The Dividing Line

[Winstonm]

Concerning a Republican bill, co-sponsored by 10 others, to prevent the US Census Bureau from collecting economic data, I am beginning to think the current polarization of U.S. politics is something more than differences of opinion and stems from a fundamental difference in the way people think the world reacts to them. For example:

 

Haver also suggested there is a fundamental divide between people who are interested in solid, reality-based data and those who are not.

 

"If you know what you think, you don't need information to help you assess what's going on," she said. "The people that need information are the people who use it because they really want the truth, not people who think that because they believe it, it becomes the truth.

[mikeh]

This is fundamentally a difference between belief and knowledge.

 

Between faith and reason.

 

If there is one thing that a good educational system should strive to achieve it should be the inculcation in the young of the ability to understand the difference. Perhaps not coincidentally some US conservatives are now arguing against teaching critical thinking in school, advocating that time be spent, instead, on teaching a willingness to accept beliefs without supporting evidence.

 

I once cross examined a witness, who had published some untrue accusations of corruption on the part of my client, a local politician, on this issue. I asked her if she understood that there was a difference between knowing something and believing something: her answer was: I didn't but I'm beginning to.

 

Unfortunately for her, she learned too late, and instead of walking away having apologized, she lost everything she owned and had to go bankrupt. Such is the fate, in the long term, for all who ignore reality in favour of their belief structure. Of course, if millions or billions share your delusions, that fate will be a long time coming :P

[onoway]

This is fundamentally a difference between belief and knowledge.

 

Between faith and reason.

 

If there is one thing that a good educational system should strive to achieve it should be the inculcation in the young of the ability to understand the difference. Perhaps not coincidentally some US conservatives are now arguing against teaching critical thinking in school, advocating that time be spent, instead, on teaching a willingness to accept beliefs without supporting evidence.

 

I once cross examined a witness, who had published some untrue accusations of corruption on the part of my client, a local politician, on this issue. I asked her if she understood that there was a difference between knowing something and believing something: her answer was: I didn't but I'm beginning to.

 

Unfortunately for her, she learned too late, and instead of walking away having apologized, she lost everything she owned and had to go bankrupt. Such is the fate, in the long term, for all who ignore reality in favour of their belief structure. Of course, if millions or billions share your delusions, that fate will be a long time coming :P

 

You must have been quite pleased to hear her comment :)

 

Someone once said that anyone who was rich enough could create their own reality, example given being Howard Hughes. Perhaps therein lies the real problem of the growing inequality between the super rich and the rest of us. Eventually the world becomes their fantasy and they see no reason why everything/one should not behave as they would wish..a sort of King Canute syndrome.

[y66]

Duncan is the guy who recently compared record keeping for gun background checks with the Hutu government's use of national address data to slaughter Tutsi tribe members during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 which did in fact occur.

 

"Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives?”

 

Over to you blackshoe.

[blackshoe]

There was something on the news tonight about an initiative in New York to get a new law passed. I wasn't paying close attention (I was doing several other things at the time) but I gathered it had something to do with registering all children at some point so that when they reached the age to get a driver's license (or to register to vote) the paperwork would be somehow "easier". All I can say is "what happened to the America I was born in?"

 

Tenth Amendment to the US Constition: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Second Amendment, paraphrased: The people do not delegate to either the States or the United States any part, in any way, of their individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Vampyr]

Second Amendment, paraphrased: The people do not delegate to either the States or the United States any part, in any way, of their individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

ROFLMAO

 

Good example of the post topic...

[Winstonm]

There was something on the news tonight about an initiative in New York to get a new law passed. I wasn't paying close attention (I was doing several other things at the time) but I gathered it had something to do with registering all children at some point so that when they reached the age to get a driver's license (or to register to vote) the paperwork would be somehow "easier". All I can say is "what happened to the America I was born in?"

 

Tenth Amendment to the US Constition: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Second Amendment, paraphrased: The people do not delegate to either the States or the United States any part, in any way, of their individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

Likewise, the government does not delegate the qualifying phrase from the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Sounds like an argument for a new draft board instead of an argument for individual gun rights.

[blackshoe]

Likewise, the government does not delegate the qualifying phrase from the second amendment: Sounds like an argument for a new draft board instead of an argument for individual gun rights.

The government can't delegate what it doesn't own, and it doesn't own the right to keep and bear arms (or any other right).

 

The grammatical analysis of the wording and meaning of the second amendment was done long ago. I will only repeat the conclusion here: there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed. The "militia clause" is irrelevant. If you care to know more, look it up. I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

[Winstonm]

The government can't delegate what it doesn't own, and it doesn't own the right to keep and bear arms (or any other right).

 

The grammatical analysis of the wording and meaning of the second amendment was done long ago. I will only repeat the conclusion here: there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed. The "militia clause" is irrelevant. If you care to know more, look it up. I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

 

Yes, but I wouldn't think you would still consider Separate but Equal to be the legal U.S. policy for segregating public schools, although that at one time was the law of the land.

 

I have heard both sides of this Second Amendment argument and I am aware that the present conclusion of this SC is that the second amendment is an individual right. You do realize, though, that SC decisions can be wrong? I am aware that the SC is not infallible now nor in the past and that many other scholars and lawyers have argued and continue to argue that the right is not individual.

 

There are no absolute rights, only determined rights. At present, your position is considered correct, but not because of the U.S. Constitution - your position was determined to be correct according to the Supreme Court - legally right by determination, but not a moral certainty.

[barmar]

If you care to know more, look it up. I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

You can find support for practically any viewpoint on the web somewhere.

 

I'm sure you can find just as much evidence of the opposite interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If it were obvious, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to keep ruling on issues related to it.

[barmar]

The idea that if you believe something hard enough, it becomes true, is what Stephen Colbert satirically labeled "truthiness".

[hrothgar]

The grammatical analysis of the wording and meaning of the second amendment was done long ago. I will only repeat the conclusion here: there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed. The "militia clause" is irrelevant. If you care to know more, look it up. I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

 

I've never used the expression "long ago" to refer to events in 2008. (District of Columbia versus Heller)

Maybe the "analysis" came earlier, but the Supreme Court decision is only five years old.

 

Doesn't really matter.

Scalito or Thomas will die soon, a Democrat will pick their replacement, and much of the ugliness of the past few years will get rolled back.

[blackshoe]

There are no absolute rights, only determined rights. At present, your position is considered correct, but not because of the U.S. Constitution - your position was determined to be correct according to the Supreme Court - legally right by determination, but not a moral certainty.

We disagree. Fundamentally. So be it.

[kenberg]

I can recall a time with a more liberal Supreme Court when those on the left expressed the view, and I exaggerate either only slightly or not at all, that whatever the Supreme Court said was absolutely final, must be obeyed, cannot be challenged. Legally speaking, this is correct except for acknowledging that at a later time a different court might reach a different conclusion. Whether there is or is not, in my view not, indisputable truth the Supreme Court does not have the forever final word.

 

Whar should be expected of the Supreme Court? Fundamentally, I think we must expect them to interpret what the law says rather than what they believe that it should say. Contrary to some, I think that interpreting what a law says is not always exactly easy. With regard to the Second Amendment, certainly the framers could have made life easier by either not mentioning militias or by being clearer about why they felt compelled to mention them. But also I am not so sure "to bear arms" is so clear. Or at least it seems to me that they probably did not mean it in its most extreme sense. A drunk can walk into a bar carrying a sawed off shotgun and no one can say boo until he actually shoots someone? So far, he is only bearing arms, he hasn't actually pulled the trigger. I am not sure anyone is ok with that, or ever has been. Further, are we sure this rule should apply to anything that coold reasonably be called arms in the twenty-first century? There are all sorts of weapons now that did not even exist in the imagination in the eighteenth century. It's fair to ask what they really had in mind. And it is also reasonable to say that whatever they had in mind, we might well want to re-think it. But I agree that the re-thinking should be done in a democratic way rather than by nine robes deciding that the Second Amendment means whatever they wish it to mean.

 

The OP had reference to collecting data and such. We need data, we really do. Still, there is the fact that the government can now come around and say "We need some data, so we are going to ask you some questions and you are required to give us the answers". I can see where this should at least not be an unrestricted right of the government.

 

Perhaps for amusement, there was this recent request for data: We are involved with helping a family member, and there is some money involved. At one point I answered the phone and someone effectively (I will skip some details) said "My name is Tia, give me your credit card number". There was great consternation when I said No Way. The request turned out to be for legitimate reasons but at the time I imagined myself, if it were a scam, later talking with the FBI and one of them saying "You gave it to her? You must be the biggest idiot on the planet.".

[helene_t]

I recall some three decades ago they had a census in Germany. As a Dane, I found the concept of a "census" an anachronism and I was baffled by the fact that they were still doing it in Germany. I was aware that in the 1930's, there was a census in Denmark where every landlord or homeowner was asked how many people slept in an of their properties on a particular night. But since the 1970's (or maybe 60's), there was no such thing as counting people. You just type

SELECT count(id) from populationregister where domicile_country="Denmark"

and you have the answer.

 

I found it impossible to imagine how a modern state could be administered without anyone knowing the existence of its citizens. How to issue passports and voting tickets? How to collect taxes? How to determine if a patient is entitled to certain health cost reimbursements, and if so, from which municipality? How to avoid that social clients collect benefits from several municipalities at the same time?

 

It got weirder. Not only did the census actually take place, it was also controversial! The "counters" were sometimes attacked by people opposed to the census!

 

Having lived for the last 17 years in the Netherlands and UK I have learned that the Scandinavian tradition for keeping people registered is the exception. Most countries only do it to a very limited extent. In the Netherlands, like in Germany, registration of citizens could probably have been more effective if there had been a will, but many people are scared of Big Brother society. In the UK, this surely can't be the reason since the British are watched by government, credit scoring agencies and private security even more than in Scandinavia. The reason is probably lack of funding for technology.

[Winstonm]

I can recall a time with a more liberal Supreme Court when those on the left expressed the view, and I exaggerate either only slightly or not at all, that whatever the Supreme Court said was absolutely final, must be obeyed, cannot be challenged. Legally speaking, this is correct except for acknowledging that at a later time a different court might reach a different conclusion. Whether there is or is not, in my view not, indisputable truth the Supreme Court does not have the forever final word.

 

Whar should be expected of the Supreme Court? Fundamentally, I think we must expect them to interpret what the law says rather than what they believe that it should say. Contrary to some, I think that interpreting what a law says is not always exactly easy. With regard to the Second Amendment, certainly the framers could have made life easier by either not mentioning militias or by being clearer about why they felt compelled to mention them. But also I am not so sure "to bear arms" is so clear. Or at least it seems to me that they probably did not mean it in its most extreme sense. A drunk can walk into a bar carrying a sawed off shotgun and no one can say boo until he actually shoots someone? So far, he is only bearing arms, he hasn't actually pulled the trigger. I am not sure anyone is ok with that, or ever has been. Further, are we sure this rule should apply to anything that coold reasonably be called arms in the twenty-first century? There are all sorts of weapons now that did not even exist in the imagination in the eighteenth century. It's fair to ask what they really had in mind. And it is also reasonable to say that whatever they had in mind, we might well want to re-think it. But I agree that the re-thinking should be done in a democratic way rather than by nine robes deciding that the Second Amendment means whatever they wish it to mean.

 

The OP had reference to collecting data and such. We need data, we really do. Still, there is the fact that the government can now come around and say "We need some data, so we are going to ask you some questions and you are required to give us the answers". I can see where this should at least not be an unrestricted right of the government.

 

Perhaps for amusement, there was this recent request for data: We are involved with helping a family member, and there is some money involved. At one point I answered the phone and someone effectively (I will skip some details) said "My name is Tia, give me your credit card number". There was great consternation when I said No Way. The request turned out to be for legitimate reasons but at the time I imagined myself, if it were a scam, later talking with the FBI and one of them saying "You gave it to her? You must be the biggest idiot on the planet.".

 

I think it is correct to attempt to understand the intent of the framers - which means understanding the circumstances that brought about a specific amendment. What provoked the writers to include the second amendment and what was their intent about private weapon ownership and government? One has to understand that there was no standing army at the time, so calling the citizenry into battle was the sole form of national defense. Because of the needs for these militiamen, the need arose for them to possess weapons.

 

Anyway, that is how I understand it. It would then follow that once the need for militias disappears, so does the need for gun ownership. At that point I would think the commerce clause would take precedence.

[Winstonm]

I recall some three decades ago they had a census in Germany. As a Dane, I found the concept of a "census" an anachronism and I was baffled by the fact that they were still doing it in Germany. I was aware that in the 1930's, there was a census in Denmark where every landlord or homeowner was asked how many people slept in an of their properties on a particular night. But since the 1970's (or maybe 60's), there was no such thing as counting people. You just type

SELECT count(id) from populationregister where domicile_country="Denmark"

and you have the answer.

 

I found it impossible to imagine how a modern state could be administered without anyone knowing the existence of its citizens. How to issue passports and voting tickets? How to collect taxes? How to determine if a patient is entitled to certain health cost reimbursements, and if so, from which municipality? How to avoid that social clients collect benefits from several municipalities at the same time?

 

It got weirder. Not only did the census actually take place, it was also controversial! The "counters" were sometimes attacked by people opposed to the census!

 

Having lived for the last 17 years in the Netherlands and UK I have learned that the Scandinavian tradition for keeping people registered is the exception. Most countries only do it to a very limited extent. In the Netherlands, like in Germany, registration of citizens could probably have been more effective if there had been a will, but many people are scared of Big Brother society. In the UK, this surely can't be the reason since the British are watched by government, credit scoring agencies and private security even more than in Scandinavia. The reason is probably lack of funding for technology.

 

Here in the U.S., the census bureau is responsible for producing most of the economic data, from GDP to unemployment figures. It is impossible to function without this kind of data unless one simply wants to believe things are a certain way, irregardless of real data confirmation.

[kenberg]

 

Here is the U.S., the census bureau is responsible for producing most of the economic data, from to GDP to unemployment figures. It is impossible to function without this kind of data unless one simply wants to believe things are a certain way, irregardless of real data confirmation.

Fair enough, and a bill that simply eliminates data collection is nuts. Some restraint might well be appropriate however.

[PassedOut]

Hillary Clinton aptly pointed out that many of her critics don't inhabit the evidence-based world. It's hard to communicate across that dividing line.

 

The March of Antireality Continues, by Phil Plait

 

Against unreason, the gods themselves contend in vain.” —with apologies to Friedrich Schiller

 

Lately I’ve been trying to write more about science, rather than write about those who attack it. I love science, and I love promoting it. It gives us wonder, knowledge, advances in technology and medicine, increases our lifespan and the joy that fills it. It also reveals the world as it truly is, and while that may not always be comforting (or joyous), it’s the way things are. We need to acknowledge that.

 

But the forces of antireality keep plodding forward, shouting and frothing and making a mess of things.

The people in the anti-evidence, anti-science, anti-reality crowd are bound to lose out in the long run, but they sure can and do raise a lot of Cain in the meantime. It gets really tiresome...

[Flem72]

I think it is correct to attempt to understand the intent of the framers - which means understanding the circumstances that brought about a specific amendment. What provoked the writers to include the second amendment and what was their intent about private weapon ownership and government? One has to understand that there was no standing army at the time, so calling the citizenry into battle was the sole form of national defense. Because of the needs for these militiamen, the need arose for them to possess weapons.

 

Anyway, that is how I understand it. It would then follow that once the need for militias disappears, so does the need for gun ownership. At that point I would think the commerce clause would take precedence.

 

Geez. Standing army created 1784, '85? Constitution 1787?

 

Also: More folks should actually read the cases. Con Law is like any other highest-level enterprise: There are many substantive issues that remain philosophical conflicts But procedural issues -- the role of the courts, the process of and limits upon appellate review -- are largely settled, except when a majority of SCOTUS decides differently, in order to flex its muscles, as in Roe v. Wade. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

[blackshoe]

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

[hrothgar]

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

 

Anyone else amused that this posting is cropping up in a thread about individuals divorced from reality...

 

(And yes, I know about the National Security Act of 1947)

[Flem72]

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

 

As I recall, the FF weren't so worried about Congress creating a standing army -- there is a specific power. So it is hard to see the NSA as an "end run."

[mike777]

The Dividing Line Reality verses Imagined Reality an old and common theme: what is reality

 

just watched the 1973 movie from Germany.

 

World on a Wire.

 

 

Rainer Werner Fassbinder, West Germany 1973, 212 min

 

A dystopic science-fiction epic, World on a Wire is German wunderkind Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s gloriously cracked, boundlessly inventive take on future paranoia. With dashes of Kubrick, Vonnegut, and Dick, but a flavor entirely his own, Fassbinder tells the noir-spiked tale of reluctant action hero Fred Stiller (Klaus Lowitsch), a cybernetics engineer who uncovers a massive corporate and governmental conspiracy. At risk? Our entire (virtual) reality as we know it. This long unseen three-and-a-half-hour labyrinth is a satiric and surreal look at the weird world of tomorrow from one of cinema’s kinkiest geniuses.

[Winstonm]

The Dividing Line Reality verses Imagined Reality an old and common theme: what is reality

 

just watched the 1973 movie from Germany.

 

World on a Wire.

 

 

Rainer Werner Fassbinder, West Germany 1973, 212 min

 

A dystopic science-fiction epic, World on a Wire is German wunderkind Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s gloriously cracked, boundlessly inventive take on future paranoia. With dashes of Kubrick, Vonnegut, and Dick, but a flavor entirely his own, Fassbinder tells the noir-spiked tale of reluctant action hero Fred Stiller (Klaus Lowitsch), a cybernetics engineer who uncovers a massive corporate and governmental conspiracy. At risk? Our entire (virtual) reality as we know it. This long unseen three-and-a-half-hour labyrinth is a satiric and surreal look at the weird world of tomorrow from one of cinema’s kinkiest geniuses.

 

Reality can be defined as that which is, irrespective of opinions. We may not know what reality is, but we do know by definition that if something involves opinion it is not reality, but an opinion about reality.