trump while claiming to do something better than Trump.
Sure... it's perfectly fine to say: We weren't prepared for this, and we don't have a National Healthcare program... if only we did. My point is, this is the opportunity to impress... to win converts. The pandemic (among other things sank Trump) it risks setting back National Healthcare support. That's the trajectory... there's maybe time to turn things around but if this is an audition/opportunity for a National Healthcare response, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, a crisis wasted.
In the end, the heroes will be Capitalism, Big Pharma, Trumpian vs. EU Techocratic investments/control, and CVS/Non-Medical delivery systems. The *idea* that we'll want an EU type system to deliver health-care? Whelp... put that dog down.
On “Go Ahead and Take It”
I was gonna link you to some 30/30 specially designed point ammo I used last Deer season... but dang... it seems America is plumb out of ammo.
$1.00/round for 9mm holy shit.
"
No. Way.
Love the box mag... only thing I'm not wild about with my Marlin is the tube. I think I'll join you with the .243
On “Weekend Plans Post: Shaking My Head Like I’ve Napped Too Long”
First Holy Communion for the 6-yo tomorrow. He's making first confession today, and pretty psyched about it. I'm like, eh, give it a few decades and see how you feel... speaking of which, made my Easter confession for my Easter Duty. One of my legacy Greek Orthodox ideas I was using the pandemic to smuggle into the Catholic Church was the idea of fewer instances of communion, but greater preparation devotion beforehand. After a year of this project I can report the uptake in the Shenandoah Valley of this ancient discipline: 0.
More work in the woods this weekend... cutting windfall, clearing paths... enjoying the cool spring air as the forest flowers blossom.
Still can't find vaccinations in our part of Virginia... the tech failure here is par for my experience working with Govt. tech... but still pretty embarrassing.
On “Utah Strikes A Pose on Porn Filters”
I'll stipulate that Andrew is correct, this is just for show. Fine.
But honestly the comments are pretty terrible. The bill says right there on the front page that the filter can be disabled by an authorized user; if people wanted to argue that the device should default to YES Pr0N! ... fine. What I think is overlooked in all the snark is that Devices and ISP's are, in fact, 'conspiring' to thwart reasonable technology attempts from filtering.
I say this as a tech-savvy father who has tried lots and lots of tech: Web-browser filters? How dumb are those? 3rd Party Apps that monitor multiple browsers? Better, but easily circumvented. ISP Apps on Devices? Those things never work... and break after every update -- it's almost like they don't care about the results, just the additional $9.99/month to pretend something is happening. Router filters? Now we're talking... but guess what... the ISP's don't like DNS changes (because it robs them of some intel about your usage) so there are all sorts of subtle DNS wars going on that even I can't follow that cause your router based filters to randomly fail... or your ISP owned Filter to reboot/reset to default ISP DNS servers, and all sorts of 'shenanigans' that aren't simply the fault of hapless parents. ISP's: We weren't deliberately trying to break your filters, we just updated our firmware to provide you these awsome new features. Feature list: [null] And... phones don't use the Routers you have control over... they go direct to the ISP... which doesn't offer a filtering service. So your Router controls are kinda silly - when they work.
A Law (not necessarily this one) would do some of what this proposes:
1. Devices and Ecoystems have to build-in User based Security and not look to dump/break App level restrictions.
2. ISP's should filter traffic by law (and yes, the router based filters *do* filter for Violence or Guns or the other Snarky bullshit above) -- and by filter I mean offer user-based options and increase the metadata regulations of content providers to support this.
3. Failing ISP's filtering, then the law should favor 3rd parties filtering, and prevent ISP's from playing the games that they do play via Hardware and/or DNS wars.
Obviously, any law has to have auditing, adjudication and fines... and, as far as I can tell, the bill seems to have some concern for the fact that the devices have to have an audit trail of how the filters were set-up, who authorized changes, and when, etc. That's a minimum, and at a minimum it isn't ignored... I'm sure it could be reasonably enhanced to prevent frivolous lawsuits... but that becomes a Tech/Device/ISP engagement issue -- which they would do if they were looking a $10 fines per incident. Absent that? They don't and most tech really doesn't work... or works sporadically with constant vigilance.
At a minimum... as I've said in other threads when this topic comes up... I don't care if the default is ON or OFF... I do care that the Govt. does play a role in regulating the rules so that we can opt to turn it ON or OFF... and honestly, y'all are either blissfully ignorant of the tech games going on to make sure that PR0N data $$ are consumed or disingenuous, or worse. I am disappoint.
On “9th Circuit Ruling on Open Carry Laws: Read It For Yourself”
Walking right into Robert's Trap...
Some States:
Restricted Guns, Unrestricted Abortion
Other States:
Restricted Abortion, Unrestricted Guns
That's the Suez Canal of jurisprudence, motherf*ckers.
On “Shooting at Boulder Grocery Store Leaves 10 Dead”
There are already background checks... the issue with background checks are the fact that there isn't shared data or a central clearing against which the checks can be made.
BUT... if we're negotiating... then let's make the National ID that we're checking the same thing you need to Vote and is also the Employment check.
I think Vikram put this on Twitter as one of those grand bargains everyone would object to... because at the end of the day, it isn't the background check it's the idea that there's a system that determine who's in and who's out. We just can't agree on the out groups.
"
Sure, fair point.
I guess I'd think about it this way... if people who own guns look at them and look at what a sensible regulatory regime might look like and drive our own self-legislation, it would reduce the likelihood that negotiating from zero-sum - which is what kills any desire to discus any limitations because there's really no limit to the limitations desired.
The irony in this is to marginalize the negotiating partner that has no interest in negotiating - on both sides. The ultimate benefit is to us who know that the .223 is an anti-personnel round that shouldn't be in the hands of punters.
But sure, let's trade better regulated CC laws and reciprocity for 'shall-issue' laws with greater proof that the carrier is competent and qualified... a reasonable compromise for the 'well regulated' part without going full 'militia' requirement. Couple CC laws with guaranteed, standardized (and maybe expanded) Castle Defense for those who don't want CC.
But yes, I take your point that absent a reliable negotiating partner, what's the point of negotiating is a rational position.
"
Sure... ballistics people are their own special kind of weird, but the engineering behind ammunition and platform specs is very easy to regulate (if you know how it all works).
Ultimately the ammunition on the shelf (or not on the shelf) is the regulating factor.
"
Yes. It is quite clearly an approach that works on the margins; but working on the margins is the only approach that makes sense. And, further, one has to start with the margins that the opposition might be willing to concede on. I recognize that the secondary argument, that forcing spree shooters to use under/over-powered arms is a soft-mitigation argument in that we could never calculate whether the next spree that kills 10 people might have killed 14 were it not for the mitigation efforts... but I'm comfortable saying that the .223 round is a pernicious round that we should reduce access to.
I recognize that rhetorically I'm not going to go to the matt arguing I'd rather be shot by a .17 than a .223... but to Michael's point above, if we're doing weird "would you rather" scenarios, I'd rather be shot in the arm by a .17 than by a .223 than by my .50 muzzle loader... but then even if you could automate my .50 the act of shooting it and recoil would enable more people to scatter and run faster than a shooter could recalibrate - esp. these shooters who are buying their guns a week before their spree.
I take your point, of course, about handguns... VA Tech in particular is a horror story of trapped victims and point blank shots. Most all the lessons learned there were about lockdowns and egress. And most 'semi-spree' shootings are acquaintance/family killings with handguns for which this marginal regulation would have no effect. Which is to say, handguns are their own issue.
This is a concession I'd be willing to make recognizing that the .223 and that ballistic profile and platform lowers the bar too low... and the growth of the .223 market, you have to admit, is a real thing over the past 10-15 yrs. But yes, this small proposal isn't anything like a 'silver bullet' but it is something I'd be willing to concede that doesn't fall into the realm of aesthetics or the kabuki theater of divining intentions via background checks (that already happen).
"
If I, a gun owner, were to craft laws that would make spree killing harder I'd look at ballistics. The .223/5.56 (AR-15) is a pernicious round... the absurdly low recoil and efficiently lethal ballistics make it a fabulous anti-personnel round for military use around the world. I'd work with ballistics teams and gun owners to identify the band of existing (and hypothetical) rounds that make the .223 too easy to handle with no training.
It's a pretty big step-up to a .308/7.62 (AR-10...and maybe that should be included in the evaluation) that would make the firing platform just a bit harder to handle without training. It's the everything in-between that would need review and/or laws. And, ultimately, any round on any platform is lethal in any given situation... but I've seen enough to recognize that the .223 (and the like) should be taken out of circulation. You can't hunt Big Game with it in most states, the .17 is a better varmint round, and there are literally hundreds of other options for home defense that are better (or at least as good)... there's just no place for it outside of sport, military, or unfortunately spree. I'll admit its fun to shoot, sorry Sport shooters.
To be sure, my ol' 336 Marlin with simple 30/30 rounds is plenty lethal... but not in the way the .223 is.
Ballistics experts know what the design specs are... that's the expert you want designing gun legislation.
Handguns are, of course, the single biggest killer... but if we're controlling for a certain sort of spree, then it's the .223 that's really dangerous. At 20 paces, an untrained user won't hit what they're aiming at with a 9mm (most of the time)... but will with a .223 platform (most of the time) and will get off an accurate second or third shot. People vastly underestimate the difficulty of firing a pistol with accuracy at range (especially by someone who hasn't trained with it).
Something to think about... I'm less concerned about regulations around ammunition vs. regulations around the tools themselves. In any case, steel yourselves for endless discussions about the relative lethality of the 5.56 vs. the 6.8 vs. 7.62x39 or x51... vs. etc. At some point the line is arbitrary... but we who shoot know there's a line.
On “You Thought The 2020 Elections Were Over? Pffff….”
Norms were broken...
But I had a similar thought; for a single seat in Iowa?
On “Game of Thrones: GRRM, Fan Fiction, and the Pearls of Irritated Oysters”
Peter Jackson is bad fanfic.
Send tweet.
On “Within the Sarcophagus of Virtue”
Well, I have a deep vein of hatred for all references. In my line of work it's the dumbest most tedious part of my job.
"Oh? You'd like to talk to one of my hand-picked references about the software that I'm picking them to talk to you about?" Three times?
Do you think you'll learn anything in this day of you-tube videos and tech-sites rating my software? I can see from LinkedIn that you are connected to about a dozen of my other customers... some of them like our software, some don't. You should check with your network, not mine. Or have you not updated your procurement process/spreadsheet from 1992?
For students? Increasingly I'm thinking that a simple testing regime plus a grade rating system (like WAR that accounts difference in ballparks but for grade inflation and school systems) plus a lottery system should be the new admissions regime (at least for state schools). Just pure luck based on minimal qualifications.
"
Oh, um, well, that should probably settle everything down...
"What there might not be much of a market for anymore is, well, you - college educated, urban, upwardly striving if not economically improving, woke, ironic, and selling that wokeness and that irony as your only product. Because you flooded the market. Everyone in your entire industry is selling the exact same thing, tired sarcastic jokes and bleating righteousness about injustices they don’t suffer under themselves"
... I can feel the waves of self-reflection and self-awareness washing over his critics as my keyboard clicks its mechanical clacks.
"
Public sins, private forgiveness, virtue/vice, actions/consequences... death, judgement, heaven and hell?
These are all things as old as dirt... it isn't that we get them wrong, but that I'm increasingly reading people who think they are getting them right. That's the distressing point; the point Ms. Bruenig tries unsuccessfully to make to the people who know they've figured out this who public morality thing.
My crypto-catholic thought for the day is that everyone should read the Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy and recognize that the only thing worse than penance is the lack of penance.
On “What Does Getting Vaccinated Have To Do With Freedom?”
Sure... I think the pandemic has exposed some interesting issues in work/society. I suspect that some of what is happening with Schools and Teachers is a reckoning with a deep alienation between K-12 Teachers and the Profession of Teaching.
Not that Teachers don't like to teach, but that K-12 Teaching has become somewhat burdensome as an institution, and the hardship of remote teaching is somewhat less than the exposed hardship of institutional teaching.
Similar too with work vs. remote work. Not that folks don't miss some aspects of the community of work, but that working from home has exposed an unexpected level of alienation from work, in general.
But those would be examples of trying to solve social problems with biological tools.
"
Masks are a communitarian problem, vaccines less so.
The mask is the classic prior-restraint of my liberties so that your liberties my flourish, and thereby mine as well.
Vaccines are efficacious for *my* protection, so a rational libertarian position would be to get one and damn the others.
The edge case... which everyone is prematurely arguing... is what happens if we have really good vaccine uptake, but not perfect uptake. Do we care if 90% are vaccinated? 80%, 75%, 65%? Is coronavirus a smallpox event that requires eradication or a rubella event which suggests mitigation? At which point we're looking at further edge cases of herd-immunity with the possibility of folks who can't take the vaccine... what level of communal risk are we associating with that?
With millions lining up for vaccinations daily, over 33% vaccinated to date, and insufficient doses for the population wanting them... it's too soon to go full frontal on an (over-)aggressive vaccination policy that is better served by making the simple non-communitarian argument that it is in *your* best interest to get vaccinated. Get vaccinated, get back to life. The odd hostage taking I'm seeing in the public vaccination discussion is disturbing.
On “Linky Friday: Hot, Cold, and Lukewarm Mess Edition”
I think we are... I'm saying that Trump squandered an oppty for National Conservatism *and* Biden is squandering an oppty to make a case for a stronger National Health program.
Though, I suppose its possible to say that Biden isn't interested in Medicare for All or some such. In which case, fine, he's just running downhill on this whole Covid thing and indifferent to the oppty. In which case, similar to Trump, his indifference to things others in his party might care about is the thing squandered.
"
Oops, misthreaded add-on to the InMD line.
"
But we have 100s of Millions of doses of a Miracle Vaccine that the EU could have had, but doesn't.
We even have 10's of Millions of the AZ vaccine that is working wonders in the UK!
BUT... we aren't using the PANDEMIC as a reason to change how FDA/CDC/etc. approve Miracle Drugs that are doing miracles in the UK.
So... if the goal is to use the crisis to further a policy objective of more National Leadership in Healthcare... then show that change is better than Day-to-Day.
I mean, I don't think we're really disagreeing... just that if you write it out, it looks pretty obvious that we're just going to do the same-old-same-old and try to spin this as some sort of Biden policy win... but then wonder why people don't really credit 'The Win' the way we think they ought to. Especially when it gets trotted out as 'remember how we beat Covid... this is why we need National Healthcare'
"
I'm fine with Replacement-Level-Theory... if even Trump can deliver replacement level results... and Biden's 100M vaccinations in 100 days is literally the run-rate of Replacement-level-Trump on the day he took office. Then agreed... what's there to replace?
"
I see, that's a throw-away for what I take to be a self-apparent train of thought: Most everyone assumes that Medicare for all will be Medicare quality - which might be sellable to the 156M Americans who have Employer Insurance. And, it sounds like a possible upgrade to the 75M who have Medicaide.
But... if the proposal were to change from Medicare for all to Medicaid for All... or worse, VA for All... then you see support plummet.
Right now our Pandemic experience feels like a VA experience... the goal is to upgrade it to a Medicare experience.
"
Eh, Trump bought 100M doses of Pfizer and Moderna ... two totally unproven and new technologies... without care for cost (hey, it's other people's money)... or, really, safety. That's Trumpian.
August 11, 2020
"The U.S. government has agreed to buy 100 million doses of Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine for $1.5 billion, or $15 per dose.
Why it matters: The Trump administration, through Operation Warp Speed, has now bought initial batches of vaccines from Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi, Pfizer, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca before knowing whether they are safe and effective. The federal government also appears to own some of the patent rights associated with Moderna's vaccine."
On lots of levels, that's just stupid... and had it gone differently, so obviously Trumpian we'd be adding it to the list of things Trumpianly stupid.
On “Weekend Plans Post: A Year Of Quarantine”
Heh, barefoot is for the tree climbing and exploring/tracking... his (hand-)axe is real, but more of a narrow hammer than cutting implement, only useful for chonking rotting stumps; but yes, for that he's shod. Don't lose any sleep on our account. :-)
On “Linky Friday: Hot, Cold, and Lukewarm Mess Edition”
[LF2] Contrarian thought for the day... Just as Trump failed to build a response/program for the Pandemic that would have highlighted the benefits of a 'National Conservatism' so too is Biden failing to showcase why a 'National Healthcare' response would be more like Medicare (which people like) and less like Medicaid (which they don't) ... the vaccine roll-out highlights the fundamental gap between National policy and actual delivery... and worse, emphasizes the things people fear about Nationalized medicine... bad technology, centralized decisions that say one thing but do another, the obvious politicization in the name of non-politicization, and just bad execution - of, if you prefer, executing at the exact level of Trump while claiming to do something better than Trump.
Sure... it's perfectly fine to say: We weren't prepared for this, and we don't have a National Healthcare program... if only we did. My point is, this is the opportunity to impress... to win converts. The pandemic (among other things sank Trump) it risks setting back National Healthcare support. That's the trajectory... there's maybe time to turn things around but if this is an audition/opportunity for a National Healthcare response, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, a crisis wasted.
In the end, the heroes will be Capitalism, Big Pharma, Trumpian vs. EU Techocratic investments/control, and CVS/Non-Medical delivery systems. The *idea* that we'll want an EU type system to deliver health-care? Whelp... put that dog down.