An interesting analysis of strawman arguments President Obama's second inaugural speech. Would that we interpreted every political speech with similar rigor.

Hmmm. I don't think so. Although he probably believed that he was above the tendency he was describing - perhaps because he wanted to, or perhaps because it made sense. :-)

One challenge. Crimes of passion are more easily lethal with more lethal tools (especially ones operates at a distance and requires only the energy of contracting a finger). How much does this contribute to murder/crime? 
Well, if someone were to point a gun at me, I would react very differently than someone showing me a knife or club. The odds change radically.

In the movie Grand Canyon, Kevin Kline is being hassled by a gang when Danny Glover comes to tow his car (saving him). The gang leader challenges Danny G. and shows him his gun in his belt. Danny G.'s character says - "I know. If you didn't have a gun, we wouldn't be having this conversation" - to which the gang leader replies - "THAT's why I have a gun - you don't have no gun, you don't get no respect."
Of course, this equalization/unfair factor is exactly why I want law-abiding citizens to have them. 

Thomas Sowell - Conservative Godfather. Amen. I have learned  so much from his work on race and culture.
Mr. Sowell has done more to temper my libertarianism than any other author. 

I look forward to what you bring to Ricochet.

And for fun - 

‎"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

-- Bertrand Russell 

Mollie - as a quibble.

Myth certainly means a verbal attempt to describe something intuitive (vs. a literal fact from history).

However, it ALSO means a verbal attempt to describe something intuitive - that is taken as fact by the majority of its believers. 

The myths of most religions fit this bill. Some practitioners of the religion  understand the myths symbolically, and use the stories as intuitive representations of deeper principles. However, in the bulk of any population of religious believers, 80-90% take the myths literally.

Lao-Tzu was literally born 600 years old.
Athena was literally born from the forehead of Zeus.
The world was literally created in 6 days.
Martyrs will get 72 virgins.
Jesus was literally born of a virgin.

As you become more settled and subtle in your understanding of your religious beliefs, you see their intuitive truths. You go beyond the literal interpretation to its symbolic interpretation - the intuitive principles/insights underneath it.

AND, for the bulk of believers, questioning the literal truth of the myth is grounds for blasphemy. Let's not pretend that most religious believers understand the allegorical/metaphoric/symbolic understanding of myth as its central value - The myth, for them, is fact.

Great article. I work with Oakland cops who are doing their best to work with the community to police the city. They get very frustrated that they must spend so much of their training and time/energy jumping through hoops. AND, they are trying to learn how to somehow get the bad guys without pissing off the good guys - especially when the bad guys pretend to be good guys and not0-actively-bad-sort-of good guys support the bad guys out of some "us/them" mentality. Tough game.

Yeah - that little thing called honesty. Clever beaver though.

Wow. 

I think I will read and contemplate that another dozen times...

OK you made my day!

Brilliant, as always. Thanks for walking me through the issue, step by step. It's funny how clear it becomes when you understand the issues at stake.

Because you don't want me to have one. That makes me feel like there is something important about it to cherish and protect.

It is amazing how many people forget to smell the roses, and live in stress trying to buy (fill in the blank).

Resource use/creation/depletion. It's a question worth asking - just to watch the dogma reactions on both sides of the issue! :-) Conservatives  think about systemic long-term effects, on culture. Why not the environment? 

Since no one has posted it yet... This is a more detailed look at it, in Bill Whittle style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4

Really?  Really?

Really?

Kirk Out.