[johnu]

Who needs gun control???

Texas Mother Accidentally Shoots Her Son While Firing At Dog: Police

Quote

A Texas woman has been arrested after she opened fire on a loose dog and the bullet ricocheted into her son’s abdomen, according to the Houston Police Department.

Quote

Neighbors who saw the incident told ABC13 that Vargas, her son and another family member were riding bikes down the street when the dog ran out.

Police said she fired across the road and in the direction of two occupied houses.

I am proposing a free-fire gun valley national park for gun owners where they can shoot anything that moves. I realize that this isn't really any different from everyday life in the USA.

[awm]

 johnu, on 2021-June-03, 02:31, said:

I am proposing a free-fire gun valley national park for gun owners where they can shoot anything that moves. I realize that this isn't really any different from everyday life in the USA.

I thought this was Florida. You can always claim you were shooting at an alligator (of which they have plenty, some of which apparently devour toddlers) or that you were "standing your ground" (any number of examples). And of course it's the home of the famous Florida Man (who may or may not be a certain former president).

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2021-June-03, 02:31, said:

Who needs gun control???

Texas Mother Accidentally Shoots Her Son While Firing At Dog: Police





I am proposing a free-fire gun valley national park for gun owners where they can shoot anything that moves. I realize that this isn't really any different from everyday life in the USA.

Or we could have one night each year where anything goes - too Hollywood? The Purge in movies; here in Tulsa we call it Friday.

[y66]

Tom Hanks said:

How different would perspectives be had we all been taught about Tulsa in 1921, even as early as the fifth grade? Today, I find the omission tragic, an opportunity missed, a teachable moment squandered. When people hear about systemic racism in America, just the use of those words draws the ire of those white people who insist that since July 4, 1776, we have all been free, we were all created equally, that any American can become president and catch a cab in Midtown Manhattan no matter the color of our skin, that, yes, American progress toward justice for all can be slow but remains relentless. Tell that to the century-old survivors of Tulsa and their offspring. And teach the truth to the white descendants of those in the mob that destroyed Black Wall Street.

https://www.nytimes....t-scroll-weight

[Winstonm]

I was born and reared here in Oklahoma and I never heard a word about the massacre until 2 years ago.

[kenberg]

The Tom hanks article discusses what young people should learn and when. A good question.

I was 6 when the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Nobody told me at the time. I was 9 when I started fifth grade, the age Tom Hanks is discussing, I think I knew about Hiroshima by then but I am not sure. I am sure that I did not know of us rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in camps.
When I was 4, we had a bonfire at the playground for Halloween. We burned Hiler, Hirohito and Moussolini in effigy. I cheered, just as the other kids did. It was several years before I learned about Auschwitz.

I was easily upset when I was young. I saw a war movie where a soldier on one side used a flame-thrower to kill a soldier on the other side. This upset me.

Perhaps we should tell nine-year-olds about Tulsa, maybe so. But in fact the human race, throughout history, has been pretty awful. I mentioned burning Hitler in effigy. After the war, we burned witches in effigy. A disappointment since by the age of 7 I knew sithces were not real. But nobody told me about Salem. I guess the witches there were hanged, not burned.

Kids need to grow up and need to learn reality, that's true. It is also true that I was protected from many aspects of reality while growing up. A high school teacher explained to me that Hitler had some support in the US in the 1930s. I hadn't known that. I was 16 and appreciated his telling me. At age 9? Maybe not.

I think it was when I was ten that I read an extended piece about the rigors of Valley Forge. I am not sure I would have been up for reading about the rigors of slave life on Washington's plantation.

I am not exactly disagreeing with Tom Hanks, kids need to learn about reality. But my view of reality is that humans are often pretty nasty creatures. How much of that do we want to be telling nine-year-olds?

[Winstonm]

If anyone believes the Confederacy died with the fall of Richmond in May of 1865, another think is recommended:

Quote

Officials in Surry County, North Carolina, voted to remove Coca-Cola machines from all government facilities in response to the beverage company CEO's remarks about Georgia's controversial new voting law.

The ban passed during a Board of Commissioners meeting on May 17 with a 3-2 vote as a direct response to Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey's comments calling the voting law "unacceptable" and "a step backwards."

Commissioner Ed Harris provided "TODAY" Digital with the copy of a letter he sent Quincey, calling out the company's "corporate political commentary favoring the Democratic party" and announcing the decision to remove Coca-Cola machines from government facilities.

[Winstonm]

Now even the right can recognize true madness:

Quote

Two days ago, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported that Donald Trump “has been telling a number of people he’s in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August.” In response, many figures on the right inserted their fingers into their ears and started screaming about fake news.

Instead, they should have listened — because Haberman's reporting was correct. I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be "reinstated" to office this summer after "audits" of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed. I can attest, too, that Trump is trying hard to recruit journalists, politicians, and other influential figures to promulgate this belief — not as a fundraising tool or an infantile bit of trolling or a trial balloon, but as a fact.

[pilowsky]

 Winstonm, on 2021-June-05, 10:19, said:

Now even the right can recognize true madness:

Mad as a hat and silly as a wheel.
But one-third of the US population voted for him.
And will do it again tomorrow.


Racism isn't the only systemic problem in the USA.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-June-05, 10:19, said:

Now even the right can recognize true madness:

I saw Quo Vadis when I was 12. Looking at the Wiki notes I see that both Sophia Loren and Elizabeth Taylor had uncredited roles. It was the first time I ever saw Peter Ustinov and I was impressed. Anyway, I found the following quote from the movie at https://www.imdb.com...cters/nm0312890

Vinicius : The people won't believe such a lie!

Petronius : But they are believing it. People will believe any lie, if it is fantastic enough.

[pilowsky]

 kenberg, on 2021-June-06, 08:39, said:

I saw Quo Vadis when I was 12. Looking at the Wiki notes I see that both Sophia Loren and Elizabeth Taylor had uncredited roles. It was the first time I ever saw Peter Ustinov and I was impressed. Anyway, I found the following quote from the movie at https://www.imdb.com...cters/nm0312890

Vinicius : The people won't believe such a lie!

Petronius : But they are believing it. People will believe any lie, if it is fantastic enough.

I think you will find that they are paraphrasing Mein Kampf.

Quote

https://www.jewishvi...ot-big-lie-quot
The original description of the big lie appeared in Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler applied it to the behavior of Jews rather than as a tactic he advocated. Specifically, he accused Viennese Jews of trying to discredit the Germans' activities during World War I. Hitler wrote of the Jews' "unqualified capacity for falsehood" and "that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation…. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited."

[kenberg]

 pilowsky, on 2021-June-06, 15:34, said:

I think you will find that they are paraphrasing Mein Kampf.

It's true that the movie was 1951, but the novel was 1896. In the Wik summary. https://en.wikipedia...uo_Vadis_(novel) , we find:

Quote

When Nero returns to Rome and sings his poem about Troy in public, the masses accuse him of igniting the fire. Nero's advisors decide they need to find a scapegoat for the fire. The Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Tigellinus, suggests blaming the Christians. It is revealed that the idea has been given to him by Chilo, still desperate for revenge on Vinicius after his whipping. Vinicius' uncle Petronius protests, but the empress Poppaea—still nursing a grudge against Vinicus for spurning her advances—overrules him.

I guess I would have to (but probably won't) read the novel to see if it attributes some remark to Petronius that has a similar nature to what was in the movie.

From time to time I think about the movie when I read about Trump. Details from the movie escape me. Lately I try to read about Trump as little as possible. But the general idea that a big lie is more apt to be believed than a small lie, I guess because everyone is familiar with small is but big lies seem to be too fantastic to be made up, is an intriguing view of human nature.
I expect the (author of the) novel made more of an attempt to be historically accurate than the (writers of the) movie did, but probably care is needed in both cases.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-June-07, 08:10, said:

It's true that the movie was 1951, but the novel was 1896. In the Wik summary. https://en.wikipedia...uo_Vadis_(novel) , we find:

[/font][/color]

I guess I would have to (but probably won't) read the novel to see if it attributes some remark to Petronius that has a similar nature to what was in the movie.

From time to time I think about the movie when I read about Trump. Details from the movie escape me. Lately I try to read about Trump as little as possible. But the general idea that a big lie is more apt to be believed than a small lie, I guess because everyone is familiar with small is but big lies seem to be too fantastic to be made up, is an intriguing view of human nature.
I expect the (author of the) novel made more of an attempt to be historically accurate than the (writers of the) movie did, but probably care is needed in both cases. [/font]

I, too, have been avoiding reading about the ex-president; however, I wonder if the craziness he has lauded should be equally ignored? State legislatures controlled by Republicans across the country are passing voting restrictions that increase the chances of minority rule - in some cases laws that make it possible to overturn the voters' choice. These actions should be seen as more than simply troubling - this is anti-American, anti-democratic activity.

I've encouraged it before and shall do so again: How Democracies Die should be required reading for all Americans. The one thing the past 4 years has shown is that the U.S. is not exempt from the collapse into authoritarianism that has eliminated past democracies.

I read today of a poll that showed 28% of Republican voters agreed that America was so far off-track that violence was O.K. to use to restore America. This is crazy talk, of course. But I wondered if that percentage was really greater now than it has been? My thoughts are that 30 years ago polls had to be done on the phone or in person, and it was much harder for the crazies to admit to that craziness in person - there were mores in place that made it socially unacceptable to be a "whacko". But now, with the concealment of identities inherent in the internet, those polled most likely have no fear of admitting craziness - combined with the demagogue's encouragement to speak the quiet part out loud - has led to an appearance of increased nutcases that is really no increase at all.

American democracy has always walked a fine line between protecting the rights of the minority and total mob (majority) rule. But this delicate balance only operated successfully when the good of the country was placed ahead of personal gain. Now one side has decided that their beliefs and "good of the country" are one and the same, and that it is imperative for this minority group to hold to power for the good of all.

This idea - only what I believe is right - is more dangerous than the desire for enslavement that caused the Civil War. I would like to ignore it - but I don't think that is wise.

[kenberg]

Regarding "I read today of a poll..."

Here is a poll I would like to see, I am not sure it has ever been done:

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the statement "I feel lucky that I was born in the United States" ?

The lack of qualifiers is intended. The person does not get to say "Yes, because..." or "No, because...", they just get to say "Yes" or "No". My answer would have been Yes in 1950 and it would be Yes today. I would be very interested in knowing how the number of Yes and No votes varied over the years.

One can imagine a married couple having difficulties. A starter question to resolve those difficulties could be: "Are you glad you married me? Please answer Yes or No".

Whether we speak of marriage or the nation, it seems to be a fundamental question: "Do you wish you were somewhere else? or with someone else?"

Seems like an obvious question, but I have never heard of it being asked in a poll.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-June-07, 09:46, said:

Regarding "I read today of a poll..."

Here is a poll I would like to see, I am not sure it has ever been done:

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the statement "I feel lucky that I was born in the United States" ?

The lack of qualifiers is intended. The person does not get to say "Yes, because..." or "No, because...", they just get to say "Yes" or "No". My answer would have been Yes in 1950 and it would be Yes today. I would be very interested in knowing how the number of Yes and No votes varied over the years.

One can imagine a married couple having difficulties. A starter question to resolve those difficulties could be: "Are you glad you married me? Please answer Yes or No".

Whether we speak of marriage or the nation, it seems to be a fundamental question: "Do you wish you were somewhere else? or with someone else?"

Seems like an obvious question, but I have never heard of it being asked in a poll.

Your poll question to me brings with it qualifiers. Am I wealthy enough to genuinely have a choice? If not the response is only what my imagined sense of comparisons tells me.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-June-07, 09:59, said:

Your poll question to me brings with it qualifiers. Am I wealthy enough to genuinely have a choice? If not the response is only what my imagined sense of comparisons tells me.

Of course the response will be influenced by the person's circumstances.
Still, I think every person could answer this question. Maybe they would not want to, but they must know whether they themselves do or do not feel that being born in the US was a lucky thing for them.
At least I can say, I did say. The answer is Yes.
That's just my answer, considering whatever I wish to consider to answer it.

Anyway, has such a poll ever appeared? Does anyone know?
I am absolutely just guessing, but my guess is that there would be fewer Yes votes now than 70 years ago. And more that would decline to answer. But I don't know this and I am interested in how it would go.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-June-07, 11:59, said:

Of course the response will be influenced by the person's circumstances.
Still, I think every person could answer this question. Maybe they would not want to, but they must know whether they themselves do or do not feel that being born in the US was a lucky thing for them.
At least I can say, I did say. The answer is Yes.
That's just my answer, considering whatever I wish to consider to answer it.

Anyway, has such a poll ever appeared? Does anyone know?
I am absolutely just guessing, but my guess is that there would be fewer Yes votes now than 70 years ago. And more that would decline to answer. But I don't know this and I am interested in how it would go.

When I was in my 30s I would have said yes but ask me now and all I can say is I don’t know for sure if this country would be my first choice. Not enough information. And that gets back to the validity of polls.

[pilowsky]

If the events of the past five years prove anything at all it's that polls are of little value.
Polls fall into a number of categories.
1. Genuine attempts to obtain information about the outcome of an event. There is only one poll that is worth looking at in this regard and that's the amount of money being bet on one outcome compared with another.
If people aren't backing their opinions with money then they are about as valuable as the prognostications of writers in the water cooler of a Bridge Forum.
2. Other.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2021-June-07, 09:46, said:

Regarding "I read today of a poll..."

Here is a poll I would like to see, I am not sure it has ever been done:

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the statement "I feel lucky that I was born in the United States" ?

The lack of qualifiers is intended. The person does not get to say "Yes, because..." or "No, because...", they just get to say "Yes" or "No". My answer would have been Yes in 1950 and it would be Yes today. I would be very interested in knowing how the number of Yes and No votes varied over the years.

One can imagine a married couple having difficulties. A starter question to resolve those difficulties could be: "Are you glad you married me? Please answer Yes or No".

Whether we speak of marriage or the nation, it seems to be a fundamental question: "Do you wish you were somewhere else? or with someone else?"
Seems like an obvious question, but I have never heard of it being asked in a poll.

Easy yes for me.

[Gilithin]

 y66, on 2021-June-07, 18:51, said:

Easy yes for me.

This should be an easy yes for anyone born in a developed country.