Sunday assorted links

Comments

#3 Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regress into barbarism
Rosa Luxemburg

Unhappy choices , mega man, Venezuela or Zombie Land. I'm betting on ZL.

#2 what a horrible article.
#5 To do otherwise would be an enormous waste. Horrible article.

I did not read #4 is it yet another article stating that those who disobey their liberal masters are know nothings? Of course it is.

Ah, Alain, are you a big gun control supporter? You sound like one of the outraged liberals who gets very angry when the NRA points out that gun violence is at multidecade lows after a public tragedy. "Horrible, this isn't the time for this," they say.

Perhaps air bags were a mistake, because after all, cars were safer than ever.

#2 - police shot are down, and, when adjusted for criminality, police shoot just as many non-blacks as they do blacks. SS could speak more to this. -RL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Of interest is a crude measure of 'criminality' is incarceration, and blacks are incarcerated 3.4x more than non-blacks (see link above, 4.7/1/4 = 3.4). Hence, the fact police killed 3x more blacks than whites may be because blacks have 3.4x more likely to be criminals in any given population. It's not racism as much as simple statistics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/final-tally-police-shot-and-killed-984-people-in-2015/2016/01/05/3ec7a404-b3c5-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

Over the past year, The Post found that the vast majority of those shot and killed by police were armed and half of them were white. Still, police killed blacks at three times the rate of whites when adjusted for the populations where these shootings occurred. And although black men represent 6 percent of the U.S. population, they made up nearly 40 percent of those who were killed while unarmed.

It's not murderous, white cops or the NRA/guns. They are dishonest distractions for an accumulation of 100 years of disastrous dem/liberal laws and policies ruining tens of millions of blacks' live.

The simple solutions are don't be an alcoholic/drug addict, don't kill, don't rape, don't resist arrest, don't riot, don't steal, work hard in school, . . .

"And although black men represent 6 percent of the U.S. population, they made up nearly 40 percent of those who were killed while unarmed.": Were the perps mainly other blacks? Or, was it 25 (of 20 million) unarmed blacks killed?

>black men represent 6 percent of the U.S. population...

Who the hell cares? Do you think cops go around shooting random members of the US population? Your statistic is useless.

A useful statistic is what percentage of violent crime is committed by black males. Because those are the kinds of people that usually get shot by police. I can see why you would not want to reveal that statistic, because it is 40 percent.

>"... they made up nearly 40 percent of those who were killed"

Oh.

Cite?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012/tables/table_1_percent_change_by_population_group_2012.xls

Crime stats by race. Last full year is 2012 on FBI site.

Link does not support your claim, as it does not break out by race. But the stat I cited does imply some truth to the proposition stated.

Ray,

Here's the breakdown by race of offended, for murder:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Arrests, by race:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

If I recall correctly, Alex did a pretty good piece on for policing for profit.

Is a black man pulled over for a broken tail light: a risk to the community, or a revenue source?

How would the revenue source theory show up as crime statistics?

Let's not forget what are pretty much facts in evidence.

#2 is certainly true. It is also true that regular crime (and gun crime) is at 40 and 50 year lows (albeit with a recent uptick in some selected cities). People (certainly including the President) who use rare events to push gun control agendas that are targeted at the more common (but at a multi decade low) occurrence should not be surprised when their political opponents do the same thing with officer shootings.

Of course, in some situations, like gun control advocates discussing regular gun violence, people ignore that things are at multi-decade lows and instead resort to the tactic of international comparison

[To clarify my post moments earlier, this refers to #3. Are we unraveling? (Ross Douthat, NYT).]

Douthat, like many pundits, probably has too narrow a view of the scope of history. He takes solace from what he sees as a generational cyclicity. Important trends in societies are longer in duration than 2-3 generations. I think the institutions he alludes to have been rotting for well over 100 years now. They will continue to rot into the future. Generations growing up with the rot don't seem to know how to change it or even understand it (though maybe they sense it on some level), and those that can see it and understand it die before they can do anything about it.

I am fifty, and I know (or maybe I hope) I will be long dead before it all finishes coming apart, but I think there is an inevitability to it because we don't live forever. Birth, death, and rebirth seems to occur in the periods lasting several hundred years at least.

I would date the rot from about 1960, or just prior. In many ways the period running from 1933 to 1961 was our trente glorieuse where federal institutions and office holders climbed one mountain after another. Truman, Eisenhower, and (arguably) Roosevelt were men worthy of admiration. The years since have been unedifying.

So it is all "The Pill" fault!

The decision-making element would have been a median of about 55 in 1960. Contraception was not and is not a live issue for that segment as a rule (though it would of been for serial adulterer Lyndon Johnson and screw-anything-that-doesn't-have-four-legs John Kennedy).

*

"Truman, Eisenhower, and (arguably) Roosevelt were men worthy of admiration."
I agree, those leaders were worth of admiration and way better anything America has now, but, strangely enough the forefathers of modern conservatism, spent their time complaining about how Truman and Rosevelt sold half the World and maybe even America into Comunist bondage, and a strong wing of the Republican Party saw the larguely non-ideological Eisenhower's policies as New Deal-lite and therefore evil. In fact, many of the so common criticism of Obama as a superficial demagoge, undermining national security, sabotaging the economy and being a foreign interests' puppet is eerily reminiscent of the Rossevelt/Truman bashing from the 30's and 40's. Many people would say the institutional rot started in 1933 ("The revolution was"). Some date it from 1861, and I have (Catholic) friends which assure me Luther is the worldwide culprit.

Isn't being a cuckservative grand?

No. That people believe Truman, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt were the peak of our society clearly indicates the rot started before their rise to power. Hero worship is part of the decay. The US's peak was likely the period after the Civil War and the beginning of The First World War, though I think it wrong to focus on the US and more accurate to talk about Western Civilization itself. I predict the nadir will occur sometime near the middle of this century and the beginning of the next. How long it lasts in that decayed state, I don't know, but it could go on bouncing at a bottom for hundreds of years.

Huh? What was up ca. 1890.

1. Brobdingnagian political corruption, including exuberant vote fraud.

2. Mob violence and blacks removed from the voting rolls in the South

3. Horrendous and violent industrial disputes.

And since when does appreciating Eisenhower amount to hero worship? (Outside your addled head, that is).

Yup, I'm a cuckservative.

Cuck cuck cuck cuckservative!

BTW, no one is fooled by our pretending to care about the historical treatment of blacks in the US while we inveterately defend the police.

I didn't know Truman, Eisenhower or Roosevelt, but hearkening back to that era of the past rhymes nicely with the slogan "Make America Great Again." I'm afraid none of our leaders on the radar in this 21st century have the maturity or gravity of a Truman, Eisenhower or Roosevelt. Our parents and grandparents as great as they may have been, have raised a couple generations of selfish, narcissistic, dunces. Nobody with that kind decency could ever be elected by this public. Put a square in the White House? How'd that work for Mitt Romney? We want reality television, not civility or statesmanship.

The problems are the 100% bull shit liberal media and academia.

Question for Douthat: What is this "we", white man?

My favorite aspect of the Obama phenomenon is all the racial healing.

#4 Death penalty (yes / no) seems to predict Brexit voting, but... IRC not much actual division on the death penalty in the UK, so how much of the outcome can be explained by any death penalty favouring associated trait?

Question of "How much can be predict person who has trait X's intention?" is quite useless if trait X is rather rare.

(Likewise for the other value of "Whipping sex offenders" - other than left wing American feminists few would really thinks it's a great idea to totally throw the book at sex offenders in these violent and punitive ways. So how much could any trait associated to that explain?).

Moreover, on a weaker basis, I am dubious that "Right Wing Authoritarianism" is well linked to death penalty opinions.

I'd expect, more usefully than the dubious construct of "Right Wing Authoritarianism", the death penalty to lenses a few of different things: age, seriousness and forgiveness.

If you're old, and nostalgic, you're more likely to be OK with the time before the DP was phased out, and to know it wasn't a dystopian nightmare, and if you're serious and unforgiving, as opposed to rather soft and malleable, you will be more likely to support it on that basis as well.

So just by including measures mildly predictive of disaffection with the European Union, you could get an incremental improvement over age.

Also, I'd say for By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain. that "People oriented towards success and display" seems like a awfully soft and kind hearted way to describe "Airheads who don't seem to care about much other than their image, earning money, and being consumers". Which of course this links right back to economic inequality (you're probably going to reject those consumer and image focused values if you don't and can't earn very much money).

People oriented toward success and display (vulgar careerists), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (the noisily self-indulgent) voted Remain.

It was the People's Plebiscite and, remarkably, the People won. If the Remainers used the voting rules introduced by that nice Mr Blair to rig the vote a bit, then they clearly didn't rig it enough.

"If you’re old, and nostalgic, you’re more likely to be OK with the time before the DP was phased out, and to know it wasn’t a dystopian nightmare."
What about duels? Was England a dystopian nightmare when Castlereagj walked the land? For most of the time Jim Crow was the law of (part of) the land, I doubt most Americans would have called it a "dystopian nightmare". If lots of people had not been OK with it, it would not have been so hard to get rid of it.

"seems like a awfully soft and kind hearted way to describe 'Airheads who don’t seem to care about much other than their image, earning money, and being consumers'. " It is good to see we are rejecting the dubious constructs here.

Well, admittedly I am using a *little* rhetoric of my own more than being 100% even handed and neutral to our constructs. It is useful to have someone come along and puncture that a bit.

Glad to be of service. :)

5. Home Depot might sell my data too. Or Tyler might. I actually have higher expectation that 23andMe will anonymize my data:

"We may share anonymized and aggregate information with third-parties; anonymized and aggregate .."

Perhaps they are rare good guys, rather than bad.

...this MR website imposes about 40 Trackers & Ad Feeds on your web browser -- an extremely high number

If that's a worry here's the solution https://noscript.net/

If there's a solution, can you still call it "imposition"?

If you are offering "countermeasures," maybe so!

#3: Sorry, Ross. Complaining that a political party is 'so hollow' that it could be seized by a 'rank demagogue' is an indicator that you spend too much of your time hanging around with other journalists. The Democratic Party was eight years ago 'seized' by David Plouffe peddling spam-in-a-can. The principal opponents of that vapid motormouth were a pair of skeezy lawyers (among them this year's nominee). OK, the Democratic Party is not hollow. It's criminal. Great.

*

Lotta spittle on that monitor, Art. Jeebus calm down.

Deep serious thought in the service of Conservatism Inc. generates a lot of saliva. And necessitates a lot of KY. Ouch! (Hurts so good.)

"Lotta spittle on that monitor, Art. Jeebus calm down."

Maybe, but Ross Douthat's article was a more publicly acceptable version of the same.

3. I think the glass is more than half full, but rather than develop that idea, I will choose a tangent: Why did we settle on such a bad social media system, one that seems to reward madness as much as rationality?

Seen today, something like: "DeRay is paid by globalist billionaires to start a race war." The Twitter software identified it as a Top Tweet for #StopTheHate, of all things, and it had 60 likes.

Stuff like that is not just wrong, or divisive, from an architectural standpoint it is broken.

Well said. Weird, treacherous times due to new media.

#4: He quotes Bob Altemeyer, a man referred to as the 'clown prince of political psychology' by one Australian academic. Reading work by Altemeyer (and reviews of it) remind one that some academic subdisciplines are apologetical in character and dispensable in our time.

It does not seem to occur to the author to explore whether the Brexit vote differentiates people whose loyalties are concentric from those whose are not.

Given actual BREXIT voter-turnout -- the "Leave" campaign won with only 36% of eligible British voters backing it.

Thus, almost two-thirds of British voter did NOT formally endorse leaving the EU.

The endless punditry on BREXIT misses the big picture.

That's true of any electoral campaign. An even larger number failed to endorse the Remainder's view.

Shush! Don't go messing up his argument with facts!

Regarding #2, here is what I left on their website:

One shouldn't rely on a blind reading of the total death count on the Officers Down website. If one examines individual cases it is clear they will count an officer as being killed in the line of duty for purely health reasons.

Consider https://www.odmp.org/officer/22355-patrolman-roger... which notes that the officer in question died of a heart attack while on duty, one of several during 2015. The story even notes that someone he'd just arrested "was able to crawl through the prisoner partition into the front of his patrol car and used the radio to alert dispatchers."

I'm not claiming that police deaths aren't down, just pointing out that the numbers need closer inspection.

The thing is that people will prate that being a garbage collector is more dangerous than being a cop. Garbage collectors are killed in industrial accidents, against which the only defense is one's presence of mind and prudence. Not many prison and jail guards are killed in a given year, but that does not mean the people they deal with are not dangerous.

People that are killed in industrial accidents aren't eulogized as heroes. They're failures. They made a mistake and paid for it with their lives. Why should it be any different with police officers? Their job entails finding, arresting and bringing to jail criminals. When those criminals, the raw material of a policeman's business, get the drop on them and kill them, the policeman has failed in his task. He's not a hero, he's a screw-up.

What possible connection does the holder of the office of US president have to do with the number of police fatalities in any given year?

Police officers are supposedly well-trained professionals. Unfortunately, the people that they intercept on the highway, which is where virtually all police activity takes place, are generally unfamiliar with the requirements of being arrested and panic-stricken by the whole affair. This is by design. The flashing lights, siren, bright spotlights, etc. are meant to intimidate and frighten the object of police scrutiny, as is the volume and tone of police speech. Not surprisingly, some people freak out and do the wrong thing. Maybe driver education and license testing should include the proper behavior for someone being stopped by the cops on the road so they're not shot to death by a frightened cop.

Out of 4,386 worker fatalities in private industry in calendar year 2014, 899 or 20.5% were in construction-that is, one in five worker deaths last year were in construction. It's a lot more dangerous to be a dry wall taper than a highway patrolman.

Why should it be any different with police officers?

Because they often rescue people and die defending public order. This is recognized by people who appreciate police officers and not by people who loathe them. People who loathe them are malignant.

"People who loathe them are malignant."

+1

This reminds me of the train station scene in The Great Escape.

So I have to make sure the unstable cop with a gun won't shoot me. And we expect this arrangement is going to make us safer.

If we all just lick the boots of authority everything will just be fine. Sure.

I'll make a prediction. This is going to get worse. The police will respond by doubling down, and more people will be put in a situation where they have nothing to lose.

I still can't figure out why Americans put up with the security charade in airports.

The Christopher Dorner affair shows how it all works: http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2013/02/christopher-dorner-and-lapd.html

This incident is interesting as well: http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/04/dc-cops-use-of-force-policy-is-secret.html

derek, don't you get it? Cuckservatives are all about boot-licking. And other kinds of licking as well, like male genitalia. But don't you dare let us into women's rest rooms!

Hey, if you value your freedom, thank a veteran or a cop.

A large reason prisoners are dangerous is that they are brutalized by the prisons and by the guards that run them.

They get more head than a fitted hat.

You're neither clever nor amusing. The guy you're impersonating is at least relevant and informative, whatever else you might think of his opinions. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Did someone mention rim jobs?

*

So the asterisk is how we flag the comments we want the moderator to delete? How cute; like a little puppy dog pissing on the carpet to get its masters attention.

Awwwww is the troll not getting enough attention. Here's a liddle attention to make you feel better.

That's so sweet Sam, thanks. Show me where your dick is so I can suck it.

#2 "Police are safer than they have been in decades."

I bet the same is true for Americans in general. I also bet the number of people that are shot by the police is way down. Where are the statistics for that? Such articles should tell the whole story.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has studies and publications, though it's not a regular line of inquiry. About 350 killings by police per annum is about normal, with a slow decline on a per capita basis.

Statistics are meaningless claptrap used to avoid dealing with the issues.

And there are lots. The Mizzou protesters probably by all measures the best treated and most privileged group, but they felt hard done by.

Police are fearful and are taught to view everyone with suspicion.

The world has gone mad may be the best description. Dysfunctional mental states bordering on paranoia and depression are government policy. It truly is the case that if you want a successful life you utterly ignore government advice, ignore anything that has resulted from social science peer reviewed papers, ignore or build a wall to protect your kids from popular culture.

It isn't that police are being killed more or less, police feel that they are. It isn't that blacks are more or less targeted, it just feels that way. The president defined morality as doing what he felt was right, so if it feels right to be paranoid, who are we to ask.

The biggest challenge I have as an employee is to find someone mentally stable enough to live with being wrong. I mean wrong as not knowing, wrong having gone down a wrong thought path in troubleshooting and needing to back up. Wrong as in having someone smarter and more experience be right.

These are all actions of people without basic life skills, basic mental hygiene. Boys without a father.

Statistics mean nothing in this world.

Measure what? These quoted statistics tell us there isn't a problem. Yet there is, so the statistics are useless.

*

#5 I read what 23andMe is doing as a positive development. Health privacy is overrated. And why should I care if a company makes money from a third party off of a service i pay them for. That's includes in the price and will bring it down.

I am adopted and have no knowledge of my family health history with that in mind I purchased a DNA test from 23&me.
If I want any information on either Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease I have to pay an additional fee(s).

#1 """This Is How You Make Selfie Toast"""

http://mashable.com/2014/07/16/how-you-make-selfie-toast/#pZ0emHODYSqx

Of course 23andMe sells the data. That is what the business if for - provide an interesting service cheaply by monetizing the data derived from the service. The cost of the service probably does not even cover the overhead. They have to make their money somewhere.

I used 23andMe a few years ago now and I just assumed that they sold the data.

Now when I use gmail, which is a free service, I just assume that google wants my data to target adds -- and perhaps to sell it. Now I never looked into 23 and me, but I assumed that far from being a free service that it costs a 100 bucks or so.

For that price, and in that field, I would be looking for some promises about privacy.

The big problem with #2 is that it isn't focusing on the most recent year or two of data. I'm not sure if there is enough recent data to be reliable, but I the key question is whether there is a "Ferguson Effect". The shooting of Michael Brown was in August of 2014. Showing data from the first 6 years of Obama's presidency just confuses the issue.

#3 - /yawn.

#5 23AndMe has made their testing free to people with Parkinson's Disease. Sergei Brin has about a 50% chance of developing the disease due to a mutation (LRRK2) and his mother has the disease. The article conveniently leaves out this information.

pancakebot has rather terrible reviews: https://www.amazon.com/PancakeBot-PNKB01BK-Food-Printer-Black/dp/B00VU3HUCW

The intern employed by the moderator managed to delete remarks by me while leaving the sock-puppets up.

Your relentless rudeness to the moderators may be a factor, Art.

Yeah, the intern comment was pretty condescending. But I have a really dick, I have to compensate somehow.

Funny, isn't it?

Sharing your genetic data with 23andMe for research is completely opt-in, and the option to stop sharing is easily available. Not sure what the fuss is about; it's pretty clear what they want to use the data for.

Comments for this post are closed