Thoughts Aloud

Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category

Ignore all the hyperbole over Elon trying ONE small hit from Joe’s tobacco/marijuana hybrid joint, two hours into the interview, which did not appear to change his mental state at all. Watch this utterly fascinating conversation for yourself. I promise the time will not be wasted.

I can’t imagine anyone better qualified to explore Musk’s remarkable mind. Many truly thought provoking discussions on very diverse subjects arise. Enjoy!  :)  â—„Daveâ–º

On a recent comment, Jim offered a link to David Friedman’s discussion of his “Hard Problem,” regarding national defense in a stateless society. It reminded me of Harry Browne’s elegant solution 45 years ago, in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” Longtime readers will recall that this is my favorite book, which I have reread at least once a year since 1979, just to keep me grounded. Anyone think they can refute Harry?:

National Defense

What about national defense? Isn’t the nation safe from foreign enemies only because of the government?

What is a nation? In common usage, a nation is considered to be a geographical area under the jurisdiction of a single government that isn’t a subdivision of a larger government. The government assumes responsibility for the defense of the geographical area and makes all decisions regarding armed conflict with outsiders.

If there were no government, there’d be no nation. And if there were no nation, there’d be nothing to defend.

If that sounds too simple, think about it. No aggressor conquers a nation by overcoming every single inhabitant and occupying every part of the geographical area. It would be far too expensive to do so.

Instead, the aggressor applies force against the country until the government of that nation surrenders. Then the aggressor takes over the existing governmental machinery to enforce the occupation. If no such machinery existed, how could it enforce the occupation?

Hitler couldn’t have conquered Europe without the help provided by the governments of the occupied nations. Would he have sent every one of his Nazis into Norway to police all the Norwegians? If he had, who would have been left at home to police the Germans?

That doesn’t mean that aggression would stop if there were no governments. But the aggression would be no more formidable than the examples of crime we’ve already covered.

Hydrogen bombs and other modern tools of war are effective only when they can be used to pressure governments. Enemy rulers have nothing to gain by destroying U.S. property and people — except as a means of pressuring the government to surrender. Otherwise, the more they destroy, the less value to them in conquering the nation.

If there were no federal government in the U.S., the Communists would have to conquer fifty different state governments — which would be far more difficult. But what if there were no state governments? Then they’d have to conquer every town separately.

But what if there were no town governments — no governments at all? Then they’d have to make over 200 million separate conquests — and use millions of their own policemen to set up new governments.

Obviously the answer to the threat of communism (or any other enemy) is not a stronger government to defend us but just the opposite. We’d be far safer if there were no government to conquer.

It’s surprising how many “national issues,” problems that “cry out” for government intervention, wouldn’t even exist if there were no governments.

The dictators of the world have always operated in countries where there was a strong respect for government. The prevailing European awe of the state has produced an endless number of tyrants, wars, and low standards of living.

And now that generations of Americans have been taught that governments are vital to their well-being, present-day Americans are afflicted with all the problems that invariably result from big government.

Such a trend has developed over many lifetimes; it won’t be reversed within ours. Governments grow naturally because individuals see them as ways of increasing their rewards at lower expense. It’s an over simplification to say that people want “something for nothing.” All people want to obtain as much as possible for as little effort as possible; that’s why labor-saving devices are valuable.

Unfortunately, however, government isn’t the labor-saving device it appears to be. It always gives back less than it takes. But because it does appear to be a giver of good things, its appeal is almost universal and there isn’t much likelihood that the trend will be reversed.

Browne, Harry. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Kindle Locations 1640-1678). Kindle Edition.

Pretty simple logic, huh? â—„Daveâ–º

There are many, including me, who are very worried about the current drift of our Republic and who express that worry aloud, hoping to spur others into action while action is still possible. We truly mean well but I am now not so sure we have done well.

For my own part, I have tried to peer as far into the future as I can, with an eye as to where I think this is all leading. In doing so, I fear that I, and others like me, may have done a disservice despite our good intentions.

What an I talking about? Simply this. Despite our obvious (to me) deterioration as a self-governing Republic, the fact remains that we are still among the freest people ever to inhabit this planet. For instance, we are having a discussion, of sorts, about Assassination Politics, in an open and public forum without the slightest fear that there will come that knock at the door in the middle of the night with some frightening character saying “come with me”.

Does this sound far out? Well, it does only to those who are ignorant of both history and current events. The fact is that there are relatively few places on this Earth where we could get by with the conversations we have here. Not just AP but me, calling the former President of the Republic (and several of his minions) “traitors”. And, we sign our missives with our own names without fear of anything worse than disagreement within the forum. Whether our ideas are true or not is not the issue – it is the fact that we can offer them without any fear of physical retribution that counts.

I think it is healthy to publicly discuss our errors, to try to learn from them and maybe even seek ways to improve. But, in doing so, we should not lose sight of what we still have. If I have contributed to such loss of sight, then I am truly sorry because that was never my intent.

The fact is, I think this Republic is still worth saving and, indeed, can be saved. We might even have a President who agrees and is trying, in his way, to do just that.

Think (not feel) about it.

Troy L Robinson

It would appear to be the season for redefining who we are, how we think, and how we became us. My lifelong journey from academic liberal, to patriotic authoritarian, to selfish libertarian, to now being an avowed stateless anarchist, is fairly well documented on this blog. What is most interesting to me is that although I literally spent years studying and pondering the subject before making that last leap, few seem to take my decision seriously. At times it is trivialized and/or ridiculed hereabouts. I reckon it is the connotation most have for the word ‘anarchy.’ To me it means stateless — without rulers — not without order. Perhaps it is time to republish my 2 ½-year-old essay, to try to elucidate my thinking once more:

Liberty or the State

Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.

What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.

For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”

Read the rest of this entry »

One might think that, given the conversations RE: AP, that I am some sort of government apologist. Let me assure you I am anything but. Ergo, the following confusion in my mind:

The outcry over the meanie Trump separating minor children from adult criminals at the border has now reached a new level of “theater of the ridiculous” in the growing call to eliminate ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Let us think about this a moment: ICE is a law enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government that is tasked with the enforcement of laws duly passed in our legislature and signed into law by presidents past. Admitting that ICE has its share of bullies, just as does any other group of humanity to whom some level of power has been conveyed… in the main, it attempts to do nothing more or less than enforce the law in a legal and proper manner and in the plain sight of the citizens they seek to protect.

Yet, thousands of loonies demonstrate and demand its dissolution. Well, our Constitution does give loonies the right to bay at the moon if they so desire.

Meanwhile, there is a clandestine organization in this same government that operates in the shadows and has been proven repeatedly to violate our laws by domestic spying on our citizens. I refer, of course, to the NSA (National Security Agency). Unlike ICE, these people are a real and present danger to the liberty and the right to privacy of our citizens. Yet, I see no demonstrations against them, no demand for their dissolution. Even after whistle blowers like Edward Snowden have shown us indisputable evidence of their crimes. Indeed, many of us have been brainwashed into thinking Snowden is the criminal rather than NSA.

Is there a point to this rant you ask? Yes there is. That point is to illustrate how disconnected we have become, how we constantly fail as the ultimate watchdog over our government and how easily we are easily misled by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

If WTS don’t get off our lazy butts and take back control of our government, we have only ourselves to blame. Despite what Jim and Dave think of those in power, they are doing exactly what most of us would do if we were in the same position. It is simply human nature.

Think about it – then flail me as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the then president shirked his duty and surrendered.

Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first Civil War.

One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked (despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover country” are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without serious resistance?

Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner” in the coming conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa.

Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play out.

Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay the predictable dividends.

The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good people” for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

While I still support much of the libertarian agenda, such as decriminalization of drugs, I quit the national party over the issue of open borders. Several thoughts come to mind:

First, we know where and what constitutes a nation because of its borders. For instance, were we to simply erase the current border between the USA and Canada, how would one know which nation one was in? Of of the few ways that I can think of is which currency the local merchants accept. Those of you thinking we could at least tell Quebec because of the language have obviously never spent time in rural Louisiana. The point is that both the USA and Canada would soon lose their national identities and would tend to merge into some sort of blob.

My conclusion: no obvious borders equals no real nation. So, if you like the notion of nationhood, you must also like the notion of borders. Of course, the “one world” folks might find this idea just fine, assuming they had the mental acuity to have real ideas in the first place.

Second comes the monetary aspect of things. Many, the Libertarians among them, say, OK, have borders for national identification but leave them open so that folks can come and go as they please.

Unfortunately, the USA has become a “welfare state”. Does it not naturally follow that a welfare state with open borders will soon find itself trying to support the poor and the worthless of all nations with the ability to get their losers shipped here? I know the progressives like to give handouts on the theory of unlimited resources – but – anyone able to think knows that such ideas are at odds with the basic laws that govern our universe. Besides, aren’t those same progressives the ones who keep telling us we are running out of key resources like oil, gas, clean water, etc.? Come on folks, you can’t really have it both ways.

My conclusion: open borders in a welfare state is a recipe for disaster. After all, doesn’t our current – un-payable – national debt suggest that we are already well on the road to the disaster in question?

Why the reason for this rant? A recent article in Reason magazine suggesting the disbandment of ICE along with their consistent open borders perspective. BTW, when my current subscription to Reason runs out, I will not subscribe again. A recent change in chief editors, among other factors, has turned a once fine magazine into just another Trump-bashing, progressive piece of garbage. Indeed, I toss most of them in the trash without reading them, especially when the cover page has anti-Trump bias all over it.

So I am now officially independent and losing interest daily.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

How can one resist the urge to join the Roseanne fracas? Not me!

My first observation is that she did indeed lose her mind if only temporarily. There is simply no way such a comment in a public space could go ignored. However much she may have wished it was funny, it simply came off as cruel and racist.

My second observation is that if the comment had been to the extent that the combination of a Scotswoman and an ape = DJT, it would have been thought hilarious. Such a double standard we live under these sad days.

My third observation, and one that includes a recent Trump controversy, is that humans are, in fact, apes. Indeed, we are considered to be the apex ape. Ergo, the idea of mating with an ape is not necessarily and insulting one. As a side observation, it is also true that humans are animals (perhaps Pelosi thinks we are vegetables but there is no science to support this!) Ergo, calling a human an animal is nothing more or less than a statement of fact. Trump would have been better to include the word “viscous” in his comment.

Please note that none of the observations above are intended to defend or justify a stupid attempt at humor that went way off the track. Nor are they meant to defend the viscous animals in any street gang. Instead it is a sort of suggestion that we all take a chill pill. These constant attempts to destroy each other will surely eventually succeed in destroying us all.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

If so, all you need to do is watch the movie Chappaquiddick. I always suspected that the whole Kennedy clan was rotten to the core but this, even with attempts to clean it up, was revolting in every way. (Would you believe my Mother was a Kennedy? Best I can tell, from the Scottish branch, not the Irish. Be thankful for small things.)

Then there is the ongoing farce with Facebook. Just read on Drudge that Zuckerberg will not be placed under oath and that his company is a large contributor to the committees that will be questioning him. Hillary all over again.

Then there is the Donald. It seems the hounds very nearly have him at bay. What should he do in response? I’m sure he is guilty of something – our legal code has become so convoluted that each and every one of us commits several felonies per week, without even knowing it. I have a radical suggestion for Donald. Declare himself dictator, hang as many of the traitors as he can round up, then start the country from scratch again.

I know this is an odd suggestion coming from one who reveres the Constitution as I do but – every indication I can judge suggests we are already on our way to dictatorship and, fool that I may be, I prefer it be Trump rather than a Clinton or a Kennedy.

Gag!

Troy L Robinson

OK Dave – have at me.

The Austin area having been my past home for many years – and the current home of a daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons, one can easily understand my interest in the recent bombings there.

My first observation is that this moron of a perpetrator was home-schooled and raised to be a religious fanatic. Why then is anyone surprised when he behaves like a typical religious fanatic?

Note further than no single religious movement has a monopoly on fanaticism – all of them are subject to it. I guess it just comes with the territory – you learn to believe the impossible then suddenly everything SEEMS possible, however perverted it really is.

My second observation is that the moron did illustrate a very good point, assuming anyone in power was paying attention. That point is that gun control is a joke and has always been a joke. What do the powers that be propose now? Shut down Home Depot and outlaw the sale of nails? At what point does the nonsense in this approach shine through?

I have a better idea. How about we fix our school system so that it actually teaches things worth knowing – like, how to coexist in a peaceful world and how to process information such that they are much less likely to be taken in by fanaticism. Then, how about we return to that obsolete notion of holding people responsible for their own actions, starting when they are small children.

My final observation is that we should all grow up a bit. It is a known fact that freedom is NOT free. Indeed, it has many costs and one of those is that a few people will misuse their freedom to do harm to others. Yes, we can punish them after the fact if we so choose but there is little we can do before the fact (or before the act if you prefer). Trending toward a police state is simply not a valid answer – although, those who are greedy for power will try to convince the rest of us that it is.

Honestly, do fewer people get harmed in a police state? Or it is just the source of the harm that is different? (Deranged dictators rather than deranged citizens.)

We tolerate tens of thousands of dead an maimed each year in order to have the freedom to drive our own vehicles. We sacrifice who knows how many to the great god known as junk food. We lose who knows how many for the privilege of altering our minds with alcohol, nicotine and other drugs. Why then do we get so excited when the source of harm goes BOOM as we are killed?

Grow up America.

Troy L Robinson

This exceedingly unequal contest is epic:

Rather good-naturedly, an articulate thinker utterly destroys a femanazi with a serious hearing disability. She spends half the debate experiencing cognitive dissonance. One almost feels compassion for the mental midget the professor is shamelessly toying with. If you are unfamiliar with Jordan Peterson, he is well worth checking out. ◄Dave►

I have long been disturbed by a growing problem in our Republic that I am yet unable to describe clearly. Despite this, I will try:

A growing number of progressives, aided and abetted by the lame-stream-media, are now openly admitting that they are trying every trick in the book to unseat a duly elected President who, despite an ongoing farce of a special counsel, has no evidence against him of any manner of impeachable offense. Indeed, this President (whom I did not support and did not vote for) seems to be doing a reasonable job of “making America great again”. For sure, I could use more swamp draining and less half-cocked tweeting but, I guess you take the best you can get in lieu of the impossibility of perfection. At least the economy is growing, ISIS is shrinking and the rest of the world is beginning to take us seriously again.

To my tired old brain, what is going on looks like nothing less than a concerted attempt to bring down a duly constituted government. My quandary is that I am unable to interpret this as anything less than a form of high treason. For sure, our Constitution prohibits the overthrow of our government “by violence” and one might argue that the progressive traitors, with the possible exception of Antifa, have not yet resorted to outright violence. Or have they? An age old adage holds that “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Since we all recognize the sword as a potential instrument of violence, does this old adage not suggest that the pen (read the “media”) is an even more potentially violent instrument? Current events sure indicate to me that it can.

The real gnawing question then is this… why are the majority of Americans, who are most surely NOT progressive traitors, willing to sit quietly by (well – except for Tucker Carlson) and let these traitors do as they wish to destroy our Republic? Arms sales have been at all time highs for several years now so it is not as if we are not armed. What is it then that we lack? Could it be as simple as the lack of some credible voice to tell us that (to paraphrase Dave), it is time to start shooting the bastards?

As much as I abhor the notion of another civil war, that is much better than a quiet surrender. Are American patriots of the 21st century fated to be like the Jews of Europe in the 1930’s, apparently willing to be herded then slaughtered like so many sheep?

If we allow this President to forced from office, ultimately to be replaced by another traitor like the Obamanation (yes, he repeatedly and openly gave aid and comfort to radical Islamists, a declared enemy of this Republic), then it is all over but the rounding up, etc.

I am currently reading (and enjoying) Brian Kilmeade’s book Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans. What a different people we were then! And could be again with so little effort.

Wake up America and do your duty to your Constitution and your Republic!

Troy L Robinson

The subject of Artificial Intelligence and the future of mankind arose in discussions on the previous post. Here is an excellent TED talk on subject, by Sam Harris last year:

…pretty sobering and thought provoking, no? The analogy comparing ourselves to ants works rather well. His last line about constructing a new god was incredibly profound! Any discussion?

PS: Especially for Chris… be paying close attention to the visual at 4:08; but try not to lose your train of thought.  😉 â—„Daveâ–º

On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:

LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊

Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.

Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉

Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? â—„Daveâ–º

After watching the following excellent video:

…I was perusing the 1700 comments, when I encountered an intriguing entry by ‘Daedalus Occidentalis,’ which itself had 45 replies:

Here’s a Red Pill for you… Search the following phrases on Google Images and look at the results:

–White woman with children

–White couple

–White American Inventors

–European history people

–Happy American couple

–European people art

–White man and white woman

Using copy/paste, I went through the whole list and was stunned! I’ve turned them into links, to make it easy to try it for yourself.

By the time I got through ‘White American Inventors,’ I figured the search algorithm must be just ignoring the term ‘white,’ so I changed it to ‘Black American Inventors.’ You guessed it – huge difference!

The final one is pretty damn specific. Can anyone explain to me why the results are so absurd?

One of the 45 replies to the thread nailed it:

It’s like watching the ads on TV here in the UK; if you were an alien watching those transmissions, you would be absolutely convinced that the majority of human families consisted of a black guy, a white woman, and asian kids.

It is truly fortuitous that I no longer care a whit about the future of Western civilization, or even mankind itself for that matter. If the Jihadists or North Koreans don’t manage to destroy the internet first, the upcoming Ice Age should cure such utter nonsense rather nicely.  ;)  â—„Daveâ–º

Since the Trump announcement, it is official – we are in an opioid crisis.

Thank you very much Mr Trump but I have my own personal opioid crisis – like what if I run out, or, what if I can no longer get it.

The lame-stream-media assures us that there are many unnecessary deaths each year because of easy access to opioids. I sure wish I knew where these easy access points are because I have to jump through hoops to get mine. Oh yes, I am an abuser. On average, I take 2 oxycodone pills each day. Why? Without them (or something stronger), I would kill myself to stop the chronic pain. Do they make me “high”? No. They make me itch if I take too many. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who takes these things who feels euphoric as a result. Instead, they only feel a bit less pain for a few hours.

I hear that some 9 million oxycdone pills have been shipped to a town of 400 in West Virginia. I agree that this seems odd at the least. So, why don’t the authorities descend on small town WV and leave me the hell alone? And, if some stupid know-nothing kids want to use them as a means of suicide, my only reaction is that I hope they do it before they reproduce. Why is any large scale method of suicide a “crisis” in a world that has several billion more humans than it needs. Sounds more like a solution to me.

But then, maybe my “addiction” has made me mean. Isn’t that what these chemicals do – make us into something worse than we are without them? I don’t really think so. I think there are inherent losers in every society who will find a path to self destruction and government’s only legitimate role is to try to prevent them harming others on their way to the oblivion they seek. If opioids furnish a relatively painless path to oblivion for the losers and some temporary relief for us old arthritis sufferers, I say, “bring ’em on”.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

Tucker has some really good ones, and more are arising daily. Don’t we deserve at least a few answers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSVfpN-BA38

Mexico? I still think Campos looks suspicious with that Jihadist styled beard. Most important questions are: what are they hiding… and why? â—„Daveâ–º

This mashup isn’t from conspiracy theorists; it’s from the NYT:

Listen carefully to the audio. Notice how much of the time the shooter is firing single shots, or not at all. Note: they counted a couple of short consecutive bursts individually, which I had counted together when I found only ten episodes of automatic fire, approximately once a minute.

Their count of 900 rounds fired at the crowd comports with my own estimate of 1000 rounds or less. In any case, 900/12=75. The only way to fire an average of 75 rounds per burst with an AR-15, would be with drum type magazines. I have heard nothing regarding such magazines being at the crime scene, and the leaked photos do not show any.

I still think that many of the sustained ~100 round bursts were probably from belt-fed weapons, such as the M-249. This would also make a lot more sense out of the time and effort expended to set up tripod tables. Although designated a ‘light machine gun,’ which can be shoulder or hip fired, the M-249 still weighs over twice that of a M-16. Then again, I suppose firing 1100 rounds (counting the 200 fired through the door) offhand with either weapon, would be a bit daunting for a pudgy 61-year-old besotted gambler.  â—„Daveâ–º

Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI&feature=youtu.be

This sure strikes me as sound science (pun intended) and common sense. Now, what exactly are they hiding, and why? â—„Daveâ–º

Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment…

The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17^th & 18^th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.

As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.

The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.

I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.”

Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.

The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.” That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.

My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?

It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.

More tutoring from Chris:

“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.”

It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.

You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.

“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.”

Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►