Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has a history of passionate opposition to President Trump and calling for his impeachment, and he continued the trend Sunday by blaming Trump for a pair of shootings that took place over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Others have also placed blame on Trump for the shooting though Tribe goes as far as to declare Trump a terrorist. I have previously disagreed with Professor Tribe on these tweets against Trump and Republicans and this attack appears unhinged and entirely inappropriate for a respected academic.
Tribe wrote:
“How many more people have to DIE violent deaths at racist hands before impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence is taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice? The real national emergency is Donald J. Trump’s terrorism”
Recently, I wrote about an anti-Trump activist featured on CNN who tried to firebomb an immigration center. While the attack by Willem Van Spronsen followed over-heated rhetoric from various Democratic candidates, his political motives or associations were largely ignored by the media. As I said at the time, I think it would be grossly unfair to associate Van Spronsen’s violence with Democratic leaders or their rhetoric. There are also a high number of cases with Trump supporters or people wearing MAGA hats have been assaulted on streets or in cafes. No one is calling out the left for responsibility in stoking such flames. Nor should they. The point was only that the media routinely makes that nexus to Trump by those who are anti-immigrant or white supremacist. None of these political figures, including Trump, can fairly be blamed for the acts of a violent, disturbed individual. If we start to treat political speech as a type of criminal inducement, we would eviscerate the first amendment.
Tribe’s suggestion that an impeachment can be based on this highly tenuous connection does a disservice to the public which relies on academics to give honest and informed analysis. Moreover, there is a curious jumping of the rails in raising slaughters by white supremacists in calling for impeachment for obstruction. The suggestion seems to be that we should impeach a president to achieve a different purpose: remove Trump on obstruction to somehow end racial violence in the nation. That would seem to encourage members to impeach to achieve ulterior purposes outside of the scope of impeachment.
When asked later by the Fox News about the tweets, Tribe would only say that “There is an alarming pattern of incitements that together warrant being taken seriously in conjunction with other, more specific, offenses.” I am not sure what that means in the context of an impeachment. It suggests that a member should vote on one alleged offense while being motivated by other uncharged offenses. We would never allow that in a real court of law. Indeed, the mere suggestion to a jury would likely leave a lawyer in a contempt of court.
While impeachment is not a real court by any stretch of the imagination, it is still a proceeding with a defined standard for members to satisfy. Encouraging members to act with reference to charges outside of legitimate articles of impeachment is itself a type of reckless inducement.
Tribe subsequently clarified by saying that he is not saying that Trump “should be impeached” for “racist incitements alone,” rather that “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”
Tribe later added that he was not suggesting impeachment for racist alone but “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”
Again, “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism” would seem a highly subjective standard for impeachment — a standing that could sweep dangerously into political speech protected by the First Amendment. Any majority party could claim that a president was encouraging violent or criminal conduct in his speeches or policies. It would turn a narrow constitutional standard nto a virtual invitation for political removals.
What do you think?
This is what to look out for: “Beware Calls in US for Domestic ‘Terrorism’ Laws” “Two mass shootings have rocked the United States in less than 24 hours, leaving dozens dead and many more wounded. The first in El Paso, Texas, was allegedly perpetrated by a white supremacist whose racist motives are outlined in a rambling “manifesto,” the second allegedly by a self-described “leftist” whose motives, like those of the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, are presently unknown. These incidents occurred a week after another mass shooting in Gilroy, California.
All the usual U.S. gun control debates have of course reignited, which is understandable. Alongside this debate, however, we are seeing another, far more pernicious agenda being raised that I would like to address here.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, notorious liar and propagandist Malcolm Nance claimed that existing laws aren’t sufficient for prosecuting the El Paso shooter, because there are no laws designating his act of mass murder as “domestic terrorism.”
“I think that Congress needs to take up right away a series of domestic terrorism laws,” Nance said. “It’d be very simple: just match them to the words ‘international terrorism,’ so that a member of al-Qaeda and a member of a white nationalist terrorist cell or a militia that thinks they’re going to carry out international acts of terrorism are equal all the way around.” see the rest at Consortium News by Johnstone
Thanks, Jill.
Here’s the link to Caitlin Johnstone’s article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/08/06/beware-calls-in-us-for-domestic-terrorism-laws/
“I have no easy answers for America’s mass shooting epidemic, and as an Australian I see the gun control debate as outside my sovereign territory. I will simply suggest, as I so often do, that if Americans really want to address the problem then the best place to start is to do the first ever honest and in-depth study on the effects of domestic propaganda on the American mind, particularly war propaganda. There are only so many times a certain type of mind can be told violence-glorifying lies before it snaps; if anyone researches mass shootings in the light of the constant psychological abuse that Americans suffer at the hands of their mass media, I guarantee they’ll find a connection. Americans are the most propagandized people on earth because of their proximity to the most strategically crucial part of the empire; it’s not a coincidence that they’re also by far the most prone to mass shootings.
“One thing I can tell you won’t fix your problems, America, and that’s listening to the propagandists who want you to hand over even more control to a government that has already begun floating high-altitude surveillance balloons over your country without your permission.
“Don’t let them bully you with fear.”
consortium news excellent investigative journalism and editorial. really good, thanks
THE NIHILIST IN CHIEF
By Ross Douthat
What links Donald Trump to the men who massacred innocents in El Paso and Dayton this past weekend? Note that I said both men: the one with the white-nationalist manifesto and the one with some kind of atheist-socialist politics; the one whose ranting about a “Hispanic invasion” echoed Trump’s own rhetoric and the one who was anti-Trump and also apparently the lead singer in a “pornogrind” band.
Bringing up their differing worldviews can be a way for Trump-supporting or anti-anti-Trump conservatives to diminish or dismiss the president’s connection to these shootings. That’s not what I’m doing. I think Trump is deeply connected to what happened last weekend, deeply connected to both massacres. Not because his immigration rhetoric drove the El Paso shooter to mass murder in some direct and simple way; life and radicalism and violence are all more complicated than that. But because Trump participates in the general cultural miasma that generates mass shooters, and having a participant as president makes the problem worse.
The president’s bigoted rhetoric is obviously part of this. Marianne Williamson put it best, in the last Democratic debate: There really is a dark psychic force generated by Trump’s political approach, which from its birther beginnings has consistently encouraged and fed on a fevered and paranoid form of right-wing politics, and dissolved quarantines around toxic and dehumanizing ideas. And the possibility that Trump’s zest for demonization can feed a demonic element in the wider culture is something the many religious people who voted for the president should be especially willing to consider.
But the connection between the president and the young men with guns extends beyond Trump’s race-baiting to encompass a more essential feature of his public self — which is not the rhetoric or ideology that he deploys, but the obvious moral vacuum, the profound spiritual black hole, that lies beneath his persona and career.
Here I would dissent, mildly, from the desire to tell a mostly ideological story in the aftermath of El Paso, and declare war on “white nationalism” — a war the left wants because it has decided that all conservatism can be reduced to white supremacy, and the right wants as a way of rebutting and rejecting that reductionism.
By all means disable 8Chan and give the F.B.I. new marching orders; by all means condemn racism more vigorously than this compromised president can do. But recognize we’re dealing with a pattern of mass shootings, encompassing both the weekend’s horrors, where the personal commonalities between the shooters are clearly more important than the political ones. Which suggests that the white nationalism of internet failsons is like the allegiance to an imaginary caliphate that motivated the terrorists whose depredations helped get Trump elected in the first place. It’s often just a carapace, a flag of convenience, a performance for the vast TV-and-online audience that now attends these grisly spectacles, with a malignant narcissism and nihilism underneath.
And this is what really links Trump to all these empty male killers, white nationalists and pornogrind singers alike. Like them he is a creature of our late-modern anti-culture, our internet-accelerated dissolution of normal human bonds. Like them he plainly believes in nothing but his ego, his vanity, his sense of spite and grievance, and the self he sees reflected in the mirror of television, mass media, online.
Because he is rich and famous and powerful, he can get that attention with a tweet about his enemies, and then experience the rush of a cable-news segment about him. He doesn’t need to plot some great crime to lead the news; he just has to run for president. But having him as president — having him as a political exemplar for his party, and a cultural exemplar of manhood for his supporters and opponents both — is a constant ratification of the idea that we exist as celebrities or influencers or we don’t exist at all, and that our common life is essentially a form of reality television where it doesn’t matter if you’re the heel or hero so long as you’re the star.
Edited from: “The Nihilist In Chief” by Ross Douthat
Today’s New York Times
Regarding Above:
Until this morning I never imagined I would someday post a column by Ross Douthat, the N.Y. Times most conservative columnist. But this piece is very timely and well-written.
I’ve been familiar with his writing since he was a free-lance blogger, ‘ere The Atlantic hired him around about 2006. He had the annoying tic of seeming to almost apologise for what he was advocating. He got better for a while, but went into a decline a number of years ago, driven, in part from having to take a salary from the Sulzbergers.
Here’s the truth: Ross Douthat hasn’t a clue why we have more mass shooters today than we did in 1980 (even though we have less homicidal violence over all). He’s hasn’t the tools to assemble a testable theory which would relate ideational or cultural factors to human behavior. (And the people who do that sort of thing for a living have a dreadful time producing replicable studies).
Dr. Katherine Newman and Dr. Peter Langman have written several good books on this subject, though the primary focus is on school shooters.
The personal characteristics of the assailants do have some connecting threads of nihilism, women are not often attracted to them, intense feelings of insecurity (sometimes hidden behind bravado).
Thanks for posting the Douthat piece. A key excerpt follows:
“The Nihilist In Chief” by Ross Douthat, New York Times today
Excerpt:
“I think Trump is deeply connected to what happened last weekend, deeply connected to both massacres. Not because his immigration rhetoric drove the El Paso shooter to mass murder in some direct and simple way; life and radicalism and violence are all more complicated than that. But because Trump participates in the general cultural miasma that generates mass shooters, and having a participant as president makes the problem worse.”
Repeating:
“But because Trump participates in the general cultural miasma that generates mass shooters, and having a participant as president makes the problem worse.”
nihilism is about 150 years old as an identified cultural malaise and Ross is a day late and a dollar short.
as for dark psychic forces, in my opinion the dark force is the Satanic one hailed by the one guy in Dayton, literally, which is also related to the perverse notion that all men are the same and that “nations” as such, are a function of bigotry or “hate” rather than the natural order, as identified before the modern age and all its vanities, for millenia
no borders, no nation = exactly what the globalists want
“This is an invasion…” – Donald Trump
Take note how the title of the you tube doesn’t match the content. When illegals cross the border so that the estimates of illegal crossings can hit 7 figures it is an invasion plain and simple. 20 homeless people are going to break through your front door and live in your house. Perhaps you associate them with invited guests.
Addressing Allan’s comment at 2 PM:
The title is the point — and it does match the content, if one watches the entire video.
And then, more hyperbole by Allan:
“20 homeless people are going to break through your front door and live in your house. ”
Pathetic.
Anonymous can say what she wishes but one can see she doesn’t really understand what happened. The video is short. Trump’s job is to stop that type of talk and defuse the problem. He did and that is what counts. Anonymous can say whatever meaningless things she wishes but unfortunately she is wrong.
Anonymous sees hyperbole. I see a disingenuous person who while virtue signalling says ‘not in my backyard’.
it absolutely is, matters little whether it’s 1, 11, 13, 30 millions, it’s an invasion
grasp this folks. sure, its an invasion by decent poor folks looking for a better life, including women and children. but we are talking MILLIONS of people here.
but it’s still an invasion!
Americans who want the border policed are calling for simple national law enforcement.
Calling us bigots and racists? OK, that’s wrong. But I got a name for you. TRAITOR
MAY 8TH:
TRUMP GRINS WHEN SUPPORTER..
SUGGESTS SHOOTING IMMIGRANTS
It is 1,218 miles from the Aaron Bessant Park Amphitheater in Panama City Beach, Fla. , to the Walmart at 7101 Gateway Blvd. W in El Paso. It was in that park that President Trump, on May 8 , was amused by the answer someone in his audience shouted in response to his shouted question about would-be immigrants at the southern border. His question was, “How do you stop these people?” The shouted answer was, “Shoot them.” Trump, with a grade schooler’s delight in naughtiness, smiled and replied, “Only in the Panhandle you can get away with that statement.” But does what happens in the Panhandle stay there?
It is not implausible to believe that Trump’s years of sulfurous rhetoric — never mind his Monday-morning reading, seemingly for the first time, of words the teleprompter told him to recite — can provoke behaviors from susceptible individuals, such as the alleged El Paso shooter. If so, those who marked ballots for Trump — we have had quite enough exculpatory sociology about the material deprivations and status anxieties of the white working class — should have second or perhaps first thoughts. His Republican groupies, meanwhile, are complicit.
The grotesquely swollen place of the presidency in governance (now that governance has become, for Congress, merely a spectator sport) and society has been made possible by journalism that is mesmerized by, and easily manipulated by, presidents — especially the current one, whose every bleat becomes an obsession. This president is not just one prompting from the social environment; he, in his ubiquity, thoroughly colors this environment, which becomes simultaneously more coarse and less shocking by the day.
It is one thing to have a president who, drawing upon his repertoire of playground insults, calls his alleged porn-star mistress “Horseface .” Polls indicate that approximately a third of Americans, disproportionately including religiously devout worriers about the coarsening of America’s culture, are more than merely content with this. It is quite another thing to have a president who does not merely pollute the social atmosphere with invectives directed at various disfavored minorities; he uses his inflated office not just to shape this atmosphere but to be this atmosphere.
When Gerald Ford became president after Richard M. Nixon’s resignation, he told the nation: “Our long national nightmare is over.” Today’s long — and perhaps occasionally lethal — national embarrassment will continue at least until Jan. 20, 2021. If it continues longer, this will be more than an embarrassment to the nation, this will be an indictment of it.
Edited from: “Trump Doesn’t Just Pollute The Social Environment With Hate. He Is The Environment”
By George Will
Today’s Washington Post
It seems that the never Trumpers can’t get over the fact that Trump won. They can’t stand it that they all too frequently have the Ivy League educations while Trump’s feet are firmly anchored to the ground. From their lofty positions above all other mortals these Ivy Leaguers can’t believe that they have lost power to those they perceive as inferior (that includes most of the country no matter what political affiliation they have). I hate to say it but having an Ivy League degree means that one was generally selected because one was smart to begin with so I expect smart people to graduate. The problem is that intelligence is not the same as wisdom and frequently an over abundance of pride makes one a smart person that can act ignorantly.
Someone posted the Hanson article on how the Ivy League group that was trying to unseat a sitting President were downright stupid. Trump’s lawyers were laughed at but despite the fact that the Ivy League guys surrounded themselves with bureaucrats and illegal actions the non Ivy Leaguer’s beat their tails off and now some of those so highly qualified guys might end up in jail.
Peter, we know you hate Trump so we expect you to run naked through the crowds holding up the copy produced by never Trumpers. While you do that Just remember they lost and now their comeuppance is just around the corner.
I admired Will’s writing 30 years ago. A critic of Will’s recently put passages of Will’s from 1983 side-by-side with recent remarks. For all the variation over the years on programmatic points and general disposition, there is a continuity of attitude. Then as now he was the lonely True Conservative heaping scorn on the actually existing political dispensations of the day. (Another thing you’ll notice about Will that of the last six Republican presidents, he’s been hostile to five to varying degrees, and admiring of just one).
As you say Will has a lot invested in his point of view.
Peter, if you review each paragraph, you discover there is not one substantive point made therein. It’s a 750 word expression of disdain. That’s of no interest to anyone, even his wife.
Tabby, Will points out, in the first paragraph, that Trump was smiled with amusement when a supporter shouted “shoot them” with regards to immigrants. That one passage says it all.
The ‘would be immigrants’ who strike Will’s fancy are here without good cause in defiance of the law and causing considerable disorder by filing false asylum claims. Our oh-so-diligent media cannot be bothered to unpack who is financing their travels or providing legal assistance to them. It’s a fairly transparent Cloward-Piven exercise. Will should know this, but will not acknowledge it.
What do you do with people mobbing the border? You lob at them whatever tools you have to get them to go away, and if it requires live ammo, use live ammo. That’s what you do if your object is to defend your country.
Will knows that, but he doesn’t care, and he hasn’t the integrity to acknowledge in this column that he’s signed on to a project of providing cover to the Democratic Party while they import people to stuff the ballot boxes.
You wonder why this guy lost his audience and is now, at age 78, in the business of supplying talking point fodder for partisan Democrats on Jeff Bezos payroll, this is the reason.
Peter, if you listen carefully you will see that Trump was trying to defuse the idea of shooting anyone. That is what he should do and he did it well. You think otherwise because you are not thinking. You are merely repeating what someone else wants you to say. Did the crowd keep shouting those words? No. That is proof Trump stopped something he did not agree with.
To a mindless thinker and one that doesn’t know much about anything a person might think like you but the fact is the job was to stop the talk and that is exactly what he did.
sorry, but you can stop an invasion is with armed guards who shot those who cross the line.
that is as old as the nation itself, back when shooting was done with bows and arrows
it is the logic of the ancient world and the logic of today
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-01/lessons-america-indias-war-against-muslim-illegal-migrants
Lessons For America From India’s War Against Muslim Illegal Migrants
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2019 – 23:55
27
India’s 2,582 mile border with Bangladesh is even longer than America’s 1,954 mile border with Mexico.
The two countries are divided not only by that border, but by religion. India has an 80% Hindu majority and a rising 13% Muslim minority. Bangladesh has a 90% Muslim majority. And the tide of Muslim migration from Bangladesh to India began to shift the population balance in some Indian states.
India has spent decades building fences, topping them with barbed wire, and installing lights. The lights are there so that the guards can see. Unlike America, there are guards, they have guns, and they shoot.
What makes America’s border different from those of so many other countries isn’t the lack of fencing. Smugglers, traffickers, and assorted criminals can often find weak points in any security setup. In most countries, the defense of the border is seen as a national security issue backed by real firepower.
America’s Border Patrol has less than 20,000 people. India’s Border Security Force (BSF) has 186 battalions and 257,363 people. It’s a paramilitary organization with an intelligence network, ten artillery units, air and marine wings, and canine and even camel units. And the weapons aren’t just there for show.
Over 1,000 illegal infiltrators have been killed trying to enter India from Bangladesh in over a decade.
BSF personnel are allowed to shoot on sight. Boats are used to monitor river areas that can’t be fenced in. Air units watch from the sky. And intelligence units gather information on smuggling gangs. The first and final line of defense though comes from men with rifles watching the fences and the shadows.
When a Bangladeshi teenage girl illegally entering India was shot, leftist activists hoped to use her to stop the zero-tolerance border security policy. But India kept building fences and defending them.
And now it’s turning to the problem of the millions of illegal Bangladeshi Muslim ‘infiltrators’ in India.
Last year, around the same time that the media was fulminating over remarks by President Trump, Amit Shah, the head of India’s conservative ruling BJP, was being attacked for calling illegal aliens, “termites”.
“Millions of infiltrators have entered our country and are eating the country like termites. Should we not uproot them?” Shah asked voters in West Bengal, which is threatened by illegal Bangladeshis.
“A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government will pick up infiltrators one by one and throw them into the Bay of Bengal.”
Earlier that year, Assam, the part of India where the anti-illegal movement was born, began cracking down on the invading population with a “detect-delete-deport” program. Assam’s program spotted 4 million illegal infiltrators in the state of 33 million. Many of them had made themselves at home in India, but lacked birth certificates and other documents showing that they were citizens.
Just as when it comes to border security, India’s twin assets are determination and manpower.
The “detect-delete-deport” program began by digitizing old paper records and then checking them against the documents that were submitted by the population. Tens of thousands of government employees reviewed millions of documents and then began checking and cross-referencing them. The lies weren’t hard to spot as when dozens of people claimed to have been born from the same mother.
The work is far from finished but the number of Muslim illegal aliens could climb as high as 20 million, and so could the deportations, once “detect-delete-deport” is deployed across the entire country.
India’s National Register of Citizens is being used to clarify who belongs in the country and who doesn’t. Those who are unable to prove their citizenship potentially face the Foreigners’ Tribunals, courts that ask the accused to prove their citizenship. If the illegals fail to do so, they can be sent to prison and then deported. If they try to dodge the courts, the machinery of the system will move forward anyway.
Assam’s 1,000 Foreigners’ Tribunals have been busy, but every state in India has now been given the authority to create its own Tribunals. And detention camps are being built in Assam to hold illegals.
While much of the machinery is in place, the actual process of deporting millions of illegals may prove challenging. But India had previously been able to negotiate agreements with Bangladesh that made the thousands of miles of border fencing possible by using economic and political leverage. Convincing Bangladesh to accept millions of its own people, some who have been in India for a generation, may be harder, but BJP leaders clearly believe that it can be done. And financial arrangements may be a small price to pay for securing India’s future and preventing the rise of Islamic violence in affected areas.
India is also moving against the 40,000 strong Rohingya illegal Muslim population which have been a problem in that country, as well as in Myanmar. But India is also making it clear that it will respect legitimate refugees by providing sanctuary to Hindu and Buddhist refugees fleeing Islamic violence.
There are important lessons from this effort for the United States in our immigration challenges.
India’s Modi has been dubbed a natural counterpart to Trump. Under Modi, the BJP harnessed populist sentiments to begin executing an ambitious plan for tackling India’s longstanding immigration problems. The BJP understood that it had to run on migration issues to gain political sanction for a crackdown. Popular support from Indians allowed the government to ignore protests by leftist activist groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, the domestic opposition, and even the United Nations.
The BJP understood that border security alone would never be enough. Not unless the illegal infiltrators were made to understand that there was no future for them even if they did make it across the border.
Building a border wall is a partial answer. But the real answer lies in using military force to secure the border, ending the processing of asylum requests, and distinguishing Americans from illegal aliens.
India’s example shows that these things can be done. And if India can do them, America certainly can.
Despite the media’s frenzied shrieks, there is popular support for the Trump administration’s measures from deportation to border security to adding a citizenship question to the census. The obstacle is a radical judiciary determined to protect an illegal base of Democrat voters and voting districts.
The illegal migrant issue is not about human rights or racism. It’s about political power. Democrats opposed Vietnamese refugees for the same reason that they now support open borders with Mexico.
The BJP understood this and campaigned by targeting the left-wing opposition as a party of illegals. Its fundamental argument was that leftists had chosen foreign migrants over the country’s own poor.
That was a winning argument in India. It’s a winning argument in America.
What do you think?
I’d wager it will have a minimal effect on Tribe’s standing in the professoriate, and status is what matters to professors.
DSS, the professoriate are in a different world. As Sowell says in different words, when in the private sector on screws up they get fired but when the professoriate screw up they get an advancement. They never pay for the havoc they inflict on the American public.
oh that day will come. one not walmart but the ivory tower. fail to keep order and the revolution will eventually devour its own
Profile of El Paso, TX Walmart shooter – racist anti-capitalist eco terrorist:
“In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs (to automation). Joblessness is in itself a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of defendants are removed.”
“The decimation of our environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources.”
“I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems….But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America int a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race.”
Profile of Ohio shooter – a young man who had uncontrollable fantasies about violence for years. He was suspended from high school years ago because he had lists of girls he wanted to murder, and girls he wanted to rape. He was reported to the police because he told a classmate he had thoughts of tying her up and slitting her throat, and he was disturbed by them. Yet, he was not brought before a judge, found mentally unstable, and put on NICS.
Honestly, the database is worthless if someone who was disturbed that he could not control his fantasies of mass murder did not get on it. That’s not Trump’s fault. None of the laws we already have prohibiting the dangerous mentally ill from having firearms will do any good if they are not employed properly. We can certainly dissect each case, and determine what we can do to identify people who are showing these red flags, get them the help they need, and put them in NICS, before they hurt anyone.
Dealing with this problem on the mental health issue is a non-starter, beginning with the facts that it is unenforceable and it’s function is to give GOP types something to use as an alternative to the obvious problem – as if they were serious. They are no more serious on this issue than they are on health care, for which they also have nothing to offer.
Other countries have mentally ill people. They don;t have mass shootings every week. Other countries aren’t awash in easily attainable guns and some of them assault rifles, designed to dispense as much physical damage as possible in a short time period (what makes assault rifles assault rifles – besides for the scary look guys who don’t get laid much crave – is that they fire high velocity but small caliber bullets. The velocity of a bullet has a greater effect on it’s potential damage than it’s size – it’s physics – and the resulting smaller size means they are low recoil rounds which allows the shooter greater control). Trauma doctors describe the damage from these guns as often not repairable and resultantly much more deadly. Organs near penetration, but not even struck, can explode.
We should re-institute the ban on assault weapons and pass a federal back ground check system. The 2nd amendment is not different from all the others – it is not unlimited.
‘Assault weapon’ is a term of art for a long-gun with certain styling features. It’s not a functional category.
And only a single-digit minority of homicides are committed with long guns.
TIA is ignorant enough to not understand what the AR15 is designed to do and how it does it. What I describe, beyond it’s portability and ability to hold a large magazine is accurate. Hopefully he’ll read up on why they are so lethal. It’s not because of how they look.
PS The ability of mass shooters to kill so many in such short spans of time is why they prefer assault weapons. TIA is right that most homicides are not accomplished with assault rifles.
Define ‘assault weapon’.
I already did.
Anon1:
You’ve never held an AR15. It’s not an assault rifle which is a military grade automatic rifle. It’s a semi-automatic hunting, target shooting rifle that fires a bullet slightly larger than a .22 caliber plinker. It’s only an assault rifle to Anon1 ’cause it looks scary. Then again anything lethal likely looks scary to Anon1.
Mespo, I already defeated your post. The small caliber of an AR15 works on the principle of high velocity – about 3 times that of a Glock – being more lethal than larger caliber but slower bullets. It’s physics. The small caliber then works to keep recoil low, thus giving the shooter greater control.
Google trauma doictors and high velocity weapons,
The ability of mass shooters to kill so many in such short spans of time is why they prefer assault weapons.
You do it everyday on these forums to all of us. This plaxe is strewn with lots of dead bodies kinda like Killary Klinton legacy. But like Haitian zombies we come back
this is old hat. read about the cases on assault weapons bans that were overturned. they ended up having to specify the exact brands, because the term was so inexact
in military usage, an assault rife is capable of select fire (full auto– NOT what was involved in these crimes– that requires a special federal license and they’re hardly ever used in crimes) but select fire firing a “mid range” cartride. that means between a pistol cartridge and a full battle rifle cartridge such as 308 or 7.62 MM in diameter but with a full powder charge. 223 diameter ar 15 fires a glorified version of the 22 long rifle charge. personally I think it’s a pipsqueak round. but the key thing is that none of the weapons discussed for the ban are select fire.
historically, the Germans developed the “assault rifle” firing a middle powered cartridge less powder and weight in bullet than the Mauser round, but more than a pistol round. more rapid fire than a bolt action but not as fair reaching, to be used as a complement in tank warfare and massed infantry combined tactics
the Russians got the idea and the famous Mr Kalashnikov perfected their notion based on an imitation of some of our designs and his own novel and creative ideas.
we held on to the full powered round all the way through the M14 which took a scaled down 30-06 round the 762 x 51. that was heavy still, and the M16 was deployed, finally, a rifle capable of select fire that fired a smaller round and the infantry could hump more firepower without getting all pooped out in the jungle
anyhow “assault weapon” in legal terms can mean a jar of mayonaise, so long as it was used to clobber someone in an illegal way
this is old hat if you have been well informed in the debate for decades. most folks havent
We are the only developed country besides Latvia to have over 25% of our nation’s children living in single parent homes.
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2016/10/15/22568
Children in a single parent homes have an increased likelihood of abuse, violence, criminality, drug or alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, and a whole host of other problems.
The El Paso shooter was from a single parent family. As of research from 2013, so were a bunch of other mass shooters. The ones who weren’t were often the psychotic or psychopathic ones.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/school-shootings-fathers-divorce-family-structure
I’ll write the law. It’s not that difficult.
A easily portable weapon capable of firing high velocity bullets (specify the definition) quickly and om high numbers. Define each parameter. Easy.
Now, you write the law on weapons and mental health – good luck and we’ll look for that response in 6 months.
Anon1,
I do not understand your response. For one, individuals do not get to write and pass laws.
I disagree that guns are the main problem. What do you think of the observation about single parent families and the higher likelihood of children having problems?
Why not deal with the underlying problem? Harder, but a better long-term solution, one that helps address a multitude of social ills.
What laws need to be changed? Many shooters were not even being treated for depression, psychosis or psychopathy, despite having problems.
Prairie, of course I meant I could write the law and demonstrated how. It’s easy.
You want to get bogged down in legalese, imprecise definitions, and civil rights? Try writing an effective mental health law regarding weapons. That’s not a serious proposal because it is impossible.
Anon1,
I never made that proposal.
Bad guys use guns. We’ll fix that by depriving good people of their guns. The Left really is crazy. Thank goodness James Madison had the foresight to include the Second Amendment in our national charter.
Mespo, as an attorney surely you know that laws rarely “fix” anything though good ones minimize the occurrence of targeted behavior within our civil rights. Requiring back ground checks while banning assault rifles – see my posts above for specifics – will lessen the occurrence of dead people at the hands of mass shooters, though it will not eliminate them.
You have a better idea?
Anon1:
“You have a better idea?”
******************
Mass shooters rely on gun-free zones to thrive to the tune of an 89% incidence rate. Arm the responsible victims, train them and see the incidents drop. No mass shooters in cop bars, Israel or shooting ranges: Note the intersectionality of those three. On Day 1 of hunting season my high school the parking lot was a veritable arsenal of shotguns and handguns all safely locked away in cars and trucks. Heavens to Betsy there was ammo there, too. Any loner psycho may have gotten off a few rounds only to be met with a brigade of students fully capable of putting a hole in a peach pit at 20 paces. Yes, some of the girls, too. Never a worry walking those halls.
you think it’s difficult then you havent followed the cases. i have. and the legislative texts. so feel free to trot them out here if you want to discuss them but don’t say it’s easy, it isnt.
criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, is the first rule you probably dont know but you will have to learn before you get started. and that is a very very important rule for all our liberties and isn’t going to be ignored by judges, usually
kurtz, the missing element in past laws was in specifying and limiting weapons with specific capabilities, i.e., high velocity, low recoil, highly portable rifles with high capacity magazines.
if you study the history of the “assault weapons bans” and the Bush import ban which is at 18 usc 922r you will see a lot of specifics. dig deeper into this if you are serious Anon1 because serious lawyers have been working at gun control legislation for like 40 plus years now.
i am not in favor of gun control but there are technical aspects of crafting appropriate legislation particularly crimnal statutes. the subject has complexities.
When all is said and done neither the Republicans nor the Democrats did a thing.
However Trump in an executive order went ahead and banned Bump Stocks. He did more than either party.
Prairie, Anon is going to write the law. Does anyone think that people who kill care about the law?
If certain weapons are illegal, there will be less of them available, and those remaining will have higher value. It is not only a matter of a will to break the law, but an ability to do so.
some gun control advocates have been honest enough to admit that basically they just want to ban all semi automatics. which is to say, anything that autoloads from a magazine. that is the approach they took in certain foreign countries.
it is almost nil chance you would get that passed here. and pretty much nothing short of that drastic level of gun control is going to have a noticeable effect. and even then it would take decades.
face the reality. there are like 500 million operable firearms out there in America. it is impossible to disarm short of a total Communist style totalitarian takeover including the Army making house to house warrantless searches.
and that of course is what gun advocates have warned for decades because yeah basically that is what it would take.
that is why they don’t trust you. they are realistic, and you are not really realistic. they understand what it would take to disarm the population. house to house searches with no warrants by regular infantry.
that of course would not only violate the bill of rights but the Posse Comitatus law
Kind of like Waco, except replayed 100,000 times over, it would be a flat out civil war.
ready for that? i doubt it.
“I have a friend” who has operable semiautomatics that are basically “new in box” and have been rarely fired, and properly maintained, for closing in on 70 years. there are warehouses full of arms like this owned by private people in the US. countless weapons that you seem to suggest should be banned from sale.
the suggestion is simply not practicable.
let me phrase it a different way. i ask a question:
How has the US with all its firepower and technology, fared at the task of disarming….
The Taliban?
See it aint so easy
kurtz, as I mentioned in another post, you can’t “fix” most problems legally, but you can minimize the occurrence of many. The law would be specific to high velocity, low recoil, highly portable guns with large capacity magazines. Those already out there would be subject to confiscation and illegal to sell, but no searches or violations of property would legal to find them. New ones would no longer be available and old ones would slowly diminish without ever disappearing. Their value would increase and they would be difficult to obtain for reasons of logistics and expense. This doesn’t solve or eliminate the problem – lethal killing machines in the hands of mass shooters – it makes it less likely to occur.
A mental health solution is not feasible on any level and is a BS excuse to do nothing.
People who wish to kill are not inhibited by the laws you create that prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. The only thing you have potentially done is raised the price which means this type of killer who expects to die will spend more money on the weapon of choice even if it means delaying the killing for a short time or giving up on some other luxury item.
If the price doubles he can pick a less expensive AR or pay an extra $500 – $1,000 or perhaps he will build his own. One way or the other the price of the AR is not the factor that incentivizes him to kill or not to kill. If a hammer doubled or tripled in price, you would still buy a hammer because that is central to your being just like killing is central to the killers being.
Leftists have been portraying Republicans as evil for decades. This is just the same rhetoric, ramped up. It is unfortunate that the media has falsely reported that Trump repealed an Obama law that would have prevented mass shootings. In actuality, the ACLU and 23 disability organizations lobbied to get the law repealed because it would have put anyone who required assistance with their Social Security benefits to get on NICS. That makes absolutely no sense, is discriminatory, and lacks due process.
Claiming that the President is a racist terrorist is not only unhinged, it is acceptable to university academics. This underscores the reality that taxpayer money is going to universities that have become Leftist madrassas, incorporating politics into their classes, and even harassing conservative students.
It is not right that taxpayer money be used for any political organization’s recruitment efforts. All taxpayer money should be stripped from universities and organizations like PBS and NPR until and unless they divest of political bias. Perhaps that would return such organizations to serve the people, rather than a particular political party. The other alternative is that taxpayer funding must go to political organizations equally, and there must be equal organizations in number for the Republicans. Personally, I would prefer the unbiased option, with the real threat of losing funding motivating academics to keep their personal politics out of the classroom in a way that their conscience has not.
Universities and the academics therein have lost their reputation for reason, as well as the public trust. They are encouraging wild eyed extremism.
Parents should think carefully about where to send their children, lest they return as adults so ignorant they believe Socialism is a grand and fair idea.
Karen has been portraying leftists as evil for as long as I’ve been reading her posts, as well calling them dangerous. As Kurtz pointed out, the El Paso a.shole shooter wrote a coherent if wrong and hateful justification for his actions, including support of Trump, while the Dayton a.shole did not, but somehow confuses Warren with heavy metal “pornogrind” satanism. The El Paso a.shole also fits a type that is responsible for most of the domestic violence in the US according to stats and the recent testimony of the FBI director (Trump appointee). Given Trumps repeated warnings of an invasion while laughing off suggestions that immigrants be shot, maybe his leadership is being taken to seriously by people like the shooter, and perhaps Karen should recalculate her warnings and fears based on recent events.
of course neither warren nor trump is responsible for these illegal acts
however i admit that the “manifesto” guy in texas had a reasoned (however unethical or wrong) but a reasoned political motivation whereas the Dayton freak was just a run of the mill nutjob satanist breaking stuff. now that’s exactly who ends up in ANTIFA but apparently the bozo had not gone that far yet.
personally i think an anarchist satanist type is worse than any socalled terrorist who has some coherent political motivation, because they will kill anyone for nutty fun, including their own sister, as he did.a real psycho! a lot of terrorists are not psychos. they are people who have divergent views of morality and politics but act with some sort of identifiable reason, however seemingly perverse
an anarchist satanist nutjob is just a rabid dog in need of containment or other terminal handling.
time to address seriously violent nutjobs running around on the loose.
remmber shoko ashahara? nutjob cult leader in Japan who got his followers to unleash nerve gas on the subway. see how that works? guns are a convenient tool for mischief, but not the only one
“The El Paso a.shole also fits a type that is responsible for most of the domestic violence in the US”
Yes, sadly a product of a broken home.
Lots of people come from broken homes. White nationalists are small proportion of them, but they are dominating our domestic terrorism stats.
Anon1,
Which prompts the question–why?
I came from a broken home, yet defied the odds.
What are the differences?
Why are white nationalists playing the identity politics game?
What leads them to blame others for the miseries of the world?
We are excoriated when anyone mildly implies that all Muslims are bad when one is responsible for a senseless death but we are duty bound to assume all white nationals are bad when one of them does the same thing. The Left can’t have it both ways. Either one bad actor represents the feelings of the whole group or they don’t.
Mespo,
Regarding identity politics, particularly how it is played on the right.
Jordan Peterson:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BEKkvGRgtII
” how it is played on the right.” when the right is playing identity politics, but the right’s idea of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is not one of identity politics rather one of all men being created equal. Some on the other side also feel that way but the left today along with the media is dangerously using identity politics.
Allan,
Did you watch the video? He means the portion of the right that plays identity politics. There are those on the right that ignore the precepts of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. That is the ideal, and what sensible people on the right and left look to.
I agree that the Left is playing that game very vociferously. However, there are some on the Right that say ‘fine, we will play the identity game if that is the game to play’. The whole thing is getting ugly.
Prarie, there are a lot of problems with the video not because of Peterson rather the subject matter is more complex than the time alloted for discussion. Firstly I would want to know his definitions of those he is speaking of. When you hear a few on this blog from the right talking about these kinds of things you will notice that many find it desireable to start with the belief that all people are equal under the law and that the law should be upheld. When people or their “group” misuse the law to advance themselves ahead of others that is not acceptable. Is Peterson assuming that all white nationalists are from the right or that Richard Spencer in particular is from the right especially when Spencer espouses socialism or others espouse racism, eco-terrorism or other similar ideas?
There are bad people on both sides of the aisle. We are all a mixture of good and bad where hopefully the good prevails.
Allan,
I am guessing that Dr. Peterson would say that anyone on the right who would choose to play identity politics, choosing to place at or near the top of their hierarchy their skin color, gender, or some other shallow physical, economic or whatever marker.
“Is Peterson assuming that all white nationalists are from the right or that Richard Spencer in particular is from the right especially when Spencer espouses socialism or others espouse racism, eco-terrorism or other similar ideas?”
I doubt it. However, the likelihood of white nationalists being liberals or Democrats is fairly small, if looking at generalities.
He disagrees with identity politics–be it left or right. That way leads to tribalism and greater strife.
Prairie, I don’t think we want to confuse racism with preference. People on both sides of the aisle can be racist, but that is meaningless in an ideological setting. What the left is doing is creating meaning to race, gender and whatever else they can use that to divide people. The white supremecists frequently have ideas that are pushed by the left. Some have ideas pushed by the right. But we should not say that these racists represent a specific ideology since they don’t. Nor should we say that about the mass murderers we have seen unless it is part of their ideology. The Hood shooting called workplace violence IMO was more likely a terrorist attack by design or by a man that flipped out and showed his true cards. Was his attack that of the leftists because he was Muslim? No.
Antifa is leftist because they espouse leftist ideas and more importantly because the left embraces those ideas.
You say “the likelihood of white nationalists being liberals or Democrats is fairly small, if looking at generalities.” You don’t have any proof for that. Richard Spencer who is the most prominant white nationalist has socialist ideas and believes in national health insurance. You might want to assume that he is likely a white nationalist conservative but how can he be that when his policies are of the left? These are just terms that people twist around confusing others and themselves. Almost all of us are hybrids to one degree or another. To label racists or mass killers as being adherents to one side or the other is near crazy. We need to look at our core beliefs and our principles that we will stand behind. Today the question is do Democrats have any principles at all? If one looks at the video’s of prominent Democrats that were around 10 years ago one will find a 180degree reverse in positions.
Is Tribalism bad? Only if it is misused. Catholics go to Catholic Churches, Protestants go to Protestant Churches, Jews go to Synagogues. That is tribal behavior. Is it wrong. Is it wrong for people that are Jewish to learn Hebrew? People say nationalism is bad. Is it? If it weren’t for our western warriors nationalistic feelings Europeans would be talking German. Globalism is thought to be bad by some. Is it bad that treatments for disease developed in one part of the world are used worldwide to save lives? Excess of any of these things can be bad but they are not bad in themselves.
We are labelling things too much and worst of all we are labelling them poorly.
Allan,
“There are bad people on both sides of the aisle. We are all a mixture of good and bad where hopefully the good prevails.”
Yes, being liberal or conservative does not make someone good or bad. There is a pretty good correlation that certain personality characteristics will cause people to lean one way or the other.
On either side, though, the good will be inhibited from prevailing if someone chooses to participate in identity politics.
“On either side, though, the good will be inhibited from prevailing if someone chooses to participate in identity politics.”
Prairie, if I understand the meaning of identity politics correctly I agree. We are seeing that on the left, not on the right. Remember the left seems to own the evolving dictionaries and the press so their definitions might be different than what we are used to. Sometimes it looks like the left adheres to at least a certain amount of socialism and everyone else is on the right. Of course that type of thinking is neither logical or true.
I get back to the thing I keep hammering on. The left pushes policies that increase the size of government. Its opposite would be the side that wishes to decrease the size of government. National health care is 18% of the economy so it is a metric that might be used to quickly form an impression as to what side of the aisle one is on. National health care opponents aren’t against healthcare for everyone. Most want to see all Americans getting good healthcare and they feel that a better system for all Americans is one that is in the free market. Some of those that are pushing national health care aren’t interested in the health of the nation rather are interested more in bigger government. These are things that need to be discussed. If we look at anarchists we can possibly see the completion of a circle for an anarchist can be on the left or the right. It is very confusing and our scholars haven’t made the business of understanding these things any easier.
Allan,
From a white nationalist website:
“The modern political spectrum of “Left” and “Right” is no more about class but about race. It is no more a struggle between Workers and Capitalists, but between non-Whites and Whites. Hence the Left’s promotion of mass non-White immigration (legal or illegal)”
I would say this writer would not be designated as on the Left. It is only one example, but I think it is fairly representative of most of the views.
“Is Tribalism bad? Only if it is misused. Catholics go to Catholic Churches, Protestants go to Protestant Churches, Jews go to Synagogues. That is tribal behavior.”
I do not see that as tribal behavior. In some places, it is viewed as tribal, I suppose. Here, however, we have the First Amendment, which people respect, and helps keep people from treating their religions tribally.
“People say nationalism is bad. Is it?”
No, so long as it is tempered. ‘My country, right or wrong’ is not good. Turning a love of country into jingoism is not good. Neil Postman discussed the importance of fostering a love of country in students in his book The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School.
“We are labelling things too much and worst of all we are labelling them poorly.”
Yes. Why are we labelling them poorly? Postman had an interesting perspective on this.
“The idea [of ‘cultural literacy’] is for students to become acquainted with a thousand facts without pausing to know whose facts they are, how we come to know them, why they are deemed important and by whom. This leads quite directly to the state of mind sometimes called “justificationism.” As used, for example, by Henry Perkinson in the Possibilities of Error, the word refers to the tendency of most people to engage in a rigorous and “natural” defense of their own beliefs, not so much to explain their beliefs as to justify them.”
He also noted: “We may have insufficient facts to support an idea; or some of the facts we have may be incorrect, perhaps generated by a festering emotion; or the conclusions we have drawn may not be entirely logical; or some definition we are employing may not be applicable; or we may be merely repeating an idea we have heard expressed by some authority and have not examined its implications fully.”
What else, then, would cause us to label too much, and, poorly at that? We are not in the habit of examining our own thinking, and worse, we are not in the habit of examining our own thinking for error, perhaps for fear of humiliation of making an error, fear that our understanding of ourselves and the world will disintegrate. Being wrong is considered a disgrace instead of just an error to correct.
(WordPress is acting up again)
” would say this writer would not be designated as on the Left. It is only one example, but I think it is fairly representative of most of the views.”
Prairie, I have said many times that one should not be designating a racist as a proponent for the left or the right even though quite frequently one hears leftist viewpoints from their mouths. That is why I said we are almost all hybrids and not pure.
“I do not see that as tribal behavior”
By nature IMO tribalism is within all of us to one degree or another. We stick up for our friends and families. We demonstrate that trait when we support a ball team.
Including other things I said: ““People say nationalism is bad. Is it?” to which you responded: “No, so long as it is tempered.” and that was exactly my point. Anything taken to an extreme can be bad. That is why I prefer to leave all designations behind and talk about principles and what the goals are. The goals don’t differ that much if we are talking about making things better for everyone instead of trying to win. Healthcare is the perfect subject because in the end almost all of us want the same thing and we only differ in how we get there and what the unintended consequences are along the way.
I substantially agree with Henry Parkinson and think I have said most of those things in my postings.
Allan,
“We are seeing that on the left, not on the right. ”
Identity politics can be played by anyone, be they on the right or the left.
On the right does not necessarily equal Republican, just as on the left does not necessarily equal Democrat.
The left is leading the charge, at the moment, with trying to mainstream identity politics, but they are not the only ones who play that nasty game.
The line between good and evil runs through every human heart.
Could trying to say that the left is bad (see only they play identity politics) but the right is good (‘we’ don’t play identity politics) a way of playing identity politics? As if the problem is all them, it isn’t us.
“On the right does not necessarily equal Republican, just as on the left does not necessarily equal Democrat.”
That, Prairie is a truism that is missed by a lot of people and that takes me back to stressing principles and goals. We don’t discuss them on the blog and we note by the recent change in major members of the Democratic Party that on a lot of major issues they have demonstrated a 180 degree turnabout. I’m sure you can say the same about some Republicans but IMO not to the same degree.
Allan,
“I don’t think we want to confuse racism with preference.”
What in the world should preference have to do with skin color? I think I’d prefer to spend time with Larry Elder, whose skin looks different than mine but who is interesting and holds similar values. Those are deep things that matter.
“People on both sides of the aisle can be racist, but that is meaningless in an ideological setting.”
Why would that become meaningless?
“What in the world should preference have to do with skin color?”
That wasn’t the question. What was said is that we shouldn’t “want to confuse racism with preference.” There was no mention of skin color. One can have somewhat dark skin and be categorized as a caucasian while another can have somewhat light skin and categorized as black.
Isn’t what you have been saying about Larry Elder what I have been saying over and over again? I’d love to spend time with Thomas Sowell, not because he is black rather because he taught me so much.
“Why would that become meaningless?”
In a true ideological setting, take Marxism vs. free market system, race is not the factor though it can be made a factor for other reasons and today the left is making it a factor and attempting to divide people and create hostility.
“identity politics” as an epithet does not echo with me. i have no problem with social groups advancing their common interests. that can be black or whites, Catholics or Jews, I have no problem with groups organizing and expressing interests.
I DO have a problem with Democrats and other Leftists who presume that it is ok for everybody to do it unless they are white, American, native born, heterosexual men.
in which case it is racism, imperialism, nativism, homophobia and sexism
that’s really not fair. and if you want to call me names for being what i am ok, but i am not going to stop with my own forms of social and political activity and even organizing just because you don’t like my particular groups
Republicans need to get that figured out like i have.
Republicans are a big party. we can accomodate a lot of different groups to coexist and cooperate and advance a positive political agenda for America. We don’t need to accept the restrictions the Democrats invite us to inhabit.
Mr Kurtz,
I have never called you names.
“i have no problem with social groups advancing their common interests. that can be black or whites, Catholics or Jews, I have no problem with groups organizing and expressing interests.”
That way leads to Balkanization, to tribalism, to fighting and blood. We are Americans who are supposed to be united under the precepts set forth in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the concept of E pluribus unum. If all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, then ‘social groups’ have no business trying to advance their “group” interests. Interests ought to be those of the states or of Americans generally.
“That way leads to Balkanization, to tribalism, to fighting and blood. ”
It doesn’t necessarily lead to violence. I don’t think we need to be totally blended into one type of individual. That is one reason I so strongly support the Constitution and the argument by Madison in Federalist 10. We need to all uphold the Constitution but we can all, under the Constitution, seek things out for our own interests. In fact the free market economic system we live under is dependent on our seeking our own interests.
Mr Kurtz,
“that’s really not fair. and if you want to call me names for being what i am ok, but i am not going to stop with my own forms of social and political activity and even organizing just because you don’t like my particular groups”
I am not sure I understand what you mean here. I think we are in agreement that the left is turning being caucasian, Christian, heterosexual, and male (essentially a “WASP”) into a pejorative, and, that their doing so is wrong.
When you say “i am not going to stop with my own forms of social and political activity and even organizing just because you don’t like my particular groups”, what do you mean?
Mr. Kurtz,
“I will associate with whom I please, why I please.”
Free association is awesome. Thank goodness for the First Amendment.
“I may like somebody because we share ancestry.”
Yes, that is reasonable. The strongest part of my ancestry is Swedish, and I enjoy visiting a small Swedish museum and celebrating some Swedish holidays (St. Lucia’s, for instance).
“I won’t seek the approval of any university apparatchiks for my relations.”
Of course not. What have they to approve? Their arguments and advice can be sound and wise or not. If they be not wise, follow them not.
“I believe in equality under the law. I do not believe that we are all the same, however.”
Yes, I agree we are equal under the law and share the same rights ensconced in the Bill of Right.
If we were all the same, that would be boring, and, worrisome. If a pond stays too much the same, it stagnates.
Allan,
“I have said many times that one should not be designating a racist as a proponent for the left or the right”
I thought we were talking about white nationalists, not racists in general. Racists can be of any background.
““I do not see that as tribal behavior”
By nature IMO tribalism is within all of us to one degree or another. We stick up for our friends and families. We demonstrate that trait when we support a ball team.”
That is not what most people mean, though, and certainly not what identity politics is about, when people discuss whether something is tribalistic. Most people do not go all Hatfield and McCoy when it comes to their families. Most people engage in a friendly rivalry for sports teams, rather than get all tribalistic. It can certainly devolve into that, but people recognize that it is a deterioration of perspective for people to go tribal about a ball game.
“I prefer to leave all designations behind and talk about principles and what the goals are.”
The conversations would sure be more interesting if more people did that.
“The goals don’t differ that much if we are talking about making things better for everyone instead of trying to win.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
“I thought we were talking about white nationalists, not racists in general.
Racists can be of any background.”
Prairie, so can white nationalists except for their intrinsic DNA. Racist is a broader term that would generally include white nationalists and I included it in answer to your question.
“That is not what most people mean, though, and certainly not what identity politics is about”
Identity politics is a different story. It is derived from our individual cultures and races and used to divide people rather than bring them together. One can interpret the meaning of tribalism in many ways. Humans evolved as “tribes”. If one is utilizing the word ‘tribe’ only as a pejorative, then one would have to say so.
It’s very difficult on the blog to accurately converse especially with multiple conversations going on at the same time.
I am glad that we have substantial agreement on the important points, principles and goals.
Allan,
“Prairie, I don’t think we want to confuse racism with preference.”
I didn’t think we were. We were talking specifically of white nationalists. Besides, while preference isn’t racism, preference should nonetheless be focused primarily on character and values and interests.
“Prairie, I have said many times that one should not be designating a racist as a proponent for the left or the right”
It is true that racists can be on either the right or the left or a mish-mash of both perspectives.
What Dr. Peterson was acknowledging was that identity politics can be played by people not only generally considered on the left, but also on the right, and, of greater concern, how they play the horrid game is generally quite different, with those on the right having fewer qualms about playing the game ‘to win’ (and ‘to win’ does not preclude using violence–though, in the end, as can be seen by the Communists, left-wing players of identity politics aren’t exactly hesitant to use violence to achieve their means either).
” preference should nonetheless be focused primarily on character and values and interests.”
That sounds reasonable,Prairie, but I wouldn’t want to dictate anyone’s preferences. The question arises whether those who only wish to associate with one race or religion should be permitted to do so. As long as they are acting within the law and not directing their efforts to hurt another individual should others be involved?
“What Dr. Peterson was acknowledging was that identity politics can be played by people not only generally considered on the left,”
Of course. But at the present time the identity politics being played and that is most dangerous is mostly coming from the left.
Allan,
“stressing principles and goals. We don’t discuss them on the blog”
Tis a pity. Heaven forbid we the people actually try to sort out tricky problems!
Allan,
““i have no problem with social groups advancing their common interests. that can be black or whites, Catholics or Jews, I have no problem with groups organizing and expressing interests.”
That way leads to Balkanization, to tribalism, to fighting and blood. We are Americans who are supposed to be united under the precepts set forth in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the concept of E pluribus unum. If all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, then ‘social groups’ have no business trying to advance their “group” interests. Interests ought to be those of the states or of Americans generally.”
Allan says: August 8, 2019 at 9:12 PM
“That way leads to Balkanization, to tribalism, to fighting and blood. ”
It doesn’t necessarily lead to violence. I don’t think we need to be totally blended into one type of individual.”
Social groups advancing their common interests, as I understood Mr. Kurtz, political advancement, will indeed lead to Balkanization and tribalism, fighting and blood. That is against E pluribus unum. I do not think what I said indicated at all that we ever ought to be blended into one type of individual (except, of course, as we should wholeheartedly view ourselves as American and wish to uphold the values expressed in our founding documents).
Outside of government, if people wish to peacefully advance their social groups, that is a different matter. Many Christians evangelize, clubs encourage people to join, history and heritage organizations hold festivals and events.
We are in agreement that we must try to balance and avoid excesses. To return again to Neil Postman, “In learning about difference, we become less afraid and therefore more courageous. In learning about commonalities, we become more hopeful.”
Prairie, we always risk Balkanization. However, my premise is that we are all individual’s with God given rights as stated in the Constitution.
That means we have a choice. Give up our individual rights or maintain them. I brought up Federalist 10 because I think Madison explained these thoughts better than I could ever do. Once power is transferred from the individual to the group then one’s individualism is restricted by another who is less informed and knowledgeable as to your needs than you are.
“…concept of E pluribus unum…”
All men are created equal does not mean that all men finish the race at the same time. How can the government advance my particular interests and why would they?
I have to take Mr. Kurtz’s understanding out of our discussion because I have considerable argument with Mr. Kurtz but feel he is entitled to what he believes and for the most part what he believes appears legal whether or not his facts are accurate.
“Outside of government, if people wish to peacefully advance their social groups, that is a different matter.”
That is a reasonable statement.
To expand that statement to what is happening today, in the present. We have to note that people inside the government have been not so peacefully advancing their agendas while breaking the law with the intention of injuring innocent parties and by doing so have weakened the Republic to a point that the Republic might be converted into a “Theocracy” where the faith based ideological leanings are those of the left and those that wish to steal from the American people.
“To return again to Neil Postman, “In learning about difference, we become less afraid and therefore more courageous. “
Here I disagree for if we recognize today’s enemy we should become more afraid because they have little regard for the country, our Republic, individualism etc. They are more interested in setting up a Fascist state where they control the individual in every part of his life.
Take note that already free speech is greatly impaired even on the Democrat side. Look at what happened to Tulsi Gabbard. Look at PC proper words. Look at how the elites want the middle class to suffer under environmental rules and regulations. Look at people being prosecuted while others are let go. Look at our education system and how it is brainwashing those being educated. Look at how diversity in opinion has led to the firing of individuals. One can go on and on. What has happened already is already horrific and even those pledged to protect our civil liberties have been converted into soldiers helping to deprive individuals of their individual liberties.
Allan,
“To label racists or mass killers as being adherents to one side or the other is near crazy. We need to look at our core beliefs and our principles that we will stand behind. Today the question is do Democrats have any principles at all?”
So, should the discussion really be about whether the Democrat have principles, or should the discussion be deeper than that–a cultural level?
Perhaps we should look at the effects of single parenthood on our children and on our culture.
Perhaps we should also look at the effect lousy or absent fathering has on our children, especially our boys, and, on our culture.
What are the effects and what are the solutions?
Just in regards to school shooters (not to mention all the other detrimental risk factors of a broken home)–what is the effect of broken families and lousy fathers? Lousy mothering and lousy parenting in general is bad enough, but at least one shooter “reported loss of father as worst thing that ever happened to him”.
Dr. Peter Langman, in a 2016 article, found that 80% of school shooters grew up in broken or dysfunctional families. With a quick glance, the ones who did not have obviously broken or dysfunctional families were psychotic or psychopathic. Mass shooters of other public places are often very similar–the El Paso man was from a broken home.
Of 50 school shooters, 21 had outright violent or drug/alcohol addicted or abusing fathers. Several more had fathers listed as absent or neglectful. Many of the other entries simply listed that the parents divorced with no other details. What else is in the shadows of the divorces–fighting, undocumented abuse, absence? Perhaps ‘nothing but a divorce’, but that can be harrowing enough for a child.
“So, should the discussion really be about whether the Democrat have principles, or should the discussion be deeper than that–a cultural level?”
Both are perfectly good discussions. Whether Democrats have principles or not is of utmost importance because they are one of the two parties that control this nation’s destiny.
Prairie, a good discussion would reveal what principles Democrats actually have and will hold for a reasonable period of time. Then with that list of principles the American people can vote. Right now the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to have any principles (though they did in the past) and that is why the discussion for over two years has been on the phony Russia investigation.
“Perhaps we should look at the effects of single parenthood on our children and on our culture.”
We should for that is of the utmost of importance, but listen to our leftist arrogant bloggers that don’t want to discuss these things but adhere to the Russia hoax as real and that Trump is not a legitimate President.
“Just in regards to school shooters”
Look at the Parkland school killing. Did the left look at any of the deep problems involved in that shooting? Not really. The fact is their policies promoted that killing and one of their policies was Obama’s Promise Program (and rationals) which is at the root of that killing though basic parenting might never have permitted that type of hate to exist.
You are providing an excellent list of social problems that are not being addressed by the left or have been addressed in the wrong fashion. The right has guilt as well but theirs is more of ommission rather than commission.
Allan,
“Identity politics is a different story. It is derived from our individual cultures and races and used to divide people rather than bring them together. One can interpret the meaning of tribalism in many ways. Humans evolved as “tribes”. If one is utilizing the word ‘tribe’ only as a pejorative, then one would have to say so.”
I agree that identity politics is used to divide people rather than bring them together. And, yes, we evolved as ‘tribes’. And, we are hierarchical by nature. Our reaction to behave in tribal manner is very base (it can be seen, unfortunately, in any middle school–The Lord of the Flies is true in a deep, sad sense). Taken to its logical end, focusing on one’s ‘tribe’ or allowing oneself to be a tool of identify politics, does, indeed lead to blood. The Kulaks, Jews, and Tutsis and Hutus know this too well.
Choosing to focus on the individual (but balancing that with the community) is a matter of practice and philosophy, and enshrined in Judeo-Christian values, but preeminently in democratic republic systems of governance. If all men are created equal (and it does mean all people, dangit!), then that means every individual is equal before the law and each person has been endowed with certain inalienable rights. Such things are big responsibilities to shoulder–since, we are each one within ‘the people’ Abraham Lincoln referenced when noting ours was a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’. We have a duty to shoulder such responsibilities, to add our voices to the great conversation and to work, as neighbors, with one another to endeavor to make every level of our nation (local, regional, state, federal) as strong and vibrant as possible.
“It’s very difficult on the blog to accurately converse especially with multiple conversations going on at the same time.”
I agree! A nice cafe or comfortable chairs in a living room or kitchen with a nice spot of tea or coffee would be much more amenable. My living room would not accommodate all at once the number of people I enjoy conversing with here, though. 🙂 I am glad we at least have this venue.
“I am glad that we have substantial agreement on the important points, principles and goals.”
Yes, indeed. 🙂
“Taken to its logical end, focusing on one’s ‘tribe’ or allowing oneself to be a tool of identify politics, does, indeed lead to blood.”
Prairie, one doesn’t have to take anything to its endpoint and I think that is something we agree on when we say everything in moderation.
I sort of agree with your third paragraph but at the same time have considerable disagreement with it if you are creating an obligation of service that is not part of the law. People contribute in their own way but generally their focus is on their own benefit.
As far as conversation in one’s home I am accustomed to individuals bringing in special people to discuss special topics having relatively large groups (for a home) of people being involved. I find that type of intellectual stimulation an excellent form of entertainment.
Allan,
“” preference should nonetheless be focused primarily on character and values and interests.”
That sounds reasonable,Prairie, but I wouldn’t want to dictate anyone’s preferences. The question arises whether those who only wish to associate with one race or religion should be permitted to do so. As long as they are acting within the law and not directing their efforts to hurt another individual should others be involved?”
I would not want to dictate anyone’s preferences either. People have free association. However, people can be involved by expressing their concerns when that free association seems to be becoming detrimental or down-right pathological. Emphasizing the cohesiveness of community generally is good, especially when people are injured or suffering loss or hardship of some kind. Encouraging people who feel lost, alone, or ostracized to remain with a wide community can be beneficial for all, so long as it does not become forced.
“at the present time the identity politics being played and that is most dangerous is mostly coming from the left.”
I agree with that for the most part. However, I would keep my eye on elements of the right for dangerous reactions to the excesses of the left.
Prairie, I don’t disagree with the benefits of community but it is not for everyone. However, I do note that people voluntarily will come to certain events even if their normal disposition is to isolate themselves among their own.
“I would keep my eye on elements of the right for dangerous reactions to the excesses of the left.”
Reactions to bad behavior have to be considered as well. However, I noted in the past on this list significant support for Antifa and BLM when both groups were involved in violent actions. I treat all types of violence the same whether from the left, right or the extremes.
Allan,
“All men are created equal does not mean that all men finish the race at the same time. How can the government advance my particular interests and why would they?”
Community is important in this issue. Find other people with similar concerns and interests, discuss the pros/cons of an issue, and then take what seems most sensible to whatever level of representation is appropriate. Gather more people if necessary, to demonstrate that the issue concerns a broad swath of people. Make the concern public using social media, if necessary. Civil, rational conversation and a willingness to examine one’s own thoughts and be open to changing one’s mind is crucial. Courage to broach the subject with those who may be of an opposing viewpoint is important. Listen to people–they might know something you don’t (hat-tip to Dr. Peterson, there).
“I have to take Mr. Kurtz’s understanding out of our discussion because I have considerable argument with Mr. Kurtz but feel he is entitled to what he believes and for the most part what he believes appears legal whether or not his facts are accurate.”
Dare I ask what your ‘considerable argument’ is, at risk of derailing the direction of our discussion? If you wish to leave such a discussion for a later time, that is understandable. 🙂
“We have to note that people inside the government have been not so peacefully advancing their agendas while breaking the law with the intention of injuring innocent parties and by doing so have weakened the Republic to a point that the Republic might be converted into a “Theocracy” where the faith based ideological leanings are those of the left and those that wish to steal from the American people.”
I can see that. There is a great deal embedded in your short paragraph; a great many layers and interwoven concerns to peel back and sort out. I am intrigued.
Prairie Rose wrote: “To return again to Neil Postman, “In learning about difference, we become less afraid and therefore more courageous. “
Allan wrote: “Here I disagree for if we recognize today’s enemy we should become more afraid because they have little regard for the country, our Republic, individualism etc. They are more interested in setting up a Fascist state where they control the individual in every part of his life.”
I still agree, overall, with Postman. People too often fear what they do not know or do not understand. Not understanding differences makes solving complex problems seem insurmountable. Understanding differences would make people less afraid to confront a problem (or, at least more confident and courageous towards a problem at hand).
“What has happened already is already horrific and even those pledged to protect our civil liberties have been converted into soldiers helping to deprive individuals of their individual liberties.”
One patient conversation at a time may help walk this back.
“Community is important in this issue.”
Yes, but we have to respect the right of those that wish to remain alone or only with people of their own choosing.
“Dare I ask what your ‘considerable argument’ is,”
There are some facts where I disagree with Kurtz along with how he evaluates certain things, but that is his right. I am sure he feels the same about me. For the most part he is trying not to interfere with the rights of others so my disagreements are relatively minor and I find no discomfort discussing anything with him. He is not a closed mind.
” I am intrigued.”
That is what discussion is supposed to be about. But on this blog we have the stupid like Brainless who contributes nothing to the conversation but her witless remarks and then we have some others (also stupid) who seldom can deal with facts. I play in the sandbox for my own reasons, but I prefer real discussion especially with people that have knowledge and something to say.
“One patient conversation at a time may help walk this back.“
I don’t think that will be sufficient.
Allan,
“Prairie, a good discussion would reveal what principles Democrats actually have and will hold for a reasonable period of time. Then with that list of principles the American people can vote. Right now the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to have any principles (though they did in the past) and that is why the discussion for over two years has been on the phony Russia investigation.”
You are right. A good discussion about first principles is important at this time. People embody their principles, though the values they want to or intend to embody do not always align with reality.
The Democrats have principles, though they may not be what they think they are. They are acting out shutting down speakers–what then is the principle that they are acting out? It is not a belief in free speech. Are they compassionate? Why then call people ‘deplorable’ or ‘redneck’?
Why just stop with Democrats? Republicans could also practice some self-reflection.
To start with Democrats, what is on your mind in regards to their principles or lack thereof?
“To start with Democrats, what is on your mind in regards to their principles or lack thereof?”
Prairie, think of what you thought the principles were of the Democratic Party when you respected them or voted for them.
Create a column list of those things and then think of your positive fantasies regarding what the Democrats supported and add them to the list.
Then in the next column, list how the Democrats have been acting today. Totally intolerable.
As far as Republicans, I don’t want to play the moral equivalence game. They have been far more consistent and moral.
Allan,
“I sort of agree with your third paragraph but at the same time have considerable disagreement with it if you are creating an obligation of service that is not part of the law. People contribute in their own way but generally their focus is on their own benefit.”
When I speak of duty and responsibility, that should come from a person’s soul. I am in strong disagreement (though am a touch torn) with President Obama’s ‘community service’ requirement for high school students. Many schools require ‘volunteer’ hours. I do not think volunteerism should be required. However, I do recognize that perhaps after having volunteered it will spark a latent spirit towards civic participation in some students. Perhaps I am cynical, but I do not think that is likely. People are sentenced to ‘community service’ for petty crimes. Required volunteerism for school smacks of that–you know, in order to graduate and be ‘released’.
Regarding people’s personal perspective on their civic duty, their ‘own benefit’ is often too narrowly considered. Having reasonable taxes to support a good public education may not narrowly benefit the retiree with no local grandchildren, but, having a good quality school district will encourage families who care about education and all the positive things that entails to move into the district (or, at least not leave). Having well-educated citizens (and that does not automatically mean having advanced degrees) correlates with a safe and enjoyable community to live in.
“As far as conversation in one’s home I am accustomed to individuals bringing in special people to discuss special topics having relatively large groups (for a home) of people being involved. I find that type of intellectual stimulation an excellent form of entertainment.”
Yes, that would be very enjoyable. I envy your plentiful seats. 🙂 To be a fly on the wall… It has been awhile (too long, really), but we have enjoyed having several families over, and, while the kids run amuck, we enjoy a good chat at the table. If we didn’t have to consider our kids and our own bedtimes, we’d easily be up half the night.
I appreciate and enjoy the small scale intellectual stimulation we are having now.
“Many schools require ‘volunteer’ hours. I do not think volunteerism should be required. “
Prairie,I agree. This is little more than elitism and virtue signaling. More affluent children will go all over the world to show how good they are and impress college admissions officers. I think it is garbage and they should be doing good closer to home, helping a neighbor, having a ‘job’, helping out family. The more advanced students could tutor those having academic problems. This business of top down, we know better than you, government is ridiculous.
There is nothing more civic than helping a neighbor or helping one’s own family survive.
Taxes exist to pay for necessary government. It is not a matter of how much taxes rather what is absolutely necessary. Too much money leads to corruption and misuse of funds for pet projects. Then there is the consideration of where the funds come from. Federal taxes should only be used for federal issues dictated by the Constitution. State taxes dictated by the State Constitution and local taxes dictated by the people that actually know what they need. My problem is not that I pay too much in taxes rather I don’t like how the money is spent. If it was spent well I wouldn’t mind paying more.
Almost anyone has enough space for such conversations and if not in the home in another facility. Right here we have a platform for such discussions that is wasted by those that never learned how to think. One of the lists I was fortunate enough to be on years ago contained a very educated group including professors, mayors, a bunch of people whose names later appeared prominently as writers for major publications or otherwise ended up in the public eye. I learned alot from that list even if I disagreed.
Allan,
“I don’t disagree with the benefits of community but it is not for everyone. However, I do note that people voluntarily will come to certain events even if their normal disposition is to isolate themselves among their own.”
Of course. No one should be forced, only encouraged. I am a bit of an introvert myself, preferring small groups to crowds, but I have been known to enjoy a good rock concert now and again, and, I do love going to the fair.
Allan,
“He is not a closed mind.”
Agreed. I have enjoyed very nice conversations with him.
Prairie Rose wrote: “One patient conversation at a time may help walk this back.“
Allan wrote: “I don’t think that will be sufficient.”
Yeah, you’re right. I do view conversations on here to potentially have greater reach and a potentially broader positive effect than one on one conversations over tea in a cafe.
As it truly is likely insufficient, what would you like to see as a more effective route to positive change (since one must be very careful how change is effected)?
“As it truly is likely insufficient, what would you like to see as a more effective route to positive change (since one must be very careful how change is effected)?”
Prairie, the conversation has no effect on those that refuse to engage and deal point by point. Whether it has an effect on anyone else, I don’t know. I listen to what people say and then I try to figure out what made them say what they did based on the little information available and the type of personality being dealt with.
(Pardon if this is a repost)
Allan,
“As far as Republicans, I don’t want to play the moral equivalence game. They have been far more consistent and moral.”
I don’t mean to play the ‘moral equivalence game’. I doubt I am the only centrist (albeit a bit libertarian-leaning) Independent who is aggravated by both parties. According to Gallup, in 2017, 42% of Americans identified as political Independents. About 30% are Democrats and about 30% are Republicans. When it comes down to it, a great many people disagree with both parties. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me it is the Independents who really decide elections, and I am not certain their (our) voices are reflected in the breathless polling during election cycles.
At the moment I am more fed up with the Democrats because they truly seem to have abandoned their supposed principles of support for civil liberties, among other things. However, I am still irked at the Republicans for the Patriot Act, TARP, CPSIA, NSA spying, and the use of the AUMF, among other things. They are not balanced either. The Democrats are far more out of whack, so yes, my ire is more directed toward them at the moment.
” it is the Independents who really decide elections”
Prairie, it is the independents that decide elections only because we already know how the others will vote. But we also have to look at whether those supporting one side or the other will come out to vote.
We can go deeper to figure out how decisions are made and that takes into the realm of the media and the Hi Tech companies that are presently threatening freedom of speech.
There are basic principles which should be part of both parties and the differences should be in how one manages those principles.
Allan,
““they should be doing good closer to home, helping a neighbor, having a ‘job’, helping out family. The more advanced students could tutor those having academic problems. This business of top down, we know better than you, government is ridiculous.
There is nothing more civic than helping a neighbor or helping one’s own family survive.”
This requirement may push students to participate in more formal ‘community service/volunteer’ activities. It is the informal element that could be lost or forgotten. How awkward it would be to help your elderly neighbor-lady weed her flower bed and mow her yard, and then say, ‘By the way, could you sign my community service hours sheet for school?’ It could make both you and her feel that the time you spent helping was inauthentic, that you did it to pass a requirement. Schools are to be in the business of educating students, and while character and responsibility are part of that, coercion to achieve such goals is likely to result in the very opposite.
“Federal taxes should only be used for federal issues dictated by the Constitution. State taxes dictated by the State Constitution and local taxes dictated by the people that actually know what they need.”
I am revealing my ignorance here: isn’t that how it works?
“My problem is not that I pay too much in taxes rather I don’t like how the money is spent. If it was spent well I wouldn’t mind paying more.”
That is reasonable, and, very likely, many people agree. Where, in particular, are you concerned about waste or foolishness?
Universities may be a prime place–if you do not spend all the grant money, there is fear you’ll get less the next time around, so all kinds of not completely necessary stuff is purchased towards the end of the fiscal year to run out the full sum, even if it wasn’t fully needed because the balance is not allowed to carry over year to year.
“Right here we have a platform for such discussions that is wasted by those that never learned how to think.”
Learning to think and practicing thinking is hard. Learning to wonder is a huge part of it, too.
For some, is it because they never learned how to think? If people aim to wrestle with ideas, wish to strive for truth or best practices, then that would be apparent by the manner of conversation. If it is to sow discord or to distract away from productive discussion, then that, too, is apparent.
“One of the lists I was fortunate enough to be on years ago contained a very educated group including professors, mayors, a bunch of people whose names later appeared prominently as writers for major publications or otherwise ended up in the public eye. I learned alot from that list even if I disagreed.”
What a neat opportunity!
“There is nothing more civic than helping a neighbor ”
Prairie, it is the elitists that wish to be self serving and can financially afford the costs of their ideas like mandatory volunteer work. Every chance they get they squeeze out others to reduce the threat of competition. Too many do not stand for merit. Too many stand for class.
“I am revealing my ignorance here: isn’t that how it works?”
You are not ignorant. That is how we say it works but the reality is quite different. Fights for power always exist and the Federal Government knows that wielding money is the same as wielding power. Look at how the federal budget climbs and look at how the expenditures have changed. Then ask yourself, why. I’m not saying the money should or should not be spent. I am talking about the way the money is used and spent.
“That is reasonable, and, very likely, many people agree. Where, in particular, are you concerned about waste or foolishness?”
Look at the budget deficit. That is not how I handle my own business affairs. “Universities may be a prime place–if you do not spend all the grant money, there is fear you’ll get less the next time around…”. You are answering your own question.
Too many people on the blog don’t understand the in context meaning of their remarks and rather than be consistent they say whatever comes to their minds without explaining their own inconsistencies. Some just repeat a mantra because they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. Some have more arrogance than intelligence.
“What a neat opportunity!”
When I came to this blog I hoped for the same but I have seen only the opposite.
Allan,
“the conversation has no effect on those that refuse to engage and deal point by point.”
Unfortunately, true.
“Whether it has an effect on anyone else, I don’t know.”
True, again. I am optimistic that there are others out there in the world who are quietly engaged in the questing conversations on here, and that they derive benefit from “listening” to different perspectives being respectfully wrestled with.
“I listen to what people say and then I try to figure out what made them say what they did based on the little information available and the type of personality being dealt with.”
I try to do this, as well. If I’m not sure I try to ask clarifying questions. As Dennis Prager would say, ‘Clarity over agreement.’
Allan,
“it is the elitists that wish to be self serving and can financially afford the costs of their ideas like mandatory volunteer work.”
This may be somewhat sideways from your point, but the quote flashed into my mind nonetheless: C.S. Lewis wrote,
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely excercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
“Every chance they get they squeeze out others to reduce the threat of competition. Too many do not stand for merit. Too many stand for class.”
It seems too many are insecure about their own merit, about where they stand in the competence hierarchy. All that does is erode competence.
“Fights for power always exist and the Federal Government knows that wielding money is the same as wielding power.”
Can that be decoupled?
“Look at how the federal budget climbs and look at how the expenditures have changed. Then ask yourself, why. I’m not saying the money should or should not be spent. I am talking about the way the money is used and spent.”
What do you think are the intended or unintended outcome(s) about the way money is used and spent? I fear debt-slavery is one.
Prairie Rose wrote: “Where, in particular, are you concerned about waste or foolishness?”
Allan wrote: “Look at the budget deficit. That is not how I handle my own business affairs. “Universities may be a prime place–if you do not spend all the grant money, there is fear you’ll get less the next time around…”. You are answering your own question.”
Yes, with one likely problem area in the larger federal budget. Do you have one or more spots that come to mind besides that example?
“When I came to this blog I hoped for the same but I have seen only the opposite.”
I, too, am distressed by the degree of petty flinging of ad hominems, deliberate misrepresentations, and lack of good faith amongst too many conversants. But, as an optimist, I hazard that perhaps the assessment could be tempered to ‘almost the opposite’. There are civil strands here and there of genuine conversation. Perhaps the length and breadth and frequency of such conversations could build; a glimmer, an ember, of possibility is present.
[Allan] “Fights for power always exist and the Federal Government knows that wielding money is the same as wielding power.”
[Prairie] “Can that be decoupled?”
Prairie, I think so.1)Too much money brings in the thieves to gather at the trough. Less money means that it isn’t as worthwhile lobyying the government. 2)less money might mean more people activitiy and less political activity 3)less money can occur by returning power and money to the states that are closer to the people.
“What do you think are the intended or unintended outcome(s) about the way money is used and spent?”
A power grab.
Budget deficit: “Do you have one or more spots that come to mind besides that example?”
Virtually every area of government spending.
Allan,
“1)Too much money brings in the thieves to gather at the trough. Less money means that it isn’t as worthwhile lobyying the government.”
What constitutes the primary target for lobbyists?
What should be the proper function of lobbying?
“3)less money can occur by returning power and money to the states that are closer to the people.”
What are the main areas of the Federal government that are managing what would be better managed by the states?
Education is one area, but I do think money could still be dispersed to an extent from the Federal government to the states but with fewer strings attached. But, what else?
“What do you think are the intended or unintended outcome(s) about the way money is used and spent?”
A power grab.
Budget deficit: “Do you have one or more spots that come to mind besides that example?”
Virtually every area of government spending.”
Well, but that makes judicious pruning complicated. Gotta have a place to start and a plan to whittle.
Debates about the merit of this or that program or policy can be had at a more fine-tuned level and is likely to be slightly less contentious than arguing to eliminate a huge arena.
“What constitutes the primary target for lobbyists?
What should be the proper function of lobbying?”
Prairie, these are very broad questions that require considerable time to answer appropriately. The short answer, wherever there is money to be made by lobbying generally there will be a lobbyist available. Lobbyists are not good or bad since they act as a means of communication. The problem lies when too much money is available and that money isn’t an absolute necessity. That is when the scavenger’s come in to create a way to spend money and those in power use that money to continue being in power or to improve their own lifestyles.
“What are the main areas of the Federal government that are managing what would be better managed by the states?”
This is also a very broad question. Look at the Constitution and see what it says about what powers are given to the federal government. Then look at history and where government spending has increased. That will give you a broad idea of what money is in question. Ask yourself the question, who knows better what your needs are? A person that lives in D.C. without any idea about your needs? Certainly not. You know better than him. Your local community knows better than him.
If you are looking to whittle down government expenditures one can virtually reduce every department. But one should look at Congress that increases their pay when they don’t even balance the budget. The government is too big and needs to shift a lot of its decsisions to the states.
Rose, you ask what forms of organizing. All social contacts are form of organizing. Some are more formal than others. I will associate with whom I please, why I please. I may like somebody because we share ancestry. I like to play cards with some people who have emigrated from the same locations as my ancestors for example. That’s quite informal. I have less casual connections. I won’t seek the approval of any university apparatchiks for my relations.
You talked about all equal etc. I believe in equality under the law. I do not believe that we are all the same, however. If we are not the same, then like numbers which are not the same, we can’t be equal. Perhaps I am not a good American, but I know most who came before me ascribed a very limited range to that “all men are created equal” slogan, which mostly relates to equality before the law.
And, I count myself in that number. Perhaps I am old fashioned that way!
Mr. Kurtz,
I accidentally replied to you above under the wrong ‘Reply’.
“It’s very difficult on the blog to accurately converse especially with multiple conversations going on at the same time.”
Part of the exchange involving Prairie Rose, Allan, and to some degree Mr. Kurtz jogged my memory of some of Marshall McLuhan’s works from years ago.
There are few people who can legitimately viewed as true visionaries in anticipating future changes in society, but I think McLuhan was arguably in that class.
https://www.eamonn.com/2018/06/30/mcluhans-prediction-of-world-war-iii-was-spot-on/
Without trying to review McLuhan’s ideas and predictions, this brief commentary captures some of McLuhan’s ideas.
( Proper, orderly placement and sequence of comments and replies doesn’t always happen here, so no need for P. Rose to explain).
Anonymous,
Thank you for the link! (And, btw, the landscape picture on that page is absolutely stunning in its beauty.)
“It’s all about the information, Marty!”
And I thought the movie Sneakers was prescient!
The religion of Islam – like Judaism and Christianity – has many passages in it’s holy book which are barbaric, ignorant, and primitive by our modern standards. Most members of those religions no longer accept those passages as important to their beliefs and do not follow them. White nationalists by definition ascribe to a primitive and hateful doctrine which implies hostility and possible criminality toward other citizens.
White nationalists by definition ascribe to a primitive and hateful doctrine which implies hostility and possible criminality toward other citizens.
Do you have a specific source for that definition?
Most? How do you know that?
“Most” probably do not understand those things in the same way secular people do. It’s assumed that religious people take everything literally and don’t have any sense of allegory. This is usually wrong. It’s often secular people who lack imagination.
As for white nationalists. what definition were you looking at when you said they are defined as primitive? is there a source? we can have a discussion if there is some content worth debating here. or was it just an insult to people you don’t like?
even the reflexive definition of white nationalists as hateful is dubious. i don’t take any nationalist as hateful by definition. but some people tend to define all of them that way
i ask you. for you, in this defining stuff, what’s the difference between a zulu nationalist politician in the RSA and an afrikaaner nationalist politician? how do you define one as primitive or not, one as a hater or not? just taking it away from america to another racially mixed republic for a moment.
what about yugoslavia? were serb, croat, bosnian nationalists all primitive and hateful and bad? were they all bigots, what? or is there some level on which they all may have had a legitimate social and political premise?
Mr. Kurtz – I am a nationalist. And I am white. I believe in the sanctity of the borders of the United States of America. I believe that those people who crossed the borders illegally are part of an invasion. Were it up to me, the border would be armed and mined and people crossing illegally would be shot and killed. This would be regardless of their age. Just like the East Germans did to those trying to cross the Berlin wall.
I think the sheriff of El Paso, was racist when he said that he was offended that Anglo came to El Paso to kill Mexicans. Can only Mexicans kill Mexicans in El Paso?
I think the idea of white nationalism is a hoax put out by the press and the liberal media to try to scare the Republicans and anyone else who would try to defend themselves against them. It is the new bogeyman. You can be white and be a nationalist, you can be black and be a nationalist, you can be yellow and be a nationalist, you can be brown and be a nationalist. The key is that you are a nationalist. The color of your skin has nothing to do with.
identity politics. valid only for blacks, latinos, gays?
why can’t whites legitimately engage in “identity politics?”
I say we can. but i am just a nobody
the question is all you white people who think it’s so bad, tell yourself why you can’t have the same latitude of social organization that our society allows to everyone else. why have you downgraded yourself into a lesser category?
Yeah, kurtz, I’m really sorry St Patrick’s Day and the San Gennaro Feast have been banned.
european national identity gets a pass, but the general category “White” does not
“White” can’t be allowed anymore, even though it’s a very real social category.
why are blonde jokes ok, but kinky hair jokes not?
some free speech will always be freer than others i guess
Tell me why? better yet tell yourself why.
the explanation is always the same at the root of it. power. in this way, the entire Enlightenment edifice of universal human rights, crumbles. and we are left right where Nietzsche was, staring into the abyss
kurtz, blonde jokes are jokes – no one takes them seriously and those with blonde hair aren’t offended, nor are they intended to be offensive. Kinky hair jokes come from a long history of racism and the “joke” could often be a justification for violence. You really don’t understand that?
In any case, you’re talking about style and manners, not laws.
no, i don’t understand that. i have been listening to black comedians like pryor, murphy, and rock make kinky hair black jokes since I was a kid. oh, red fox, he had a heck of a “racist’ stand up act, you can check it out on youtube.
blonde jokes. i have heard people say they are often about the shiksa stereotype, denuded of the yiddish term. we can think of a list of funny jewish comedians here too, a list a mile long. am I to take offense to this and resent them because i am a goy? oh of course not, I would be called an antisemite if I said that. and indeed i can laugh at a blonde joke. but i can laugh at a kinky hair joke too.
i recommend you adopt my ‘liberal” attitude to jokes life will be more fun that way. and maybe other ideas too
and from style and manners, often spring laws. right now bad taste is fully codified at universities and students get thrown out for infractions. just white kids, mostly. as well all full well know
Mr. Kurtz,
I am not downgraded. They are foolish to segregate themselves. It is sideways not hierarchical. The identity politics game leads to tribalism which is in direct opposition to E pluribus unum.
Prairie, if you want to see a tribe, look at pictures of a GOP convention, political leaders, or a Trump rally. They are lily white. Take a look at the same groups of democrats – they look like America, which is why so many on this board hate them. Despite the phony rhetoric, they also hate America, which is what MAGA means.
Anon1,
The GOP is not congregating because of race; they are congregating because they agree on the precepts of the GOP. Many happen to be white. They are NOT lily white. Larry Elder, Andy Ngo, Candace Owens, Dinesh D’Souza and a bunch of regular people. Stop being so focused on the melanin content of people’s skin.
Why would you say people hate America? What supporting evidence have you? A comment like that does not make for effective conversation, rather it impedes communication.
Neil Postman said, “We know what happens when argument ceases–blood happens.”
in my thinking it does not lead to tribalism. in my mind people are naturally members of groups perhaps tribes for some people is a good word for it. and that is ok. and their politics may flow from it.
out of many one, is a political idea that has merit. but, I don’t seek to have people abandon their unique ethnic, racial, or cultural heritage. i don’t seek that for anybody. i want an “Equal opportunity” for all to express their own ancestral pride.
i am proud of my ancestry. i’m a humble person, but it’s great to know where your people come from going back centuries. i’m lucky that way.
i had a line from the German poet Hölderlin about that but I can’t seem to find it on the internet at the moment and only remember a fragment
yes, sometimes ethnic animosities happen., in america we can navigate these things without violence. it is hard, but a worthy endeavor. at the same time, if navigating it means subjugation or voluntary self extinction, forget it
here is something better than that poem, I just remembered.
——————————-
Tacitus: Calgacus’ Speech to his Troops (A.D. 85)
“Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain’s glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant).
“Nature has willed that every man’s children and kindred should be his dearest objects. Yet these are torn from us by conscriptions to be slaves elsewhere. Our wives and our sisters, even though they may escape violation from the enemy, are dishonoured under the names of friendship and hospitality. Our goods and fortunes they collect for their tribute, our harvests for their granaries. Our very hands and bodies, under the lash and in the midst of insult, are worn down by the toil of clearing forests and morasses. Creatures born to slavery are sold once and for all, and are, moreover, fed by their masters; but Britain is daily purchasing, is daily feeding, her own enslaved people. And as in a household the last comer among the slaves is always the butt of his companions, so we in a world long used to slavery, as the newest and most contemptible, are marked out for destruction. We have neither fruitful plains, nor mines, nor harbours, for the working of which we may be spared. Valour, too, and high spirit in subjects, are offensive to rulers; besides, remoteness and seclusion, while they give safety, provoke suspicion. Since then you cannot hope for quarter, take courage, I beseech you, whether it be safety or renown that you hold most precious. Under a woman’s leadership the Brigantes were able to burn a colony, to storm a camp, and had not success ended in supineness, might have thrown off the yoke. Let us, then, a fresh and unconquered people, never likely to abuse our freedom, show forthwith at the very first onset what heroes Caledonia has in reserve.
“Do you suppose that the Romans will be as brave in war as they are licentious in peace? To our strifes and discords they owe their fame, and they turn the errors of an enemy to the renown of their own army, an army which, composed as it is of every variety of nations, is held together by success and will be broken up by disaster. These Gauls and Germans, and, I blush to say, these Britons, who, though they lend their lives to support a stranger’s rule, have been its enemies longer than its subjects, you cannot imagine to be bound by fidelity and affection. Fear and terror there certainly are, feeble bonds of attachment; remove them, and those who have ceased to fear will begin to hate. All the incentives to victory are on our side. The Romans have no wives to kindle their courage; no parents to taunt them with flight, man have either no country or one far away. Few in number, dismayed by their ignorance, looking around upon a sky, a sea, and forests which are all unfamiliar to them; hemmed in, as it were, and enmeshed, the Gods have delivered them into our hands. Be not frightened by the idle display, by the glitter of gold and of silver, which can neither protect nor wound. In the very ranks of the enemy we shall find our own forces. Britons will acknowledge their own cause; Gauls will remember past freedom; the other Germans will abandon them, as but lately did the Usipii. Behind them there is nothing to dread. The forts are ungarrisoned; the colonies in the hands of aged men; what with disloyal subjects and oppressive rulers, the towns are ill-affected and rife with discord. On the one side you have a general and an army; on the other, tribute, the mines, and all the other penalties of an enslaved people. Whether you endure these for ever, or instantly avenge them, this field is to decide. Think, therefore, as you advance to battle, at once of your ancestors and of your posterity.”
(Tacitus, Agricola 29-32.)
Let me repost two things I recently saw:
51% of Mass Shooters in 2019 Were Black: Only 29% Were White
No, mass shootings are not a “white man’s” problem.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274538/51-mass-shooters-2019-were-black-only-29-were-daniel-greenfield
—
Does gun control deter killers from Somalia from getting guns? Mr Abdi doesn’t think so.
“Man faces 48 charges in string of random Toronto shootings”
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8088490-man-faces-48-charges-in-string-of-random-toronto-shootings/
hey allan, all things in moderation, is a good point about nationalism and pretty much anything else
Greeks have a saying, “pan metron ariston”
in all things moderation. maybe it was Plato who said it first, I dont know
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/million-meals/201012/the-wisdom-the-greeks-moderation-in-all-things
“Leftists have been portraying Republicans as evil for decades. ” So says, Karen.
Nonsense by Karen.
Karen loses a certain percentage of readers at the end of her first sentence: “Leftists have been portraying Republicans as evil for decades.”
What utter rubbish.
She’s actually telling the truth, understood by any of us who’ve been reading a newspaper for the last 60 years. Buzz off.
No one here reads newspapers.
You can’t handle the truth.
i read the wall street journal on paper every day. at least a little. and the local rag.
I used to read the NYT before it sucked
the Wapo has always sucked as far as I know
http://eagleonetowanta.com https://youtu.be/L1x-9-gj2EE
The Laurence Indian Tribe was disbanded in the 1940s when FDR built housing projects near their reservation. They all moved off the bus so to speak. This guy is named after the tribe and his parents came over to Ellis Island from Sicily where he had a mafia last name. So they adopted the Indian name as their name. This information is all available on tribe.com
Tribe is wrong, the real national emergency is not Trump’s racism, it’s our ability to control our Domestic Factions, which our political parties are the major part. Will impeaching Trump, for any reason, solve our problems of racism, division, or dysfunctional Government? NO! Just impeaching Trump is not enough, yes Trump must go immediately, but the Parties must go with him, or our problems that have allowed us to reach this point in our History will remain.
There’s only one way for us to recover from our current situation, and that is through the Union! The Union must be Reestablished as the Supreme Authority in our Country, and the Union must Reestablish our Government as intended according to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution Unamended. But that is not enough, each State that comprises the Union must reform their own governments to embrace the principles of republican Government, before they can Reestablish the Federal Government according to the Federal Principle utilizing a Bicameral Legislature to provide, Checks and Balances, the Power of the Purse, and Continuity and Stability of Government.
There’s a lot of things wrong with Trump which disqualify him from holding any position within our Governing System, but the Parties are what’s wrong with our Government and our ability to Govern, due to their conflicts of interest, and we must control the effects of our Domestic Factions, through the Union, if we are to have any chance of saving our Government, and maybe even our society.
It’s time for “We the People” to make that Choice!
Unless helped/encouraged by the FBI or some other government entity, all shooters are responsible for their own shootings. The term “Terrorist” is being loosely thrown around a lot lately. As citizens we should not accept this. In fact DJT, wants to monitor social media for pre-crime “terrorism”. Terrorism is too often defined as disagreement with what this government is doing.
Therefore I am dismayed by Tribe even though I do agree with him that Trump is trying very hard to turn people against each other. I find that despicable and I hope citizens stop falling for “divide and conquer”.
If Tribe wants to call Trump a terrorist, I believe there are basis for that in our laws. Trump actively supports both ISIS and Al Qaeda. He even went so far as to sell weapons (after Congress tried to block him) to an active governmental supporter of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia.
Why Trump supporters think it is just fine to make money off of blood money is a mystery to me. Yet, they have little problem with this. I think they have checked their ethics at the door of worshiping their leader.
Nevertheless, aiding Al Qaeda is illegal and Trump is doing that. I suggest Tribe look into that, not only for the sake of impeachment, but for jail time.
Please provide a list indicating how: “…. aiding Al Qaeda is illegal and Trump is doing that”.
JC, AUMF and selling weapons to S.A. as stated above. The US also supports ISIS in Syria. Please do further research on your own. It is not difficult to find this information. Thank you.
there is a long standing US policy of playing footsie with Salafist nutters in the middle east and a lot of them are paid by Saudis. that is distressing and why some of us were happy when Trump skewered Hillary on the topic. sorry to see he is apparently boxed into the same trap on this. at least he is not gleeful about it like she was
https://youtu.be/L1x-9-gj2EE http://eagleonetowanta.com
“Therefore I am dismayed by Tribe even though I do agree with him that Trump is trying very hard to turn people against each other. I find that despicable and I hope citizens stop falling for “divide and conquer”. ”
Wow, how ignorant of you. I suggest getting off all the old Fake News crap & find some real sources.
Using this logic Elizabeth Warren is a terrorist. Prove me wrong.
Paul, did Warren advocate hostility toward a ethnic group in America and laugh about shooting them? There is nothing coherent in the Dayton shooters “ideas” beyond a juvenile fixation on shocking people and certainly nothing consistent with anything Warren has said, The same cannot be said about the El Paso shooter and Trump.
Anon1 – what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump is responsible for one shooting, Warren is responsible for the other. And yes, Warren did advocate hostility towards an ethnic group using cultural appropriation. She said she was Native American. She used that for hiring purposes. That was going to be one of her ethnic boxes for the WH. Then came the fatal DNA results. 🙁
I wondered if Turley would address El Paso, White Nationalists, the gun culture, background checks, whether or not Trump’s words & action have any possible role? I suppose attacking Lawrence Tribe for criticizing Trump is as close as he’ll come.
For the record, Trump’s language isn’t an impeachable offense, it just makes him a horrible person. There are enough actual high crimes & misdemeanors to choose from that we don’t have to prosecute him for that. I haven’t read the latest manifesto which I understand basically gives a disclaimer that “Trump didn’t make me do it.” Methinks he doth protest too much.
El Paso and Charlottesville are the only ones I can think of which appear to be motivated by “white nationalism.” The Dayton incident was carried out by a Elizabeth Warren supporter. The slaughter at the nightclub in Florida was conducted by a Filipino, Bernie Sanders supporter. Then there was the Arab-American physician who shot up a military base in Texas; the Mexican-American who also shot-up a military base in Texas, while declaring “this one’s for the brown side.” And then there was the black ex-L.A.P.D. officer who went on a killing rampage, the black guy who shot random passengers on a N.Y. subway, and the black young man who opened fire at a community college in Roseville, OR. So the only consistency I can see is that the shooters were all male, and with the exception of the doctor, all young. But the motives varied, and for the most part just seemed to be angry, aimless, fatherless young men lashing out at strangers in response to their own failures and frustrations in life. The media glosses over the multi-racial aspect of these incidents, which are rather consistent with the population demographics in the U.S. CNN and MSNBC ignore the actual demographics of these random mass-shootings and focus on the two that they can tie to “white nationalist” politics, because that fits the narrative that they’re already promoting.
Dylann Roof would be disappointed you left him out after going to the trouble to pray with many of his victims in South Carolina before turning on them. Rather than rely on the incidents you recall, do some research. You’ll find far more deaths attributed to Domestic Terrorists (primarily right wing) than International Terrorists. I’d provide the details but you won’t believe it unless you research it yourself.
You’re right, I forgot about Dylan Roof. So that makes three. THREE motivated by “white nationalism.” Out of DOZENS of mass shootings. I also didn’t include the Las Vegas shooter, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gilroy, the Florida high school, and so on. There have been so many, unfortunately. And only three can be pitched as motivated by racial animus. Correction: white racial animus. Because the racial motives of the non-white shooters are ignored. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s called terrorism or mass murder. Is that supposed to be a deterrent? If anything, potential shooters may be motivated by being labeled a “domestic terrorist,” as that sounds more important than just being some unemployed loser taking out his impotent rage on random women and children. Nor does it matter whether the state or federal government executes the shooter. Just get it done within six months. Why is the Hispanic guy who shot his classmates at the Florida high school still watching t.v. in his jail cell two years later? Is there some lack of proof? Or just lazy prosecutors? Instead of all the grandstanding about passing more ineffectual laws, perhaps the federal government could assemble a team of investigators and prosecutors to get these mass shooters executed within six months. I don’t know that it would be a deterrent, but I suspect that swift and sure execution may be more of a deterrent than anything else.
“And only three can be pitched as motivated by racial animus.”
You are either lazy or an idiot. Take your pick.
You don’t have to worry about non-white race based motives being called out. You’ve got Fox News on it all day long. Along with the President. It’s the “Domestic Terrorists” that the FBI grudgingly admitted is a bigger problem (Director Wray on video) feel free to ignore the words coming out of his mouth because it was taped by MSNBC.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/fbi-director-domestic-terror-arrests-up-most-motivated-by-white-supremacy-64396869808
Just ignore white supremacists because it’s inconvenient… or?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-white-nationalism-linked-attacks-worldwide
hey enigma, whats the solution? let me guess
a) suppress “white nationalist” chatter and “conspiracy theories” on the internet., yeah, they’re working on that, not that it would be lawful or even helpful to the problem. but you guys would like it so google is on the case.
b) arrest “racists” and “white nationalists” for pretextual crimes. you think that’s what they do to black guys so do it to peckerwoods too. yeah, actually that has been LE policy for years.
see this is actually just more of the same, the cat and mouse has been going on for decades. ever heard of the “War of 84”? google will tell you that was a chapter in pro wrestling history but actually was also an incipient cracker rebellion nipped in the bud
The answer is not to embrace it. I started to say normalize it but I forgot for just a second that white nationalism, white supremacy,,, is and has been the norm. In 2019 voter suppression was legitimized by the Supreme Court, as long as you say it was just partisan.
OK well fair enough,. but there are many calls for suppressing free speech now.
as for voter suppression, that is inherent to a democratic political process. otherwise you end up having courts draw the lines which is inherently UN democratic. so some things simply cant be overcome if you are going to maintain the integrity of democracy,. the idea is not to make a perfect system just a less bad one
What tye Supreme Court just allowed is guaranteed to make things less fair, much as they did when they erased the enforcement powers of the Voting Rights Act. It took one day for Republicans (in this case) to start diluting the voting strength of minorities. Smart people could come up with a pretty fair system, just as smart racially motivated people came up with the Electoral College, Gerrymandering, and redistricting intended to maintain power. The overall arc might trend toward justice, but the current trend is headed backwards.
Enigma,
Why do you say the Electoral College is racially divisive? President Obama won fair as nd square, twice.
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem, but I do not see how it is racist. It certainly is used to entrench power, and, it skews towards a narrow political bias, but it can disenfranchise anyone who is at all vocal against the problems of the status quo.
The Electoral College was designed to protect slave holding states, to prevent the lesser populated states (given that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person) from being dictated to by the more populated states.
It works pretty much the same way now. Giving added power to less populated states which now include Western states like Wyoming, The Electoral College works the same way as gerrymandering. It has been the case where Republican candidates won the Presidency but not the popular vote. While Clinton won his first election with less than 50% of the vote he did get the most votes (thanks to a third party candidate). I’m not thinking of a case since Republicans welcomed the Dixiecrats that Democrats ever won the Electoral College but not the popular vote. There was a case in 1876 where Democrats (fairly evil at the time) probably won the Electoral College (a few states were disputed and votes not credited with the Dems only needing one more vote to win. They agreed to let the Republicans have the Presidency in return for removing Federal troops from the South which ushered in Jim Crow.
This is a good article explaining the pros/cons of the EC and other options considered.
But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.
In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/danger-attacks-electoral-college/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=june2019electoralcollege&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9ILn9b-JsmBlVyklK-qYhZj3Z_AUdqXuF1GI5pZf8uSWbZ4v6ee0xndLtWPufUQ4R0hxoIz7jZiv-PvMK7TeN7YlFvNA&_hsmi=73384649&fbclid=IwAR116b5XifEFUBkQtqQk6wwea5zssiFRUkefBi_FeqKMDliWLMp0PasELj8
Federalist 54 explains the reasoning behind the 3/5ths clause compromise. No where in here does it express the “negro” as being 3/5ths of a human by nature. It expressly states this status is because the individual state laws force it by character.
Had they allowed the southern states to count every slave equally, the southern states would have a disproportionate representation without those slaves receiving the equal protection of the law their fellow “inhabitants” received. The non-slaveholding states would never agree to this. Had they been disallowed to count any of the slaves as inhabitants, they would never have agreed to ratify the constitution.
The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. “This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? “It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation?
I didn’t mean to imply that slaves were treated as 3/5ths of a person. They had no rights whatsoever and their true value according to the onstitution was zero.
If they had no value at the time the constitution was ratified, then why was the compromise necessary?
They had great value as property, offered as collateral for loans, in Virginia slaves were worth more than cattle. They just had no rights whatsoever. The Supreme Courd said so in Dred Scott, The compromise was to get the Southern states to join the Union as they were wary one day they would be forced to end slavery.
The compromise was to get the Southern states to join the Union as they were wary one day they would be forced to end slavery.
I agree with the unbolded part. There’s the value. Had they not had the compromise, there would have been no ratification. Is the they you’re referring to the southern states? If not, then your reasoning (bolded) needs a citation.
I weary of being asked to document my statements with regularity given the stuff that goes unchallenged around here. Yet, because it was so easy and you did ask nice…
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar
I weary of being asked to document my statements with regularity given the stuff that goes unchallenged around here.
Not my problem. I’m not the citation police. I believe you understand the importance (unlike many others on this blog) of sourcing our opinions. I usually ask because I’m informed by a different source and I need to know if I’m using the most reliable source.
Hamilton goes on to say in #7:
The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.
From your article: In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn’t vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that’s what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections.
Your article completely overlooks one minor problem. There would have been no direct election or electoral college because the constitution would never have been ratified.
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. Federalist Paper #6
Slavery is over and has been over a long time at a cost of over a half a million lives where a nation was nearly destroyed but you remember it as if it were yesterday.
You didn’t even consider the 1.8 million slaves that died getting here during the “Middle-Passage.” That’s why I have to share history, because your perspective ignores so much of it.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/slave_ships_and_the_middle_passage#start_entry
Enigma, I very well know the history and am familiar with personal loss. Such death is something that has accompanied many in my family and some that were lucky enough to survive were tortured. Those deaths didn’t happen that long ago and some were able to be around with us for many years. Instead of pretending it happened yesterday and promoting more of the same, unlike you I look to the future and try and prevent such things from ever happening again.
Unfortunately there are those that do not believe in individual rights and fight for those rights to be taken away so we can repeat what happened in the past.
Enigma,
“The Electoral College was designed to protect slave holding states, to prevent the lesser populated states (given that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person) from being dictated to by the more populated states.”
I do not think that interpretation is quite right. Much of the Constitution is about balancing between the majority and minority, attempting to prevent either from dictating to one another.
How is counting slaves (who wouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway) as 3/5ths protecting slave-holding states? If southern states had been able to count every person (yet prevented 40% of their population from voting–or–had instead allowed slaveholders to cast an ‘owner’s’ vote) then they would have very unfairly dominated elections.
The Electoral College attempts to create equal representation between states, as well as people.
Allowing states with concentrated populations to dominate elections is unfair to states with smaller populations.
It is imperfect, but I do not think we could create a more perfect union, so to speak.
Sean Wilentz wrote “No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding”. He said “I used to favor amending the Electoral College, in part because I believed the framers put it into the Constitution to protect slavery. I said as much in a book I published in September. But I’ve decided I was wrong. That’s why a merciful God invented second editions.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html
“The Electoral College works the same way as gerrymandering.”
I do not think it works the same way, at all. Gerrymandering is the manipulating of district boundary lines to establish a political advantage for some demographic (or not). The Electoral College is bounded by state boundary lines. There is no way to manipulate it based on demographics.
One should not forget that representation was not the only factor involved in the 3/5 agreement. What is frequently forgotten is that representation and taxation travelled together so as the representation increased so did taxation. This agreement was brought to the table by two persons, one from the south and one from the north.
One thing missed by some when considering the 3/5ths rule is that it was an acknowledgement that slaves were persons, not enough from our vantage point today but such acknowledgement none-the-less.
“Allowing states with concentrated populations to dominate elections is unfair to states with smaller populations.”
So what we have is the reverse, states with smaller populations outweigh the ore populous ones. How is that better?
““I used to favor amending the Electoral College, in part because I believed the framers put it into the Constitution to protect slavery. I said as much in a book I published in September. But I’ve decided I was wrong. That’s why a merciful God invented second ”
He was right the first time. It was created to ensure states opposing slavery couldn’t take away the rights of Southern states to have slaves.
“I do not think it works the same way, at all. Gerrymandering is the manipulating of district boundary lines to establish a political advantage for some demographic (or not). The Electoral College is bounded by state boundary lines. There is no way to manipulate it based on demographics.”
It’s only like gerrymandering when it comes to selecting the President and House of Representatives. Of course, to truly make it work you’d have to rig the Census as well. Glad Trump never thought of that (with all sarcasm possible).
So what we have is the reverse, states with smaller populations outweigh the ore populous ones.
How is that true? The number of electors is a combination of the number of representatives and senators. States with smaller populations have less electors than the more populous states.
The value of a vote in Wyoming or Alaska is far more than that of one in California or New York. It’s true because that’s how we end up with people winning the popular election but losing in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was designed to protect slave holding states, to prevent the lesser populated states (given that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person) from being dictated to by the more populated states.
It wasn’t and it wasn’t.
1. The electoral college was a compromise between competing plans for electing the President. Other ideas discussed included election by Congress and election by state legislatures. Given the foundational membership of Congress, about 70% of the votes for president were apportioned according to population and 30% were apportioned according to a principle of one-state-one-vote.
2. The 3/5 compromise was not any statement on the worth of particular persons. It was … a compromise between two competing principles for apportioning direct taxes and representation. The Southern interest wanted slaves counted for purposes of representation but not taxation; the northern interest wanted the converse. They essentially split the difference between them.
3. The electoral college of 1792 was the first apportioned according to the 1st decennial census. You had at the time one state which had abolished slavery (Massachusetts), six states where abolition was in process, and seven states which were to retain slavery until the close of the Civil War. These Southern states had in 1790 39.7% of the free population, 49.7% of the total population, and 46% of the synthetic tally contrived by the sum of the free population and 3/5 of the slave population. The South was awarded 46.3% of the electoral votes consequent to that census. The electoral college provided only modest enhancement of the weight of the Southern free population (about 30%, as can be seen from this equation (46.3 / 53.7) / (39.7 / 60.3) ). And, of course, that enhancement is contingent on future settlement patterns.
The EC is not the problem, though at best it is superfluous. The EC winner take all rule in all states but 2 is the problem and is not mandated in the constitution, now was it part of the original EC. The incentive for states to maximize their power by making the reps chosen that way is obvious, but it’s detriment to the nation is clear with the damage of the last 2 years part of it’s legacy.
Anon1,
“it’s detriment to the nation is clear with the damage of the last 2 years part of it’s legacy.”
What detriment? People are discussing issues and dragons more than they have, really, in the last 30 years. There problems to be sorted out, sure, but it seems people are at least discussing how government is supposed to run and thinking about in a more focused way how they as individuals play a role. For too long, people are ave floated as long as though the government was something other than themselves.
Prairie, if you are not aware of the lowering of the bar for political behavior and discourse since Trump I don’t know where to start with you. Keep in mind that others who you don’t agree with who follow may feel fully justified in following his low road and you will probably not like that. You do know he’s a completely self serving liar and braggart, right?
Enigma,
“He was right the first time. It was created to ensure states opposing slavery couldn’t take away the rights of Southern states to have slaves.”
If that was the reason it was created, it did a poor job, considering the issue of slavery was fought over in less than 100 years after the Electoral College was established. That seems to me, then, that the reason must be something else.
Actually, that slaves were determined to be 3/5ths should have upset Southern states greatly since slaves were considered persons at all by that designation. Such a designation would have surely been part of the slow march towards a change in attitudes.
Did you read the rest of the author’s reasoning?
The 3/5ths meant nothing as far as being considered a person. It was only used to increase Southern States political power. They had the right to do whatever they wished with their property including rape and murder.
That march towards changing attitudes is extremely slow if you listen to President Trump or read the comments section on this board.
Anon1,
“Prairie, if you are not aware of the lowering of the bar for political behavior and discourse since Trump I don’t know where to start with you. Keep in mind that others who you don’t agree with who follow may feel fully justified in following his low road and you will probably not like that. You do know he’s a completely self serving liar and braggart, right?”
I’d say it started with Clinton. The discourse was plenty bad for everyone besides the president before Trump.
I agree with you that he is obnoxious. I do not want him or any other elected official to be rude, demeaning, condescending, snide, or vulgar, yet they have been–prior to him being elected. All our leaders need to shape up.
I did not vote for Trump. Or anyone. I was appalled with the entire bunch. I had to write in “None of the above”. If that was a legitimate choice, I am fairly sure a substantial number of people would have chosen it.
Despite this, I can see that people are talking. It isn’t great, people are still being rude and demeaning and not really listening and considering other’s points of view as much as I’d like, but the discussion is there in baby steps.
“I’d say it started with Clinton.”
How much of American history did you just ignore to start with Clinton? Did you listen to the recently released Reagan/Nixon recording with Reagan calling black people “monkeys?” You should read the transcipt of the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates. You might be surprised to know George Washington’s false teeth weren’t made of wood?
https://medium.com/@williamspivey/was-lincoln-more-racist-than-trump-3e9a9a7e7d8
Enigma,
Those comments by Reagan/Nixon were not public. I am not excusing it, but there is a big difference between what is public and what is private. Public and private decorum should match and they should both be good, if at all possible.
Clinton publicly disgraced the office. To my knowledge, the office of the presidency, besides scandals of fraud and the like, was not besmirched by terrible public behavior.
I am well aware of JFK’s affairs, Wilson’s private showing of Birth of a Nation, and others, but, too my knowledge, such things were not displayed or revealed to the public.
Do you disagree, then, with Anon1?
“if you are not aware of the lowering of the bar for political behavior and discourse since Trump I don’t know where to start with you”
Note, “since Trump”, as if publicly disgracing the Office started with Trump.
It seems no one likes White Nationalists that are violent but they can be a mixture of left and right. How about Farrakhan a black nationalist. Is that OK?
i have found a lot of Farrakhan’s speeches amusing and easy to listen to, even though he says a lot of preposterous things.
he has a sincerity that a huckster like Sharpton lacks.
Allan,
No.
Prarie, is that because he is surrounded by violence or because he believes in separation of races or because he is racist and anti-Semetic?
I disagree with singling out “domestic terrorism” as a “White nationalist” phenomenon. But nobody has mentioned one incident that may have fit the bill. OKC, Tim McVeigh
There is no proof that McVeigh was a “white nationalist.” However it is proven that he associated with them. Very closely.
I wonder to this day, having read the book his lawyer read, and another book, about “the Midwestern Bank Robber” gang active at that time, and some other sources, in depth, today I wonder not whether or not McVeigh was racist, I believe that he was. Rather I wonder, more importantly, the question of which of his associates was actually a government informant and-or provocateur actively engaged in criminal activity under a cloak of operational immunity.
I didn’t come up with this notion and neither did the conspiratorial minded John Birch Society. Oh, yes, they wrote about it, but the questions arise from well documented facts that get more and more troubling the deeper you get into them, see, “operation patcon”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/18/patriot-games/
“how the fbi spent a decade hunting white supremacists and missed Tim McVeigh”
be careful what you wish for. the things that are being discussed today to suppress “Racists” are well worn paths that have been trodden before, and a lot of them lead to places where civil liberties are not a concern whatsoever. for anybody.
“how the fbi spent a decade hunting white supremacists and missed Tim McVeigh”
Interesting article. It looks like they sent a decade ignoring white supremacists. If the same group discussing and/or participating in the same actions were Muslims or black or Hispanic, I wonder what measures would have been taken? We know the FBI went as far as trying to get MLK to kill himself, many believe they killed Fred Hampton and others in the Black Panther Party. Hmmm.
Why would we single out white supremacists when they’re only responsible for 100% of the murders? Of course that was just 2018, surely they’ll slip into the 80 or 90% range next year.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/revealed-doj-blocked-report-showing-white-supremacists-responsible-for-all-race-based-domestic-terrorism-incidents-in-2018/
Typical cr-p from Enigma who looks for those that will write what he wishes to hear.
If anyone could prove this contention of 100% they would list each killer and demonstrate why he was from the right.
Bowers wrote of Trump, “For the record, I did not vote for him nor have I owned, worn or even touched a maga hat.” He also said”“Trump is a globalist, not a nationalist. There is no #MAGA as long as there is a k*** infestation. #Qanon is here to get patriots that were against martial law in the 90’s to be ones begging for it now to drain muh swamp. But go ahead and keep saying you are #Winning.”
He was an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. To my knowledge he had no political affiliation.
One can’t believe a word Enigma says.
wrong. and oh you’re leaving out 9/11 that was a count in the thousands if you forgot
Do you have any concept of the body coumt America has left around the world? I get that you can only see things from your perspective, too bad.
You and Jill begin with the assumption that the world is Georgia peachy keen until we act. Ron Paul’s brain works the same way. It is, of course, an unserious assumption.
Do you have any idea of the body count in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit?
Maybe you don’t care.
Chicago: 7 dead; 46 wounded this past weekend.
Baltimore: How’s that Ceasefire weekends strategy working out? 200th homicide recorded for the year. Just spit-balling here, but maybe these shooters don’t pay much attention to the calendar.
In a nation afflicted by fads, crazes, manias, and rages, mass murder is the jackpot for nihilists — begging the question: why does this country produce so many of them? Answer: this is exactly what you get in a culture where anything goes and nothing matters. Extract all the meaning and purpose from being here on earth, and erase as many boundaries as you can from custom and behavior, and watch what happens, especially among young men trained on video slaughter games.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/mass-shootings-fallout-culture-where-anything-goes-and-nothing-matters
Olly, You are correct. Serious national gun control would improve the situation in Chicago.
How?
That wasn’t a trick question Anon. How would the situation in Chicago improve with national gun control?
Let’s pretend you are successful in removing every gun in the US; law enforcement being the only entity remaining with guns. Will criminals stop doing crime? Will gangs stop warring with each other? Will crazy people stop trying to kill people? Won’t they simply use whatever weapon is necessary to overpower their victims? Why is this so difficult to understand?
Do you trust the federal government to not abuse the rights of a disarmed citizenry? Is there any evidence in the history of ever that has ever worked?
Olly, I answered your question but it didn’t post for some reason. Minimizing the number of guns minimizes deaths form guns – duh. Chicago’s gun laws are rendered in effective due to geography. They can purchased easily in Indiana, etc. Many of the guns in NYC are bought legally in Georgia and driven up for sale.
Olly, I won’t take your 2nd post seriously. The realistic purpose of a laws is not to make crimes go away but to minimize them. If you think people will kill each other as frequently with their bare hands as they do with guns, I don’t know where to start with you. That’s pretty ridiculous.
I won’t take your 2nd post seriously.
Why not? It was intended with all seriousness. Those questions should be easy for you to answer, whether you believe them to be serious or not.
The realistic purpose of a laws is not to make crimes go away but to minimize them.
Fair enough. What crimes will be minimized when you remove all guns?
The most serious of my questions are the last two. The first is easy as it only asks for your opinion. The second requires actual evidence. If you cannot or will not answer the second, I won’t be disappointed.
Do you trust the federal government to not abuse the rights of a disarmed citizenry? Is there any evidence in the history of ever that has ever worked?
Olly, I didn’t advocate for removing all guns.
The streets of Chicago would be a lot safer if every 2 bit hood wasn’t carrying a gun. Again, this is too obvious to debate.
You and Allan were decrying the lack of concern for the place and now you’re telling us nothing can be done.
The streets of Chicago would be a lot safer if every 2 bit hood wasn’t carrying a gun. Again, this is too obvious to debate. You and Allan were decrying the lack of concern for the place and now you’re telling us nothing can be done.
Too obvious to debate? Your comment assumes the root cause of the crime in Chicago and elsewhere is the availability of guns. Is it logical to assume every 2 bit hood would cease being a 2 bit hood because they no longer have a gun? Did they become a 2 bit hood because they have a gun?
Anon1 – An armed society is a polite society. If every in Chicago was carrying, there might be fewer shootings.
“You and Allan were decrying the lack of concern for the place and now you’re telling us nothing can be done.”
Poor leadership has led to the dysfunction of the cities being discussed. There is no way to eliminate all the guns in this country. Have we eliminated Pot, Heroine etc.? What you wish to do is disarm the working class so they cannot protect themselves from the criminals while the political elites wall themselves off and have protection details that, guess what, carry guns. It is the left that called for an end to stop, talk and frisk that removed illegal guns from criminals yet those same people wish to remove legal guns from hard working Americans. That is a bit crazy.
Allan,
I have yet to get an answer from Anon on the following question. When I think about the federal government having the power to take property (Asset Forfeiture) and restrict liberty (No-Fly List), the last thing I would trust them with is the power to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning semi-automatic weapons of their choosing. Here’s the question:
Do you trust the federal government to not abuse the rights of a disarmed citizenry? Is there any evidence in the history of ever that has worked?
What do you think?
Allan, … What do you think?
We gave some of our individual liberty to provide limited rights to the government so that as a group we could protect ourselves in an ugly world. Knowing how power can be abused the founders specified the rights of the federal government and left the rest to the states and the people. Though many felt the Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution said it all, none the less a Biill of Rights was passed to secure those very important rights. The founders also specified a methodology to change the Constitution. Need I say more?
I don’t need you to say more. All of that is true and provable with original source documents. What I have yet to see is anyone providing evidence that rights are made more secure by disarming law-abiding citizens. The constitution was intended to put chains on our government. The growth of the administrative state (Executive) has actually undone that principle and this issue will only embolden them to infringe more rights; beginning with the 1st amendment.
From your article: In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn’t vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that’s what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections.
Your article completely overlooks one minor problem. There would have been no direct election or electoral college because the constitution would never have been ratified.
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. Federalist Paper #6
“From your article: In a direct election system, ”
Olly, I think you were directing this reply to Enigma, the blog’s ‘moan a lisa too much’ not to me.
Thanks.
Olly, I neither assume or believe the root of crime in Chicago is guns. It is undeniable – by any reasonable person – that crime is more lethal in Chicago because of the availability of guns. There are many places in the world where crime is rampant but it is not deadly like it is in Chicago. Limiting guns won;t end crime but it will save lives, innocent ones included.
I neither assume or believe the root of crime in Chicago is guns.
See how easy that was. We agree guns are not the root cause of crime in Chicago. The root cause needs to be addressed.
It is undeniable – by any reasonable person – that crime is more lethal in Chicago because of the availability of guns.
I agree that guns in the hands of criminals make their criminal activities more lethal. We need to address getting the guns out of the hands of criminals.
What else can we agree on today?
using straw men to defeat 4473 registrations is already illegal. but it remains a crime that is done.
selling guns repeatedly for profit without a FFL is a crime. its not clear how much its done but it’s done. not talking about the regular gun nut who sells a few a year maybe, old ones, i mean a lot. there’s some people out there doing that for sure. aiming at neighborhoods in chicago, sure
since they are already breaking two felony laws they may add a third.
filing off serial numbers. now, this is not a common crime, because it’s pointless, but if you criminalize private transfers, i bet it will become common. they will grind the numbers off then polish and restamp them. nobody will know unless they run a trace.
since the ton of laws dont work now, stricter laws probably won’t work either. and remember: nearly 2 guns out there for every soul in America. prolly more. make them all illegal today and how many would get turned in within a month? Not even ten percent i bet. if you could get half complaince you would still have one gun for every person.
the scale of gun ownership in america is vast. again the gun control crowd invites us to pass laws that could only be enforced with draconian means and even then would not work
we have to find other ways of addressing this problem. how about we talk about child abuse and the failure to mitigate it by our understaffed, underpaid, and often incompetent child agencies? that’s just a start. lots to discuss, any takers?
not a fun conversation is it
Gun control will do nothing for Chicago. A 55% increase in the manpower devoted to police patrols, optimal deployment of police manpower, and the employment of best practices in pro-active policing will help Chicago. Which means you have to nurture a salutary institutional culture in the Chicago department, which you cannot do if you shiv your officers every time there’s a controversy. You also cannot do that if the point of police recruitment and promotion is political patronage for Democratic Party mascot groups. Chicago has tolerated a homicide rate of 24 per 100,000 the last five years, when 8 per 100,000 is a realistic goal. Because Black Lives don’t actually matter either to white liberals or to black chauvinists.
Anon1:
Plus, minimizing guns minimizes your changes of defending yourself if attacked and hence the right from which all others spring: the right to defend yourself.. It’s a leftist dream. Dream on.
Mark,
If President Trump said he would sign an EO to remove all guns, the Left would scream their 2nd amendment is being infringed and demand he be impeached.
OLLY – OMG that’s perfect. Trump signs an EO banning all guns. Membership in the NRA quintuples the first day from liberal alone. Libertarians and Republicans are burying their weapons in the backyard. 🙂
Eliminating ownership of HV assault rifles to all and of all guns to those who can’t pass a national background check does not minimize your right to defend yourself, and increases the odds that you will need to do this will also be minimized.
Anon1 – I think I agree with at least part of your sentence, but it needs to be parsed so it makes sense.
Eliminating ownership of HV assault rifles to all and of all guns to those who can’t pass a national background check does not minimize your right to defend yourself,
Which brings me back to a question you’ve avoided answering twice. Here it is for a third time.
Do you trust the federal government to not abuse the rights of a disarmed citizenry? Is there any evidence in the history of ever that has ever worked?
anon1 said:
“Olly, I neither assume or believe the root of crime in Chicago is guns. It is undeniable – by any reasonable person – that crime is more lethal in Chicago because of the availability of guns. There are many places in the world where crime is rampant but it is not deadly like it is in Chicago. Limiting guns won;t end crime but it will save lives, innocent ones included.”
lets get peter back. HEY PETER REMEMBER THE JANE BYRNE GUN REGISTRATION SCHEME? LASTED FOR DECADES RIGHT UP UNTIL US V HELLER.
ILL explain it to you anon. the people who registered at the start got licenses.
after a year or so, the city refused to register new weapons, except for police and alderman.
so it was basically a ban. a tougher ban than New York had
but it was unconstitutional. people ignored it. cops ignored it unless they had a collar on something else too.
and did it do anything? Nope
I know about this, i ignored the unconstitutional law myself at the time. ignoring the unconstitutional law, in retrospect, was not a crime. lol. so i don’t mind stating this now. yep, there i was, ignoring an unconstitutional law, quietly armed, amply armed, but never hurt a flea.
I even had an FOID card. that was a valid state level law, and I wasnt about to break a valid law, and I didnt. the Byrne gun ban was basically a garbage law and it was proven unconstitutyional. but it was there a long time and if it could have worked then maybe chicago would have LESS violent crime today, yes? if your logic was valid but obviously it doesnt so there is a flaw.
the Byrne gun ban, yes, you seem to forget anon or maybe you just didn’t know. even though you speak of these things with such assurance!
from the internet:
“Chicago’s Gun Law History
Back in 1982, the mayor of Chicago – Jane Byrne – banned firearms that weren’t already registered with Chicago police. But that ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010, and by 2012, another court struck down the ban on concealed firearms. Then, in 2013, Illinois granted its residents the right to concealed carry.”
the funny thing was old charleton heston holding up a flintlock and saying “From my cold dead hands!” reminded me of his line from planet of the apes, “Get off me you filthy apes!” LOLZ
we loved that,. but we wont be holding up flintlocks. and our hands wont be dead.
as the saying goes “when the rod is hot, and the perp is not”
or as the Spartans said when Xerxes told them lay down your arms:
MOLON LABE
It’s amazing how blind some are to the deaths in their backyards.
Blind is being charitable. It’s more like a blindspot in their worldview. They can’t see it, think about it, talk about it. It doesn’t exist. And that means they are deaf as well.
WHY ARE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT GUNS LIKE THERE IS A LACK OF BACKGROUND CHECKS? FALSE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE DATABASES SEARCHED AT THIS TIME FOR GARDEN VARIETY GUN SALES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NICS SEARCHES.
i am not sure what the other two or three searches are but the last time I was ” with a friend” who bought a gun in a shop, we sat there for like a 20 minutes while they ran all the checks.
closing the “gun show loophole” would mean that EVERY PRIVATE TRANSFER would have to go through a dealer. that would include estate transfers. just keep that in mind. and it would not mean no more gun shows. it would just mean dealers could collect a transfer fee and make thousands of dollars at every gun show for processing paperwork
i am sure a lot of FFL holders would like that, lol
No, he doesn’t care. Enigma just resents whitey because deep down, he knows that he wouldn’t want to live in a non-white country.
Some of the Caribbean islands might prove agreeable enough. Martinique in particular.
No clear idea what motivates ‘enigma’ deep down. It is clear that he’s uninterested in practical solutions to day-to-day quality of life issues in urban neighborhoods.
The one resenting people based on race here is obviously TIN. I’m white and nothing enigma said made me feel resented.
I got no problem with how enigma expresses himself. I welcome his contributions.
I have no clue about who resents who. But I recommend Nietzsche’s book “Geneaology of Morals” on the concept of ressentiment. definitely touches on this subject indirectly
Enigma, +1
Professor…..I’m so glad you used the word “unhinged” in your assessment of Tribe, as it is the perfect description.
My thought is Tribe has become senile.
Tribe is a respected academic? Who knew?
I recall using Tribe’s case book in law school. And I was impressed with his intellect when I attended his bar review courses. I find it sad that he has seemingly deteriorated in his reasoning and/or intellect. Perhaps it is mental decline due to aging, but it’s a shame to see a once highly respected academic make such a fool of himself.
Your ‘highly respected academic’ spent much of his career promoting unsustainable theories of constitutional interpretation. See treatments of them by Stanley Brubaker and Robert Bork. Ca. 1984, the magazine press put Tribe on short-lists for a Supreme Court vacancy should a Democrat take the White House. You’ll notice neither Billy Jeff nor B.O. could be bothered.
Trump is very much powerful. No one can do anything.
Tribe has succumbed to TDS; it is likely terminal. He will next be seen screaming at the sky without the benefit of clothing. My friends who are trial litigators laugh about facing Harvard grads at trial. They lack the grit and depth usually associated with graduated of less prestigious schools. Larry had become an irrelevant old fool.
which relies on academics to give honest and informed analysis.
You must be joking….or perhaps the Alaskan air has gone to your head.
Hypoxia anyone?
Academics are never equated these days with honest, informed analysis.
Get out of your ivory tower, JT.
Yeah, Estovir, academics are a joke. Especially when they let yahoos like ‘you’ comment on their blogs.
Peter, a great many of them are, especially in
1. Academics and the arts, when the disciplines in question lack robust operational measures of competence.
2. Pseudoprofessional faculties (teacher training, social work, and library administration).
3. Law faculties.
4. Science faculties corrupted by the government grant money machine.
One thing we’ve see is the advent of ‘apologetical disciplines’, whose practitioners may produce a valid study on a given subject but in which the body of research in aggregate is an argument for contentious narratives and normative assumptions. People whose research is off script find they cannot get it published (valid or no) or, in some cases, are subject to professional harassment.
And, of course, faculty form a society with markers which delineate in-groups and outgroups. That reinforces the tendency to form apologetical disciplines and also to allow the institution to be diverted into engaging in shizzy social work projects (always on behalf of Democratic Party mascot groups; no faculty member gives a rip about recruiting more Mormons).
Estovir, years ago, I read an article discussing how the overwhelming majority of articles published in the humanities and soft sciences are never cited by a single paper, except perhaps the author on a subsequent paper? They are just churning out garbage, stringing together power words like Mad libs – patriarchy, system racism…get enough of them together, and you’ll get published. Very few academics are contributing to the body of knowledge, and are publishing for publishing’s sake. They want to have a bibliography so they can appear accomplished, when all they have is ignored papers.
No, it’s churning out things which will be of interest to the promotion and tenure committee evaluating you. A study can be valid without be interesting to other researchers. You also do not know which ideas are fruitful lines of inquiry antecedently. You learn that by your failures.
LOL:)
It’s like academics are huffing a plastic bag of spray paint & they’ve paint all over their face.
It used to be the govt had rubber room for these morons.
We know that the Pinkos are intellectually dishonest; no need to add more proof.
Read some of the postings here by lefties and you see how blinded they are by hatred.