GeorgiaDon

It is a fact that slavery was legal in much of the country for centuries, and it is a fact that the white population of the former Confederate states reacted to the liberation of the former slaves by enacting draconian Jim Crow laws to limit the freedom, political power, and economic prospects of the non-white (and especially the black) segment of the population. It is a fact that segregation in education, redlining, and similar practices ensured that black families were greatly limited in their ability to accumulate and pass on generational wealth. I was shocked, and revolted, to learn how after the Civil War the former Confederate States replaced slavery with a prisonocracy that was in many ways even worse, because no-one had a financial stake in black people, making them even more disposable to their white masters. It is a fact that black veterans returning from WWII and the Korean War were denied the benefits of the GI Bill, benefits that contributed dramatically to the economic fortunes of white veterans. Redlining was officially abolished by the Fair Housing Act in 1968, but it persisted unofficially for years and the practice still has marked consequences today. Properties in formerly redlined neighborhoods are still worth less than former whites-only neighborhoods, and their populations are still disproportionately non-white. In the US, in 2019, black families on average had only 14.5 percent of the wealth of white households, with an absolute dollar gap of $838,220. If we cannot teach all children about these facts of American history, what are they to make of the current state of black vs white economic success? If we cannot teach them about the historical basis for the situation, what are they to conclude? That black people are, on average, poorer than whites because, well, what exactly? They aren't as smart? They are lazy? Fuck that noise! They are poorer because white people stole their labor for centuries, then stepped on them and denied them almost every possible avenue to success. WWI wasn't ages ago, there are still people alive who fought in WWII. 1968 isn't so long ago, I was alive in 1968 (though too young to be buying a house). Teach students what really happened to make this country what it is. That doesn't mean teaching them to be ashamed of their own personal behavior, but maybe they should be ashamed of their ancestors if they are white. If they are black, or native American, or other non-white ethnicity, they should be allowed to know what their ancestors had to struggle against to gain whatever wealth they were able to build. When young people, who will build the future, are allowed to know what really happened and the consequences of that, perhaps they will better understand what it takes to build a society where people really have equal opportunity.

I think you have misunderstood my comment 180 degrees. Think about anti-Woke and what it means.

Anti-Woke is also the proposition that history, even history recent enough to be within the memory of people still alive, has absolutely no impact, good or bad, on anyone anywhere today. Additionally, anti-Woke is the proposition that any statement that history has an impact on people's lives today is un-American and must be censored at a minimum, and ideally punished.

According to a news article, the shooter's wife was friendly with the women he killed. The shooter had been over to the house at least a few times socially and was friendly. He even helped to take down some trees. So, at least not consistently psycho. Maybe mostly when he had been drinking, as he was on the night of the shooting? Anyway I think that's all part of the problem with the "mental health" argument. Most of these murderers are likely to be perfectly normal most of the time, up until the point where something sets them off. They would be easier to recognize as a threat if they were insane all the time, not just at sporadic intervals.

While I completely agree about the importance of improving access to, and de-stigmatizing mental health care, I am very skeptical that it will make much difference regarding mass shootings and other aspects of "gun violence". Most people who suffer from mental illness are not aware of their illness, or are in denial about it. Only a small fraction seek care of their own volition. I found out from personal experience that it is basically impossible to force treatment on someone who does not want it. I also found out, in another instance, that the wait time to get an appointment is months or longer. The only way to get around these barriers and delays is for the patient to commit a violent crime. Of course then you have victims, and the mentally ill person is now in the hands of the criminal justice system that does not do a good job of treating people as patients that need care. Especially when it comes to the sort of people who are inclined to use firearms to commit violent acts, I think it is very unlikely that they will see themselves as having a problem needing medical care. They are aggrieved, easily angered, paranoid, and fully convinced that they are right and everyone else is out to get them. Basically perfect customers for the firearms sales industry. In a society that strongly values medical privacy, the right to choose or reject medical treatment (excepting reproductive rights for women of course), and the right to own any kind of firearm you might desire, the pairing of extreme anger/paranoia with lethal weaponry is inevitable and unavoidable.

A former friend, who happened to be a police officer, used to think it was funny when his neighbors complained about him target shooting in his back yard after 10 or 11 PM. He had the same attitude as the gunman in Texas, I can do whatever the hell I want on my own property. They neighbors soon learned the value of calling the cops about another cop. Mostly when they showed up they would fire off a few rounds too. BTW he's a former friend because he went full MAGA/Q and filled his facebook page with the most vile anti-immigrant crap and conspiracy theory bullshit. It got personal, in part because I am an immigrant, although apparently that's OK in my case because Canadians are almost like Americans.

Perhaps president of Russia?

So are you saying Trump is bipolar? That might explain some things.

Kind of makes me wonder why there are any Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witness types around any more. Or maybe that's why none of them have knocked on my door recently.

Impressive, considering she already has a PhD in Microbiology. She invented the Peach Tree Dish. That's one smart cookie!

Really, though, the combination of so many people being armed together with the culture of fear (crime is out of control!!) pushed by the NRA and their political sycophants ensures that such incidents will be more and more common. Then, stand your ground laws will ensure that these incidents will be chalked up to "shit happens" and no-one will be held to account. If by some mistake the killer is actually convicted then right-wing fanatics will scream and holler until the governor steps in and corrects the error, as long as the victim is black or affiliated with black causes such as BLM.

Apparently the shooter is 80 years old. Makes me wonder if some dementia may be at play. Not that dementia is any reason to take away someone's guns according to republicans and the NRA.

Discovery should be very interesting. Doesn't suing your lawyer mean all those attorney/client communications have to be disclosed? Trump is an idiot.

I'm a little surprised some of those Republican governors haven't responded by raising the threshold for mass shootings to, say 20 dead victims. That'll do a lot to reduce the number of mass shootings. Anyone who disagrees will just be labeled "woke" and run out of the state. QED!

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored? For example owning military style weapons could automatically enroll a person in the state national guard, with a requirement for one weekend a month in training or service. If an owner was obviously unhinged their superior officers could limit their access to weapons, or authorize military police to examine their social media posts for evidence of planning criminal activity. It would be politically extremely challenging to get this enacted, but maybe not quite as impossible as repealing or drastically modifying the 2nd. After all the language is already there, it would "just" be a matter of interpreting the meaning.

I suspect people who object to "Black Lives Matter" are subconsciously (or intentionally) adding in a word that isn't there, they think it means "Only Black Lives Matter". Of course that isn't what the expression says, or means. It does not mean "white lives don't matter", or "blue lives don't matter", or any other group of people anyone might care to reference. It isn't necessary to state "white lives matter" or "blue lives matter" because they have always mattered, at least in the US. It is necessary to proclaim that Black Lives Matter, because so much US history has emphatically stated that black lives don't matter.

In the interests of accuracy, the teachers found the drawing and called the parents to the school. Although the parents were told to get counseling for their child within 48 hours, they refused to take their child home and he was returned to the classroom. When the parents met with school guidance counselors they did not mention that they had already purchased a gun as a gift for their son (which he knew about), and neither they nor the guidance counselors searched him or his backpack for weapons. The shooting happened a couple of hours later that same day, so Ethan Crumbley already had the gun in his possession at the school. Allegedly, the son had previously told and texted his parents on multiple occasions about seeing demons in the house, having urges to harm animals or people, and so on, yet they did not seek help for him and instead they bought a gun as an early birthday present, and took him to a firing range to try it out. The parents claim the gun and ammo were locked up, but clearly it wasn't (at least not properly). Obviously no-one wants to suspect their child of planning something like this, but this particular case seems to be especially egregious in that the parents seemingly willfully ignored many significant warning signs, and instead obstructed efforts to prevent the tragedy. There are also questions (and lawsuits) concerning the way school officials deferred to the parents. Personally I am not sure what they could have done considering the parents flatly refused to take their son home. Could they lawfully lock him alone in a classroom for the rest of the day? At some point they would have had to let him out, even just to go home, and he could have carried out his rampage then. Also he had a somewhat plausible explanation for the drawing, he said he was designing a video game. The guidance counselors were not aware of his history of delusions and urges, nor were they aware that he had access to a gun and ammunition. They were aware that he did not have any previous history of disciplinary actions, and his parents were extremely dismissive of any notion that he could be a threat. Only the parents knew of all the elements that pointed to the high potential for harm, it seems to me.

It must be quite the burden for you, being wise beyond the comprehension of everybody else, and yet so deeply cynical. At least you are eloquent! BTW there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that Covid-19 is a bioengineered weapon. On the other hand there is very strong evidence that it is a naturally occurring virus, spilled over from a zoonotic reservoir (probably bats), likely through a secondary zoonotic host, and into humans. There are many related coronaviruses that cause occasional spillover infections in people, and it is only a matter of time before it occurs again in circumstances that support higher transmission to people, selection for adaptive mutations, and yet another pandemic. A spillover infection in a small farming community almost always burns itself out, but the same virus brought to a "wet market" in a densely populated city presents a vastly greater risk. A problem with the "bioengineered" mythology is that it discounts the role of spillover of natural viruses, encourages politicians to dismiss that threat, and discourages efforts to find and track these spillover events and prepare for future pandemics. Of course, it is politically expedient, in that it allows politicians of a certain inclination to blame China (or any other entity it is convenient to direct the base's hate towards) while slashing funding for efforts to deal with present and future pandemics.

I believe this is a flat out lie. The documents were discovered by Biden's staff and were then voluntarily reported to the national archives and the FBI. Also, the secret service detail is assigned to guard Trump. They do not guard his properties (e.g.. they are not security for his clubhouse), and they certainly cannot be expected to provide security for documents they do not know are present, and that they would have no reason to expect to be illegally on the property.

I'm sure this is beating a dead horse (or driver), but I was curious about the comparison between becoming a licensed barber vs police officer in Georgia, the state I live in. Barber: 1. Graduate from a 1500 hour Georgia Barber Training Program 2. Pass National Theory and Georgia State Practical Licensing Exam 3. Submit a Georgia Master Barber license application to the board 4. Explore your career options and keep your license current Police officer (basic): Basic Police Officer training program highlights: Length of Program: 11 weeks Non-refundable tuition: $3,093 Note that 1500 hours is 37 weeks (assuming 40 hrs/wk). So 37 hrs of training plus a national and a state exam to cut hair. 11 weeks of training to carry a firearm and make split second life and death decisions. WTF???? What about becoming a licensed farrier in Georgia? (For those who don't know, a farrier trims horses hoofs, puts on horseshoes, basically anything around foot care for horses.) he only way to become a licensed farrier in Georgia is to complete a 4 year apprenticeship with an Approved Training Farrier. 4 years vs 11 weeks!!! Policing is (or should be) a profession, and it should be treated as one. Police officers need to know a myriad of subjects, not the least of which is the law (including constitutional law), psychology (especially how to deal with people with psychiatric issues, but also normal but angry or frightened people), sociology, self defense, marksmanship (hopefully rarely used), and on and on. Plenty of material for a 4 year degree, or at a minimum 2 years of community college. Of course then you have to pay them as professionals, but you can also demand a professional standard of performance.

It's likely relevant that police in the US require an average of only 21 weeks of training before they are put out on the street or in a squad car. This is significantly less than every other developed country. Many countries require applicants to have a college degree, but in the US you're fine with high school or equivalent. It's curious to me that you can't count out pills in a pharmacy without a 4 year degree (and not an easy degree either), or work as a bank teller without a business degree, but you can be empowered to use lethal force with just 21 weeks of "training".

So you think your doctor, for example, was trained by people too stupid to actually practice medicine themselves? I'm surprised, I thought you were smarter than that. Or not so trollish. Anyway it is true that at university you will encounter a wide range of teaching ability. Undergraduates as a rule are quite ignorant of the way the system works, and naturally assume they are the center of the universe. Not so! My responsibilities, for example, are 75% research (which means running a research lab, maintaining grant funding, training MSc, PhD, and postdoctoral students [paid off of the grants I have to get, not University funds], and publishing), 20% undergraduate and graduate teaching, and 5% service to committees etc. That means that teaching ranks lower on the list of things I have to excel at when it comes to annual evaluations, promotion, and pay increases. A former postdoctoral advisor of mine told me that if the undergrad students were not marching to the dean's office to demand that I be replaced as an instructor, I was doing that job well enough and any effort above that level was misdirected. I do not share that perspective, and I consistently get good teaching evaluations, but that is because I am determined to not follow the footsteps of the bad teachers I suffered through. I have probably been penalized for that though, because time spent polishing lectures or labs is time not spent writing grants, and grants = promotion whereas glowing teaching evaluations = pat on the back. Not completely of course, but only research productivity will earn you promotion to full professor. Good research will always trump bad teaching, but good teaching will never rescue you from poor research productivity. Also we hire faculty based on their research record, not teaching. Then we put them in front of a classroom, assuming they will just naturally be good at that if they are good at research. When I was hired I was given no training in how to teach, and that is true of new hires even today. So, when you encounter a bad teacher at university, it probably isn't because they are stupid or incompetent in general. It is because they were hired as researchers, they are rewarded for research more than teaching, and they likely have no formal training as teachers. Also, they are likely to be someone who did well in a traditional classroom setting (teacher lectures, students take notes) and they are predisposed to that sort of teaching environment, to the detriment of the large number of students who struggle with that teaching "style". To some extent that is changing as universities try to encourage more interaction/experience based learning.

If anything university faculty are underpaid in comparison to the private sector. I hope you do realize universities have to compete with the private sector to hire the most competent people. Or perhaps you think it's preferable to have the next generation of doctors, engineers, etc trained by losers who have to settle for a low paying job because they can't compete for private sector jobs? In addition to that, in the sciences (the real sciences, I can't speak for economics or political "science") you have to complete an undergraduate degree, often a Master's, always a PhD (a research PhD with a dissertation, not a coursework-only non-thesis degree), and at least a couple of postdoctoral fellowships. The path is similar to, but a little longer than the path to specialization for a MD. I was almost 40 before I was considered competitive for an entry level faculty position, and whenever we have a search to fill positions these days the candidates we interview are at least that old. You do get paid as a postdoc, but that's in the $40-50,000 range and you are expected to put in 60-80+ hrs/week. So no, I cannot agree that faculty should be ashamed of what they earn. The biggest issue with college costs/student debt is that states used to cover a large fraction of the cost of running universities (and community colleges) but over the last few decades they have cut most of that, so more and more of the cost has to be shifted to tuition. Also tuition is only a part of the cost of going to college, there is also rent, food, books, computers, and so on, and all of that has escalated sharply in cost. When I was an undergrad I was able to earn enough working weekends and a couple of evening a week to cover my costs, so I graduated without significant debt. That really is not possible these days.

When I was in late high school I lived on a Canadian military base (CFB Borden). It was almost impossible to date girls the same age because all the military guys were after them. They seemed a lot older to me, but in reality they were probably in their early to mid 20s so not that much older than 17-18 year old high school girls. Lots of girls got pregnant even at 15 or 16. Lots of shotgun marriages too.

A while ago when I visited family in Canada I noticed that most of the couples shown on commercials on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) TV shows were same sex. I really don't care, and certainly I wasn't offended, but it just kind of stood out that you hardly ever saw a straight couple. The CBC is funded by the federal government and I suppose that had something to do with it. If my extended family in Canada is anything to go by, an estimate of ~20% LGBTQ is fairly reasonable. I think there is less of a stigma associated with non-straight sexual orientations in Canada (although I'm sure there is still some) and it seems (at least as far as my family is concerned) that people don't feel a need to stay in the closet.