I cant stand Will, never could, but its a perfect example
of Trumps challenge. He’s already won over all the angry white males.
He’s not gonna pick up any more. So where will his swing votes come from?

Hillary needs the Bernie-leftists.

Who does Trump need?

Seems to me this George Will thing reflects a significant problem/hurdle
for Trump. I dont think his advisors are laughing this off the way
he appears to be.

w
v

nittany ram wrote:

Totally off topic but I used to enjoy court room dramas. Is there a TV show you know of that portrayed criminal court proceedings fairly accurately?

——————-
Not that i know of. To be honest, if they were accurate,
they’d be incredibly boring and tedious. Yer basic everyday courtroom stuff
is usually really boring. The interesting stuff occurs in the jail, when the client and defendant talk off the record.

w
v

I haven’t read many classics so i dont have a big list to draw from, myself. Does Jack London count? Or is he just kid-stuff. I loved Call of the Wild.

w
v
“There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise. And such is the paradox of living, this ecstasy comes when one is most alive, and it comes as a complete forgetfulness that one is alive.
This ecstasy, this forgetfulness of living, comes to the artist, caught up and out of himself in a sheet of flame; it comes to the soldier, war-mad in a stricken field and refusing quarter; and it came to Buck, leading the pack, sounding the old wolf-cry, straining after the food that was alive and that fled swiftly before him through the moonlight.”
― Jack London, The Call of the Wild

Jill Stein.

That’s all I’m sayin.

w
v

zn wrote:

New studies explore why ordinary people turn terrorist
Research in the Iraqi war zone point to key characteristics among ISIS soldiers and their opponents

..personal sacrifices made for outfits such as the Islamic State can be understood, but only by accounting for values he describes as “sacred” and by tracking the way in which individuals identify with like-minded comrades.

Collective identity

….Instead, he argues, young people adrift in a globalized world find their own way to ISIS, looking to don a social identity that gives their lives significance. …

==================
wiki
Denial of Death
E. Becker

… Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves. This symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual’s “immortality project” (or causa sui), which is essentially a symbolic belief-system that ensures oneself is believed superior to physical reality. By successfully living under the terms of the immortality project, people feel they can become heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die as compared to their physical body. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, and are significant in the grand scheme of things.

Becker argues that the arbitrariness of human-invented immortality projects makes them naturally prone to conflict. When one immortality project conflicts with another, it is essentially an accusation of ‘wrongness of life’, and so sets the context for both aggressive and defensive behavior. Both parties will want to “prove” their belief-system is superior, a better way of life. Thus these immortality projects are considered a fundamental driver of human conflict, such as in wars, bigotry, genocide, and racism.[citation needed]

Another theme running throughout the book is that humanity’s traditional “hero-systems”, such as religion, are no longer convincing in the age of reason. Science attempts to serve as an immortality project, something that Becker feels it can never do, because it is unable to provide agreeable, absolute meanings to human life. The book states that we need new convincing “illusions” that enable us to feel heroic in ways that are agreeable. Becker, however, does not provide any definitive answer, mainly because he believes that there is no perfect solution. Instead, he hopes that gradual realization of humanity’s innate motivations, namely death, can help to bring about a better world….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Sounds good.
But leave my town, Albuquerque, out of it please.
I just couldn’t bear to hear Albuquerque A-holes.

==============
Albuquerque Atomics?

Albuquerque Petroglyphs?

Albuquerque Avengers?

http://www.sherlockhomesnm.com/fun-facts-about-albuquerque
Albuquerque’s elevation of 5312 feet makes it the highest metropolitan city in America.

Albuquerque is the nuclear capital of the United States. Much of the nation’s nuclear research program is conducted or supervised here.

Petroglyph Park, 9.2 miles northwest of Albuquerque, contains the world’s oldest art form and is a fascinating art gallery of an ancient civilization.

“The Avengers” (2012) was filmed in Albuquerque.

Fan of the AMC series “Breaking Bad”? Shot in Albuquerque, you can take a location tour!
================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque,_New_Mexico
Albuquerque was named in honor of Francisco, Duke of Alburquerque,[7] who was viceroy of New Spain from 1653 to 1660.

======================

Americans Confused By System Of Government In Which Leader Would Resign After Making Terrible Decision

June 24, 2016

WASHINGTON—In the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement that he would leave office following the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the European Union, tens of millions of Americans expressed their confusion to reporters Friday about a system of government in which a leader would resign after making a terrible decision. “Wait, so he made a really awful choice with far-reaching negative consequences and now he’s just stepping down to let someone else take over? What?” said Colorado Springs, CO resident Evan Austin, echoing the sentiments of citizens across the United States who were left struggling to understand why a democratically elected head of government would relinquish control simply because they had been shown to have made a spectacularly bad judgment call. “So he jeopardized the future of his country, and instead of spending the next several years remaining in power while trying to paper over his mistakes, he’s just gone? Where’s the part where he denies any wrongdoing or tries to blame somebody else? This is absolutely crazy.” The American public noted, however, that they completely understood the part where voters who had made a demonstrably terrible decision continued to double down on it.
http://www.theonion.com/article/kansas-outlaws-practice-of-evolution-2098

“We finished last in offense, so we can only go up from here,” Kendricks said.
“I think we’ve all just got to raise our level of expectations.”

I think that should be the title of the new LA Ram
promotional magazine.

Put Kendricks on the cover and quote that line.

I mean, Goff is ‘struggling’ so there’s no point
in putting him on the cover.

w
v

Billy_T wrote:

WV,

As mentioned before, a focus on guns doesn’t prevent a focus on all kinds of other issues. We can deal with many things at the same time, and that’s the norm.

That said, to me, cars are quite different from guns, in a host of ways. But this one is key: They are designed to transport people safely from one place to another. They are not designed to kill, though they do sometimes. Guns, OTOH, have one purpose: to kill. They can’t take you to market. You can’t eat them. You can’t drink them. They’re designed to kill. Cars aren’t. And when people do kill others with their cars, it’s virtually always accidental. People intentionally use guns all the time to kill, or rape, or kidnap, or overthrow democratically elected leaders, etc. etc.

Also, whipping up a frenzy of fear and paranoia, so more and more people buy guns — the right’s speciality — helps corporate capitalism. A lot. Placing common sense, public safety regulations on guns would actually hurt their bottom lines. In a small way, it’s fighting corporate capitalism, while at the same time saving lives.

Btw, I’m in favor of reducing speed limits too. Not sure what the science tells us is the ideal. But, yeah. That’s an excellent idea.

——————

Well, i know that cars arent designed to kill, and guns are designed to kill/protect.

But i dont see how that matters, if one is simply looking at “how to save the most lives”.

What would save more lives — lowering the speed limit to 45 or
regulating semi-automatic weapons on a federal level ?

I have no idea, but it would not surprise me if the answer
was lowering the speed-limit to 45.

just seems to me there are all kinds of ways to save lives,
beside regulating semi-automatic weapons — how come we dont focus
on those other things? I mean, if the fundamental-core-point is to ‘save the most lives’.

I am trying to figure out what bugs me about these gun-debates….I suppose my leading edge feeling/thot has something to do with the fact that I question/wonder whether all the energy/focus/attention on this issue is worth it. I wonder/question whether there aren’t a lot of other regulations that would ‘save more lives’ — but instead ‘we’ focus on semi-autos. … i dunno..

w
v

w
v

waterfield wrote:

WV:

You ask why don’t we regulate more in the area of auto safety. We do and it has reduced the number of annual deaths. See the attached article and graph comparing the declining auto deaths with gun deaths. The analogy doesn’t work for another reason: cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/

I understand your position of the horrors of Capitalism. You’ve made that loud and clear and I agree on many of your arguments but most certainly not all. No biggie. However, my point was limited to what I consider the silly fear mongering the NRA continues to use-and lots of people buy it-that-in its most simplest of terms- someday the government’s storm troopers will break your door down and demand a Sophie’s choice-your guns or your children? That’s it.

—————-
Yes, we regulate auto-laws, but we could regulate them even more. We could drop the speed limit down to 45 mph. That would save thousands of lives. We dont do that. Why not?
And why dont we have a big nasty confused heated emotional ‘debate’ about lowering the speed limit down to 45 mph? Again, it would save thousands of lives. More than regulating assault weapons? Maybe?

I’m not sure what my point is 🙂 I think it has something to do with what humans focus their attention on, and how and why humans focus attention on this and that issue.

And yes, we disagree on Assault-capitalism, and yet we do agree on lots of sub-issues,
and the importance of a good OLine.

How’s the weather out there in California? Its nice here in the East.

w
v

waterfield wrote:

WV: “well that’s you.”

That’s correct. I honestly do not believe the government is about to come knocking on my door at any moment to take away my “freedom”. Maybe you do WV but I sincerely don’t. Those that do are simply paranoid IMO. And I feel sorry for such people because the cynicism robs them of any possibility of a satisfying life-at least in my opinion….

——————-
Do i think the US Government (who or whatever ‘that’ is exactly — Reps? Dems? Obama? Trump?) is gonna come and take everyone’s guns? Highly unlikely. Possible at some point down the road? Oh, Maybe, i dunno. There’s a gazillion possible futures. But in my lifetime? Nah.

I got no problem if big-nasty-assaulty guns are regulated. But i dobbt it would do much good, and I think its a minor issue.

But again, I have zero emotional investment in this issue… How many people die on the road because Americans wanna drive 70 MPH? We could save thousands of lives by lowering the speed-limit to 45 or 50. Why dont we do that? Why dont we spend all this gun-debate energy on lowing speed limits and saving thousands of lives?

The big super-killer is corporate-capitalism. Thats where my mental energy iz. How bout we regulate Assault-Capitalism more 🙂

———–
http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12
There Are 15,000 More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores
——————

How Many Guns Are There in America?

“…lion. And the estimated number of guns in America is . . .
Three-hundred-and-forty-seven million. That’s the 2012 figure. It represents roughly one gun for every man, woman and child in America (not counting so-called undocumented Americans). Diving a little deeper . . .”

w
v

Fear always wins out in these situations. I am not saying the fear
is ‘unjustified’ either. I am just saying fear is always underneath all the ‘2nd Amendment’ arguments. You probably dont see it that way, but thats how i see it.

Anyway, thats almost always how things play out after a big murder — more guns sold, not less.

Course the issue isnt really guns at the moment its “guns that can kill a lot of people real kwik-like.” Blah blah blah

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

I think that sums up your view (and many others) accurately. I dont view your notions as ‘alien’ just different than mine. Your view is dominant here in WV, btw.

First off I live in Maine. There’s more deer than people here and we actually have hundreds of square miles of wilderness. Hunters are a norm. I remember a case where a hunter who accidentally shot a woman in her own yard because he thought he saw a deer got off on a jury trial. The speculation was that hunters are so common that he got the support, not the family of the woman he killed. Plus I grew up in Manitoba, near western Ontario, which is a sportsman’s paradise, and my father and all my uncles and cousins were and are avid hunters. I knew about rifles before I knew about bicycles (my father had an old 30-odd-6 [.30-06]…same rifle Hemingway used. Friends of mine hunt. Heck I bet friends of mine online hunt, or have always been around it like for example ag or SD). I sometimes have full grown enormous white-tail deer in my own backyard (along with red foxes and wild turkeys). Ever seen a full glory white-tail? I mean the big ole magnificent Last of the Mohicans bastards. Yeah, backyard.

I have no hostility toward the hunting world, none.

Second, here’s what’s alien and you tell me if you feel the same. The idea that the 2nd amendment represents freedom, and therefore any effort to control guns is actually an attack on freedom itself.

I didn’t say that view was uncommon. I said the thinking behind it does not compute. Does the thinking behind that compute to you? I didn’t say you don’t hear it a lot. Of course we hear it a lot. But does it compute to you?

Does it make legal, rational sense to you that the 2nd amendment is taken as representing democracy and freedom?

AND on top of it, is THAT how you see the gun control debate? That it is a choice between freedom and safety? In other words, the “freedom/safety” dichotomy does not apply to national security issues and surveillance or the like, but to whether or not people have unrestricted access to weapons? Do you accept that argument?

And in terms of our own priorities, well, gun control debates are not going to get rid of economic inequality, lower the stranglehold corporate oligarchy has on democracy, defuse racism or sexism (both of which at their core are related to class), resist climate change (btw I live near the ocean), increase the democratization of news and information, end american neo-imperial domination of parts of the third world, eliminate homophobia, and so on.

But as long as we’re here, granting there are many other things to discuss too, might as well do the topic justice.

My reasonable view of gun control includes this: advocates of restricted access are quite simply NOT the opposite of the view that the militia amendment represents democracy and that any efforts to restrict access opposes freedom.

Similarly, when someone says, whoever believes Jared Goff is a worthy pick hates the Rams, I don’t believe the opposite of that. To me, that whole way of framing the issue is just not reasonable in the first place. I don’t believe that rejecting Jared Goff means you hate the Rams, or embracing Jared Goff means you love the Rams…I simply don’t participate in that way of framing the issue at all. It’s not that you’re blue and I therefore am orange, it’s you;re blue and I drink coffee and don’t think colors have anything to do with it either way.

And it is a reasonable challenge to say to someone, can you even name the opposing viewpoints accurately? Or do you honestly believe that someone who does not share how you frame it thinks the OPPOSITE of you? Because the latter is a blindspot.

No the various advocates of gun control, with their various beliefs, do not think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with “freedom” either way.

Here’s my own position on gun control. It is a completely irrational topic (I share that with Zooey). Those who believe it has something to do with freedom either way have no basis for that. It’s just a crazy belief that infected the USA, like for example the belief that gays and transgender people are an abomination before god. BTW when my father the hunter moved to the USA he thought american ideas about guns were so over the top that he gave his rifles away to canadian family. He just wanted nothing to do with those beliefs and attitudes. And in canadian terms, he was a conservative and in fact he resented the fact that Nixon was made to resign and looked upon my little high school anti-war activities with a very cold eye. So that’s sort of my background on this.

My view on gun control is that it is reasonable to discuss controls and restrictions. It’s no different than cars. When people say to me I am choosing against freedom, I regard that whole view as no different from religious ideas that make no sense to me. So I have been told that it is wickedly sinful not to abominate gays, and I have been told that a more or less pragmatic idea about regulating access to weapons means I hate freedom. Well no I don’t think either thing.

And real debate means everyone gets to speak their mind, including bnw, and including me.

…

==============
Well i dont have time to address all that, plus i dont write long posts anyway 🙂

I’m leavin to go camping in a few minutes. Maybe float in the water, eat some cicadas, lay in a hammock. That sort of thing. Probly wont take a gun, but I’m goin inta southern wv with a Bernie sticker on my car, so I might decide to take a gun.

Anyway, I disagree with bnw, but his view doesnt seem all that irrational to me. Its ‘alien’ to you but to me, its a reflection of fear. And to me the discussion gets interesting when people are able to articulate their views on what exactly that fear ‘is’ and whether that fear…justified or unjustified or somethin else. I mean, I understand this fear people have of ‘the coming dystopia’. I dont agree with their gun-love in response to that fear…but I’m more understanding about it than others.

And again, i just dont get emotional or particularly interested in this issue. Speeding kills more Americans, i bet. Who wants to talk about speeding?

w
v