Kevin's Watch

What ignorance. First, anyone who tries to blame some political ideology for this tragedy. Second, anyone who thinks the "atmosphere" today is worse than in years past. This is why learning history is important, so people don't make ignorant statements. Then, we can keep things in better perspective.

Ignorance is the reason politicians (and others) are successful at inflaming people for whatever reason.

Can someone put some punctuation in the title of the thread. It looks like the Az Congresswoman is the one who shot many others dead

done, apologies to Av for usurping his forum-it's not that easy to beat him to anything around here..

Vraith wrote:...objective/facts make better life possible, subjective experience makes it meaningful.
And even if it isn't literally, exactly "True," we WANT it to be true.

And Avatar...I both agree and disagree. It's ok...maybe even necessary...to frighten people with words if the point is real.

I wanted to highlight the philosophical points within your post, and really think about this for a moment. Politics is the one arena of human thought that most directly connects a belief system to reality, and empowers that belief with a law, a law that is enforced with guns. (You can't get any more real than that!) And--like no other arena of human thought--we have this unshakable confidence that it's okay and legitimate to force the rest of an entire nation to abide by and be restricted by our own beliefs. All you need is enough people to agree with you--a majority--and you have instant legitimacy to enforce your beliefs in the real world, to force reality to bend to your idealism.

So, more than any other area of our lives, identifying the truth or falsehood of our beliefs (preferably before we act on them) matters. In economics, or technology, or architecture, etc., if your beliefs are wrong, you'll fail. Reality itself will reject them. Your business will fail, your computer won't work, or your building will fall. A sort of natural selection of memes. But only in politics and government can false beliefs attain and accrue real power, in spite of how those beliefs may be out of synch with reality. We have given the government the right to empower lies. We have elevated wishful thinking and Utopian ideals imposed from top-down to the same status as life and death (remember: guys w/guns). And once in place, very few laws ever get repealed. True or false, our mish-mash of wishful thinking and good intentions keeps piling on to creates this unbelievably colossal monolith of bureaucratic regation and force. There is no natural selection that makes a law go away. No, you need more bureaucratic action (... unless the government's enforced reality becomes so misaligned with human life that we have a general revolution).

So in this sense, Avatar is right. Where emotions cloud reality, they are very dangerous indeed. We must not allow reality to be determined by who is the most pissed off, or who feels the most righteous indignation. However, though we can fight against this with reason, it's often much more effective to back up reality with an equal but opposite force of emotion. That might make the political atmosphere look "poisoned," but the stakes are too high to refrain from passionate defenses of reality.

But there's the problem of paradox: our view of reality is largely subjective and difficult to prove. So how do we ever know we're on the side of reality?

This is perhaps the best reason for Libertarian political philosophy. A truly conservative ideology in the sense of "first do no harm." The fewer laws we pass, the fewer opportunities for unrealistic idealism to pass from belief into reality. While it may be difficult to distinguish the emotional rhetoric of the two sides, it's clear which side wants less intrusion of idealism into legislation, fewer opportunities for belief to control. The opposite end of the political spectrum is, in its essence, more prone to this kind of danger, simply because it advocates more government power and regulation of our lives. Thus, the Libertarian/"conservative" philosophy offers a greater chance to transcend the paradoxical and possibly unasnwerable question of who's version of reality is correct. It is the only one that takes into account the subjective nature of reality by openly advocating more power and freedom for the individual.

Zarathustra wrote:So, more than any other area of our lives, identifying the truth or falsehood of our beliefs (preferably before we act on them) matters. In economics, or technology, or architecture, etc., if your beliefs are wrong, you'll fail. Reality itself will reject them. Your business will fail, your computer won't work, or your building will fall. A sort of natural selection of memes. But only in politics and government can false beliefs attain and accrue real power, in spite of how those beliefs may be out of synch with reality. We have given the government the right to empower lies. We have elevated wishful thinking and Utopian ideals imposed from top-down to the same status as life and death (remember: guys w/guns). And once in place, very few laws ever get repealed. True or false, our mish-mash of wishful thinking and good intentions keeps piling on to creates this unbelievably colossal monolith of bureaucratic regation and force. There is no natural selection that makes a law go away. No, you need more bureaucratic action (... unless the government's enforced reality becomes so misaligned with human life that we have a general revolution).

This is why I have proposed (not here but I have done so elsewhere) a Constitutional Amendment that makes all Federal laws have an automatic 10-year sunset clause--every law has to be reviewed and passed every 10 years or it expires. Good laws will stay on the books while bad laws go away. Although I dislike adding to the Constitutional wihtout very good reason, this has to be an Amendment so that it will automatically apply to every law passed by Congress, regardless of its form or scope. It will also automatically apply, retroactively, to every law currently on the books.

Included in this Amendment would be a phrase requiring Members of Congress to vote on every piece of legislation--no more voting "present", which is pathetic. Just like with a regular job, they get excused absences for illness or family emergencies, in which case their aide casts their vote for them.

In short, the Amendment would create responsible laws and responsible lawmakers. Imagine that!

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:So, more than any other area of our lives, identifying the truth or falsehood of our beliefs (preferably before we act on them) matters. In economics, or technology, or architecture, etc., if your beliefs are wrong, you'll fail. Reality itself will reject them. Your business will fail, your computer won't work, or your building will fall. A sort of natural selection of memes. But only in politics and government can false beliefs attain and accrue real power, in spite of how those beliefs may be out of synch with reality. We have given the government the right to empower lies. We have elevated wishful thinking and Utopian ideals imposed from top-down to the same status as life and death (remember: guys w/guns). And once in place, very few laws ever get repealed. True or false, our mish-mash of wishful thinking and good intentions keeps piling on to creates this unbelievably colossal monolith of bureaucratic regation and force. There is no natural selection that makes a law go away. No, you need more bureaucratic action (... unless the government's enforced reality becomes so misaligned with human life that we have a general revolution).

This is why I have proposed (not here but I have done so elsewhere) a Constitutional Amendment that makes all Federal laws have an automatic 10-year sunset clause--every law has to be reviewed and passed every 10 years or it expires. Good laws will stay on the books while bad laws go away. Although I dislike adding to the Constitutional wihtout very good reason, this has to be an Amendment so that it will automatically apply to every law passed by Congress, regardless of its form or scope. It will also automatically apply, retroactively, to every law currently on the books.

Included in this Amendment would be a phrase requiring Members of Congress to vote on every piece of legislation--no more voting "present", which is pathetic. Just like with a regular job, they get excused absences for illness or family emergencies, in which case their aide casts their vote for them.

In short, the Amendment would create responsible laws and responsible lawmakers. Imagine that!

Oh my God that would be a nightmare! Can you imagine if the 4th Amendment had been up for a vote in late September of 2001?

As if this all wasn't bad enough, now the people from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on picketing the funeral of the poor little nine year old girl.

I realize they have the right to free speech - but man, has not that poor child's family been through enough?

Once again I find myself pondering the right of free speech and balancing it with the privacy rights of people at a family member's funeral. I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on this, as this very matter is on their list?

Note that I have no problem with responsible people (and obviously the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category) having hunting rifles, self protection guns, or hobby guns (collectors of historical pieces, target shooters, etc). But how on Earth did yet another obviously disturbed crazy person get their hands on a gun? And since there has been no mention of this kid having any sort of job - how did he get the money to buy the gun and/or ammunition?

Since this kid was thrown out of the local community college for bizarre and disruptive behavior, and he and his parents were told he could not come back without psychological clearance, how did he fall through the cracks?

Is his family one who belongs to a religion that does not believe mental illness exists? Are they people who think that positive thoughts and exercise can heal any mental illness? Are they people who did not get help for mental illness because they think there is a "stigma"? Do they not have medical insurance? Were there no community outreach programs in Tucson to help them? Did they seek help? Did they not seek help?

Tons of questions about this kid and his parents, and how the hell things got to mass murder...

duchess of malfi wrote:As if this all wasn't bad enough, now the people from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on picketing the funeral of the poor little nine year old girl.

I realize they have the right to free speech - but man, has not that poor child's family been through enough?

Once again I find myself pondering the right of free speech and balancing it with the privacy rights of people at a family member's funeral. I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on this, as this very matter is on their list?

I hate that they do this, but I'd hate it even more if the government started deciding what protests were appropriate.

duchess of malfi wrote:Note that I have no problem with responsible people (and obviously the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category) having hunting rifles, self protection guns, or hobby guns (collectors of historical pieces, target shooters, etc). But how on Earth did yet another obviously disturbed crazy person get their hands on a gun? And since there has been no mention of this kid having any sort of job - how did he get the money to buy the gun and/or ammunition?

First of all, this is not a kid. This is a 22 year old adult.

Secondly, it's been widely reported that he worked at Eddie Bauer for at least a year prior to the attack. But regardless, so what?

Thirdly, hindsight is a beautiful thing. He most certainly was not obviously a disturbed crazy person. He had political views that were outside of the mainstream. That ain't crazy.

duchess of malfi wrote:Since this kid was thrown out of the local community college for bizarre and disruptive behavior, and he and his parents were told he could not come back without psychological clearance, how did he fall through the cracks?

What cracks? Are you prepared to deny people their constitutional rights because they act differently? Would it be OK to suspend his right to vote? Or his right to free speech?

Let's be clear about this, this man hadn't broken the law, nor had he been treated for any serious mental illness. On what grounds then can you advocate for stripping him of his rights?

duchess of malfi wrote:Is his family one who belongs to a religion that does not believe mental illness exists? Are they people who think that positive thoughts and exercise can heal any mental illness? Are they people who did not get help for mental illness because they think there is a "stigma"? Do they not have medical insurance? Were there no community outreach programs in Tucson to help them? Did they seek help? Did they not seek help?

None of those questions really matter though, do they? There are 307,000,000 people in this country, and statistically only 13% approve of the job that Congress is doing. Only one guy decided to take a shot at his representative.

This is not a tidal wave of violence, this is a lone nut job that snapped for whatever reason. It is utterly inconceivable to me that we're honestly discussing the possibility of stripping people of their rights because they act outside of the norm.

duchess of malfi wrote:Tons of questions about this kid and his parents, and how the hell things got to mass murder...

This I totally agree with.

duchess of malfi wrote:As if this all wasn't bad enough, now the people from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on picketing the funeral of the poor little nine year old girl.

Heh...I drew a cartoon a while ago cuz of their court/free speech thing. I can't actually draw, and don't have a scanner, so won't put it up.
But it had God, Jesus, and 7 Archangels [Michael in military uniform, cuz he leads God's armies] sitting in a row and cheering. In front/below them were these peeps, with the Devil burning them on a fire built from their own signs. It was captioned "Westboro Baptist Church appears before the Supreme Court."

Cail wrote:

duchess of malfi wrote:As if this all wasn't bad enough, now the people from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on picketing the funeral of the poor little nine year old girl.

I realize they have the right to free speech - but man, has not that poor child's family been through enough?

Once again I find myself pondering the right of free speech and balancing it with the privacy rights of people at a family member's funeral. I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on this, as this very matter is on their list?

I hate that they do this, but I'd hate it even more if the government started deciding what protests were appropriate.

Man, this event is really dragging us into the political mire from all angles. We've got legislators wanting to regulate speech that hurts no one, and meanwhile these people have a Constitutional right to shit all over someone's funeral. The push and pull of freedom. No one ever said it wasn't messy.

Cail wrote:This is not a tidal wave of violence, this is a lone nut job that snapped for whatever reason. It is utterly inconceivable to me that we're honestly discussing the possibility of stripping people of their rights because they act outside of the norm.

The sad fact is that if this weren't a politician--one of the elite governoring class--most of us wouldn't even know about it. People get shot every day. The ones we pick and choose to care about reveal more about us than the shooters. Does anyone remember a single name of Major Hasan's victims? I admit that I don't. And the cynical part of me wonders if the media would spend so much time talking aout this if it hadn't given so many of them a chance to continue their favorite pasttime of trashing Palin.

If you haven't already, you should check out some other political forums around the net. Go visit the Rush (the band) message board. Rushmessageboard.com You'll find the political discussion under Territorial Games. There people are actively cheering on the possibility of Palin's career ending over this, not hiding at all the fact that they wish to use this for political gain. One guy even made a joke about Giffords switching to Republican now that half her brain is left on the pavement. Just really sick stuff. People are having political orgasms over this.

Even Jon Stewart last night treated this like 9/11, suspending his usual comedy schtick in order to be respectful of the victims. But he did not suspend preaching to us about how conservative rhetoric is to blame ... right after claiming that he didn't know the cause [as Cail's article above noted: Rather, it illegitimately hijacks our interest and passion in the event to command our attention, and aim our emotions and anger about it where he wants to aim--while maintaining intellectual respectability of a minimal level by admitting up front there's no connection at all.]

If it had been a Republican who was shot, then there wouldn't have been an opportunity to advance a key theme of the liberal narrative: conservative speech is to blame. And hence there would be much less reason to talk about it, and extend the coverage and "grief" beyond what we'd normally see for anyone else who was shot. The people who actually died in this event are getting less coverage than Palin.

Certainly this is a tragic event, but what has happened in the aftermath is even more startling, in many ways.

Another point that's been raised, and thanks for mentioning it Zar.....

This would have been a blip in the news if it had been a drug shooting in Baltimore. But it's the ruling class, so that makes it special. And there are politicians seriously suggesting that it should be illegal to have a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elected official.

Never let a tragedy go to waste. And now our leaders will use this tragedy to further strip us of our rights. All in the name of safety.

Cail wrote:Oh my God that would be a nightmare! Can you imagine if the 4th Amendment had been up for a vote in late September of 2001?

Other Amendments are not subject to being sunset, only laws like the Patriot Act, which should never have happened in the first place.

Nah, I still don't like it.

Think the Civil Rights Act ought to come up for a vote regularly? How well do you think it would have done in 1974?

Cail wrote: And there are politicians seriously suggesting that it should be illegal to have a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elected official.

If we're gonna do that kind of stuff, it would be better for us all if everyone had a firearm, and it was illegal for elected officials to come within 1000 feet of us.

Vraith wrote:

Cail wrote: And there are politicians seriously suggesting that it should be illegal to have a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elected official.

If we're gonna do that kind of stuff, it would be better for us all if everyone had a firearm, and it was illegal for elected officials to come within 1000 feet of us.

No kidding, right?

I'm really not liking what I'm hearing about this special protected class.

Cail wrote:Nah, I still don't like it.

Think the Civil Rights Act ought to come up for a vote regularly? How well do you think it would have done in 1974?

If it were a well-written piece of legislation then it would pass every time without a problem.

This process results in laws being updated to keep up with changes in technology and to correct errors in judgement from that past--we get to update our laws as we, as a country, mature.

I don't think I fully explained this earlier.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Cail wrote:Nah, I still don't like it.

Think the Civil Rights Act ought to come up for a vote regularly? How well do you think it would have done in 1974?

If it were a well-written piece of legislation then it would pass every time without a problem.

This process results in laws being updated to keep up with changes in technology and to correct errors in judgement from that past--we get to update our laws as we, as a country, mature.

I don't think I fully explained this earlier.

I like your concept but I like the system in place now.
It shouldn't be easy to make a law and should be even harder to change it.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Cail wrote:Nah, I still don't like it.

Think the Civil Rights Act ought to come up for a vote regularly? How well do you think it would have done in 1974?

If it were a well-written piece of legislation then it would pass every time without a problem.

This process results in laws being updated to keep up with changes in technology and to correct errors in judgement from that past--we get to update our laws as we, as a country, mature.

I don't think I fully explained this earlier.

I like your concept but I like the system in place now.
It shouldn't be easy to make a law and should be even harder to change it.

I'd say that you said that better than I could, but I don't want to be accused of being lazy.....

High Lord Tolkien wrote: It shouldn't be easy to make a law and should be even harder to change it.

And I can agree with this. Far as I'm concerned, the 2 real problems with legislation right now are NOT structural necessities.
1) Legislators voting to curry favor/avoid punishment, instead of on merits.
2) Legislative clumping. One bill, does one thing. Yes or no vote.

And no, Cail, I wasn't kidding. [heh...because of your question mark, I wasn't sure if you were just commenting, or really asking me if I WAS kidding.] If we're going to legislate firearms in relation to class of person, I like my suggestion better.