That's an interesting point. Homicide is largely the work of poor folk, who mainly kill people like themselves. Mike's ancestors got drunk and killed fellow Irishmen. Mine got drunk and killed fellow Italians. It's probably true even in Louisville that most killers kill folks like themselves, for the simple reason that that is who they hang with and who get the opportunity to piss them off.
The "genocide" happening in our cities on a daily basis is ordinary crime, of the type we have always had, in which people mainly kill people like themselves. Nobody ignores it. It is the main business of the police, and in most major American cities, it has been going down steadily for decades. In many major cities, homicides are at lows not seen in the lives of people now middle-aged. Mass killings are a relatively new phenomenon, that springs from different causes, and will likely have different solutions, than ordinary homicides. I should hardly have to remind a conservative of the wisdom of Adam Smith. He attributed much of the material improvement of his time to the division of labor. Moral and social improvement also profit from the division of labor.
And you say, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it's racially-motivated. And you keep saying it after two mass shooters finally killed some non-white folks and got the same reaction other mass killers got. That's shameful.
Indeed it is. It always is. For all killings. But you're the one who keeps trolling about white victims, and that being why anyone cares about mass killings. This time, as well as in Dayton, it wasn't a big bunch of white victims. Look at who died.
We only seem to get worked up as a country when innocent white people are killed randomly with assault weapons.
Did you even look at who died in El Paso and Dayton? I had been considering a comment to the effect that the real tragedy after El Paso and Dayton was that you wouldn't be able to use that bit anymore, but decided it was in bad taste. Maybe not.
I now have an excuse to tell one of my favorite stories. Decades ago, I asked a Jewish friend of mine (at least I thought he was a friend) about the little black boxes -- tfillen -- that I had seen Jewish men wearing on their foreheads while worshiping. I asked what was in them.
My "friend" asked me if I knew the story of Abraham. In those days, I was pretty conversant with the Hebrew scriptures for a goy, so I showed off my ecumenical knowledge, including the bit about Abraham's covenant with G_d and circumcision as the symbol of that covenant.
My "friend" asked if I had ever wondered what happened to the foreskin afterward. I hadn't. He told me, with a straight face, that it was put into the tfillen so worshipers would be reminded of the covenant.
Made sense to me, and years later, as he probably knew I would, I recited this "fact" in mixed company, to predictable reactions.
If I ever find the sonofabitch again......
I think the exact opposite. While fellow faculty members would be right to come out and say that they don't approve of her statements, I think the right course for the institution is to say that she speaks for herself and not the institution. Full stop. As for teaching assignments, her "unwelcome ideas," to the extent that they are ideas at all, are not germane to any of the required 1-L courses she previously taught, so she has no more right to express them in Torts or Contracts than I would have to spend more than de minimis class time on the doings of the Philadelphia sports franchises. (In theory, a dean could tell me to STFU about that, period, and stick to my knitting, but no sane dean would bother over trifles.) If the Penn administration thinks, as it obviously does, that her expressed ideas raise a legitimate suspicion among students that she might not be fair to them, removing her from required courses, while keeping her on the books and teaching elective courses (which most faculty members prefer anyway) makes perfect sense.
When I was born, circumcision was the norm even among the goyim. (I was born in a military hospital, and suspect that the surgeons and the barbers trained together, but that's another story.) The reasons were sanitary rather than religious, obviously. And remembering my sanitary habits as a youngster, I was probably better off not having a foreskin. I think the first time I ever saw an uncircumcised penis was in a porno movie. While I don't doubt, veronica, that you know people who regretted circumcision, my own experience has been that nobody much cared, having nothing to compare it with.
For years I had a theory that most mass-media beer advertising actually helped Budweiser. The ads, for whatever brand, were largely generic celebrations of Beer As Such, not ads for the specific brand. I always thought such ads promoted the market leader, Budweiser, rather than the particular brand that paid for the ad.
The moderate Democrats — I use the term with some hesitation because Mayor Pete certainly had it right that the Republicans will paint any Democrat as a gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist — basically spent Tuesday night selling Moderation As Such, to the benefit of Joe “Budweiser” Biden, rather than their particular brand.
That is one of many reasons I pay them little attention, and focus on the small part of what they say that has factual (or potentially factual) content.
Another guy I have no problem with and would probably be more than fine. At this point I feel as though I'm living Keynes' comparison of the stock market to a beauty contest where the voters are asked not to pick the one they think most beautiful, but the one they think the other voters will pick.
I take it as given that, for better or worse, the Full Liz Agenda, like the Full Bernie Agenda, will not pass, and we will, at best, get some reasonable improvements in their respective directions. I treat the Full Agendas as opening bids, and decline to get into the weeds about the details of this proposal or that. The question for me is not so much what is in the candidates' position papers, but how they will restore honest, fact-based administration, who will staff up their governments, how good a job they will do on attaining what is attainable without leaving money on the table, and whether they can make America a grown-up on the world stage again. And, most important, can they beat Trump? Most of the candidates seem acceptable to me, none is my Platonic ideal. I wait and hope to see.
I'm not actually criticizing Yang. I don't plan on giving him any thought, positive or negative, until he shows some signs of gaining traction. But the question was what people who liked his policy positions but aren't going out and working for him might be concerned about. It isn't all about policy.
Because he's running for political office and hasn't shown that he knows how to do that job? People who vote or work in political party primaries tend to think politically. It's more than just position papers. Presidential candidates need to persuade voters that they could staff a government, haggle with legislators, show solidarity with a variety of voting populations, deal with foreign leaders, and so on.
To borrow from another thread: "Any generic Democrat or Republican will do 95% of that stuff, and the other 5% is often heavily dependent on Congress." For good or ill, the Full Bernie agenda is not happening, so critiques of the Full Bernie agenda are somewhat beside the point. For example, if the Democrats win, I predict that Medicare (and nothing else) For All isn't happening, but some fix with a larger Medicare component might.
Though I will vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination, he is not my preference by a long shot, not because his proposals differ so much from what I would like to see as that I don't think he'd be very good at the job of Presidenting -- either the running of the executive branch of government or the haggling with Congress to get what can be gotten. And he's too damn old. (So am I, almost. If I ever thought of running for President, 2020 would be my last chance before I, too, became too damn old. Supreme Court I could still handle, but that's unlikely too.)
I've re-read all the comments on that thread and don't see a single one that says, in words or substance, don't vote for Beto because he's a Republican. He is a fairly standard mainstream Democrat. To the extent that he has positions, they are standard mainstream Democratic ones. If he managed to catch on, which he hasn't been able to do so far, he would be broadly acceptable to a wide spectrum of Democratic voters.
KD's piece was all about how he seems insufficiently attached to whatever views he has to do get any nasty, Democratic things done, and that that, the prospect of not getting nasty, Democratic things done, was what was good about Beto.
It wasn't that Beto himself was a Republican, but that, in KD's view, he would not effectually get in the way of Republicans doing Republican things. Next best thing to an actual Republican.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
That's an interesting point. Homicide is largely the work of poor folk, who mainly kill people like themselves. Mike's ancestors got drunk and killed fellow Irishmen. Mine got drunk and killed fellow Italians. It's probably true even in Louisville that most killers kill folks like themselves, for the simple reason that that is who they hang with and who get the opportunity to piss them off.
"
The "genocide" happening in our cities on a daily basis is ordinary crime, of the type we have always had, in which people mainly kill people like themselves. Nobody ignores it. It is the main business of the police, and in most major American cities, it has been going down steadily for decades. In many major cities, homicides are at lows not seen in the lives of people now middle-aged. Mass killings are a relatively new phenomenon, that springs from different causes, and will likely have different solutions, than ordinary homicides. I should hardly have to remind a conservative of the wisdom of Adam Smith. He attributed much of the material improvement of his time to the division of labor. Moral and social improvement also profit from the division of labor.
"
And you say, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it's racially-motivated. And you keep saying it after two mass shooters finally killed some non-white folks and got the same reaction other mass killers got. That's shameful.
"
I have my own 10-point plan on gun regulation that can't possibly pass either. In its absence, I'll take what I can get.
"
The race of the victims is just statistics.
Indeed it is. It always is. For all killings. But you're the one who keeps trolling about white victims, and that being why anyone cares about mass killings. This time, as well as in Dayton, it wasn't a big bunch of white victims. Look at who died.
"
We only seem to get worked up as a country when innocent white people are killed randomly with assault weapons.
Did you even look at who died in El Paso and Dayton? I had been considering a comment to the effect that the real tragedy after El Paso and Dayton was that you wouldn't be able to use that bit anymore, but decided it was in bad taste. Maybe not.
On “Mayor Pete”
Get off of my lawn!
On “Who Are We Kidding? Vote for Biden”
Also, if you don’t wear it like Tulsi, don’t campaign in a white pant suit.
Maybe we can revisit the question I asked in the Harris thread.
On “Wednesday Writs for 7/31”
Poe.
On “Democratic Debates: The Moderates Strike Back”
Did something happen to a bunch of comments here?
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
That's a great joke. I almost inserted it into my story, but thought it would be too much.
"
I now have an excuse to tell one of my favorite stories. Decades ago, I asked a Jewish friend of mine (at least I thought he was a friend) about the little black boxes -- tfillen -- that I had seen Jewish men wearing on their foreheads while worshiping. I asked what was in them.
My "friend" asked me if I knew the story of Abraham. In those days, I was pretty conversant with the Hebrew scriptures for a goy, so I showed off my ecumenical knowledge, including the bit about Abraham's covenant with G_d and circumcision as the symbol of that covenant.
My "friend" asked if I had ever wondered what happened to the foreskin afterward. I hadn't. He told me, with a straight face, that it was put into the tfillen so worshipers would be reminded of the covenant.
Made sense to me, and years later, as he probably knew I would, I recited this "fact" in mixed company, to predictable reactions.
If I ever find the sonofabitch again......
On “Wednesday Writs for 7/31”
I think the exact opposite. While fellow faculty members would be right to come out and say that they don't approve of her statements, I think the right course for the institution is to say that she speaks for herself and not the institution. Full stop. As for teaching assignments, her "unwelcome ideas," to the extent that they are ideas at all, are not germane to any of the required 1-L courses she previously taught, so she has no more right to express them in Torts or Contracts than I would have to spend more than de minimis class time on the doings of the Philadelphia sports franchises. (In theory, a dean could tell me to STFU about that, period, and stick to my knitting, but no sane dean would bother over trifles.) If the Penn administration thinks, as it obviously does, that her expressed ideas raise a legitimate suspicion among students that she might not be fair to them, removing her from required courses, while keeping her on the books and teaching elective courses (which most faculty members prefer anyway) makes perfect sense.
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
When I was born, circumcision was the norm even among the goyim. (I was born in a military hospital, and suspect that the surgeons and the barbers trained together, but that's another story.) The reasons were sanitary rather than religious, obviously. And remembering my sanitary habits as a youngster, I was probably better off not having a foreskin. I think the first time I ever saw an uncircumcised penis was in a porno movie. While I don't doubt, veronica, that you know people who regretted circumcision, my own experience has been that nobody much cared, having nothing to compare it with.
On “Democratic Debates: The Moderates Strike Back”
For years I had a theory that most mass-media beer advertising actually helped Budweiser. The ads, for whatever brand, were largely generic celebrations of Beer As Such, not ads for the specific brand. I always thought such ads promoted the market leader, Budweiser, rather than the particular brand that paid for the ad.
The moderate Democrats — I use the term with some hesitation because Mayor Pete certainly had it right that the Republicans will paint any Democrat as a gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist — basically spent Tuesday night selling Moderation As Such, to the benefit of Joe “Budweiser” Biden, rather than their particular brand.
"
That is one of many reasons I pay them little attention, and focus on the small part of what they say that has factual (or potentially factual) content.
On “Booker Could Actually Be Good at the Job”
Another guy I have no problem with and would probably be more than fine. At this point I feel as though I'm living Keynes' comparison of the stock market to a beauty contest where the voters are asked not to pick the one they think most beautiful, but the one they think the other voters will pick.
On “Win it Warren”
I take it as given that, for better or worse, the Full Liz Agenda, like the Full Bernie Agenda, will not pass, and we will, at best, get some reasonable improvements in their respective directions. I treat the Full Agendas as opening bids, and decline to get into the weeds about the details of this proposal or that. The question for me is not so much what is in the candidates' position papers, but how they will restore honest, fact-based administration, who will staff up their governments, how good a job they will do on attaining what is attainable without leaving money on the table, and whether they can make America a grown-up on the world stage again. And, most important, can they beat Trump? Most of the candidates seem acceptable to me, none is my Platonic ideal. I wait and hope to see.
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
I'm not actually criticizing Yang. I don't plan on giving him any thought, positive or negative, until he shows some signs of gaining traction. But the question was what people who liked his policy positions but aren't going out and working for him might be concerned about. It isn't all about policy.
"
Because he's running for political office and hasn't shown that he knows how to do that job? People who vote or work in political party primaries tend to think politically. It's more than just position papers. Presidential candidates need to persuade voters that they could staff a government, haggle with legislators, show solidarity with a variety of voting populations, deal with foreign leaders, and so on.
On “The Case for Bernie Sanders”
To borrow from another thread: "Any generic Democrat or Republican will do 95% of that stuff, and the other 5% is often heavily dependent on Congress." For good or ill, the Full Bernie agenda is not happening, so critiques of the Full Bernie agenda are somewhat beside the point. For example, if the Democrats win, I predict that Medicare (and nothing else) For All isn't happening, but some fix with a larger Medicare component might.
Though I will vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination, he is not my preference by a long shot, not because his proposals differ so much from what I would like to see as that I don't think he'd be very good at the job of Presidenting -- either the running of the executive branch of government or the haggling with Congress to get what can be gotten. And he's too damn old. (So am I, almost. If I ever thought of running for President, 2020 would be my last chance before I, too, became too damn old. Supreme Court I could still handle, but that's unlikely too.)
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
I oppose extending Daylight Savings Time because all those extra hours of sunlight will fade my drapes.
On “Kamala Harris”
Yes, you did.
"
You have to answer for Santino.
"
I've re-read all the comments on that thread and don't see a single one that says, in words or substance, don't vote for Beto because he's a Republican. He is a fairly standard mainstream Democrat. To the extent that he has positions, they are standard mainstream Democratic ones. If he managed to catch on, which he hasn't been able to do so far, he would be broadly acceptable to a wide spectrum of Democratic voters.
KD's piece was all about how he seems insufficiently attached to whatever views he has to do get any nasty, Democratic things done, and that that, the prospect of not getting nasty, Democratic things done, was what was good about Beto.
It wasn't that Beto himself was a Republican, but that, in KD's view, he would not effectually get in the way of Republicans doing Republican things. Next best thing to an actual Republican.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.