There are alternate realities that one would think are impractical or even impossible. Yet, the evidence seems convincing they do exist and are at least somewhat practical.
We are funding non-profits and public health to pass out foil, meth pipes, other paraphernalia – I question what harm is being reduced by that, by helping people get high?
This was prompted by the city park department fencing off and temporarily closing three parks then saying:
We recognize that this park has been impacted by bouts of negative park activity, and we will continue to work to ensure that all parks are clean, safe, and welcoming.
I’m more that a little surprised that someone on the Seattle City Council would say something that reasonable. In contrast, the “negative park activity” statement is entirely in character with what I would expect.
The use of euphemisms and outright lie to gloss over gross acts of neglect and enablement which what one can only conclude are deliberate acts of societal destruction are what I have come to expect.
Perhaps times are changing, and City Council President Nelson can lead that change. Seattle used to be beautiful and safe. It would be nice if they can fix the damage done by all the leftist politics of the last several decades.
I am generally an optimist. But I suspect the Marxists who have been running Seattle into the ground still have a power base enabling the continuation of their destruction.
Gun makers are increasingly competing for a decreasing market share. That’s why you see this push for an aggressive deregulatory agenda … That’s what animates this attack on the NFA.
What you see is here is a very strong indicator of a Marxist. The attribution of something they see as bad in the world as due to “corporate greed”, “capitalism”, etc. You used to hear organizations like the Brady Campaign insist that gun manufactures were “flooding the streets” with guns.
It seems beyond their comprehension that markets drive the direction of corporations. Apparently, in their minds, people do not have free will or ability to decide for themselves what they want to spend their own money on. And that extends to people pushing legislators to pass, or repeal, laws that further the interests of individuals. Do they think corporations vote instead of individuals?
Gun violence can’t happen where there aren’t guns, and guns are not inevitable.
The organization is probably just one person, Igor Volsky, and is only of significance because it demonstrates the Marxist tell in how they frame the view of gun owners being allowed to purchase gun accessories with fewer restrictions.
Gun owners already know what it’s like for the government to penalize them for crimes they did not commit. We shouldn’t even consider such an extreme response to heinous act committed by one disturbed individual, much less implement it, no matter how horrible the crime. The deranged Minneapolis killer is no longer a threat to anybody, and we needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.
The ironic aspect of this controversy is that some in the liberal media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgenders from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Perhaps they will learn something from this.
The government, no matter who is in charge, must understand that enumerated rights protected by the Constitution cannot be stripped away for what amounts to a publicity stunt. If we allow that to happen to one minority group, it could happen to another group, and then another, until the right becomes a distant memory, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to protect it. This is a bad idea, and it needs to go away immediately.
Mark Smith has a different take, which I think is more likely. And I would not be surprised if Gottlieb also is inclined to believe Mark’s take but plays it straight to score points with the rights are for everyone concept.
The TL;DR; version from Mark is that Trump is trolling the political left to get them to proclaim gun rights are for people of all sexual orientation and the Trump administration is going to violate the constitutional rights of an oppressed minority.
Assuming Mark has the correct angle on this, I could see this causing a few heads to “explode”. If it doesn’t, it was still a good try.
I think they are afraid that people will see what can be done if politicians commit to taking action and really want to make a difference. That’s really the only reason I can think of because otherwise, it makes no sense. And if you look at what Mayor Muriel Bowser has done in D.C. – she’s embraced it and it’s made a huge difference. I wish they would learn from her.
The politicians want people to be victims, so the politicians have that as an issue to campaign on. To be fair, this could be an implementation detail of the reason Weis is suggesting.
If successful, it will implicitly be giving credit to Republicans and diminish the likelihood of Democrats being returned to office.
They are sadists and enjoy seeing the death and destruction of others with no serious risk to themselves.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, TDS. We have an epidemic of it in this country.
And, of course, we should always consider embracing the healing power of AND.
You have to be honest, and say what will actually work, which is what nobody wants to hear, which is that there are just simply way too many firearms, and they are way too accessible.
And they’re too powerful, even handguns too, again, that’s why in Australia … It doesn’t matter if it’s not politically acceptable to say it. I’m not here as a politician or anyone who works in politics. I’m a journalist. Whether or not you like it, the only thing that really works, if you really wanted to bring down gun violence, was to do what Australia did and to do what many other countries in Europe do.
Whenever someone starts a conversation with something to the effect of, “I’m going to be honest with you…” Then that, almost for certain, means their normal state is dishonesty. Furthermore, they are being dishonest now and trying to convince you to believe their lies. Here, Spies* is demonstrating a minor variation on that maxim.
Heinlein once made a similar observation with, “Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash.”
Also, never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
* One has to wonder, is his dishonesty so embedded in his ancestor’s behavior that they were given this as a family name?
got a call from a criminal defendant I believe is innocent. Before calling me, he voluntarily participated in a police interrogation for several hours. He believed that “I have nothing to hide” and that he could explain to the police why they had the wrong guy.
Defense attorneys might call this naïve, but look at the responses to Fleishman’s OP. Even high-IQ people really believe this is how law enforcement works.
Here’s the problem. When you agree to a police interrogation, you and the police are playing two different games.
As the suspect, you believe you are playing a multiplayer, collaborative game.
But the police aren’t even playing a multiplayer game. They’re playing a one-player game, like Tetris.
As the suspect, you’re not a player in the game. You’re more like the game environment, producing falling blocks for the player—the police.
The police play this game by collecting your statements like blocks and fitting them into a picture that incriminates you. When enough blocks have fit together, the police have won the game and refer the case to a prosecutor.
You believe that, once you convince the police that you are innocent, you will all win. But that’s not a real outcome of the game. “Evidence that I am innocent” is not even a game element. From the cops’ perspective, if they fail to assemble the blocks into an incriminating picture, they have lost the game.
Suspects who think “I have nothing to hide” are always surprised when the interrogation lasts several hours. “I’ve already explained everything – why am I still here?” they think.
That’s because the longer the game goes on, the more falling blocks the police have to assemble their case. It’s in their interests to keep the game going long past what your game required.
All suspects eventually sense this on some gut level and become frustrated. You think: “Wait a minute, – all of their questions are subtly premised on my guilt! But I can prove to them that I’m not guilty. I need to appeal to them to really hear me out.”
I.e., “Let’s start over with a different game where we can all work together.”
But even as you’re trying to change the game, you are speaking and therefore generating more blocks.
Here’s the only solution. The moment you have any reason to believe you’re a suspect, exit the game. Politely ask if you are free to leave. If they say “no,” calmly tell them “I invoke my right to remain silent and my right to counsel.”
If you’re in custody when you say this, the cops will actually physically stand up and leave the room as if you’ve just uttered a magic incantation.
I have never heard it explained like this before. This is awesome!
I have had similar thoughts, but I had no idea how to explain it so well. And my thoughts were more based on the assumption that the police were outright evil. It goes like this…
Every bit of information I give the police could be used to construct evidence and motivations that is consistent with my alibi and innocent reasons for my actions such that my alibi and reasons are neutralized.
Exercise your Fifth Amendment rights. Do not talk to the police if you might be a suspect in a crime.
Americans are having a record low amount of sex. We find that in 1990, 55% of adults ages 18–64 reported having sex weekly, according to the General Social Survey (GSS). But around the turn of the millennium, that number began to dip: by 2010, less than half reported having sex weekly, and by 2024, of the more than 1,000 men and women queried on this topic by the GSS, that number had fallen to just 37 percent.
…
While the decline in sex has been most acute among younger generations, older adults have not been left unscathed. And notably, the sex recession is making inroads among married couples. Between 1996 and 2008, 59% of married adults, ages 18-64, reported having sex once a week or more. That number fell to 49% for the period of 2010 to 2024. Married couples are seeing declines in sexual frequency across age groups.
It’s no coincidence that a decline in marital sex follows the digital revolution. Today’s electronic opiates not only depress partnering and marriage among young adults—they also weaken already established relationships. A 2023 IFS study found that married adults reported lower sexual frequency when their spouse substituted couple time for phone or computer use. Furthermore, bedtime procrastination is a rising habit. So-called bedtime procrastinators spend two hours using some form of digital media in the three hours leading up to sleep. It’s not surprising that more social media, Netflix, or gaming on the part of spouses translates to less intimacy.
I was about 2010 when a co-worker at Microsoft told me she wanted to have a second child, but she was having doubts about the desirability of her husband being a long-term partner. He, basically, was no longer interested in sex. He also was a computer programmer at Microsoft and when at home he played video games and wrote software for new video games. He was a decent enough father to their child. She was, and is, quite attractive. They did not lack money, but she wanted physical attention in multiple ways. He spent his time in the digital world.
I suggested counseling and some books, but I don’t think she followed up on any of my suggestions or found an alternate solution. She is still married to the same guy and only has the one child.
It has been years since I last talked to her or even corresponded with her, but it still makes me sad to think about her situation.
You see this all the time in various forms. People will make some statement or series of statements that sound good, but do not include details. It might be better roads and bridges but no details about how it will be paid for. It might be affordable housing but do not mention they intend to take money from other people to pay for the housing.
Politicians are great on broad stroke statements. But they either don’t understand details are important, or they are deliberately hiding the devil in the details of what they intend to do.
By using an electron beam, or e-beam, to remove and deposit the atoms, the ORNL scientists could accomplish a direct writing procedure at the atomic level.
“The process is remarkably intuitive,” said ORNL’s Andrew Lupini, STEM group leader and a member of the research team. “STEMs work by transmitting a high-energy e-beam through a material. The e-beam is focused to a point smaller than the distance between atoms and scans across the material to create an image with atomic resolution. However, STEMs are notorious for damaging the very materials they are imaging.”
The scientists realized they could exploit this destructive “bug” and instead use it as a constructive feature and create holes on purpose. Then, they can put whatever atom they want in that hole, exactly where they made the defect. By purposely damaging the material, they create a new material with different and useful properties.
“We’re exploring methods to create these defects on demand so we can place them where we want to,” Jesse said. “Since STEMs have atomic-scale imaging capabilities, and we work with very thin materials that are only a few atoms in thickness, we can see every atom. So, we are manipulating matter at the atomic scale in real time. That’s the goal, and we are actually achieving it.”
To demonstrate the method, the researchers moved an e-beam back and forth over a graphene lattice, creating minuscule holes. They inserted tin atoms into those holes and achieved a continuous, atom-by-atom, direct writing process, thereby populating the exact same places where the carbon atom had been with tin atoms.
“We believe that atomic-scale synthesis processes could become a matter of routine using relatively simple strategies. When coupled with automated beam control and AI-driven analysis and discovery, the synthescope concept offers a window into atomic synthesis processes and a unique approach to atomic-scale manufacturing,” Jesse said.
They can create new materials atom by atom. I can’t imagine the limits to such a tool. What sort of “alloys” could be made? Could there be energy storage devices like batteries and capacitors far beyond the capacities of our current devices? What about explosive compounds? Imagine drones the size of a mosquito carrying a super toxin or explosives payload to someone’s middle ear or up a nostril. Or nanobots roaming the bloodstream to clear an infection, clogged blood vessels, or cancer.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Trump does not have much respect for anything Democrats say or think about him. Which, of course, inflames them even more.
It is difficult to back down from this level of rhetoric.
A chilling Cold War-era map has surfaced, providing a stark outlook for the United States post-nuclear warfare, with predictions indicating that up to 75% of the population could die from radiation in the most affected states. The world’s nuclear-armed countries include the US, UK, France, Russia, and China, as well as Pakistan, India, and North Korea.
Events like these should not be our ‘normal.’ The simple solution is to pass sensible gun control. Without that, these tragedies will continue to happen, and children will continue to die.
In these days there is no excuse for not knowing that gun control is not the answer. It just doesn’t work.
I’m reminded of H. L. Mencken’s famous quote:
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Because he has not excuse for saying something that stupid. I have to conclude it is a deliberate lie to further some unstated agenda. Therefore, I would also like to suggest Representative Thanedar read 18 U.S. Code § 242.
When a patient comes into an emergency room, the doctors may or may not know what happened. They just know the patient was shot. Maybe they get some story from the paramedics about what happened, but that’s still only a small sliver of what’s really going on in the world of guns.
The doctors don’t see the 97-year-old woman who is only able to sleep at night because of the revolver in her nightstand. They don’t see the stalking victim who no longer fears for her safety after buying a Glock 19. They don’t see the guy who got shot dead by a father after the dude broke into the daughter’s bedroom in order to sexually assault her. They don’t see the mugger who ran away when his 30-year-old female target produced a firearm.
They don’t see any of that.
What they see is an unfortunate sliver of what all happens on a daily basis with guns.
More than that, how the shooter got a gun is never part of what they see in the ERs and ORs of this country. That comes later, and they’re often pontificating on the dangers of gun rights, all while being clueless about the fact that the shooting victim they treated was shot by an 18-year-old convicted felon with an illegally obtained handgun.
They don’t know nearly as much as many of them believe, but they’re so blinded by their own self-important arrogance that they can’t accept there’s more to the story.
Of course, some people have a far less nuanced view of things. There are people who see a violent criminal with a gunshot wound no different than an innocent criminal victim. It has been a while but as I have explained before sometimes these people view the general population as livestock. As a cattle owner, you don’t really care which cow started the fight. You don’t want any of them to be injured. They are, generally, of equal value to you whether they have a very pleasant personality or they are bullies to the other cattle in the herd.
I suspect the doctor Knighton was writing about is one of those people. As a doctor he is relatively smart and knows how to read and research. Yet the gunshot victims he sees are a gun problem and not a people problem.
Common sense dictates that the right to bear arms requires a right to acquire arms, just as the right to free press necessarily includes the right to acquire a printing press, or the right to freely practice religion necessarily rests on a right to acquire a sacred text. Legal interpretation follows that common sense….
The burden imposed by a cooling-off period is brought into sharper focus when considered in the context of other constitutional rights. A carte blanche one-week cooling-off period to publish news stories? Unconstitutional. Temporary closures of churches during COVID-19? Unconstitutional. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” If a criminal defendant had to wait thirty days after his arraignment before he could seek legal counsel so that he would not unduly resist his prosecution? Unconstitutional, of course. See Rothgery v. Gillespie Cnty. (“[C]ounsel must be appointed within a reasonable time after attachment to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage before trial.”). The Second Amendment is no different.
As Justice Thomas said in June of 2015, “Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.”
I am seeing more and more evidence that the lower courts are getting a clue. It took, metaphorically, a clue by four to get their attention but they are starting to come around.
It is said Donald Trump has a near-magical ability to make Democrats do insanely self-destructive things. They’re doing it to themselves. Trump doesn’t have to apply clumsy reverse psychology, their self-imposed Trump Derangement Syndrome and their raging hatred of America and Normal Americans makes them reflexively, loudly and irrationally, oppose anything he says or does and anything they imagine he might be thinking of saying or doing.
In only eight months, we’ve watched Democrats maniacally defend:
*Illegal immigration *Hamas *Islamic terrorists in general *Violent domestic criminals *Antisemitism *Pedophiles *Democrat legislators fleeing votes to “defend democracy” *Mentally ill men in women’s sports, locker rooms and bathrooms *Ignoring and damaging the Constitution *Rampant violent crime in Washington, DC, including “gun violence”
I think the problem is that they are emotionally driven. They have bought into all the terrible things they have been told about President Trump and reflexively oppose anything he supposedly is in favor of.
I suspect this is rather common in people. I remember growing up and people would respond in the same sort of manner to anything related to Hitler. Yes, Hitler had primary responsibility the deaths of millions of innocent people. Yes, he deserves to be considered one of the all-time evil people of history. But he gave political support to the Volkswagen Beetle and the Autobahn. It doesn’t reduce the severity of his crimes, but I don’t see the problem with saying those were praiseworthy projects.
The same sort of thing happened to me early 1990s. I was living in Sandpoint Idaho at the time. There was a big deal about something the Aryan Nation wanted to do or was doing locally or in the nearby Hayden Lake area. There was a big meeting of the Sandpoint locals to oppose whatever it was they wanted to do. I went to the meeting.
Various people talked about how terrible the Aryan Nation people were and what they stood for. There were a handful of people from the Aryan Nation group there and wanted to talk. After bit of discussion one of the Aryan Nation people was given a few minutes to say some things. He said they were advocating for equal treatment of white people. For example, there was a case where a black person severely injured (or killed? I don’t remember for certain) a white person and because of the numerous racial epithets used at the time of the attack it was clear it was a racially motivated. But the prosecutors would not go for it and the perp got of far easier than had a white person committed the same crime against a black person.
It was clear to me that by accepting and rectifying the valid points, including letting them talk without a debate about it, they could take a lot of “wind out of their sails.” Without stories to tell of all the discrimination against white people they would have a much more difficult time recruiting new members and probably keeping existing members. That was not the consensus of the general population. “White Supremist bad. Everything they want must be opposed.”, seemed to be the attitude.
It is a something more general than just the three examples of Trump, Hitler, and the Aryan Nations. I see it done by Republican/Conservatives too.
If those examples are not enough to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the phenomena, think about loyalty to sports teams. People get in fights and even riots in opposition to the “other” teams.
The emotional content of belonging to a tribe and opposing competing tribes probably was a huge evolutionary advantage. But that doesn’t mean it is universally good behavior. Sometimes adopting some ideas, customs, technology, or team plays of your most hated enemy is to your advantage.
By taking a vocal stand on fairly central issues Trump, in effect, “forced” the Democrats into crazy territory. The Democrats did not have to go there. They could have agreed on the issues that made sense, and perhaps even legislatively killed that issue before the election. This would have taken “the wind out of Trump’s sail.” But they are too emotionally driven and had to double down on the crazy view of those issues. The end result was they were left in crazy town while the Republicans went to Washington D.C. Now, the Republicans get to implement their reasonable ideas as well as their crazy ones in questionable ways.
Another example of Democrat craziness in this regard is vehement opposition to “cultural appropriation.” White people singing rap songs is bad? But people of color using technology created by white people, say the iPhone (Steve Jobs), electricity (Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Telsa), airplanes (the Wright Brothers), and mass-produced cars (Henry Ford) is okay? People are finally starting to realize they are talking crazy talk.
A similar thing happens in engineering with, “Not invented here syndrome.” People have a reasonably good idea and don’t look around to see if they can get an off the shelf implementation of something at least “good enough” if not better. Or don’t want to use code that someone else wrote.
Here is my approach to faster social, political, and technological evolution. Stop, think, and when appropriate adopt the ideas of others. Give credit where credit is due and advance the ball down the field with your adaptation of a good idea. Everyone wins.
Today, March for Our Lives is in disarray. Funding shortfalls and a rift between its board and younger staffers… have strained the organization. And a recently filed federal lawsuit accuses the board of racism and retaliation.
On March 20 of this year, just before the seven-year anniversary of its celebrated rallies, MFOL terminated 13 of its 16 full-time employees.
As I said the other day, our recent progress has to be putting pressure on donations.
At this point MFOLs has to be rendered powerless to cause us any damage. I think it is extremely unlikely they will recover. They are just dust in the dustbin of history.
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
Reality is tough. And when reality contradicts what you firmly believe, it is even harder to see and accept. I have to give Libresco a lot of credit for this.
