We recently saw how Utah was moving toward the establishment of the M1911 as the first official state gun. Now, Arizona is aiming to beat Utah to the prize by naming the Colt single-action Army revolver as its official state gun.
Over 40 Arizona state legislators have called for the establishment of the state gun.
Here is the full bill as far as I can tell:
State of Arizona
Senate
Fiftieth Legislature
First Regular Session
2011SB 1610
Introduced by
Senators Gould, Pearce R, Smith; Representatives Burges, Forese, Gowan, Harper, Kavanagh, Montenegro, Proud, Seel, Smith D: Senators Allen, Antenori, Biggs, Griffin, Klein, Melvin, Murphy, Nelson, Pierce S, Shooter; Representatives Barton, Brophy McGee, Crandell, Dial, Fann, Farnsworth, Fillmore, Goodale, Gray R, Jones, Judd, Lesko, Olson, Patterson, Robson, Stevens, Ugenti, Urie, Vogt, Weiers J, Yee (with permission of Committee on Rules)AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 4.1, ARTICLE 5, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-860.02; RELATING TO STATE EMBLEMS.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 41, chapter 4.1, article 5, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-860.02, to read:
41-860.02. State firearm
THE COLT SINGLE ACTION ARMY REVOLVER IS THE OFFICIAL STATE FIREARM.
Source: New Times found on Reddit.
Or to put it in even simpler, less detailed form, if humans were perfect, then there would be no need for dispute resolution as a matter of the operation of nature. Even human perfection would not guarantee an end to adversity as reasonable (the key word being “reasonable”) people can disagree given the proper circumstance for disagreement that may not have arisen by the purposeful actions of said perfect beings. Since humans are not divine beings and ergo imperfect, the subject is moot. You have to deal with nature as you find it. You’ll no more stop humans from being adverse by removing the underpinnings of a system designed to reign in the negative potential consequences of adversity – legalism that reflects the reality of adverse situations – than you would stop a tiger from being a tiger by bleaching off his stripes. But you can build a wall that keeps most tigers out of the village. The wall civilization builds to keep out tyranny of the strong over the weak is legalism with due process. Tearing down that wall – what you advocate – merely invites the tigers in without restraint.
AZ’s tolerant and compassionate legislature is at it again:
Arizona immigration bills aim for bigger crackdown
State senators submit wide range of bills targeting illegal migrants
by Alia Beard Rau – Feb. 23, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
.
The nation’s immigration battle returned to the state Capitol on Tuesday as a key legislative committee passed two major bills that could significantly impact illegal immigrants living in Arizona.
The Senate Appropriations Committee became the first state legislative committee in the nation to pass a package of bills intended to challenge the practice of granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
It also approved an “omnibus” bill that would prevent undocumented children from attending school, prohibit illegal immigrants from driving or buying a vehicle and deny illegal immigrants the ability to obtain a marriage license in Arizona.
Hundreds of protesters and supporters gathered outside the chambers Tuesday while dozens waited late into the night to speak to lawmakers.
Late Tuesday, the committee had still not heard two remaining immigration-related bills, including one that would force hospitals to ask about citizenship status at some point during admission or treatment.
The bills before the Senate Appropriations Committee would alter citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizens, prevent undocumented children from attending school, prohibit illegal immigrants from driving or purchasing a vehicle and force hospitals to ask about citizenship before providing medical care.
Late Tuesday, the committee advanced two of the bills, becoming the first state legislative committee in the nation to pass legislation intended to challenge the practice of granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
Committee members voted 8-5 to approve a controversial package of bills, which would challenge the 14th Amendment interpretation about citizenship.
Senate Bill 1308 seeks permission from Congress to set up a system in which states can create separate birth certificates for children who meet a new definition of a citizen and those who do not. SB 1309 creates that new definition of citizen, defining children as citizens of Arizona and the U.S. if at least one of their parents was either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent U.S. resident.
The two bills now go to a vote of the full Senate.
The immigration bills — some of which were added to the agenda at the last minute — were sent to this committee by Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, because its Republican members are the Senate’s most conservative.
But the committee is the first step in a long process, and the bills’ ultimate fate is unclear. They still need the support of a majority of the full Senate, a House committee and the full House before reaching the governor or becoming law.
Public surveys indicate many Arizonans support increased efforts to combat illegal immigration, and many political experts say Brewer’s decision to sign another immigration bill, Senate Bill 1070, helped keep her in office and elect many of the conservative lawmakers now supporting this new crop of bills.
But Democrats and some more moderate Republicans say the bills distract from the state’s efforts to attract jobs and restore the economy.
“We recognize the concern that individuals have in Arizona about the undocumented-worker problem and the costs to the state government,” said Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson. “But if jobs are our focus, if the economy and turning our economy around in Arizona is what’s critical, these immigration bills don’t do it. They hurt our image.”
Birthright debate
The legislative sponsors of the birthright-citizenship bills have said the goal is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, the primary sponsor of the Senate bills aimed at challenging the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, said at least one parent of all children born in Arizona would have to prove their legal status under the bill.
“It won’t be any more difficult than their parents proving they are eligible to vote in Arizona,” Gould said.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, disagreed, saying the bill may deny citizenship to children born to parents who both have dual citizenship and owe allegiance to the U.S. and a foreign country.
Brenda Rascon, a Mesa resident and biology doctoral student, spoke against the bill.
“I reject your policies, which I find rationally and morally insulting,” she said. “Do not undermine the Constitution.”
Valerie Roller, Republican chairwoman of Legislative District 14 in Phoenix, supported the bill.
“We should never give away something as valuable as our American citizenship cheaply,” she said.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce opposed the bills, saying the matter needs to be addressed at the federal level.
“I don’t think anyone can make the argument that Arizona is the right place to discuss the meaning of the 14th Amendment,” Arizona Chamber CEO Glenn Hamer said. “This will put Arizona through another trial and hurt innocent businesspeople who are just trying to get ahead.”
Gould accused Hamer’s organization of being “open border because you like cheap labor.”
Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, was the only Republican to vote no on the pair of bills. He said he doesn’t believe the dozen or so other states considering similar bills will actually pass them, leaving Arizona standing alone again, referring to Arizona’s tough immigration measure, Senate Bill 1070.
“This is not a conversation about what the intent was of a conversation that happened over 200 years ago,” Crandall said. “This is a vote about whether we are going to be the first and only state to have two birth certificates.”
Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, voted for the bill, asking how long Arizona should wait for the federal government to take up the issue before giving up and trying to fix the issue itself.
Omnibus
Senate Bill 1611, which Pearce introduced about 24 hours before the hearing, passed on a 7-6 vote. Among other things, the “omnibus” bill would make it a crime for illegal immigrants to drive in Arizona, require proof of citizenship to enroll in K-12 public or private schools as well as community colleges and universities, and ban illegal immigrants from buying a vehicle.
Pearce said his bill does not contain new ideas but strengthens existing laws.
“It tightens up the laws and makes sure illegal is illegal,” Pearce said. “This is about protection of the taxpayer.”
Sinema objected, saying the bill includes 16 substantive changes, many of which are similar to bills Pearce has unsuccessfully proposed in prior years.
Crandall voted against the measure, saying he was concerned about the bill’s effect on tourism.
“This is not what we stand for,” he said. “We don’t want people to fly in for a big golf tournament or auto auction and have to bring their birth certificate. I think we’re better than this.”
Committee Chairman Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, voted for the measure.
“We need to have the moral courage to deal with this issue when there’s a vacuum at the federal level,” he said.
However, Biggs also said he had concerns about some of the language and would work with Pearce to address those issues.
Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday said she had not yet read the bill and declined to say whether she would support it.
“I’ll be watching and listening and learning as it moves through the process,” Brewer said.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/23/20110223arizona-immigration-bills-controversy.html#ixzz1Eo4RfmzB
Brewer’s so full of horse manure, her baby blues are turning brown. I can guarantee she is just itching to sign this bill.
“The Adversarial Process totally precluded and prevented:”
The Adversarial Process is irrelevant when you are simply trying to scapegoat your own inadequate understanding and purposeful lies about history by blaming, once again, the Adversarial Process for anything and everything you can think of from adversity itself (a natural byproduct of the interaction of human with each other and their environment) to child abuse (which is manifest nonsense as child abuse is not about the attacker trying to force the adversarial principle upon the victim).
“1. There ever being any Sumerian warriors in phalanx.”
So what? Battlefield tactics have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
“2. The making of iron weapons as mapped on page 142.”
Sorry, but the iron age did happen. However, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate.
“3. The ‘war of liberation” described on page 145.”
Again, a lack of specificity. And again, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate. That the application of due process via the adversarial mode is not perfect in preventing wars is irrelevant. It prevents conflict as a general rule and system as it is inherently a replacement for the violence of self-help including war.
“4. The battle of Marathon.”
Neither precluded nor prevented, the Battle of Marathon is historical fact. The cause was not the Adversarial principle as applied to legalism. It was started when Persians invaded Greece.
“5. The wars mentioned on page 401, “So began the most wasteful and disastrous series of wars that has ever darkened the history of mankind” is false because The Adversarial Process precluded them.”
Again, a lack of specificity. And again, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate.
“6. The U.S. Civil War never happened”
Simply bullshit. The cause was not the Adversarial principle as applied to legalism. It was adversity created by natural consequence of the South attacking the North to preserve their slave culture under the guise of state’s rights.
“7. World War I never happened” Also simply bullshit. The cause was not the Adversarial principle as applied to legalism. It was the adversity created by the aggressions of imperialistic foreign policies of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, France, and Italy which were brought to a flash point by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria which was rapidly followed by the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia in response.
“8. World War II never happened” Also simply bullshit. The cause was not the Adversarial principle as applied to legalism. It was Hitler’s aggregation of power via annexation of territories removed from the German Empire as a consequence of WWI followed by an aggressive invasion of Poland.
“9. Gabrielle Giffords was not shot in the head.”
The cause was not the Adversarial principle as applied to legalism. The cause was the lunacy of a single individual acting out of delusion.
The Adversarial Principle as applied to legalism is not the cause of these events. Adversity is simply a effect of natural human interaction, interaction that results in the violence cited because the parties involved did not seek the moderated judgment by an impartial judge using discovery and argumentation to decide an just and equitable solution to an adverse situation that legalism and the trial process offers as the alternative to violence. The Adversarial Principle as applied to legalism is not the cause of adversity itself. It is a reflection of the adversity inherent in the natural interaction of humans with humans and their environment. The cause of adversity is human nature. The Adversarial Principle as applied to legalism is the alternative to a peaceful equitable and just solution to a naturally adverse situation. It is a construct to allow and facilitate peaceful dispute resolution rather than letting nature run its violent course. Nature’s inherently violent solutions in the absence of legal dispute resolution is what is seen in the examples of wars you provided.
The brakes did not stop the car crash because they were brakes. They caused the car crash because they were ignored or malfunctioned. When properly applied, the brakes stop the car and ergo prevent the accident. That brakes do not work perfectly either by flaw or human error is not a sound argument for not having brakes at all.
Again, the application of due process via the adversarial mode is not perfect in preventing wars is irrelevant. It prevents conflict as a general rule and system as it is inherently a replacement for the violence of self-help including war. It is, however, better than the alternative of allowing violence and tyranny of the strong over the weak as a first course of action in dispute resolution.
You are blaming a mode of a system of dispute resolution that is the alternative to wars and violence for the wars and violence themselves (a falsehood and logical attribution error) and then faulting it for not being perfect so it should therefor be done away with (simply ridiculous).
If cars were too complicated, I’ll use horses. To blame the adversarial mode of legal dispute resolution for violence is as illogical as blaming bridles for the existence of horses. Since a horse can run amok even when bridled, your assertion that dispute resolution in the adversarial mode should be done away with is as illogical as saying that since bridles don’t provide a perfect result, we shouldn’t use them to control horses.
Sorry.
You’re simply wrong once again.
Doh! Bad fingers. I’m not finished.
Too bad you’re relying upon bullshit once again.
“The Adversarial Process totally precluded and prevented:”
The Adversarial Process is irrelevant when you are simply trying to scapegoat your own inadequate understanding and purposeful lies about history by blaming, once again, the Adversarial Process for anything and everything you can think of from adversity itself (a natural byproduct of the interaction of human with each other and their environment) to child abuse (which is manifest nonsense as child abuse is not about the attacker trying to force the adversarial principle upon the victim).
“1. There ever being any Sumerian warriors in phalanx.”
So what? Battlefield tactics have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
“2. The making of iron weapons as mapped on page 142.”
Sorry, but the iron age did happen. However, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate.
“3. The ‘war of liberation” described on page 145.”
Again, a lack of specificity. And again, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate. That the application of due process via the adversarial mode is not perfect in preventing wars is irrelevant. It prevents conflict as a general rule and system as it is inherently a replacement for the violence of self-help including war.
“4. The battle of Marathon.”
Neither precluded nor prevented, the Battle of Marathon is historical fact.
“5. The wars mentioned on page 401, “So began the most wasteful and disastrous series of wars that has ever darkened the history of mankind” is false because The Adversarial Process precluded them.”
Again, a lack of specificity. And again, I am not digging through Wells book just for your trollish amusement. I’m going to stick to the facts as related to your postulate.
“6. The U.S. Civil War never happened”
Simply bullshit.
“7. World War I never happened”
Also simply bullshit.
“8. World War II never happened
9. Gabrielle Giffords was not shot in the head.”
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 11:38 am
I am so glad to learn that almost all, if not all, of my books on human history are wrong. That is really great news.
I do read books about human history. H. G. Wells, “The Outline of History,” The Macmillan Co., 1921. Useful because it is public domain and can be freely excerpted.
From page 135, “This alternation of settlement, conquest, refinement, fresh conquest, refinement, is particularly to be noted in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris, which lay open in every direction to great areas which are not arid enough to be complete deserts, but which were not fertile enough to support civilized populations. Perhaps the earliest people to form real cities in this part of the world, or indeed in any part of the world, were a people of mysterious origin called the Sumerians.” And, on page 136, op.cit., is a drawing labeled, “A very early Sumerian stone carving showing Sumerian warriors in phalanx.”
Referring to H. G. Wells, “The Outline of History”:
The Adversarial Process totally precluded and prevented:
1. There ever being any Sumerian warriors in phalanx.
2. The making of iron weapons as mapped on page 142.
3. The ‘war of liberation” described on page 145.
4. The battle of Marathon.
5. The wars mentioned on page 401, “So began the most wasteful and disastrous series of wars that has ever darkened the history of mankind” is false because The Adversarial Process precluded them.
6. The U.S. Civil War never happened
7. World War I never happened
8. World War II never happened
9. Gabrielle Giffords was not shot in the head.
I so glad to learn how effective the Adversarial Principle has been in preventing everything adversarial.
Ain’t revisionist history simply grand!
BiL, up the delusional scale a rung at a time?
I hope not.
Too bad sincerity is uncorrelated with accuracy of understanding.
Here we see the propaganda troll, unable to defend his false assertions, direct his ire at the truth sayer and attempt to label the truth sayer as “psychotic”. The troll also once again tries to silence the truth speaker, but in his frustration, tries to do so directly. Unfortunately, the wild truth sayers are a clever creature and stick to the points of fact and logic such as “the adversity in humanity arises as a normal course from the mere interaction of humans with each other and their environment and the application of due process in the adversarial mode is the way civilizations avoid tyranny and anarchy by providing a peaceful means to settle disputes that might otherwise be resolved by violence.” This message, while brief in form compared to the avalanche of obfuscation the troll uses, simply cuts to the facts and undercuts the Big Lie of the propaganda troll. Proving that once again that the simple truth is the greatest enemy of the Big Lie.
After the break, watch the hilarity ensue as the propaganda troll tries to sell his Big Lie to a water buffalo via artificial insemination.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 10:34 am
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, sport.
Your statements about the Adversarial Principle as it regards law and sociology are simply a lie.
Quit lying and I’ll quit pointing that out.
##############################
BiL:
I am finding your comments, those apparently written in response to some of my comments, to be ever increasingly bizarre.
Consider your posted comment of February 23, 2011 at 10:34 am, quoted at the beginning of this comment of mine.
1. You are not trying to convince me of anything.
2. You are apparently trying to convince someone that my “statements about the Adversarial Principle as it regards law and sociology are simply a lie.”
3. If, in accord with your beliefs about the Adversarial Principle, law, sociology, and the telling of a lie, I quit doing what you are seemingly claiming to be a lie, you will stop pointing out that you believe my work or whatever to be somehow of a form of lie.
4. By what (absolutely psychotic?) brain process does it come to your thoughts that you are not trying to make me quit doing what you are claiming (falsely, for what that may be worth) is my telling some sort of something of the nature that (perchance only to you?) is “simply a lie”?
5. I can find a brain process which is neither psychotic nor dishonest which would lead to your comments being as I find them written. That brain process is your real intention being to support my work by masquerading as one opposed to my work the better to help me find ways to strengthen what I am working to accomplish.
6. There is a vast array of mainstream, central-tendency-oriented research on the human condition, and I readily allow that all, or nearly all, of such central-tendency-oriented research has findings quite opposite to my work and its findings. Indeed, my recognizing that as plausibly fact while I was in third grade is a strong motivator in leading me to make the effort I make toward unriddling human atrocity.
7. I experience your expressed views regarding the rule of law and the Adversarial Principle to be neurologially purely psychotic as I find you telling of them.
8. Am I legally and professionally qualified to recognize and diagnosis psychosis as a brain biology phenomenon in accord with my formal education and my Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer licensure? Yes!
9. Were you exactly that anthropomorphic “Great Deceiver,” you could not possibly be a better helpmate for me in my work.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, sport.
Your statements about the Adversarial Principle as it regards law and sociology are simply a lie.
Quit lying and I’ll quit pointing that out.
RE: frank, February 23, 2011 at 6:36 am
Meta – Now THAT is a cool gun! Used to work for a company that made the ammunition for it. A bit hard to stuff into the waistband of your sweatpants though.
My sincerest apologies for my comment that was clearly offensive to morons everywhere. It was thoughtless and cruel to demean actual morons by comparing them to Arizona politicians. I will strive mightily in the future to not repeat the offense. It would be easier if only those politicians didn’t try so hard to make it possible.
####################################
Frank, had I lost hope for the future of humanity, and I have not, your comment surely would have fully restored my hope. When one person “gets it,” as you have shown you have, just one person “getting it” is evidence that the door my open for others, and, perhaps eventually, for everyone.
While, in the scientific jargon of the 1930s, being labeled a moron or an imbecile or an idiot was a non-pejorative brain-function descriptor, prejudice still acts as though it is the supreme ruler of the world, and so I use very subtle forms of humor to draw attention to how people sometimes hurt one another without really intending to cause hurt.
To this day, I am unaware of any other once-on-a-time-real-“low-grade-idiot” who, having really had the brain function of a “low-grade-idiot” subsequently and properly earned a Ph.D. from a major state research university. In the annals of human society, there is no evidence I have been able to find of anyone other than myself who lived, or is living, a life nearly alike to mine.
It may be of grave error to compare the Ph.D. thesis of a once-on-a-time-low-grade-idiot with any thesis of a person whose IQ score never plummeted below 100. Of course, the rules will inform anyone who believes in the rules that no person like me can possibly exist. To whatever extent as that is true, I would guess that the rules are false.
From page 866 of William S. Sadler, M.D., “Theory and Practice of Psychiatry,” The C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1936:
1. Classification of Mental Defects
In accordance with the degree of intellectual deficiency of development, this group may be classified as follows:
1. Idiots–Those whose development never exceeds that of a normal child of about two or three years. They are largely unteachable; at best they can only slightly be trained in self-help.
2. Imbeciles–Those whose intelligence exceeds that of idiots but does not extend above that of a normal child of seven years. They are teachable to an extent, but they cannot be educated sufficiently to enable them to take their place as self-supporting individuals in present-day complex society.
3. Morons–Those whose intelligence exceeds that of imbeciles but not that of a normal child of twelve years. They can learn much through painstaking training, but they are characterized by an inability to reason on the basis of experience. They are quite unable to learn from experience.
Those definitions were “state of the art” in 1936, three years before I was born. Methinks the state of the art may have changed. Real science is like that; new discoveries which sometimes add to prior discoveries (in the manner of Thomas Kuhn, normal science) and sometimes may even dramatically obsolete and replace prior discoveries (in the manner of Thomas Kuhn, scientific revolution).
I really did go from Mensa-qualifying IQ scores prior to the summer of 1986 and down to less functional than a typical three-year-old “normal child” (to me, the whole of human diversity is normal, and not some figment of some fragment closely hugging the mean, if you get what I mean — folks who cluster in an inward-facing tightly-packed group around the arithmetic mean have been, to put it mildly, like meanies to folks like me who never mean to, or are willing to, be meanies)
In the Author’s Preface of Abraham A. Low, M.D., “Mental Illness, Stigma, and Self-Help: The Founding of Recovery, Inc.” — Willett Publishing Co., Glencoe, IL, 1943, 1991, the final, one-sentence paragraph is:
“Recovery’s Motto: Nobody must be held responsible for the kind of disease he has contracted.”
Op.Cit, the dedication reads:
“To all those who have overcome the stigma of mental illness and to those who continue to struggle with it.”
By every form of indicator I have yet been able to employ, I cannot find any evidence that some very high socioeconomic status (top-tier) people are not dealing with a sequence of ignorance as to what is actually neurologically abusive allowing unintentional neurological abuse culminating in neurological trauma resulting in what Dr. Low called “temper” giving rise to tenseness and tenseness to symptoms, including stigma about mental illness as plausibly the most significant and salient among the panoply of the main symptoms of mental illness.
In the research of my thesis and dissertation, mental illness of the nature of neurological trauma driven by coercive socialization-induced internalization of the Adversarial Principle is the only real cause of, as understood as I am able to understand it, what is usefully and scientifically deemed mental illness.
Teaching a child to accept, through internalizing it, the Adversarial Principle is the sole real cause of mental illness, so I find and so I state, without any trace of equivocation, and so do at the peril of my license as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.
Because I find the Adversarial Principle, when internalized, to be the proximate cause of all forms of what I deem usefully named “mental illness,” and because BiL seems to me as though intent on convincing me the Adversarial Principle is essential to civilization, it appears to me that BiL is so doing by as though attempting to use a verbal-only version of that General Dynamics GAU-8 Gatling gun on me.
While I totally doubt my physical ability to dodge physical bullets, I do have all three movies, on DVD, of The Matrix trilogy. And I learned, from Neo, not how to dodge physical bullets (who can ever really do that?) but to avoid being even touched by traumatizing verbal bullets.
There are “theories espoused,” and there are “theories in use.” I observe that the Arizona legislators, as a group, appear to me to have a theory-espoused which invalidates their theory-in-use in much the same manner as it appears to me that their theory-in-use invalidates their theory-espoused.
In my reading of the scientific neurology-trauma literature and in my own ongoing research, consciously unrecognized incompatibility between theory-as-espoused and theory-as-in-use is possible only in the presence of some sort of very severe neurological dissociation, and very severe neurological dissociation is only possible as the result of comparably severe and unresolved trauma, and such trauma is never truthfully blamed on the one who has been so traumatized.
I am coming to deem the actions and attitudes of a great many legislators to be of the work of people who have been so severely traumatized as to have nearly perfect separation (dissociation) between declarative and procedural brain structures and functions.
Whereas Dr. Low developed the Recovery Method with the goal of dealing only with the trivialities of everyday life, my lifelong experience continues to suggest to me that the written view of David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett, in their paper, “Dialogue – A proposal” to the effect that there is “a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought” is not only of valid interpretation of many observations, but adding my work to theirs has led me to find no way to refute or rebut my understanding that “the deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought” is anything other than the Adversarial Prinicple.
Thread after thread on this blawg begins with a story in which is is as though some aspect of law and/or law enforcement has gone amok.
I observe that the usual pattern of the comments here made is to identify who did what and blame what was done on who did it. Doing that never brings to conscious attention what led the people who did what they did to do what they did.
In recent scientific social psychology (study the work of Philip Zimbardo for a decent start), attribution theory sorts out that which is situational (not in the person’s actual locus of control and therefore not possibly the person’s fault) from that which is dispositional and supposedly within the person’s actual locus of control and thus supposedly the person’s fault.
In my biophysics-grounded research, every single aspect of what has been thought of as dispositional is actually purely situational, once one sufficiently accurately identifies the nature and location of the boundary between that of situational nature and that of dispositional nature.
I observe, using biophysics in my work in bioengineering, that nothing dispositional is not truthfully situational. Put another way, whereas the Adversarial Principle assigns “personal responsibility” to that deemed dispositional, the deception intrinsic to the Adversarial Principle deceives people into incorrectly assigning a particular subclass of situational factors to disposition, doing so with sometimes horrible consequences.
So, in my view, the Arizona legislators are not responsible for their decisions because they are unable to understand the nature of their decisions nor are they able to understand the consequences of their decisions, and that, dear folks, is remarkably like the legal definition of insanity.
Insanity, in my view, is believing that the Adversarial Principle is not the sole Evil One.
Fortunately, for the sake of my ongoing research, I happen to know a bunch of folks who are rather competent in scientific psychology, and who are not necessarily hopelessly corrupted by time-confusion-grounded time-corrupted learning trauma.
I freely and, as words allow, accurately describe important aspects of my life, doing so for the sake of the possibility that someone may find something I describe of some use, and because I am not ashamed of even one instant of my actual life.
What I say I do is what I do, allowing for words being symbols which are not what they symbolize.
When, as a patient at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, MA, I could not recognize that sunlight streaming through a window meant that it was not nighttime, when I would walk past my room with my name on a sign in large letters and not recognize my name, when I could not add five and six, I was a totally complete person, with nothing missing whatsoever.
I cannot be validated as a person by any person not me, and I cannot validate myself as a person. Why? Because, in truth as i can grasp it, merely being a person is the perfect validation of the person–validation is not a property of personhood externalities.
Meta – Now THAT is a cool gun! Used to work for a company that made the ammunition for it. A bit hard to stuff into the waistband of your sweatpants though.
My sincerest apologies for my comment that was clearly offensive to morons everywhere. It was thoughtless and cruel to demean actual morons by comparing them to Arizona politicians. I will strive mightily in the future to not repeat the offense. It would be easier if only those politicians didn’t try so hard to make it possible.
Oh, if only Maine would have an “official state firearm”. Because the obvious candidate just has to be a gun that is made in Saco: the General Dynamics GAU-8.
Bob,Esq.
1, February 22, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Sorry, should be Arizona.
You know how those desert states all look and sound the same.
==================================================
bad! … but damn funny
While they’re at it, the Arizona legislature should adopt a new state song. The current one was adopted in 1915, and it looks pretty tepid. Lyrics here:
http://www.50states.com/songs/arizona.htm
The replacement? Of course – The Beatles song, “Happiness is a Warm Gun!”
Sing it loud – we’re strapped and we’re proud!
pete,
I think that’s only in Miami and Dade counties. 😉
in florida the official gun is the m16 with m203 grenade launcher.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUh5yjwQzXc&w=640&h=390]
Oh no, I am still a low grade idiot, if I think that I was a low grade moron with an IQ of 10 or less.
Or, perhaps someone is right, that I am not myself; only if I am not who I am who am I if not who I am?
Suppose it were lawful for people to learn to act lawfully?
If I can make mistakes, who is immune to making mistakes?
RE: frank, February 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I suppose it would be redundant to name the moron as the official state representative
###################################
I find the above comment to be offensive.
In consequence of a sequence of medical practitioner blunders, during 1986-89, I was given prescription medications for an assortment of incorrect psychiatric diagnoses, which culminated in my being oriented times zero in the early summer of 1989.
I could not add 5 and 6, often could not recognize my name, and often had no clue as to where I was. My tested IQ was, I understand, driven below 10 by the methods of toxic psychotropic-medication-oriented psychiatric treatment.
Back when “moron” was a proper scientific term, the IQ range for morons was, as I recall, 50-70, and for imbeciles, 30-50, and idiots less than 30.
On that scale, I was, for a time, a low grade moron.
With an IQ of perhaps 10 or less, I was a whole lot smarter than most of our No Party elected officials, or so I am coming to sadly believe…
eniobob:
We know that there are not huge numbers of Chinese and Indian immigrants in Arizona. However, Republicans have been falling all over themselves since the mid-terms attempting to pass as many legislative restrictions on abortion as their twisted imaginations can concoct. In this instance, it is likely that someone decided that women contemplating abortions should face the prospect of litigation by unhappy spouses or boyfriends. Nice folks.
Mike A,
You have hit upon the crisis of the century for Arizona and they don’t even realize it yet.