The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

DeVos, Carson, and Perry are probably three of his worst selections in terms of agency success. This might be somewhat intentional, since they are going to head agencies that need to die anyway. The importance of an arm of government to Trump appears somewhat clear if you look through a lens that focuses on who he selects for positions. Not just any generals, but Marine generals in defense/security positions, a CEO from the largest oil company/top ten corp globally in the world for the State department, and an international lawyer that served under Reagan for Trade. Everyone else seems a headscratcher from one perspective or another. It wouldn't surprise me if he was like "get me the marines, the exxon ceo, a top lawyer, and whoever else wants the rest of that bullshit can have it."

 

[rms]

why is an Exxon CEO a good hire for the State dept?

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, bear attacks is a pretty sound reason if you ask me. I'd be happy knowing my child's teacher can kill a giant beast if they need to. Happy coincidence, they might also stop someone trying to shoot up the school.

Unhappy coincidence, they might mistake a toy gun for a real one and pop a cap in a third grader.

All unlikely situations that aren't convincing one way or another.

I don't think it should be some sweeping mandate, I think it should be up to the teacher if they want to carry a firearm, let the schools regulate it heavily with extensive check ups or whatever they need to do, but having gun free zones with zero wiggle room is pure insanity at this point, until the mental health issues can be sorted out.

The extent of my agreement is probably that I don't think making schools gun-free zones solves the problem of school shootings, although I don't think liberals actually believe this. It's obviously untrue.

I'm not sure that I agree that making schools gun-free zones is pure insanity though. It strikes me that gun-free zones are only one element of a multi-pronged effort which has to include healthcare and regulation (this doesn't mean confiscation).

Government oversight produces black markets, there's no way around that; but examples of self-regulation tend to involve conveniently localized areas and a specific demographic. I do not think that examples of self-regulation can be expanded to include population-dense areas. I'm for gun control because I do not trust the proposed evenness and consistency of self-regulation.

 

[Dak]

The extent of my agreement is probably that I don't think making schools gun-free zones solves the problem of school shootings, although I don't think liberals actually believe this. It's obviously untrue.

I don't think anyone believes adding or banning guns in the hands of responsible persons is going to "solve" the problem, since it is the persons and situations, aside from guns, that work to create violent episodes. However, if we see in most cases, it is the presence of one or more persons with guns that halt shooting sprees in their acute instances.

I'm not sure that I agree that making schools gun-free zones is pure insanity though. It strikes me that gun-free zones are only one element of a multi-pronged effort which has to include healthcare and regulation (this doesn't mean confiscation).

Government oversight produces black markets, there's no way around that; but examples of self-regulation tend to involve conveniently localized areas and a specific demographic. I do not think that examples of self-regulation can be expanded to include population-dense areas. I'm for gun control because I do not trust the proposed evenness and consistency of self-regulation.

Fairly well put, and I think if you polled most educated persons they would agree with an approximation of this statement. However, we still can't escape the problem of "criminals not caring about regulations". They neither regulate themselves nor care about external regulation insofar as they can evade it. We already have criminal background checks for licensed purchases. Further regulation, even in dense population centers, does nothing to hamper the inflow and trade of weapons on the aforementioned black market. Even if regulation were successful, this still gives situational upper hand to anyone larger than their victim, particularly when armed with anything not a firearm. Even a simple baseball bat wielded by someone as diminutive as myself is likely to deprive you of your wallet or cause serious physical harm.

 

[CiG]

Unhappy coincidence, they might mistake a toy gun for a real one and pop a cap in a third grader.

Not much faith in teachers? Maybe if it wasn't so hard for them to be fired, some quality could be achieved and maintained.

 

[Einherjar86]

Too hard to be fired, too easy to fire (a gun, that is...).

I'm torn on tenure. I understand the reasons for it, but it leads to some problems.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Tenure needs to be revised but not done away with. Simply making it a few years in the profession shouldn't be a free pass for decades of unaccountability. That's how we end up with "movie time" teachers. At the same time, administration is given way too much power if the contract is a standard "at will" contract, which is what a lot of charter schools have. Going too far in either extreme is ultimately a disservice to students.

 

[Dak]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy

But even if there were an Office for Data Analytics, acting on behalf of the public and government as the ONS does, it is not clear that it would offer the kind of neutral perspective that liberals today are struggling to defend. The new apparatus of number-crunching is well suited to detecting trends, sensing the mood and spotting things as they bubble up. It serves campaign managers and marketers very well. It is less well suited to making the kinds of unambiguous, objective, potentially consensus-forming claims about society that statisticians and economists are paid for.

 

[rms]

I had a twitter thing over this article the other day. Strange that the author totally ignores how stats have been misused by non-stat-creating-types and that effect.

 

[Dak]

I had a twitter thing over this article the other day. Strange that the author totally ignores how stats have been misused by non-stat-creating-types and that effect.

Well that's part of the problem: stats are constructed very particularly, whether well or poorly, and people generally lack the ability to properly identify the basic underpinnings of even simple descriptive statistics.

 

[rms]

you putting more blame on the little man's interpretation or the man in the newsrooms ?

 

[Dak]

you putting more blame on the little man's interpretation or the man in the newsrooms ?

Neither display any sensitivity to the specifics.

 

[Baroque]

Statistics are fine, it's the way journalists misinterpret or intentionally bias the results that's the problem.

When was the last time you saw an article on a major news source that said 68% of Americans believe X, where they then also mentioned the sample size, margin of error, and standard deviation from their figure? Nope it's just "68% of Americans Believe X! You'll be shocked to find out Why!" and then pages and pages of opinions from the author.

 

[rms]

Neither display any sensitivity to the specifics.

just curious on whether you hold those in 'power' more responsible than those 'without'

 

[Dak]

just curious on whether you hold those in 'power' more responsible than those 'without'

Very rarely is the data reported on unavailable to the public. "Trust, but verify." I default to holding everyone responsible.

 

[The Ozzman]

Introduced 1/3/2017. Thoughts?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2017)
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

 

[Dak]

UNEXIT!

 

[crimsonfloyd]

"Alternative facts"

 

[rms]

can't believe that came out of her mouth. crazy times

 

[rms]

https://theestablishment.co/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump-f3ba31a23ade#.cvyfcu45n

this is a really long article but I think demonstrates perspectives held by Dak and I, if I dare to summarize his perspective. The last few paragraphs goes hard on Sanders which is a tad dramatic/hopeful, but the rest is pretty fucking spot on I dare say.