Is Joe himself even real, or is he just the resurrected spirit of Doug Kenney?

oh, he's real...and he's spectacular.

I would like to hear some details on how this is supposed to work. Seems like it would necessitate for more infringement on people's property rights, than simply requiring businesses to serve everyone.

The simplest solution would be the government opening a food distribution center that supplies food to those in need. A less direct solution would be offering subsidies for establishments that don't discriminate. An even less direct solution would be to offer subsidies to residents of states that policed their own localities.

Once you accept that a base level of service is a guarantee, you accept that you're taxing whatever it costs to pay for it.

Beyond that, there's plenty of middle ground between non-violence and suicide bombers attacking school buses.

Yes, a bunch of middle ground that results in the destruction of Palestinian goals. I mean - they should challenge the IDF to a rocket duel?

The Treasury has announced it will not mint a platinum coin.

I was hoping they would do it for the absurdity of it.

GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments

Rep. Phil Gingrey’s attempts to explain Todd Akin’s rape remarks are leaving many Republicans beyond frustrated that a few in their party can’t help but insert rape into the already contentious abortion debate.
“This is actually pretty simple. If you’re about to talk about rape as anything other than a brutal and horrible crime, stop,” said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who was a senior adviser in Mitt Romney’s campaign.

/quote]

“This is actually pretty simple. If you’re about to talk about rape as anything other than a brutal and horrible crime, stop,” said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who was a senior adviser in Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Pathetic isn't strong enough a word to describe that this needs to be said to a group of elected officials.

Men Cause Panic in Portland by Carrying Assault Rifles in an Attempt to Teach About Gun Rights

The Treasury has announced it will not mint a platinum coin.

... they decided it was more cost effective to mint 1,0000 billion dollar platinum coins!

No one is obligated to provide, to prevent the death of the traveler. Then what?

The government is obligated to provide. That's the sort of social safety net I'm suggesting.

So you are recognizing that the discrimination is creating an externiality that the government has to fix. Government action requires resources, money, and taxation. So the whole populace, some of whom are not discriminating, have to pay the cost created by the discriminating parties through their "free" actions. That doesn't seem fair.

I suppose you can fine the discriminators, but if you're going to do that, you're pretty much where we are now, right?

1078. YR Misses Reggie Bars Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4345550)

Boy are you whiny.

Not good at reading sarcasm, huh?

***

1083. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4345583)

One highlight:
(Jokes aside, what's with this recent effort here to paint me as someone who's constantly backtracking and/or claiming to have been misquoted or misconstrued? I literally can't recall the last time I did either of those things here.)
9:11pm

None of the above is even remotely an accurate representation of anything I've said in this discussion. I never said "non-violence never works," I never said "Gandhi and Mandela were frauds." It's all fiction.
3:54am

Pointing out fiction isn't the same thing as backtracking from a comment by claiming to have been misquoted. Also, the example you cited is from after the comment I made. If I said I couldn't recall the last time I had pizza for lunch, and then I go have pizza for lunch, there's no "gotcha" there. The "gotcha" would have been if I had pizza yesterday but claimed not to have remembered it. Glad I could clear all of this up for you.

What's crazy is suggesting that the same tactic that makes sense in the case of defense of one's home is one that can be applied to political demonstrations whose point is to change public opinion, with the ultimate end of changing the laws. You might notice that not even your usual group of allies is backing you up on this one.

My "usual group of allies" numbers no more than about four, none of whom seem to be overly pro-gun.

No, you just said it was a stupid tactic in a specific historical situation (the Freedom Rides) where the unanimous opinion of every historian is that non-violence was a key factor**, if not the key factor, in that movement's success.

**You might say that organization was "the" key factor, but the same organization without non-violence would never have been able to achieve its goals.

Violence brought an end to slavery (after hundreds of years), but it "never" could have brought a faster end to Jim Crow? Not buying it.

Beyond that, you're making the classic lefty mistake of assuming that the presence of guns automatically increases the odds of violence — when, in fact, the opposite is true. I know you think it's just a big coincidence that the so-called "gun-free zones" are the most popular target of mass murderers while police precincts and military installations have tended to be immune, but the facts are the facts.

As far as the Freedom Riders are concerned, for all you know, one or more of them were packing. (And I never said the Freedom Riders should have ridden into the South with guns blazing; I simply replied to your comment that they risked their lives by saying that their lives would have been in less danger if they had been carrying in self-defense.)

i mean, our current infrastructure is based upon 19th and 20th century ideas of urban planning, so if we made the decision to start over by designing and building new cities that take advantage of new technologies, instead of just retrofitting our old ones, we would be much better off.

The costs for that would run in the order of magnitude of building that Death Star. And in 50-100 years, we'd be right back where we started.

Edge's Annual Question for 2013 is out: What should we worry about?

This is Sam Harris's entry:

The Power of Bad Incentives

He concludes: "We need systems that are wiser than we are. We need institutions and cultural norms that make us better than we tend to be. It seems to me that the greatest challenge we now face is to build them." That's what we hope to do with government: institutionalize what's best in us and depersonalize the conflict among us and our competing interests.

Violence brought an end to slavery (after hundreds of years), but it "never" could have brought a faster end to Jim Crow? Not buying it.

Violence---Union army violence---certainly did bring about slavery's demise, but it had nothing to do with slave uprisings, which is what you'd been suggesting.

Beyond that, you're making the classic lefty mistake of assuming that the presence of guns automatically increases the odds of violence — when, in fact, the opposite is true. I know you think it's just a big coincidence that the so-called "gun-free zones" are the most popular target of mass murderers while police precincts and military installations have tended to be immune, but the facts are the facts.

That's a whole separate issue that I haven't mentioned once during this conversation, since I was specifically referring to the strategies of the civil rights movement, and the Freedom Rides in particular---a topic that you raised in the first place.

As far as the Freedom Riders are concerned, for all you know, one or more of them were packing.

Right, and for all you know, Wayne LaPierre is an undercover agent for the ATF Bureau. The people chosen for the Freedom Riders were screened and re-screened for their attitudes on retaliatory violence of any kind, and put through all sorts of training in order to gauge their reactions to violent attacks---which everyone knew were bound to happen. There isn't one chance in ten million that any of them were "packing", as you put it.

(And I never said the Freedom Riders should have ridden into the South with guns blazing; I simply replied to your comment that they risked their lives by saying that their lives would have been in less danger if they had been carrying in self-defense.)

For reasons that have been gone over time and again, the idea that the Freedom Riders would have been safer "packing" guns** is one of the two looniest concepts you've ever offered here, the other one being that slaves could have obtained their freedom with their own guns.

**For point of information, not a single Freedom Rider was ever killed during that entire campaign, which lasted many months and traveled time and again from Virginia to Mississippi and all points in between and around. Brutally beaten, yes, but no fatalities. How many deaths might have resulted from even a single demonstrator firing a single shot into an armed mob of angry whites, who would have had absolutely nothing to fear in the way of any sort of legal consequences after pleading "self-defense" to a local all-white jury.

the presence of guns automatically increases the odds of violence — when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Prove it.

I feel I am getting a better grasp of Mr. Heterodoskie's emulation of Cuban freedom fighter Antonio Maceo: "You cannot beg for liberty, you must conquer it at the point of a machete."

So you are recognizing that the discrimination is creating an externiality that the government has to fix. Government action requires resources, money, and taxation. So the whole populace, some of whom are not discriminating, have to pay the cost created by the discriminating parties through their "free" actions. That doesn't seem fair.

Fairness, while certainly a noble goal, is not my primary goal. The driving force behind what I'd consider to be a good society are the protection of certain fundamental rights (the right to bodily autonomy, the right to mental and emotional autonomy, and the right to use one's personal property as one wishes) and the maintenance of a structure that permits the protection of these rights.

It's not fair that some people are born with more wealth than others. It's not fair that some people are born healthier, or smarter, or more talented. I don't want a government that is concerned with leveling out those legitimately unfair aspects of the human condition. I do want a government that works to prevent people from being left behind by society, or worse, seeking to overthrow society.

I suppose you can fine the discriminators, but if you're going to do that, you're pretty much where we are now, right?

Not at all. Right now, you prevent people from exercising their right to control their private property. If you properly assess the cost of discrimination and charge accordingly, you allow people to do as they wish, but hold them accountable for the costs of their behavior. You can assess that cost individually, at the local level, or at the state level.

the presence of guns automatically increases the odds of violence — when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Prove it.

You think he doesn't have John Lott on speed dial?

Right now, you prevent people from exercising their right to control their private property.

Nobody is forcing you to open a restaurant. When you choose to open your property to the public, there are certain consequences from that decision -- you will have to pay business taxes, people might track mud into your building, people might engage in fisticuffs in your property, and you have to serve everyone without discrimination on the basis of race.

So apparently there are a few nut cases calling sandyhook and govt conspiracy so they could pass gun control measures, sadly one is a professor at UF

.

Pop Quiz (and no fair googling):

1. How much money was actually involved in the TARP bailout?

2. How much TARP money has been repaid?

i think 1.8b and If I recall correctly we have gotten most of it back and made money off some of it as well.

@1122: interesting. Not saying you're right or wrong. This group is much more politically aware than the average. I'll be fascinated to see what people think.

It's not fair that some people are born with more wealth than others. It's not fair that some people are born healthier, or smarter, or more talented. I don't want a government that is concerned with leveling out those legitimately unfair aspects of the human condition.

Why on earth not? Iirc you favor an expansive form of health care. Doesn't that involve a govt 'concerned with leveling out those legitimately unfair aspects of the human condition"?

I do want a government that works to prevent people from being left behind by society, or worse, seeking to overthrow society.

I think the two are too interrelated to warrant that kind of distinction. A government that helps create and sustain an un-level playing field, is itself not worth sustaining.

Not saying you do, but I think it's interesting how many people who think they're arguing for government to keep its hands off what people do, are going to great lengths to overlook how much work government has to do to give the appearance of keeping its hands off what people do.

Jack that was just a random guess odds are my memory of these things have replaced by shiny things like keys and that light that changes colors...

Colin Powell sure wasn't mincing any words this morning. I realize he doesn't have any cred with the conservatives here, but I think he is still a fairly respected voice of centrism with many Americans. I realize it doesn't matter with respect to the House members, but it's tough to tack to the center nationally when the voices of moderation from your own party are dubious of your motivation

the presence of guns automatically increases the odds of violence — when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Prove it.

The above needs a citation like "2 + 2 = 4" needs a citation. (But if you're truly curious, #1118 was right — John Lott's studies would be a good place to start.)

The above needs a citation like "2 + 2 = 4" needs a citation.

Ummm no it doesn't. Western Europe, Australia, and Japan have much lower violent crime rates and much lower gun possession rates.

Ummm no it doesn't. Western Europe, Australia, and Japan have much lower violent crime rates and much lower gun possession rates.

LOL. I thought we were talking about the United States? Next you'll be citing the relative safety of North Korea.

The above needs a citation like "2 + 2 = 4" needs a citation. (But if you're truly curious, #1118 was right — John Lott's studies would be a good place to start.)

You wouldn't prefer to start with Mary Rosh?

More immigration pandering from Obama ...

That routine check revealed that Ms. Arreola had been returned to Mexico in 1998 after she was caught trying to illegally cross the border into Arizona with Erika and two of her siblings in tow. As a result, she was placed on a priority list for deportation.

After being seized on Thursday, she could have been sent back to Mexico in a matter of hours, but Obama administration officials moved quickly to undo the arrests. Officials had been pressured by the robust response from advocates — through phone calls, e-mails and online petitions, but primarily on Twitter, where they mobilized support for Ms. Andiola, a well-known advocate for young illegal immigrants, under the hashtag #WeAreAndiola.

I guess we've reached the point in the United States where the rule of law means so little that some idiots posting messages on Twitter is enough to get the arrest and deportation of a felon "undone."

She wouldn't have needed Obama if she had just had a gun. Tsk.

once again peaceful means of demonstration succeed!

Also wasn't the arab spring spread/started online?

I guess we've reached the point in the United States where the rule of law means so little that some idiots posting messages on Twitter is enough to get the arrest and deportation of a felon "undone."

Glad to see Obama is starting to really stand up to the Arpaio coalition, but personally I won't be satisfied until that lowlife ############ is dressed in a pink striped prison suit and cleaning latrines for the rest of his ugly life.

Glad to see Obama is starting to really stand up to the Arpaio coalition, but personally I won't be satisfied until that lowlife ############ is dressed in a pink striped prison suit and cleaning latrines for the rest of his ugly life.

Are there going to be charges and a trial first, or are we going to dispense with those unnecessary trivialities?

LOL. I thought we were talking about the United States? Next you'll be citing the relative safety of North Korea.

Right, because Western Europe is as different to the US as North Korea.

Glad to see Obama is starting to really stand up to the Arpaio coalition, but personally I won't be satisfied until that lowlife ############ is dressed in a pink striped prison suit and cleaning latrines for the rest of his ugly life.

Are there going to be charges and a trial first, or are we going to dispense with those unnecessary trivialities?

I'd give him a trial before a jury filled with future Dream Act beneficiaries whom he otherwise would have deported.

I'd give him a trial before a jury filled with future Dream Act beneficiaries whom he otherwise would have deported.

A jury of illegal immigrants? As I've said, you really don't care about rights or the rule of law.

Ummm no it doesn't. Western Europe, Australia, and Japan have much lower violent crime rates and much lower gun possession rates.

Some countries in Western Europe allow more guns than other countries in Western Europe but don't really have significantly more crime than countries with less. There are also plenty of countries with less guns than the USA and have more crime. It really doesn't correlate well at all.

I'd give him a trial before a jury filled with future Dream Act beneficiaries whom he otherwise would have deported.

A jury of illegal immigrants?

They won't be illegal forever, and until that time comes we can put Mr. Pink Stripes in a preventive detention cell that's patterned after the ones he's used for his own suspects.

I'd give him a trial before a jury filled with future Dream Act beneficiaries whom he otherwise would have deported.

Oh come on. Give him a jury of the legal citizens he falsely arrested.

Gotta give it up for Arpaio for being one of the few politicians to openly advocate for explicitly racist positions (i.e. birtherism).

Some countries in Western Europe allow more guns than other countries in Western Europe but don't really have significantly more crime than countries with less. There are also plenty of countries with less guns than the USA and have more crime. It really doesn't correlate well at all.

Generally speaking homicide rates tend to correlate most with

A. GDP per capita (wealthy country have less crime with other factors being similar)
B. Population density (hard to kill people when they live very far away from you, shocker!)
C. Demographics (younger / more diverse population tend to be more at risk for crimes)

Still, with these factors, the US stand out as the one very rich country that have considerably higher homicide rate. most very rich country have around 1 murder per 100k give or take some, the US have about 5.

the US have 4.8 murder per 100k last year according to UNODC, amongst Western and Northern European country (everyone north east of France until Germany / Sweden / Finland) . the highest murder are .... Finland and Belgium both at a bit more than 2 (well there is also Liechtenstein but it had only 1 murder... it's small population obviously ruins any sample size.) everyone else is under 2.

yeah, the US demographic is certainly a negative in this regard, but on the other hand it's population density isn't as high as alot of those other places.


My problem with the more gun = more safety argument is that if that was the case, then the US which has twice as many guns per capita as the SECOND HIGHEST country and about 10x the world average. should have long been the safest country by a mile, given that their lead in this factor is so huge that it should easily outweigh any other factor.

If the general pro-gun argument is to go the Swiss route, then I would totally support that, but the interesting thing is that the pro-gun advocates are also the strongest individualist 2nd amendment advocates.

Anyone with a decent objective view of the early US history should see that while it is not entirely clear that there wasn't a individualist argument in the 2nd amendment when it was written, there clearly was a very strong collectivist view , and that was how it was interpeted you know... when the Found fathers were actually still alive, or shortly after it.


i'd like to point out that this was a state high court writing in 1842... you know.. just 6 years after James Madison passed away.

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."

Anyone with a decent objective view of the early US history should see that while it is not entirely clear that there wasn't a individualist argument in the 2nd amendment when it was written, there clearly was a very strong collectivist view , and that was how it was interpeted you know... when the Found fathers were actually still alive, or shortly after it.

I suspect this would be news to more than a few of the Founding Fathers.

I suspect this would be news to more than a few of the Founding Fathers.

cite?

preferably a first person source.

Iirc you favor an expansive form of health care. Doesn't that involve a govt 'concerned with leveling out those legitimately unfair aspects of the human condition"?

No, it is protection against societal collapse. If people are dying in the streets, they (and their families and friends) will have strong incentive to revolt or otherwise seek to tear down society. It's a domestic version of national defense.

cite?

preferably a first person source.

Old and/or disabled people whom no one would consider viable members of a "collective" rights militia were still allowed to keep and bear arms. Women were allowed to keep and bear arms before they were allowed to vote. Blacks were often allowed to keep and bear arms before they were fully considered people. The whole "collective" rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is revisionist nonsense.

The whole "collective" rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is revisionist nonsense.

Unlike your interpretation of the civil rights movement.

The above needs a citation like "2 + 2 = 4" needs a citation.

As an aside, in Math you do in fact have to prove (and I have) things like 2 + 2 = 4. It turns out to be a non-trivial exercise to rigorously prove it.

More to the point it was not random "gun violence" which ended slavery. It was a war/treason, started by the slaveholders. Random dudes with guns had little to nothing to do with it, it was armies - the end of slavery has basically nothing to do with either second amendment or non-violent protest. Bringing it up in terms of the end of Jim Crow, civil rights era non violent protest, and so on is a complete red herring.

allowed to keep and bear arms

So what? Being allowed to do something does not mean it was because of the second amendment. There are plenty of things that are allowed, but that does not mean each and everyone supports an amendment.

There is no simple answer to the question of the relationship between guns and violence since there are lots of factors. It is interesting that the publication of addresses of gun permits in upstate NY has led to what police think is an increase in crime...against households that have guns by people looking to steal them. link