Why bother comparing other countries, when you've got 50 different states right here in this country to compare? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high levels of gun ownership and very liberal gun laws—that's "liberal" in the sense of free—and yet are among the safest states in the U.S. in which to live. The picture is far more complicated than "guns, bad."
It's unfortunate that we call these things "hate crimes," because now it seems like simple hatred qualifies one for extra prosecutorial attention. In the U.S., the seminal hate crime was lynching. On the face of it, to the casual observer, lynching would seem like a simple murder—mob murder, perhaps. But it's more than that. Lynching was a punishment given to "uppity" blacks, and it's purpose was not merely to punish, rightly or wrongly, any particular individual but to terrorize an entire population. Lynching was meant as a public spectacle to keep the black community in line. Now, in a sane state, this would be a crime; but, back in the day, Southern law enforcement and Southern juries would look the other way and tacitly support lynching. That's why the federal government got involved. Otherwise, since simple murders are the province of the states, under our constitution, the federal government would have no business prosecuting. The federal government created this "hate crime" as a means of expanding its jurisdiction.
Essentially, properly conceived, a "hate crime" is a kind of terrorism—and it's bona fide terrorism, in this case. It's using egregious violence to intimidate a civilian population. It think, however, that prosecutors today, eager for publicity, pull out the "hate crime" card at every opportunity; and a gullible and uncritical public more or less eats it up. It's being used in too many instances. It's being misused.
Let's say two men, one black and one white, get into a bar fight. The white man is the instigator and gets the best of the black man. The cops come and arrest the white man for assault. Okay, that sounds about right. Now, let's just suppose that, in the course of the fight, the white man directs a rather unkind, racially charged epithet towards the black man. That's not nice. But, in most circumstances, it's a long way away from an action that terrorizes an entire community.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with extending the notion of hate crimes to simple prejudice—or even gross rudeness. In most cases, even though there may be "hate," we should not be treating it as a separate crime.
[W]ould this be an example of the paradox of virtuous meritocracy undermining equality of opportunity?"
I'm not saying that we should necessarily give precedence to immigration applications from STEM candidates; I take exception to the assumptions in the statement I quoted. No country, not even the United States, owes "equality of opportunity" to those who have not yet entered the country. Do we owe the whole world this?
My father came to this country over 50 years ago under the conditions of "what can you do for the U.S." There had to be a recognized need for his skills and someone had to sponsor him. I see no reason for a completely egalitarian lottery. Unless we're going to open the floodgates, it makes sense to pick and choose to some degree.
Ha! I get what you're saying. But I only mean to point out what his theory suggests about human psychology and cognition. People find it difficult—or at least awkward—to conceive of action without there being an actor. It seems this preconception is more or less hardwired, a cognitive bias of sorts.
It may make no sense to study Aristotle's physics in physics class, but I wouldn't go so far as the guy you're responding to and say there's no reason to bother studying Aristotle's physics. I'm always intrigued that Aristotle explanation for gravity was something along the lines of things "wanting" to return to their "natural" state (or something like that). From a psychological point of view, that kind of anthropomorphization is really intriguing.
It seems like it's easier for human beings to think this way. Just take a look at what a difficult time people have reasoning about evolution and natural selection (and I'm talking about people who don't dispute their validity). It's all "nature wants" and "nature does" this or that—it's all an assumed active voice and teleology. You'd think we might have grasped a distinction like this after 2,400 years.
Just to give some historical perspective—please, indulge a liberal arts major—the invention of the cotton gin is credited as prolonging the institution of slavery in the American South and enabling its expansion into the western territories. The cotton gin allowed farmers to profitably grow shorter staple cotton, which was far more labor intensive to clean by hand. Some historians argue that slavery wouldn't have moved west were it not for the cotton gin, because the land there couldn't support the growing of long staple cotton. It just goes to show that it's difficult to know what the full implications of any invention will be.
No, I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong. The Second Amendment is meant to protect the states and people from a tyrannical federal government as much as from Indians and colonial powers. This doesn't mean that any time someone doesn't like a law that he is justified in attacking the federal government. That's a straw man. It's meant as a last resort.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment goes beyond that idea. It's meant to prevent the keeping of a standing army by the federal government, primarily because of the mischief a central government will sooner or later get the country into because of a standing army. What kind of mischief is this that the Founders were talking about? Wars of aggression and self-aggrandizement for the politicians in the federal government. We would not be playing world policeman today if we respected the Second Amendment as it was originally conceived. We would have a tiny group of regulars employed by the federal government, and the country's army would be decentralized, composed of state and local militias whose equipment and training would be prescribed by Congress for the purpose of making it uniform across the country. That's what "well-regulated" means. Some of these soldiers would be professional soldiers. The majority would be weekend warriors in the literal sense. They would be a national force that could be called up and very quickly whipped into shape to provide for the country's legitimate defense. The federal government would be relatively powerless to stick its nose in the business of other countries the world over, as it does today.
The Founders knew that will a standing army comes a permanent military state, and with that high taxes and crushing debt. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Just open a newspaper. We have been on a downward spiral since WWII, at the very least. We need more Second Amendment in this country, not less.
Many people want them for self-defense, and why not? Have you seen how, in the United States, our electrical grid is becoming more fragile? Cutbacks at power utilities, coupled with increased demand for electricity, has caused a situation where power can potentially go out and not be restored for a week or more. Have you noticed how, in the United States, there are many nice neighborhoods only a mile or two away from crime-ridden, inner-city ghettos? Have you noticed how, in many towns and municipalities, there are never more than a few cops on duty at any one time? Who's to say that people won't find themselves in a situation where they may have to protect their property from an extended period of relative lawlessness?
As to what you dismiss as "fantasy," do you even understand the Second Amendment and what rights are about? Let's change the subject to privacy rights. Do you want the government tapping everyone's phone and email, and tracking their every move via GPS? Do you want the government keeping records on purchases being made: for example, books being bought? Do you want the government statistically analyzing and compiling your reading habits on the Web? Do you want the government setting up security cameras everywhere? I'm going to assume you don't.
Why not? Why don't you want the government routinely keeping track of such things? What's the big deal? Do you have something to hide? If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem? Don't you trust the government? Are you some kind of anti-government nut?
Most people understand the issue of rights when it comes to something like privacy. They understand the critical importance of not giving such broad powers to the government in the first place. They understand the importance of not setting up the infrastructure for a turn-key tyranny.
Governments can change, and a wise people keeps government on a short leash. That's what the Second Amendment is about. I don't worry about the "blue helmets and black helicopters" coming to get us. I trust the current government we have. But Americans keep their government in check. Who knows what can happen if a few more crises come and a few more "emergency" laws are passed. The American system is built to last—not merely ten years or even a hundred. Government should not have a monopoly on firepower: that's bad civic hygiene.
Furthermore, do you know that the Second Amendment is as much about preventing the keeping of a standing army as it is about anything? Do you know why? It's not simply about a tyrannical government turning against its people. The founding fathers understood that a standing army would encourage all kinds of military adventures by the central government, and that with such adventures would come destructive taxation, a spiraling debt, and progressively more stultifying laws at home. Does any of this sound familiar? Would we be playing world policeman if we had a decentralized army; if we largely relied on citizen soldiers and state militias in a ready state who could be organized and called up if we were truly in need of defending ourselves? That's what the Second Amendment is about—and we need more of it, not less.
The guns people want are the ones that police carry in their holsters and in the trunks of their patrol cars, and for the same reason: they want to protect themselves from criminals. Is that nuts?
Regarding Alex Jones, I have to wonder if he was the only guest they could have gotten on the show. I'm suspicious. Remember, Piers Morgan has been critical of American gun laws. This all reminds me of something I saw on television years ago. It was the first time I noticed this.
Once upon a time, maybe 20 years ago, I was watching The Ricki Lake Show. The topic of that particular show was affirmative action. (Let's put aside the pros and cons of the issue, for the sake of argument. I'm not talking about affirmative action; I'm talking about how the debate was presented.) There were two sets of guests. On the pro side, supporting affirmative action, were two articulate, educated individuals. On the con side were two redneck, n****r-hating ignoramuses. This is what's called "balance" in popular media. You push your angle by inviting ranting, extremist, all-around deplorable individuals to "defend" the side of the issue that you oppose. It's intentional.
Once you pick up on that, you see it again and again. Some instances are far more subtle than what you see on daytime talk shows, but it's there. It's no accident that there's a "fucking lunatic" on television. This is how clever people design propaganda. When I see these kinds of things, I always wonder what advocates the producers of the show turned away.
Let's just take what the "new guy" says in this instance as reliable, just for the sake of argument. Then, regarding the "last guy," what he's doing wasn't acceptable 10 or even 20 years ago. If someone writes a wall of text on an online forum, we jump all over him. A wall of code is no better.
Are they? I'm not arguing with you, but let's consider something. The First Amendment was written during the time of quill pens and printing presses operated by a hand crank; it was written in a time of town criers and pamphlets distributed by horseback. Now, I'm not sure what the paper's problem with handguns and the Second Amendment is, but I find it ironic that they're making their case using an interactive computer graphic map hosted on the Internet. Suppose we demand that they be stopped and that the map has to come down. I'd be interested to hear the argument they use to defend their legal rights.
The point isn't the black box itself; the point is the government being able to subpoena it to use as evidence against you. There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer using the information for its own purposes. As to insurance companies using the data, let's put that argument aside, because it's a separate argument from the one about government using the data. The central question is the one concerning self-incrimination in a court of law. That's the use black boxes can be put to, and using them for that purpose violates the principles of American government. That's got nothing to do with private enterprise.
I live in the United States, where people enjoy the right to not testify against themselves. That means nothing if a person is forced to pay for and travel with a device that will record possibly incriminating testimony which must then be surrendered to the courts. Sorry, but the right to be free from self-incrimination is the historically progressive innovation here. What you're talking about belongs to the days of the Inquisition. From the way you tell it, it seems like it's the Old World that's a little behind on the times.
His proposals are quite reasonable, and I say that as someone who is all for intellectual property. I think creators of intellectual property ought to enjoy a monopoly for some limited period as both a reward for their work and as incentive in the first place. But as I see it, the problem is not with his proposals, it's a bit higher up in his brief where he rants on about how "[c]opyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez-faire capitalism." For what it's worth, the subject of copyright is controversial in free-market circles. It's fine to argue what he did in some forums, but a brief coming out of a congressional office is not one of those forums.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Mickey Mouse himself called up the Republican party leaders and demanded this guy's head, and that the response from our esteemed elected officials was "Thy will be done, Mr. Mouse." But all that aside, Mr. Khanna should have dialed down the crazy talk when he wrote this.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother comparing other countries, when you've got 50 different states right here in this country to compare? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high levels of gun ownership and very liberal gun laws—that's "liberal" in the sense of free—and yet are among the safest states in the U.S. in which to live. The picture is far more complicated than "guns, bad."
It's unfortunate that we call these things "hate crimes," because now it seems like simple hatred qualifies one for extra prosecutorial attention. In the U.S., the seminal hate crime was lynching. On the face of it, to the casual observer, lynching would seem like a simple murder—mob murder, perhaps. But it's more than that. Lynching was a punishment given to "uppity" blacks, and it's purpose was not merely to punish, rightly or wrongly, any particular individual but to terrorize an entire population. Lynching was meant as a public spectacle to keep the black community in line. Now, in a sane state, this would be a crime; but, back in the day, Southern law enforcement and Southern juries would look the other way and tacitly support lynching. That's why the federal government got involved. Otherwise, since simple murders are the province of the states, under our constitution, the federal government would have no business prosecuting. The federal government created this "hate crime" as a means of expanding its jurisdiction.
Essentially, properly conceived, a "hate crime" is a kind of terrorism—and it's bona fide terrorism, in this case. It's using egregious violence to intimidate a civilian population. It think, however, that prosecutors today, eager for publicity, pull out the "hate crime" card at every opportunity; and a gullible and uncritical public more or less eats it up. It's being used in too many instances. It's being misused.
Let's say two men, one black and one white, get into a bar fight. The white man is the instigator and gets the best of the black man. The cops come and arrest the white man for assault. Okay, that sounds about right. Now, let's just suppose that, in the course of the fight, the white man directs a rather unkind, racially charged epithet towards the black man. That's not nice. But, in most circumstances, it's a long way away from an action that terrorizes an entire community.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with extending the notion of hate crimes to simple prejudice—or even gross rudeness. In most cases, even though there may be "hate," we should not be treating it as a separate crime.
Please... this is news for nerds because the guy speaks Latin. How geeky is that!
I'm not saying that we should necessarily give precedence to immigration applications from STEM candidates; I take exception to the assumptions in the statement I quoted. No country, not even the United States, owes "equality of opportunity" to those who have not yet entered the country. Do we owe the whole world this?
My father came to this country over 50 years ago under the conditions of "what can you do for the U.S." There had to be a recognized need for his skills and someone had to sponsor him. I see no reason for a completely egalitarian lottery. Unless we're going to open the floodgates, it makes sense to pick and choose to some degree.
Perhaps these terrorists have learned to launch nuclear weapons from their iPhones!
That 1st Amendment bullcrap sure has saved them from tyranny and kept up freedom, dontcha think—ha-ha, LOL, and all that crap.
Thank goodness Europe will be safe now from those assault Macs.
And that's like forever in Internet time.
Ha! I get what you're saying. But I only mean to point out what his theory suggests about human psychology and cognition. People find it difficult—or at least awkward—to conceive of action without there being an actor. It seems this preconception is more or less hardwired, a cognitive bias of sorts.
It may make no sense to study Aristotle's physics in physics class, but I wouldn't go so far as the guy you're responding to and say there's no reason to bother studying Aristotle's physics. I'm always intrigued that Aristotle explanation for gravity was something along the lines of things "wanting" to return to their "natural" state (or something like that). From a psychological point of view, that kind of anthropomorphization is really intriguing.
It seems like it's easier for human beings to think this way. Just take a look at what a difficult time people have reasoning about evolution and natural selection (and I'm talking about people who don't dispute their validity). It's all "nature wants" and "nature does" this or that—it's all an assumed active voice and teleology. You'd think we might have grasped a distinction like this after 2,400 years.
Just to give some historical perspective—please, indulge a liberal arts major—the invention of the cotton gin is credited as prolonging the institution of slavery in the American South and enabling its expansion into the western territories. The cotton gin allowed farmers to profitably grow shorter staple cotton, which was far more labor intensive to clean by hand. Some historians argue that slavery wouldn't have moved west were it not for the cotton gin, because the land there couldn't support the growing of long staple cotton. It just goes to show that it's difficult to know what the full implications of any invention will be.
You're not free to buy a subsidized phone in return for agreeing to a service contract and then cheat the other party.
You are as wrong as wrong can be.
No, I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong. The Second Amendment is meant to protect the states and people from a tyrannical federal government as much as from Indians and colonial powers. This doesn't mean that any time someone doesn't like a law that he is justified in attacking the federal government. That's a straw man. It's meant as a last resort.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment goes beyond that idea. It's meant to prevent the keeping of a standing army by the federal government, primarily because of the mischief a central government will sooner or later get the country into because of a standing army. What kind of mischief is this that the Founders were talking about? Wars of aggression and self-aggrandizement for the politicians in the federal government. We would not be playing world policeman today if we respected the Second Amendment as it was originally conceived. We would have a tiny group of regulars employed by the federal government, and the country's army would be decentralized, composed of state and local militias whose equipment and training would be prescribed by Congress for the purpose of making it uniform across the country. That's what "well-regulated" means. Some of these soldiers would be professional soldiers. The majority would be weekend warriors in the literal sense. They would be a national force that could be called up and very quickly whipped into shape to provide for the country's legitimate defense. The federal government would be relatively powerless to stick its nose in the business of other countries the world over, as it does today.
The Founders knew that will a standing army comes a permanent military state, and with that high taxes and crushing debt. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Just open a newspaper. We have been on a downward spiral since WWII, at the very least. We need more Second Amendment in this country, not less.
Many people want them for self-defense, and why not? Have you seen how, in the United States, our electrical grid is becoming more fragile? Cutbacks at power utilities, coupled with increased demand for electricity, has caused a situation where power can potentially go out and not be restored for a week or more. Have you noticed how, in the United States, there are many nice neighborhoods only a mile or two away from crime-ridden, inner-city ghettos? Have you noticed how, in many towns and municipalities, there are never more than a few cops on duty at any one time? Who's to say that people won't find themselves in a situation where they may have to protect their property from an extended period of relative lawlessness?
As to what you dismiss as "fantasy," do you even understand the Second Amendment and what rights are about? Let's change the subject to privacy rights. Do you want the government tapping everyone's phone and email, and tracking their every move via GPS? Do you want the government keeping records on purchases being made: for example, books being bought? Do you want the government statistically analyzing and compiling your reading habits on the Web? Do you want the government setting up security cameras everywhere? I'm going to assume you don't.
Why not? Why don't you want the government routinely keeping track of such things? What's the big deal? Do you have something to hide? If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem? Don't you trust the government? Are you some kind of anti-government nut?
Most people understand the issue of rights when it comes to something like privacy. They understand the critical importance of not giving such broad powers to the government in the first place. They understand the importance of not setting up the infrastructure for a turn-key tyranny.
Governments can change, and a wise people keeps government on a short leash. That's what the Second Amendment is about. I don't worry about the "blue helmets and black helicopters" coming to get us. I trust the current government we have. But Americans keep their government in check. Who knows what can happen if a few more crises come and a few more "emergency" laws are passed. The American system is built to last—not merely ten years or even a hundred. Government should not have a monopoly on firepower: that's bad civic hygiene.
Furthermore, do you know that the Second Amendment is as much about preventing the keeping of a standing army as it is about anything? Do you know why? It's not simply about a tyrannical government turning against its people. The founding fathers understood that a standing army would encourage all kinds of military adventures by the central government, and that with such adventures would come destructive taxation, a spiraling debt, and progressively more stultifying laws at home. Does any of this sound familiar? Would we be playing world policeman if we had a decentralized army; if we largely relied on citizen soldiers and state militias in a ready state who could be organized and called up if we were truly in need of defending ourselves? That's what the Second Amendment is about—and we need more of it, not less.
The guns people want are the ones that police carry in their holsters and in the trunks of their patrol cars, and for the same reason: they want to protect themselves from criminals. Is that nuts?
You just gotta love the automatic content generation over at Amazon. What a review! I think I'll run out an buy it right now.
Regarding Alex Jones, I have to wonder if he was the only guest they could have gotten on the show. I'm suspicious. Remember, Piers Morgan has been critical of American gun laws. This all reminds me of something I saw on television years ago. It was the first time I noticed this.
Once upon a time, maybe 20 years ago, I was watching The Ricki Lake Show. The topic of that particular show was affirmative action. (Let's put aside the pros and cons of the issue, for the sake of argument. I'm not talking about affirmative action; I'm talking about how the debate was presented.) There were two sets of guests. On the pro side, supporting affirmative action, were two articulate, educated individuals. On the con side were two redneck, n****r-hating ignoramuses. This is what's called "balance" in popular media. You push your angle by inviting ranting, extremist, all-around deplorable individuals to "defend" the side of the issue that you oppose. It's intentional.
Once you pick up on that, you see it again and again. Some instances are far more subtle than what you see on daytime talk shows, but it's there. It's no accident that there's a "fucking lunatic" on television. This is how clever people design propaganda. When I see these kinds of things, I always wonder what advocates the producers of the show turned away.
Compliance is the real lesson being taught here.
Shame on you.
Hipster Web.
Let's just take what the "new guy" says in this instance as reliable, just for the sake of argument. Then, regarding the "last guy," what he's doing wasn't acceptable 10 or even 20 years ago. If someone writes a wall of text on an online forum, we jump all over him. A wall of code is no better.
Are they? I'm not arguing with you, but let's consider something. The First Amendment was written during the time of quill pens and printing presses operated by a hand crank; it was written in a time of town criers and pamphlets distributed by horseback. Now, I'm not sure what the paper's problem with handguns and the Second Amendment is, but I find it ironic that they're making their case using an interactive computer graphic map hosted on the Internet. Suppose we demand that they be stopped and that the map has to come down. I'd be interested to hear the argument they use to defend their legal rights.
The point isn't the black box itself; the point is the government being able to subpoena it to use as evidence against you. There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer using the information for its own purposes. As to insurance companies using the data, let's put that argument aside, because it's a separate argument from the one about government using the data. The central question is the one concerning self-incrimination in a court of law. That's the use black boxes can be put to, and using them for that purpose violates the principles of American government. That's got nothing to do with private enterprise.
I live in the United States, where people enjoy the right to not testify against themselves. That means nothing if a person is forced to pay for and travel with a device that will record possibly incriminating testimony which must then be surrendered to the courts. Sorry, but the right to be free from self-incrimination is the historically progressive innovation here. What you're talking about belongs to the days of the Inquisition. From the way you tell it, it seems like it's the Old World that's a little behind on the times.
His proposals are quite reasonable, and I say that as someone who is all for intellectual property. I think creators of intellectual property ought to enjoy a monopoly for some limited period as both a reward for their work and as incentive in the first place. But as I see it, the problem is not with his proposals, it's a bit higher up in his brief where he rants on about how "[c]opyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez-faire capitalism." For what it's worth, the subject of copyright is controversial in free-market circles. It's fine to argue what he did in some forums, but a brief coming out of a congressional office is not one of those forums.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Mickey Mouse himself called up the Republican party leaders and demanded this guy's head, and that the response from our esteemed elected officials was "Thy will be done, Mr. Mouse." But all that aside, Mr. Khanna should have dialed down the crazy talk when he wrote this.