Gun control and police popularity

You would think from this article in the online Irish Voice that when the Irish Gardai show up to protect a civilian from an armed assailant they use harsh language and possibly throw their batons if the thug doesn't turn himself in good faith.  John Spain writes, "It’s one thing when the drug gangs shoot each other[,] . . . [b]ut it is a different matter when one of these young thugs so casually tries to murder a Garda simply because he does not want to be followed. If that is what it has come to here, then should the Gardai be armed?"

Will you tell me what kind of a world we live in, where an armed thug would rather shoot a cop than be caught and sent to prison?  Has it really come to that?   Spain further points out that in spite of the Irish Republic's strict gun control laws (the anti-colonial Irish ironically have no guarantee like our Second Amendment) "[l]ow level young thugs here frequently carry guns."  It would seem that, unless young thugs don't mind going to prison, that the only thing keeping Gardai from getting shot more often is not getting into many confrontations with thugs. (Or there are somehow enough armed citizens that there aren't many sutuations being called in--the thugs have truly heretofore been content to kill each other, which I doubt.)

Spain even conjectures a case-and-effect that "in most countries where police routinely carry arms, gun crime is much higher than it is in Ireland because criminals feel they have to carry weapons," such that in spite of their gun control laws criminals will somehow get their hands on better weapons.  Yes, somehow, criminals do get their hands on them in spite of gun control, but they don't have to wait for cops to be better armed, just as these young thugs routinely carry guns when officers of the law do not.  With Spain's logic though, cops should be walking around in nothing but swimming trunks and Nerf swords, since that will induce thugs to not have to carry around anything better than knives.  This is the sort of cause-and-effect that people decide on having been "informed" solely by Michael Moore statistics.

He further writes, "I see from the American nightly news that in some parts of the U.S., for example, officers who are unhappy that all they have is handguns have now started to buy heavy duty machine guns out of their own pockets to give them firepower to match that of the bad guys."  Well, all we had to do to prevent that was to shut down those machine gun drive-thrus where any ex-con or gang member could pick one up!

Truth is that the crime lords here are getting them from across our unprotected borders, so much so that Eric Holder felt confident that if American guns were given to Mexican criminals that they would end up back here , lending support to previously made-up statistics for the gun control lobby.  This stunt has resulted in the deaths of at least two American agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens.

Of course, criminals don't always have to import them if they can be stolen from civilians or non-civilians.  But just as criminals seem to always get their hands on illegal substance, they always seem to get their hands on illegal arms.

One point that Spain raises that I can sympathize with is that of the sense that police are just deputized citizens: "In Ireland there is still a huge level of support, appreciation, and even affection for the Gardai from 98% of the population. The fact that the Gardai are unarmed is part of that relationship . . ."

From my own experience, I'll make this observation:  If an officer of the law pulls me over for an alleged misdemeanor and approaches me with his hand resting on the butt of his gun, he should not talk to me like I'm the scum of society unless he truly has reason that I've committed some felony.  Policemen who obviously had no reason to fear me have chosen to intimidate me, and this attitude isn't simply a result of carrying a gun.

What is a moderate?

What is a moderate?  Such a relative term, and usually takes its meaning within an implicit one-dimensional (literally) understanding.  We'll grant the linearity of the spectrum for now.  If one side shifts its opinion away from whatever is understood (by whom?) to be the center, the moderate opinion, by definition has moved in that direction.  More and more, I hear statists or collectivists describe themselves as moderates, while mainstream rags like Newsweek ridicule as extermists those that have antiquated 18th century understandings of our Constitution. So lets' consider...

Moderate.  Do you have a moderate or extreme belief in a fundamental right to property?  Do you have a moderate or extreme belief that certain rights are inalienable?  Do you have a moderate or extreme belief that  the Constitution is a binding contract that has (or should have) binding limits on the power of your government?   Are you an extremist on any of these positions?

If one extreme is the belief that government should assume whatever powers (whether by legislation or judicial decree or executive order or by some combination of these) that educators and political scientists say that they should have*, and the other extreme is the belief that government should be strictly bound by the contract that Constitutes the government except as amended by the legal representatives of the People, what is the nice, moderate position?  What does a "centrist" have to say?


If one side says I have a legal right to protect my property (legally gained through uncoerced transactions) and the other side says that I have to let others loot my property until government employees arrive and assess the situation (e.g. in Britain) and/or claims that the government has the right to determine exactly how much of my property I may keep depending on how (in)efficient it is has been in solving social problems through distribution.  What is the moderate position between these two extremes: the understanding of most 18th century Americans on the one hand, and that of the collectivist statism of fascism/communism/socialism?

Isn't it always good to be a moderate?  "Moderate."  It sounds so nice.  Like someone who is not frothing at the mouth. (Always a good thing.) Not at all like someone who is selling out something important.

* Or alternatively assume whatever powers some majority of the populace can be lulled into accepting (whether through envy or anger or cowardice).

Modern Education

“You can’t make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”
    -John Dewey, father of public education in U.S.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
 - Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union

“Is it not quite certain that the ordinary elementary schoolmaster will think it not merely natural but simply conscientious to eradicate all these rugged legends of a laborious people, and on principle to preach soap and Socialism against beer and liberty? In the lower classes the schoolmaster does not work for the parent but against the parent. Modern education means handing down the customs of the minority, and rooting out the customs of the majority. Instead of their Christlike charity, their Shakespearean laughter and their Homeric reverence for the dead, the poor have imposed on them mere pedantic copies of the remote rich. They must think a bathroom a necessity, because to the lucky it is a luxury; they must swing Swedish clubs, because their masters are afraid of English cudgels; and they must get over their prejudice against being fed by the parish, because aristocrats feel no shame about being fed by the nation.” 

   - G.K. Chesterton

Daily Kos gives example of petulant juvenilism

Characterizing the behavior of the rightwing American community, HamptonRoadsProgressive in the Daily Kos(sack) declares "Namecalling, everything from "Socialist" to "Nazi" to "Antichrist". Isn't that the kind of petulant bullshit that gets engaged in by playground adversaries in grade school?"  The author of the article says this after referring to Tea Party participants as Teabaggers.

Why the Election System Needs to Change

Whether or not the conditions for Duverger's Law are well understood, the principle seems to be alive and well in America.  Most of us know that where we might have minority party candidates we prefer, choosing one of them drastically increases the odds of electing the majority party candidate we like least.  It is demoralizing whether one votes for someone who had little chance of winning or votes for someone for whom they had little hope.

For example, if Ross Perot had persisted in the 1992 election, it's very possible that Clinton would not have been elected.  Looked at another way, Perot's withdrawal from the race along with his curious plug for Clinton makes one wonder whether strategic withdrawal is yet another inherent weakness in the system.

Let's say that in 2007, the electoral system had been adjusted to allow instant run-off voting.  Now, imagine that we had a different scenario in 2008.  As Barack Obama takes the lead in his party, instead of agreeing to become Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton forms the Progressive Party and runs against him.  In other circles, Gary Johnson represents the Libertarian ticket.  Ron Paul forms his own Change Party ticket.  Newt Gingrich forms a Conservative ticket outside the GOP.  And good old "maverick" McCain still heads the GOP ticket.  Not to mention the indomitable Ralph Nader.

Now that's an interesting election!  In this alternate universe, many people that voted for Obama in this universe might have picked Gary Johnson as their first choice, followed by Hillary and then by Obama.  Or picked Nader first followed by Obama and then Hillary.  Or Ron Paul, followed by McCain, followed by Hillary.  Some that voted for McCain, in the alternate universe may have picked Ron Paul, followed by Gingrich, followed by Johnson, followed by McCain.  Others might have picked Johnson, followed by Paul, followed by McCain, followed by Gingrich.

And how would this Babel be resolved in instant run-off voting?  In the more interesting case (in which people actually prefer minority party candidates to the GOP and Democrat choices), it may have to go through several rounds of elimination votes.  First Nader is eliminated and those ballots are reevaluated to count for the next preferred candidate.  Most of these votes get are distributed between Clinton, Obama,  Paul and Johnson.  Let's say the next eliminated is Gingrich.  Most of his votes get distributed between McCain, Paul and Johnson.

In the next round, McCain is eliminated and most of his votes are distributed between Johnson and Paul.  Obama gets eliminated next and his votes are distributed between Clinton, Johnson and Paul.  Ron Paul  is eliminated and most of his votes go to Johnson.  Maybe Johnson wins,  maybe Clinton wins.  It all depends on the order of preference selected by each voter.

As you can see, the least preferred candidates, the least objectionable by the most people, get eliminated first.

But there is even more to it than this.  You can prefer a candidate without worrying about throwing away your vote.  You can truly come closer to voting your conscience.  This is encouraging to voters.  It also encourages alternative platforms.   It allows a true reformer to come out of nowhere and convince voters of both camps that he has something they might prefer to that offered by their previous party of choice.   It increases competitions among platforms and decreases the polarization of the Two Party system.   It also increases the likelihood of more voters feeling that the election winner represents them to some extent.

I think many Independents, Democrats, and Republicans often feel that they are choosing which crook can represent their interests best.  I believe IRV would be a step in the right direction.

Has the "Left" Really Changed?

From Dr. Sanity:

What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for. 

Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

True enough about where they are now, not necessarily about where they were.  Depends on how you define the Left.  Many Progressives have historically defended fascist and other totalitarian collectivist regimes from the beginning of the movement.  Many Progressives have had historically condescending attitudes toward the "inferior races" and been guided by the institutional racism of the scientific elite at the beginning of the 20th century.

Prop "Hate" and Judicial Social Engineering

I do see the judges' decision (the one that Prop 8 was intended to address) as an end run around the law-making process. They say they are merely filling in the blanks where the law is not clear -- so the people make it clear.  Most of the opposing viewpoints see this the same as adding legislation outlawing interracial marriage. Just because it's law, enforcing a common prejudice doesn't necessarily make the law right.  I think "marriage" by history and jurisprudence only makes legal sense as a contract between a husband and a wife. This, to many people, is merely a fiction to disguise bigotry against people with a lifestyle that one is "against".  I do think the bigotry is real.  And that may well be a significant factor in the success of the Proposition.

But I think the judicial activism potentially creates a double-standard. How does the history of rulings between husbands and wives apply to cases where there is no wife or no husband?  I think they will make it the best of both roles, and not in a way that will create any more equality in traditional marriages.  So is it simply unacceptable to me that, in schools and in the workplace, that these spouses are afforded the same recognition?  Is it arbitrary to restrict marriage in such a way that it only supports what people have always though of as "normal"? I was reading some material on "common law" marriage, and one precedent seems to be that the couple that presents themselves to the community at large as married are entitled as married.   Supposedly, the community doesn't have to "accept" their marriage, and yet their marital status depends on a relation to the community.

However, this wasn't true for Utah. I'm not prejudiced against Mormon --they seem to have a special interest in limited government and the Constitution. But I think their Church gave in to political pressure in the late 1800s by deciding that polygamy was no longer a sacrament (and having their loyal believers comply).  I don't advocate polygamy.  But there are Mormon fundamentalists that are excommunicated from LDS proper for exercising their religious beliefs this way. They don't have the legitimacy of even a civil union as that is mostly because of federal lawys and Supreme Court rulings from the 1850s onward that Utah couldn't change the institution of marriage to suit their desires. The Mormon church has since been domesticated into not finding other ways (e.g. cohabitation) to legitimize what their Prophet once called a sacrament. 

Gay Judge Walker rules CA constitution unconstitutional

But this raises questions about how states recognize each other's marriages and other unions.  In other cases, a state may be required to honor a contract made in another state under its laws.  And for most marriages this is the case: if you get married in Vegas, it doesn't just stay in Vegas. But entering multiple marriage contracts is forbidden by some unwritten definition even if your state tries to legalize it. Are the excommunicated polygamists wrong or disenfranchised?  Are they without civil rights?  There's no civil union that will give them comparable privileges. Are we discriminating against them or are we protecting an institution from getting messy? Maybe both. I do think that how the states recognize each other's contracts does play a role in defining legalities, but I also think that states should have a lot of leeway for behavior they allow in their own borders.

So will Obama put judges in the Supreme Court that will overturn Prop 8 as unconstitutional? I don't know what precedent they would use, but I wouldn't be surprised. They've defined what "science" is, so maybe "marriage" is next on the list. It took special legislation to legalize a certain entheogen as a protected sacrament for Native Americas (giving them a "1st Amendment" right we don't have).

Judicial restraint is labeled 'activism' by progressives.

I wouldn't want our state to not provide civil unions that offer comparable rights.  And yet, I don't think it makes sense to call it "marriage" unless lawmakers decide to enlarge the definition building on precedent in a way that is not binding on other states.  I want the question definitively outside judicial hands.   Is there a definitively good reason for not calling these monogamous commitments marriages beyond simply that I wasn't raised to call them that?  It might be noted that the Greeks were not "homophobic" as a society, but they were very specific about marriage. And yet, marriage is not quite the same as it was then.  It has become more about the State recognizing implications of a commitment between two individuals, and less about two families consolidating their economic (and hereditary) interests.  But in marital law, "husband" and "wife" still aren't interchangeable terms in general, even if they are with regard to community property in a particular state. From the other angle, I suspect that having the State recognize homosexual marriages is not an end in itself but a means to force the community to acknowledge a redefinition of family-making.  Is that fundamentally different from forcing acknowledgment of interracial marriages?

I think that there is an anti-male bias in society and that it has some history in marital case law (common law). I do think one way out of that could be to make civil unions something that doesn't discriminate between genders, something with more equality than marriage. Some would argue that my motivations about Prop 8 are based on some negative thinking about marriage in general, whereas they would think that the honor this institution confers in society shouldn't be limited to certain people. 

But I think the argument that it won't be taught in schools is misleading.  If it is just another kind of marriage, what is to keep it out of education?  Could the state be accused of discriminating against a certain type of marriage by not including examples of it?  Is it "wrong" to excluded it from state curriculum?  Would that be an infringement of the Establishment Clause?  (Note that criticisms of Darwinian interpretations have been excluded from curricula because of alleged infringement.)