On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:21:32 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 1:24:10 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> >> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>>> >> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>>> >> Nonsense.
>>> >>
>>> >> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>>> >> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>>> >
>>> >Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>>> >transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.
>>> I believe Paul was speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
>>>
>>> I'll point out that our historical exponential growth rates, whether they
>>> are population, energy or economic are fundamentally unsustainable.
>>>
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
>>
>>Population growth is already flat or declining in most places outside the
>>third world. Japan and China are looking at a demographic trap which is
>>leading to a rapid drop in the numbers of people of age for working, military
>>service, and childbearing. Most Western countries are the same, but to a lesser
>>degree.
>
>The Japanese are working on powered exoskeletons to help the older
>workforce stay productive. The potential military applications are
>pretty obvious at this point. I think it will be a hoot if the
>Chinese start to invade Japan and the Evas rise up out of their silos.

Piloted by 13-year-olds, no doubt.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:24:06 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>>> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>>> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>>
>>Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>>transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.
>
>I believe Paul was speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

Paul was speaking /historically/ and pointing out that the
allegedly-unsolved problem has, in fact, /been/ solved, in the past.

>I'll point out that our historical exponential growth rates, whether they
>are population, energy or economic are fundamentally unsustainable.
>
>https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
>https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Yes, shouldn't we be hitting the Singularity in about 8 years? Or has
it been pushed back?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:21:17 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 14:51:03 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>>> >
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>
>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>
>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>> ass off in Canada.
>>>
>>>People from Somalia live in Minnesota. Here in Michigan I have met plenty of
>>>people from Uganda, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Haiti. That problem may not
>>>be as severe as it sounds.
>>
>>Right now, Canada is attractive enough economically and politically to
>>compensate for our shitty climate. That could change.
>>
>>One pleasant spring day, I was waiting in t-shirt and shorts for a bus,
>>and noticed an unfortunate Middle Eastern woman (maybe one of our Syrian
>>refugees) bundled up in a parka, looking absolutely miserable...
>
>This may be a matter of acclimatization. Visiting Minnesota on
>business, I was bundled up in a Main Warden Parka and I was cold. On
>the other hand the people I was working with were outdoors in short
>sleeves in a snowstorm. And I had been living in CT for several years
>before that, having grown up in north Florida.
>
>OTOH, I'm of English and Irish descent--the Minnesotans based on their
>names were of Scandinavian descent.

One of my biggest surprises when I lived in Winnipeg (which has
considerably colder winters than Minneapolis) 40 years ago was
discovering that Winnipeg has the 2nd largest population of Filipinos
(behind only NYC) in North America.

It's NOT surprising that Manitoba ALSO hosts the largest North
American Icelandic community but unlike Iceland, the Phillipines is
not exactly known for sub-zero winters.

Good solid decent people (the ones I knew I had met either at church
or the chess club) who were great company.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.

Very true - which is why Justin Trudeau is hellbent on raising
Canadian immigration rates to record levels. That and the fact that in
Canadian history, immigrants have ALWAYS been strong supporters of
whichever party was in power when they immigrated once they become
citizens and have the vote.
>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.

You need to make it clear that in Quebec "pure wood people" is a
euphemism for 'descendents of the original French Canadian population'
and excludes both aboriginal people AND those of other ethnic
descents. In other words as open-minded as your stereotypical Alabaman
"good old boy" towards those of non-Anglo or non-German (which in many
cases are the same people like me though I'm not from Alabama) towards
those of other ethnicities.

As for 'share of the national population, Quebec's share of the
Canadian population has been eroding pretty much from 1900 forward
though one of the things I strongly dislike about the damnable 1982
Constitution is that Quebec is guaranteed more than their share of
both houses of Parliament and the Supreme court than their population
would warrant.

BC and Alberta together have more people than Quebec though in the
Senate we get 6 senators from each province while Quebec gets 24 AND
UNDER THE 1982 CONSTITUTION IS GUARANTEED THAT IN PERPETUITY.
Meanwhile NB / NS / PEI / NL get 30 senators while their combined
population is less than half that of BC alone with population trends
likely to make that even more lopsided by 2050 - and again the
amending formula prevents any change being made since the amending
formula is '7 provinces with 75+% of the national population to
consent'

(I'd support all provinces with equal representation in the Senate but
the present unjust system even makes that impossible to achieve)
>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.

Given that Chinese immigration to Canada currently makes up 35% of all
immigration that would require either a change of heart in Beijing or
Ottawa. In 2022 that means almost entirely from the Peoples' Republic
not places like Hong Kong, Singapore etc.

Given the vast majority of this immigration settles ONLY in Vancouver
or Toronto you can see that this invites social issues.

>>Global warming may help you here.
>
>Yep. Although it would be a shame to see the Canadian forests cleared
>to produce farmland.

I assure you Canadian population growth is primarily immigration
driven and almost no immigrants are interested in agriculture so the
forests are safe for the foreseeable future particularly as forest
growth is accelerating in the 'shoulder' region between the wilderness
and subarctic areas of the country.

This is an area of special interest to my alma mater McMaster
University (Hamilton, ON) which has done several webinars by faculty
and graduate students in the Arctic - I recently took part in one as
part of their alumni outreach and you should have no problem web
browsing for these.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:27:30 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.

Interesting chart but there's no question COVID deaths ARE overcounted
- and I know of one case VERY close to home (OK my wife who passed in
early March this year) where because she died outside a medical
facility was required to undergo a coroner's inquest where they
automatically (i.e. without asking my consent) did a most mortem COVID
test and found her positive and thus marked her a COVID death.

Despite the fact that I discussed the symptoms with my family doctor
who was quite insistent that NONE of the symptoms I reported to him
indicated COVID but rather cardiac issues and that both her parents
had had issues in this area (her father died in 2010, her mother was
in hospital for tests in 2016 when she had an aneurysm but was saved
and is still going strong at 86)

>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?

Thanks I think :) (for the record milady and I had 3 - two daughters
and a son though one of them no longer lives in North America)

>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>
>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>
>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>> ass off in Canada.

Haven't seen much evidence of #2 and the left is strong enough in
Canada to limit #1

>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>and getting worse.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>
>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>(note the excess males)
>>
>>Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
>>still have positive TFRs.

The bottom line is that both China and India are countries where
families expect to have at least one son and both have ready access
both to pre-natal gender testing and abortions which have created a
surplus of males in both countries.

>>Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
>>become much less habitable.
>
>_Will_ become or _might_ become?

Canada has ALWAYS had the majority of its people within 150 miles of
the US border. This goes back to colonial times where Queen Victoria
vetoed the colonial capital of Kingston, ON for the Dominion capital
since Kingston is close enough to the US border it could easily be
taken on the first day of any war.

When I was a teenager (e.g. before the advent of cable TV) it was said
that Edmonton and Ottawa were the ONLY major Canadian cities that were
not without TV broadcast range of the US border.

>The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
>uninhabitable is speculation.

And even if true why would one think Canada would be less affected
that the United States?

>>For reasons that escape me, our national
>>policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>the planet.
>
>What, you expect the US to invade Canada?

You folks did 200 years ago - you incinerated the small town that is
now Toronto - and our response was to raid Washington and burn the
White House. In the 21st century we don't advertise the fact much but
you know "the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" from your
anthem ..... we're great friends now and would NEVER EVER wish to
remind you whose rockets and bombs were attacking Fort McHenry that
night

But no question Canada-US relations have improved since then and one
little known factoid was that the air force general in command of
NORAD on Sept 11, 2001 was a Canadian and he was the one who quickly
gave the order to shut down US (and Canadian) airspace following the
attacks and was later congratulated by President Bush for his
super-fast response.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:22:46 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>
>Well, we /have/ made the attempt in the past. Not Canada as such,
>perhaps, but the same territory.

Ontario was known at that time as "Upper Canada" while Quebec was
"Lower Canada" and US forces burnt York (now Toronto) on April 27,
1813. Both were British colonies at the time. It wasn't till 1867 that
the British colonies in North America united to form Canada and like
America the original boundaries are not what they were then back in
1867 or 1776.

(OK I had to Google the date....but knew it was spring 1813 without
having to check)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> gun rights.
>>
>> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> perfectly normal.
>
>After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>African-American males being shot.

You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.

But then one is too many right?

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 18:18:02 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>
>>But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>be homicides. *And the FBI.
>
>What _are_ the considered to be then?
>
>Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>
>>> Blacks being shot out of proportion to the population
>>> as a whole is, IMO, an artifact of the illicit drug trade,
>>> including feuds between hangs fueled by competition
>>> over who gets to sell drugs where.
>>>
>>> Many of my fellow USAians are willing to put up with these
>>> deaths because they want to maintain drug prohibition -
>>> more fools they!

Is that true? I know someone close to me who fatally ran over somebody
and was initially held by the Sheriff's dept (Tucson, AZ) but released
several hours as he had convinced them it was a driver error (he said
foot hit gas when he meant brake) but was told on his release it was
still homicide but that simply meant one person killing another
regardless of whether it was unlawful (or deliberate) or not.

The sheriff's dept more or less defined the terms to him as follows:
Murder: intentional killing without authority
War: intentional killing with authority ("the object of war isn't to
die for your country, it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for
HIS country!" ~ George C Scott, Patton the movie)
Manslaughter: unintentional killing without authority but some kind of
negligence
Tragic accident: unintentional killing without authority and without
negligence

Homicide - all of the above

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>claims are legitimate.

And some aren't. There was one guy fatally tasered (6 shots in 30
seconds) after he "brandished a weapon" (or at least that's what the 4
attending police officers said - the "weapon" turned out to be a
stapler) and I asked a friend who was a retired police inspector how
such a case would have been handled pre-tasers.

"the officers would all have gotten their billy clubs out and one or
two of them would have tried to take him out at his knees. If that
didn't work they'd pound the hell of him until he fell down. He might
have broken his wrist or arm or possibly teeth - he'd probably be
black and blue but he'd still be alive"

In the case above all 4 officers were tried and convicted of
falsifying their police reports, received suspended sentences and
fines and summarily dismissed from the RCMP. For two of them there was
a short custodial sentence (can't remember but under six months).

(Apparently the prosecutor didn't feel he had enough to convict of
murder and the men's superior officer badly wanted them summarily
gone)

In short just the sort of thing intended to REALLY **** up their job
prospects going forward.

On 6/7/22 11:57, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 07:15:50 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A short note that, no, I see no way to draw such information from the article.
>>>>
>>>> What the article noted was that the pandemic was a lot worse for *some* people
>>>> than for others.
>>>>
>>> >From that, one can indeed draw the conclusion that those who were lucky
>>>> enough to be able to work from home, and emerge largely unscathed, could
>>>> get the idea that it wasn't as deadly, and the chances of falling prey to
>>>> COVID-19 weren't as high... as they were for the working-class people who
>>>> had to do jobs that brought them into contact with others, even before there
>>>> was a vaccine, even before we had adequate supplies of masks for anyone
>>>> except health workers.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the chances for everyone, on average, _aren't_ as high as they
>>>> are for the people facing the greatest risk.
>>>>
>>>> But if laws and public policy are decided by the elites at the least risk...
>>>> (which pretty much is a given that can't be helped) and they're deciding
>>>> them based on the perspective of their own situation... (which is what
>>>> _can_ be avoided) instead of being decided on the basis of the situation
>>>> of the people at the greatest risk... then they're being decided the wrong
>>>> way. At least, in my opinion - but I think that's also a fact which should
>>>> be the opinion of any decent human being with a conscience.
>>> At this point just about everybody I know has had COVID and most found
>>> it to be a minor annoyance. I am not sure whether I have--I had
>>> _something_ shortly after exposure to a recent returnee from China but
>>> it was before knowledge of COVID was widespread.
>>>
>>> Note that I'm a geezer, thus theoretically high-risk. My neighbor is
>>> a decade older than I am, and when he had it the only treatment he
>>> took was Tylenol.
>>>
>>> When you look at numbers as numbers they seem frighteningly large.
>>> When you look at them as percentages though, the percentage who die
>>> from it is not huge.
>>
>> But when terrorists kill just a few thousand people,
>> what a fuss. Also, is there anyone you're not counting
>> as "more than minorly annoyed" because they died,
>> and so they cannot comment?
>
> Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.
> Hell, it didn't manage to do in Trump, but "only the good die young"
> might apply there.
>
> When terrorists kill a few thousand people we don't all run and hide
> in bomb shelters, we go hunt the bastards down and kill them. Although
> the government has made use of an opportunity to create a jobs program
> for defense workers and massively expand its intrusion into our lives.

My mother died from it on March 10. She got it in an assisted living
facility, fully vaxed, boosted. Everyone in the facility fully vaxed and
boosted.

After 9/11, the country locked down. National Guard at the GG Bridge,
Bay Bridge, etc. Automatic weapons at the airports. Nothing flying for
quite some time. And the Patriot Act where we were encouraged to inform
on each other. I guess these are minor annoyances too.

Many, many, many tens of thousands have long term effects from COVID.
Some "annoying" like loss of taste and smell for long term and maybe
forever. Memory/concentration/sleep problems, respiratory problems,
cardiac problems, stomach and intestine, kidneys. Just annoying as long
as other people have them.

Over 1 million deaths since Feb of 2020. And you are ok with that.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
> >> gun rights.
> >>
> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
> >> perfectly normal.
> >
> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
> >African-American males being shot.
>
> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>

I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
and with less publicity than school shootings.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
> In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> >> gun rights.
>> >>
>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> >> perfectly normal.
>> >
>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>> >African-American males being shot.
>>
>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>
>
> I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
> being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
> and with less publicity than school shootings.

Indeed. A Black has 12 times the likelihood of being the victim of a gun
homicide then a White. But that's been the case for years and has not
been a "front-page" concern.

But a school shooting - that affects suburbia. Who cares that if you graphed
daily gun homicides you probably wouldn't be able to pick out the Uvalde
date? On average over 60 gun homicides occur every day.

It's the same thing as our local Beltway sniper of a couple of decades
ago that attracted huge attention. That endangered suburbanites.
Who cares that the chance of being killed by a random bullet in inner
city Washington was higher? The inner city folks live in constant
fear, but that doesn't affect suburbia.

Raising the fears of suburbanites, as is being done with Uvalde, has its
dangers. The last Gallup poll that I saw had the percentage of Americans
*against* a law banning private handguns at 80% - the highest value in
the 60 years that Gallup has been asking the question. The percentage of
gun owners citing personal protection as an important reason for owning
a gun was at 88% - higher than anything else and higher than has ever
been reported before.

The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
years is causing problems. They want to
1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun

Illegal guns are already used in most gun crimes and homicides (though
data is sparse). This can't end up well long-term!

--
Chris

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>
>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>years is causing problems. They want to
>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun

Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.

On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>
> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>

Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
for Blacks.

If you want cites (I'm not sure why, you don't supply them in your
arguments), here's a couple easy searching gave me:

https://reason.com/2022/02/16/philadelphias-d-a-sees-little-value-and-much-injustice-in-gun-possession-arrests/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/opinion/reduce-gun-penalties.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/localopinions/dc-doubles-down-on-destructive-prison-first-policies/2019/02/14/ebe8b11a-2e2d-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html

--
Chris

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>>
>> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
>> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>>
>
>Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
>gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
>for Blacks.

You seem to fall into the bucket "what one progressive thinks is
what all progressive thinks". All groups have outliers, don't assume
they represent the group as a whole.

>
>If you want cites (I'm not sure why, you don't supply them in your
>arguments),

If you go back and look, I routinely provide citations to data
that support my arguments.

On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>>>
>>> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
>>> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>>>
>>
>>Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
>>gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
>>for Blacks.
>
> You seem to fall into the bucket "what one progressive thinks is
> what all progressive thinks". All groups have outliers, don't assume
> they represent the group as a whole.

You challenged me to find *any* progressive. I immediately found 3.
Talk about moving the goal posts!

I agree that outliers don't represent the entire group. Please give
cites that give the position of the entire group (I would claim that's
impossible). I would say the general position agrees with me more
than you.

Examples would be the language of efsgv.org (educational fund to stop
gun violence) which I would regard as representing a progressive view.
From https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/EFSGV_REIA_Framework.pdf
Though racial disparities in the criminal legal system stem from
many sources, overly punitive gun violence prevention policies can
play a role in perpetuating the larger issue
...
Laws intended to reduce gun violence can cause racialized
collateral harm. For example, harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences
for illegal gun possession can exacerbate racial disparities in
arrests and incarceration while doing nothing to reduce the burden of
gun violence in BIPOC communities.
...
The impact of gun violence on the lives of BIPOC communities is
devastating, but so too is the overreliance on a heavily
punitive criminal legal system to address violence.

Another example might be
https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/2021/08/25/loyola-report-reveals-undue-punitive-effect-of-gun-possession-convictions/
Chicago cannot afford to continue to criminalize such a high
proportion of its young and Black population for simply being in the
vicinity of a gun.
(lots of other quotes, read them)

Please give your cites to similar caliber progressive studies that
state we must maintain or increase the penalties for illegal gun possession
and use.

I would note that the House just passed along party lines its massive
set of bills/provisions (7, I think) to reduce gun violence. Not a
single one was directed at the use of illegal guns, despite the fact
that illegal guns probably (only small studies are legal) commit most
of the gun crime and homicides in the country.

>>If you want cites (I'm not sure why, you don't supply them in your
>>arguments),
>
> If you go back and look, I routinely provide citations to data
> that support my arguments.

The only recent cite I seem to remember from you was a cite to a faked
YouTube video. In our last disagreement (about your belief in the
conspiracy theory that Bush and the GOP lied about WMDS and that's why
we went to war), I supplied something like 10 cites and you supplied,
hmmm let me count them up ... 0 cites?

--
Chris

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>>>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>>>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>>>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>>>>
>>>> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
>>>> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
>>>gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
>>>for Blacks.
>>
>> You seem to fall into the bucket "what one progressive thinks is
>> what all progressive thinks". All groups have outliers, don't assume
>> they represent the group as a whole.
>
>You challenged me to find *any* progressive. I immediately found 3.
>Talk about moving the goal posts!

True, I didn't phrase that very well.

>
>I agree that outliers don't represent the entire group. Please give
>cites that give the position of the entire group (I would claim that's
>impossible). I would say the general position agrees with me more
>than you.
>
>Examples would be the language of efsgv.org (educational fund to stop
>gun violence) which I would regard as representing a progressive view.
>From https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/EFSGV_REIA_Framework.pdf
> Though racial disparities in the criminal legal system stem from
> many sources, overly punitive gun violence prevention policies can
> play a role in perpetuating the larger issue

I haven't heard of the organization.

>Another example might be
>https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/2021/08/25/loyola-report-reveals-undue-punitive-effect-of-gun-possession-convictions/
> Chicago cannot afford to continue to criminalize such a high
> proportion of its young and Black population for simply being in the
> vicinity of a gun.
> (lots of other quotes, read them)
>
>Please give your cites to similar caliber progressive studies that
>state we must maintain or increase the penalties for illegal gun possession
>and use.

I never made such claim. Nor have I espoused any particular
position on the issue. Nor would I without doing the research necessary
to reach a conclusion based on fact and evidence.

nts.
>
>The only recent cite I seem to remember from you was a cite to a faked
>YouTube video. In our last disagreement (about your belief in the
>conspiracy theory that Bush and the GOP lied about WMDS and that's why
>we went to war), I supplied something like 10 cites and you supplied,
>hmmm let me count them up ... 0 cites?

Check back. I don't watch youtube and would never have cited it.

On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>>>>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>>>>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>>>>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
>>>>> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
>>>>gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
>>>>for Blacks.
>>>
>>> You seem to fall into the bucket "what one progressive thinks is
>>> what all progressive thinks". All groups have outliers, don't assume
>>> they represent the group as a whole.
>>
>>You challenged me to find *any* progressive. I immediately found 3.
>>Talk about moving the goal posts!
>
> True, I didn't phrase that very well.
>
>>
>>I agree that outliers don't represent the entire group. Please give
>>cites that give the position of the entire group (I would claim that's
>>impossible). I would say the general position agrees with me more
>>than you.
>>
>>Examples would be the language of efsgv.org (educational fund to stop
>>gun violence) which I would regard as representing a progressive view.
>>From https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/EFSGV_REIA_Framework.pdf
>> Though racial disparities in the criminal legal system stem from
>> many sources, overly punitive gun violence prevention policies can
>> play a role in perpetuating the larger issue
>
> I haven't heard of the organization.

They've renamed themselves as the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
Violence Solutions.

>>Another example might be
>>https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/2021/08/25/loyola-report-reveals-undue-punitive-effect-of-gun-possession-convictions/
>> Chicago cannot afford to continue to criminalize such a high
>> proportion of its young and Black population for simply being in the
>> vicinity of a gun.
>> (lots of other quotes, read them)
>>
>>Please give your cites to similar caliber progressive studies that
>>state we must maintain or increase the penalties for illegal gun possession
>>and use.
>
> I never made such claim. Nor have I espoused any particular
> position on the issue. Nor would I without doing the research necessary
> to reach a conclusion based on fact and evidence.

I see. So the fact that you haven't taken any position means that you
don't have to furnish any cites to support yourself? How ... convenient
for you. But obviously false. You can't say that my cites are outliers
to progressive thought on the subject without taking a position on what
progressive thought on the subject is. You have a position, so let's
see your cites.

> nts.
>>
>>The only recent cite I seem to remember from you was a cite to a faked
>>YouTube video. In our last disagreement (about your belief in the
>>conspiracy theory that Bush and the GOP lied about WMDS and that's why
>>we went to war), I supplied something like 10 cites and you supplied,
>>hmmm let me count them up ... 0 cites?
>
>
> Check back. I don't watch youtube and would never have cited it.

My apologies. I remembered you as the citer of a video showing Ukraine
attacking Russian territory, but that appears to be incorrect.
So now I have no memory of you recently having supported any of your arguments
here with cites.

--
Chris

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:

> >For reasons that escape me, our national
> >policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
> >the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
> >the planet.

> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?

Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.

At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.

However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:52:24 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:

> After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
> African-American males being shot.

It's quite unsurprising that people who are not African-Americans, who
never were African-Americans, who never will become African Americans,
and who don't have any African-Americans as relatives might be willing to
tolerate a lot of African-American males being shot.

However, nearly everyone was a child attending school at one time. To
promote one's Darwinian fitness, one needs to have children who survive
to become parents in their turn.

So if going to school becomes hazardous, this isn't something a large
segment of the population can just ignore as "no skin off my back".
That's why some people are naive enough to expect that emotional
appeals about school shootings might drain off some support from
the Republican Party.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.
> Hell, it didn't manage to do in Trump, but "only the good die young"
> might apply there.

Because he was President, he got *antibodies* at Walter Reed.

John Savard

On 6/5/2022 5:09 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> This news article
>
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>
> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was
> possible for some people not to perceive this fact.
>
> John Savard

Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid. For me,
it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the testing
and vaccines. My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year and ran a
fever and a cold for a week.

Lynn

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 1:49:16 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> Population growth is already flat or declining in most places outside the
> third world.

How does that imply that...

> Overpopulation is no longer a likely disaster scenario.

given that the part of the world that already has trouble feeding itself
is the part of the world that will be caused the greatest difficulties
by having to feed even more mouths?

Of course, the disruption of global food supplies caused by Russia's
invasion of Ukraine means that the Third World may not need to get
any more overpopulated than it already is in order to experience
dramatic disaster.

Overpopulation is _already_ causing disaster in the Third World by
my standards; the countries of the Third World don't have enough
resources, in relation to their population, to attain a decent standard
of living - like that in the Western industrialized nations. How much
worse does it have to get?

John Savard

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 11:12:43 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:21:32 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >The Japanese are working on powered exoskeletons to help the older
> >workforce stay productive. The potential military applications are
> >pretty obvious at this point. I think it will be a hoot if the
> >Chinese start to invade Japan and the Evas rise up out of their silos.

> Piloted by 13-year-olds, no doubt.

First, the Japanese will have to invent Super Alloy Z in real life...

John Savard

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:12:27 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> When I was a teenager (e.g. before the advent of cable TV) it was said
> that Edmonton and Ottawa were the ONLY major Canadian cities that were
> not without TV broadcast range of the US border.

That's only true if you don't count Saskatoon as a major city.

John Savard