responding to my own post -- I just thought of another local neologism (it probably wasn't all that offensive, but illustrative of the same point).
Those guys back in the 50's who wore their hair slicked back to a "ducktail," wore white T-shirts, black leather jackets, pointy Italian shoes with clips on the heels (Fonzie kind of dudes, only actually mean), were called "hoods" or "juvenile delinquents" by my parents. But in our town there was a diner called the "Strand Lunch" where these folks hung out. So our word, throughout my childhood, was "lunchers." "Don't buy those shoes, those are luncher shoes." "Hey, let's avoid that block...lunchers." "He's a real luncher."
I don't know, maybe we had a "neologism spouter" in my home town. Where do these things come from?
Count me as one of those who is personally irritated by these changes in the language that seem somewhat arbitrary. "Oriental" becomes "Asian" even though Asian does a much poorer job of defining what is being said. "Black" becomes "African American" - seven syllables replacing one, and yet I'm still "white." "Gals" is an insult, but "guys" is o.k. Etc. Yes, these things irritate me personally.
BUT, I'm all for 'em. When I hear people sneering about "political correctness," what I'm really seeing is a society-wide urge to -- are you ready for it -- be polite to one another.
At a nice sit-down white napkin dinner, they put out two forks. Because I need two forks? No. Isn't one fork more efficient? Yes. But it's just nicer, more polite, more refined to have two forks. Manners aren't silly; and they are not unnecessary. Manners, politeness, politics, the art of speaking in a sane fashion and then listening politely as other people speak in a sane fashion isn't just a weird add-on to our humanity. It is how we achieved our humanity.
So, the new terms can get a bit arbitrary and even silly, but if it has the effect of lessening offense and increasing the communication comfort zone, I'm on board. Did I really lose all that much when they took away my god-given right to use the word "retard" or "oriental"? Really?
glyph -- absolutely. (O.k., I am officially ashamed of this, but it's what happened...)
In my elementary school the mentally handicapped kids were in a separate classroom which was called the "opportunity class." So, my entire childhood, the insult word of choice for us sweet little children was "opp." "You opp!" "Don't be an opp!"
Honestly, to this day, when that syllable is used in current terms -- "black ops" or "ops manual" -- my brain goes right back to the third grade.
Chris -- thanks for the pointer to Pharyngula. I didn't spend much time there (it got pretty irritating pretty fast), but you answered my question above. I'll stick with "science is great and wonderful," but I've worked most of my life with scientists of one ilk or another and "perfect" isn't a word I would use in this context.
You know, just in the act of typing that, a thought occurred to me: the "great and wonderful" refers (at least to me) to the process and results of science itself, whereas the "perfect" brings it down to the individual human. No wonder the whole string of adjectives rang false to me -- they are meant to describe different things. Thanks again.
Chris -- a couple of questions. Can you point to some time when scientists "start thinking they can dictate policy"? Maybe our definitions/scenarios are different. A scientist addressing a senate committee or sitting in a meeting with the president and saying, "If we don't enact this policy, we will all die in flames by Thursday" (or whatever), isn't dictating policy. She is hoping to influence policy, I would think. To me, then, no problem.
Also: the "science is great and wonderful and perfect" crowd? Who the heck says that? Never heard it. Got a quote or link?
"Scientists are experts in science, and so they should do science. Policy people are, hopefully, experts in policy, and they should do policy." And smart policy people will listen very closely to scientists -- we don't need a separation of science and state. We need policy people smart enough to listen to well-researched and proven facts.
It's basically politics that we are talking about, right? We are not individual creatures who subsist by scraping grubs from under rocks -- we have decided as a species, and even as individuals, to live in groups: cultures, or societies, or tribes, or neighborhoods, or families, or countries, whatever. We don't go it alone. If folks like Damon feel "mugged" by taxes, there are wilderness areas out there filled with grubs and rocks -- but they never seem to leave here to go there and live free.
So, I'm content to say that we as humans pretty much agree to be part of something beyond ourselves, call it what you will. And since there is no possibility of any two, or more, human beings achieving an absolute agreement about all eventualities that come along, we construct ways to talk about them. Compromise, back-scratching, nit-picking, agreements. Politics, if you like. Civilization, if you will.
Now we've gotten into the gray area of argumentation where no one agrees totally with anyone else, and yet we still must work together to live in nice houses and be taught to read our nice books. Disagreements will abound. Let's say I don't like the idea of your annual festival to honor my town. But my neighbor says "It's a lovely town and I want my kids to appreciate its history." And the local business community or chamber of commerce says, "A festival will put us on the map and make us all better off." And the veteran's league says, "We need a parade to honor their service." And I say, "I disagree with this expenditure, given that the bathrooms in the school need servicing."
Argue a bit, some signs appear on lawns, citizens concerned enough go to a polling place and voila, I'm taxed for the festival. I still don't agree, but life continues apace.
And this happens, locally and globally, a whole heck of a lot of times and, if we do it right, the aggregate of all of those decisions works more to our benefit than not.
So as long as it is working in the Big Picture, then basically I can say, "Damon, you innocent young thing, you are not being mugged. You functioning as a part of a larger entity which has for more benefits to you that liabilities."
And for heaven's sake, I hope you never get mugged and learn the difference between that misfortune and paying your taxes.
damon -- fair enough. But let's turn it around a bit. What are you willing to force others to pay for? What are you willing to use the "tool (gov't)" to force me to pay for? (Possible answers: Defense; Police; Nothing; etc.)
It seems to me that unless you answer "Nothing," then you are in the same gray area of debate that most of the rest of us inhabit.
It is indeed called "visual communication" for a reason. You put up a picture of a person involved in a sex scandal; who is known publicly only for that sex scandal; who is an attractive young lady who has lot of words creepily attached to her (words concerning clothing and smoking materials, etc.) because of the hugely publicized sex scandal...so you're writing the word "SEX!" visually to sell your post. Good on you. Made me read it. (Even though you were really talking about politics). But don't get all huffy about it.
And I'm a filmmaker/visual communicator myself. Wanna compare IMDB pages?
Jaybird -- it's been a while, but if I remember correctly the main character of Starship Troopers, the book, was named Juan Rico and was from Buenos Aires.
Full disclosure up front -- I'm a Boomer, born in 1950. Teenager in the 60's constantly fighting with parents over hair length, pants cut, shirt patterns, language, idioms, music, politics. Hoo boy. I grew to be a slob with longish hair (what's left of it), a white-collar job funded by NASA, and I wear Hawaiian shirts, cargo shorts, and sandals to work every day (except when it shows -- then faded jeans and boots).
But here's a thing that struck me somewhere along the way: what if I were to have surgery and the doctor showed up in a tattered (though perfectly clean) T-shirt, cut-offs, and sandals? I have to say I prefer the scrubs. And not for any reason except it makes the doctor look more like a doctor. Bank teller -- same thing. Where's the tie? How comfortable would I be making a deposit with a person wearing a perfectly comfortable bathing suit?
Recently voyaged on the QM2 (which I cannot recommend highly enough. Wow!) Had to buy all sorts of fancy dress clothes. Good Lord, I now own a tux (my mother hasn't stopped smiling yet.) Tying my own bow tie, putting on the cuff links, slipping into the well-tailored trousers and formal jacket -- and then going down to a meal with a table full of fascinating people dressed in the same unnatural way -- was terrific. I was still me, but I was a cool, gentlemanly me. That was fun, but also an interesting exploration.
Kazzy -- no one really makes these rules, of course. They are societal constructs, but everything we wear, from tattered shorts to Selleck T's, is a communication. We put these things on knowing that others will see us in them and come to some conclusion. Add in actual conversation, attitudes, demeanor, etc., and you have built a public persona.
Individuals can dress and act however they please, but a gentle person (gentleman? lady?) takes the room into consideration. It isn't just about the "me" in a situation, it's about the "us." And my outward affect is a part of that equation. Gentlepeople consider others when making their personal decisions.
FemRex and I tend to walk the 2.5 miles to a local AMC-plex for the first show on either Saturday or Sunday (generally between 10 - 11). Early, cheap, rare rude audience members. Walk back, get home in the early afternoon in time for any chores or activities. We're old and fat so we no longer buy snacks; bring a couple of See's Candy lollies or a fiber bar. Downside? Not much, but I imagine the largely empty theater isn't real conducive to the shared audience experience that makes comedies work better.
When we both worked at UCLA, the routine was a 5 pm show on Friday after work in Westwood (where there are many big, opulent first-run theaters right at UCLA's doorstep).
Addendum: for the crap movies (aliens, no-star sci-fi, shoot-em-ups) that FemRex has no interest in, I go to a 5 pm show on Tuesday (before my trivia league) and load up on nachos or popcorn since she's not around.
Disclaimer: I'm a film goof. Majored in it. Worked in it -- have an IMDB page. All my favorite movies are good ones with no embarrassment factor, but I love going to see explosive junk and eat trash. Just sitting in the theater as the lights dim still gives me goosebumps (I'm in my 60s). What a nerd.
I guess everybody reads stats and gets something different:
"Estimated number of civilian owned guns...270,000,000"
My take: Jeez, anyone who is particularly worried about having their guns taken away is a goof. Get over it.
"Estimated firearm injuries...97,000"
My take: that number seems small to you? Really?
"Odds per gun...0.0036%"
My take: what does that have to do with anything?
Tell you what...send me $1,000 and I will personally guarantee (with a $10,000 warranty) that no jack-booted thugs will come take your legally owned firearms away. Address upon request.
Jeez.
(and for the record -- Marine Corps vet; hunter; I knows my firearms)
Kimmi -- go for it. My first job was as an orderly in an emergency room. Took some of my teenage thrill out of driving (and I never could do a motorcycle after that). Obviously, most people driving at high speeds get away with it. Good for them.
My mph numbers were somewhat arbitrary, just to illustrate my point.
And, of course, the vast majority of gun owners never put a bullet in another human being.
Mike -- Oh. O.k., well at least we know where we stand. We differ greatly -- I can off-hand come up with long lists of things that I don't think we should be able to own. Cheers.
"Why should I comprise my rights? Which one your rights are you willing to comprise on?"
Scott -- what rights? Nobody's saying you can't be part of a well-regulated militia. Sign right up and exercise the right that the 2nd amendment affords you.
But your context is a bit weird. Am I supposed to respond that I have the right to drive 95 and thus I'm compromising that right by agreeing to drive 65? If somehow I do have the right to drive 95 -- then I gladly compromise it. Myself and every other dope I see on the highway can't handle that speed.
Most of the regulations that govern my behavior in public don't seem to me to be restricting my "rights." And, without actually doing an in-depth comparison, I'm pretty sure that most regulations that I am subject to are generally fine with me. And it's fine with me to impose them on everyone else as well.
You want free speech, your own religion, habeas corpus, no soldiers bunking in your house, and the right to join a militia and carry a black-powder muzzle loader, then you've got no problem with me. Do your own study and see if any liberals at all have a different point of view.
Mike or Scott -- So here's a question. Where do you draw the line? Should any citizen in good standing have the right to purchase, own, and use any weapon of any kind whatsoever? If yes, o.k., I get it. If no, where do you draw the line? Do we actually believe the same things about laws restricting the possession and use of weapons, but just have different lines that we draw?
And for the record, I'm a Marine Corps vet, a liberal, and a person who lived in a dodgy neighborhood in L.A. for nine years. You bet your sweet life I would far rather have the gang members toting bolt actions rather than automatics. Cripes, were you kidding? And I'd rather have them toting knives than bolt actions. And flowers rather than knives. ;)
Speed limits -- people coerced into driving at or below a certain speed.
Zoning requirements -- property owners forbidden to build a MacDonalds next door to my suburban home.
Pilot and driver licensing -- people refused permission to operate vehicles without proper training and testing -- and vehicle inspections requiring minimum operational standards.
Educational standards -- families required by law to educate their children to a certain level -- and taxes collected (at the point of a gun ;) ) to ensure the education of all children.
"coerced" "forbidden" "refused" "required"
This list can go on and on. You benefit greatly from all of these coercions and you know it. Society benefits. These things are not dragging us down to this inevitable "net result" you're so afraid of. These coercions improve our lives every day.
And if we let the marketplace determine how these things work? "Well, if you don't like the teenagers driving at 100 mph, stay off the road." "Well, if you don't like the MacDonalds next door, move." "Well, if a family decides that their children shouldn't be educated past the third grade, who are we to argue?"
Your philosophical stance, as pure as it sounds, simply doesn't work.
You say: "It has been tried ten thousand times, for ten thousand years and every single time it leads to the same place."
Really? You live better, today, than 99% of all the humans that have ever lived. There have been plenty of bumps on the road, and we haven't all achieved the status that we should all have, but there has still been an overall constant improvement of the human condition throughout. And you think that this happened in spite of laws and regulations and governance?
I'll quote your favorite philosopher: "Check your premises."
"The powerful and the special interests will eventually take charge of the reins of government coercion."
Certainly. The analogy that works for me is medical: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The means by which the government (at least in this context) is subverted is the application of money, i.e., political power. Diminishing the untoward power of money to influence government sounds like a great place to start, rather than slashing at government after the fact.
"The solution is to minimize the scope and powers of government to the bare minimum."
You won't diminish the powers of government (in this context) without significantly diminishing the power of the money subverting it. And what is a "bare minimum?" To me, speed limits, social security, FDA regulations, building codes, and many other things I can think of are "bare minimums" that I want from my government -- and all of them are, to some extent, coercive.
And, concerning your final point about choice. We already has as much choice as possible (at least as defined by our current system). We can vote. And yet somehow the power inherent in money seems to affect that freedom quite a bit. Aren't most elections won by the biggest spenders? (At least politicians are driven by that belief.)
As I said, I like the "one person, one vote" thing, and I don't want to change that. But if and when it seems as if money is swaying that dynamic, it should at least be examined closely. How does money affect elections, how much of that effect are we willing to absorb, and what should be done to counter what doesn't serve us?
Maybe there are two things here that are being discussed as if they were one. Money is power. But there are different sorts of power. I have no objection whatsoever to a rich person enjoying the purchasing power of their money to the max. Big, shiny, cool -- buy it. I'm happy for you.
But as an admirer of the "One Person, One Vote" idea, I do not like the idea of the power of money giving the rich extra political power. I realize that it is probably unavoidable, but I don't like it much, and I would like to see that side of money's power diminished in some way. Even if it is unavoidable, I don't want a Rockefeller to have a bigger say in the functions of my society/government than I or anyone else does.
Unattainable ideal? Certainly. But so are a great many other ideas I see discussed here. Increased purchasing power, si! Increased political power, no!
How do we work toward that?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Touche”
I worked in a print shop for an area education agency and a lot of my jobs were labeled "Spec Educ."
I came up with a character for their pubs called: "Specky Duck." They never used it.
"
responding to my own post -- I just thought of another local neologism (it probably wasn't all that offensive, but illustrative of the same point).
Those guys back in the 50's who wore their hair slicked back to a "ducktail," wore white T-shirts, black leather jackets, pointy Italian shoes with clips on the heels (Fonzie kind of dudes, only actually mean), were called "hoods" or "juvenile delinquents" by my parents. But in our town there was a diner called the "Strand Lunch" where these folks hung out. So our word, throughout my childhood, was "lunchers." "Don't buy those shoes, those are luncher shoes." "Hey, let's avoid that block...lunchers." "He's a real luncher."
I don't know, maybe we had a "neologism spouter" in my home town. Where do these things come from?
"
Count me as one of those who is personally irritated by these changes in the language that seem somewhat arbitrary. "Oriental" becomes "Asian" even though Asian does a much poorer job of defining what is being said. "Black" becomes "African American" - seven syllables replacing one, and yet I'm still "white." "Gals" is an insult, but "guys" is o.k. Etc. Yes, these things irritate me personally.
BUT, I'm all for 'em. When I hear people sneering about "political correctness," what I'm really seeing is a society-wide urge to -- are you ready for it -- be polite to one another.
At a nice sit-down white napkin dinner, they put out two forks. Because I need two forks? No. Isn't one fork more efficient? Yes. But it's just nicer, more polite, more refined to have two forks. Manners aren't silly; and they are not unnecessary. Manners, politeness, politics, the art of speaking in a sane fashion and then listening politely as other people speak in a sane fashion isn't just a weird add-on to our humanity. It is how we achieved our humanity.
So, the new terms can get a bit arbitrary and even silly, but if it has the effect of lessening offense and increasing the communication comfort zone, I'm on board. Did I really lose all that much when they took away my god-given right to use the word "retard" or "oriental"? Really?
"
glyph -- absolutely. (O.k., I am officially ashamed of this, but it's what happened...)
In my elementary school the mentally handicapped kids were in a separate classroom which was called the "opportunity class." So, my entire childhood, the insult word of choice for us sweet little children was "opp." "You opp!" "Don't be an opp!"
Honestly, to this day, when that syllable is used in current terms -- "black ops" or "ops manual" -- my brain goes right back to the third grade.
My public apology to the world.
On “President Obama Reintroduces Himself”
Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0
On “Conservatives and Science”
Chris -- thanks for the pointer to Pharyngula. I didn't spend much time there (it got pretty irritating pretty fast), but you answered my question above. I'll stick with "science is great and wonderful," but I've worked most of my life with scientists of one ilk or another and "perfect" isn't a word I would use in this context.
You know, just in the act of typing that, a thought occurred to me: the "great and wonderful" refers (at least to me) to the process and results of science itself, whereas the "perfect" brings it down to the individual human. No wonder the whole string of adjectives rang false to me -- they are meant to describe different things. Thanks again.
"
Chris -- a couple of questions. Can you point to some time when scientists "start thinking they can dictate policy"? Maybe our definitions/scenarios are different. A scientist addressing a senate committee or sitting in a meeting with the president and saying, "If we don't enact this policy, we will all die in flames by Thursday" (or whatever), isn't dictating policy. She is hoping to influence policy, I would think. To me, then, no problem.
Also: the "science is great and wonderful and perfect" crowd? Who the heck says that? Never heard it. Got a quote or link?
"Scientists are experts in science, and so they should do science. Policy people are, hopefully, experts in policy, and they should do policy." And smart policy people will listen very closely to scientists -- we don't need a separation of science and state. We need policy people smart enough to listen to well-researched and proven facts.
On “Undecided No More!”
Well, that's embarrassing...who the heck is Jill Stein (95%)? Not to mention Rocky Anderson (68%)? I've got to do some research...
I'm 81% Barack and 3% Mitt. Which surprised me...thought I was a bit more middle-of-the-road.
98% Demo; 1% Repub -- again, much more B & W than I expected.
Thanks for the link!
On “I Have Outlived My Father”
jaybird -- My dad: got to age 45 with his malignant melanoma. I was 16.
My 40th (many moons ago): spent au naturel in a south pacific lagoon with FemRex. Lovely.
Your essay: Touching and valuable.
I mean: thanks.
On “What’s the Matter with New York?”
It's basically politics that we are talking about, right? We are not individual creatures who subsist by scraping grubs from under rocks -- we have decided as a species, and even as individuals, to live in groups: cultures, or societies, or tribes, or neighborhoods, or families, or countries, whatever. We don't go it alone. If folks like Damon feel "mugged" by taxes, there are wilderness areas out there filled with grubs and rocks -- but they never seem to leave here to go there and live free.
So, I'm content to say that we as humans pretty much agree to be part of something beyond ourselves, call it what you will. And since there is no possibility of any two, or more, human beings achieving an absolute agreement about all eventualities that come along, we construct ways to talk about them. Compromise, back-scratching, nit-picking, agreements. Politics, if you like. Civilization, if you will.
Now we've gotten into the gray area of argumentation where no one agrees totally with anyone else, and yet we still must work together to live in nice houses and be taught to read our nice books. Disagreements will abound. Let's say I don't like the idea of your annual festival to honor my town. But my neighbor says "It's a lovely town and I want my kids to appreciate its history." And the local business community or chamber of commerce says, "A festival will put us on the map and make us all better off." And the veteran's league says, "We need a parade to honor their service." And I say, "I disagree with this expenditure, given that the bathrooms in the school need servicing."
Argue a bit, some signs appear on lawns, citizens concerned enough go to a polling place and voila, I'm taxed for the festival. I still don't agree, but life continues apace.
And this happens, locally and globally, a whole heck of a lot of times and, if we do it right, the aggregate of all of those decisions works more to our benefit than not.
So as long as it is working in the Big Picture, then basically I can say, "Damon, you innocent young thing, you are not being mugged. You functioning as a part of a larger entity which has for more benefits to you that liabilities."
And for heaven's sake, I hope you never get mugged and learn the difference between that misfortune and paying your taxes.
"
damon - can this be re-phrased as "the use of force is always immoral"?
"
damon -- fair enough. But let's turn it around a bit. What are you willing to force others to pay for? What are you willing to use the "tool (gov't)" to force me to pay for? (Possible answers: Defense; Police; Nothing; etc.)
It seems to me that unless you answer "Nothing," then you are in the same gray area of debate that most of the rest of us inhabit.
"...now we are merely haggling over the price."
On “Why (things like) Paul Ryan’s marathon lies matter (to me.)”
It is indeed called "visual communication" for a reason. You put up a picture of a person involved in a sex scandal; who is known publicly only for that sex scandal; who is an attractive young lady who has lot of words creepily attached to her (words concerning clothing and smoking materials, etc.) because of the hugely publicized sex scandal...so you're writing the word "SEX!" visually to sell your post. Good on you. Made me read it. (Even though you were really talking about politics). But don't get all huffy about it.
And I'm a filmmaker/visual communicator myself. Wanna compare IMDB pages?
On “A Few Words on Bigotry”
Jaybird -- it's been a while, but if I remember correctly the main character of Starship Troopers, the book, was named Juan Rico and was from Buenos Aires.
"
drat -- "...except when it snows..." instead of "shows" in first para above.
"
Full disclosure up front -- I'm a Boomer, born in 1950. Teenager in the 60's constantly fighting with parents over hair length, pants cut, shirt patterns, language, idioms, music, politics. Hoo boy. I grew to be a slob with longish hair (what's left of it), a white-collar job funded by NASA, and I wear Hawaiian shirts, cargo shorts, and sandals to work every day (except when it shows -- then faded jeans and boots).
But here's a thing that struck me somewhere along the way: what if I were to have surgery and the doctor showed up in a tattered (though perfectly clean) T-shirt, cut-offs, and sandals? I have to say I prefer the scrubs. And not for any reason except it makes the doctor look more like a doctor. Bank teller -- same thing. Where's the tie? How comfortable would I be making a deposit with a person wearing a perfectly comfortable bathing suit?
Recently voyaged on the QM2 (which I cannot recommend highly enough. Wow!) Had to buy all sorts of fancy dress clothes. Good Lord, I now own a tux (my mother hasn't stopped smiling yet.) Tying my own bow tie, putting on the cuff links, slipping into the well-tailored trousers and formal jacket -- and then going down to a meal with a table full of fascinating people dressed in the same unnatural way -- was terrific. I was still me, but I was a cool, gentlemanly me. That was fun, but also an interesting exploration.
Kazzy -- no one really makes these rules, of course. They are societal constructs, but everything we wear, from tattered shorts to Selleck T's, is a communication. We put these things on knowing that others will see us in them and come to some conclusion. Add in actual conversation, attitudes, demeanor, etc., and you have built a public persona.
Individuals can dress and act however they please, but a gentle person (gentleman? lady?) takes the room into consideration. It isn't just about the "me" in a situation, it's about the "us." And my outward affect is a part of that equation. Gentlepeople consider others when making their personal decisions.
And know which forks to use.
On “Summer Movie Update”
FemRex and I tend to walk the 2.5 miles to a local AMC-plex for the first show on either Saturday or Sunday (generally between 10 - 11). Early, cheap, rare rude audience members. Walk back, get home in the early afternoon in time for any chores or activities. We're old and fat so we no longer buy snacks; bring a couple of See's Candy lollies or a fiber bar. Downside? Not much, but I imagine the largely empty theater isn't real conducive to the shared audience experience that makes comedies work better.
When we both worked at UCLA, the routine was a 5 pm show on Friday after work in Westwood (where there are many big, opulent first-run theaters right at UCLA's doorstep).
Addendum: for the crap movies (aliens, no-star sci-fi, shoot-em-ups) that FemRex has no interest in, I go to a 5 pm show on Tuesday (before my trivia league) and load up on nachos or popcorn since she's not around.
Disclaimer: I'm a film goof. Majored in it. Worked in it -- have an IMDB page. All my favorite movies are good ones with no embarrassment factor, but I love going to see explosive junk and eat trash. Just sitting in the theater as the lights dim still gives me goosebumps (I'm in my 60s). What a nerd.
On “Hunters and the NRA”
I guess everybody reads stats and gets something different:
"Estimated number of civilian owned guns...270,000,000"
My take: Jeez, anyone who is particularly worried about having their guns taken away is a goof. Get over it.
"Estimated firearm injuries...97,000"
My take: that number seems small to you? Really?
"Odds per gun...0.0036%"
My take: what does that have to do with anything?
Tell you what...send me $1,000 and I will personally guarantee (with a $10,000 warranty) that no jack-booted thugs will come take your legally owned firearms away. Address upon request.
Jeez.
(and for the record -- Marine Corps vet; hunter; I knows my firearms)
On “What were the odds that the worst thing associated with the name Fast & Furious wouldn’t be Vin Diesel?”
Kimmi -- go for it. My first job was as an orderly in an emergency room. Took some of my teenage thrill out of driving (and I never could do a motorcycle after that). Obviously, most people driving at high speeds get away with it. Good for them.
My mph numbers were somewhat arbitrary, just to illustrate my point.
And, of course, the vast majority of gun owners never put a bullet in another human being.
"
Mike -- Oh. O.k., well at least we know where we stand. We differ greatly -- I can off-hand come up with long lists of things that I don't think we should be able to own. Cheers.
"
"Why should I comprise my rights? Which one your rights are you willing to comprise on?"
Scott -- what rights? Nobody's saying you can't be part of a well-regulated militia. Sign right up and exercise the right that the 2nd amendment affords you.
But your context is a bit weird. Am I supposed to respond that I have the right to drive 95 and thus I'm compromising that right by agreeing to drive 65? If somehow I do have the right to drive 95 -- then I gladly compromise it. Myself and every other dope I see on the highway can't handle that speed.
Most of the regulations that govern my behavior in public don't seem to me to be restricting my "rights." And, without actually doing an in-depth comparison, I'm pretty sure that most regulations that I am subject to are generally fine with me. And it's fine with me to impose them on everyone else as well.
You want free speech, your own religion, habeas corpus, no soldiers bunking in your house, and the right to join a militia and carry a black-powder muzzle loader, then you've got no problem with me. Do your own study and see if any liberals at all have a different point of view.
"
Mike or Scott -- So here's a question. Where do you draw the line? Should any citizen in good standing have the right to purchase, own, and use any weapon of any kind whatsoever? If yes, o.k., I get it. If no, where do you draw the line? Do we actually believe the same things about laws restricting the possession and use of weapons, but just have different lines that we draw?
And for the record, I'm a Marine Corps vet, a liberal, and a person who lived in a dodgy neighborhood in L.A. for nine years. You bet your sweet life I would far rather have the gang members toting bolt actions rather than automatics. Cripes, were you kidding? And I'd rather have them toting knives than bolt actions. And flowers rather than knives. ;)
On “Questions for the Masses: An Inequality Open Thread”
Roger --
Speed limits -- people coerced into driving at or below a certain speed.
Zoning requirements -- property owners forbidden to build a MacDonalds next door to my suburban home.
Pilot and driver licensing -- people refused permission to operate vehicles without proper training and testing -- and vehicle inspections requiring minimum operational standards.
Educational standards -- families required by law to educate their children to a certain level -- and taxes collected (at the point of a gun ;) ) to ensure the education of all children.
"coerced" "forbidden" "refused" "required"
This list can go on and on. You benefit greatly from all of these coercions and you know it. Society benefits. These things are not dragging us down to this inevitable "net result" you're so afraid of. These coercions improve our lives every day.
And if we let the marketplace determine how these things work? "Well, if you don't like the teenagers driving at 100 mph, stay off the road." "Well, if you don't like the MacDonalds next door, move." "Well, if a family decides that their children shouldn't be educated past the third grade, who are we to argue?"
Your philosophical stance, as pure as it sounds, simply doesn't work.
You say: "It has been tried ten thousand times, for ten thousand years and every single time it leads to the same place."
Really? You live better, today, than 99% of all the humans that have ever lived. There have been plenty of bumps on the road, and we haven't all achieved the status that we should all have, but there has still been an overall constant improvement of the human condition throughout. And you think that this happened in spite of laws and regulations and governance?
I'll quote your favorite philosopher: "Check your premises."
On “There Is No 99%”
"The powerful and the special interests will eventually take charge of the reins of government coercion."
Certainly. The analogy that works for me is medical: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The means by which the government (at least in this context) is subverted is the application of money, i.e., political power. Diminishing the untoward power of money to influence government sounds like a great place to start, rather than slashing at government after the fact.
"The solution is to minimize the scope and powers of government to the bare minimum."
You won't diminish the powers of government (in this context) without significantly diminishing the power of the money subverting it. And what is a "bare minimum?" To me, speed limits, social security, FDA regulations, building codes, and many other things I can think of are "bare minimums" that I want from my government -- and all of them are, to some extent, coercive.
And, concerning your final point about choice. We already has as much choice as possible (at least as defined by our current system). We can vote. And yet somehow the power inherent in money seems to affect that freedom quite a bit. Aren't most elections won by the biggest spenders? (At least politicians are driven by that belief.)
As I said, I like the "one person, one vote" thing, and I don't want to change that. But if and when it seems as if money is swaying that dynamic, it should at least be examined closely. How does money affect elections, how much of that effect are we willing to absorb, and what should be done to counter what doesn't serve us?
"
Maybe there are two things here that are being discussed as if they were one. Money is power. But there are different sorts of power. I have no objection whatsoever to a rich person enjoying the purchasing power of their money to the max. Big, shiny, cool -- buy it. I'm happy for you.
But as an admirer of the "One Person, One Vote" idea, I do not like the idea of the power of money giving the rich extra political power. I realize that it is probably unavoidable, but I don't like it much, and I would like to see that side of money's power diminished in some way. Even if it is unavoidable, I don't want a Rockefeller to have a bigger say in the functions of my society/government than I or anyone else does.
Unattainable ideal? Certainly. But so are a great many other ideas I see discussed here. Increased purchasing power, si! Increased political power, no!
How do we work toward that?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.