American Exceptionalism

The very first rule of any sort of exceptionalism is that if you have to tell people that you are, you aren't.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe that Americans aren't in some way special.
We are. But it's not for the reason you might think.

There are two things to think about, immigration, and natural selection.
Three things, add 'regression to the mean' to the list.

To become an American, you had to leave where you were and go. That act by itself set you apart from the rest of your native population. While most people live and die within 50 miles of where they were born, you went hundreds or thousands of miles to live in a strange land. Americans are self-selected for a tendancy to take a chance, try something new, and be optimistic.

The people here wanted to be here, with one notable exception, those who came from Africa via the slave trade.

But then we run into this thing called regression to the mean. Tall parents have a kid that is less tall, short parents have a kid that is less short. Closer to average. Get it?

The exceptional immigrant parents have less exceptional children. After a few generations, the exceptional factors are diluted and fade away, sinking back to the average.

To keep the nation exceptional requires a constant source of new immigrants.

Which is why I am so very puzzled that we try to keep all these people out. We need them. The higher the hurdles they have to jump to get here, the better class of exceptionals we get. Give them an education, and they'll be middle class in a generation. You know, taxpayers.

So if someone, not a criminal, is willing to walk the Sonoran desert to get here, I'd find some way to let them stay. It's the smart thing to do.

Guns are power

Guns are power.
So are cars, lawnmowers, and microwave ovens.
One thing they all have in common is that all thse things can be used to accomplish good things, and they all can be mis-used to cause bad things.
Stories involving guns that turn out badly make the news. Stories that end well, generally do not.
That's not some evil conspiracy, it's just the nature of the news business. It's important that we recognize that, or else our view becomes biased by the preponderance of negative stories.
The debate over gun rights and ownership is not characterized by rationality and polite discourse. A primary cause of that is the professional advocacy groups that have sprung up or evolved to take advantage of people's worst aspects.
Promoting rationality is the last thing they want, because calm rational people don't send in as much money.
If you visit both pro- and anti- gun web sites, you'll see that if you switched a few words around, their verbiage is pretty much interchangeable.
Before you dismiss that as cynicism, check the salary structures at the various organizations.
Perhaps we should ignore the advocacy groups and just start talking to each other.
Politely.
The guys who wrote the Second amendment didn't do it just to cause no end of trouble two hundred years later. In the culture that existed then, having a gun was a necessity. They knew that.
It was not only food on the table, but protection for the individual and the community.
And don't overlook the fact that they also knew that an armed populace seems to get more respect from the ruling powers.
Rather than focusing on regulating guns, instead regulate behavior.
As an aside to the Luddites out there, let me alert you to the fact that the whole debate is about to be rendered moot in many aspects. That's because we are on the brink of an era where anyone can have the capability to manufacture their own gun at home, at a reasonable cost. If you were willing to spend what you would on a fancy car, you can do it today.
Computer controlled machine tools are available, and 3D printers are here and getting cheaper and better.
To get an idea of how it works, Google 'CNC guns'.
We live in interesting times.

Back when 'Fair and Balanced' meant something.

Retired Washington Post columnist William Raspberry died Tuesday. He wrote this column in 2005, shortly before his retirement.

I’ll breeze right past the fact that the heaviest mail day of my career as a newspaper columnist came when I announced the end of that career. What I want to think about instead is something that is enormously flattering and still a little mysterious.

The dominant theme of the letter writers was that they appreciate my attempt at balance and fairness and, most of all, thoughtfulness. Listen to one letter I’ve just opened from a “white, more-or-less conservative Republican”:

“You may well imagine that we will at some times differ. But it is because of your clear and cogent explanations of your viewpoints that I am able to understand why some people hold opinions and values different from my own, and how their experiences have produced what seems to them reasonable beliefs.

“Because you do this, and do not simply rant at me ... I can appreciate and understand and respect those ideas, even when I do not agree with them. And it does happen, rather often actually, that you convince me that I don’t know what I am talking about and that yours is the correct understanding.”

Well, wow! Scores of readers have told me — not always as eloquently as this — that they like reading my work because I come across as someone they can talk to, even in disagreement, and that they appreciate my rejection of the forced conclusion or (usually) the cheap shot at those who disagree.

And I find myself actually liking the person they describe, while also remembering that I once enjoyed delivering the hard zinger. What happened? Did I grow up? Did age mellow me out? Have I lost a certain zest for combat?

It may have started when I found myself liking less and less the sharp exchanges between political combatants. Remember when James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander used to go at it on “60 Minutes”? I loved it for a time, then found it less and less helpful. So decades before the open warfare that now passes as political debate on cable TV, I was already tiring of commentators who were content to preach only to their choirs.

But something else was happening at the same time. I was becoming more and more convinced that the sharp debates and exaggerated differences were exacerbating the political division I find so dangerous in America, and I was also starting to imagine — conceit? — that talking about issues might actually make a positive difference, might move us an inch or two nearer common ground.

Perhaps it was then that I found myself trying to write in such a way that people who didn’t agree with me might at least hear me. Then I found that they were talking back to me in similarly civil tones. And it felt good.

It reminded me of something a wise divinity professor once said. If you are having an argument with some “enemy,” he advised, try to reword his position in a way that would make it at least palatable to you. Then invite him to do the same thing with your position. You won’t appreciate the dispute-melting magic in that until you try it a few times.

The trouble, of course, is that such an approach is unlikely to produce winners and losers, and we’ve come to think that producing winners and losers is the essence not just of politics but also of life.

It isn’t. Making this country work for everybody is, and it would be a good thing if all of us ­— journalists emphatically included — remembered that.

What has made this a little easier for me is a discovery I’ve mentioned before: that in virtually every public controversy, most thoughtful people secretly believe both sides. I know I do. But the fact that I am unalterably both pro-life and pro-choice keeps me from savaging thoughtful advocates of either view. (I still retain my license to savage anyone who insists on putting horror masks on people whose opinions they don’t like.)

Can it be that trying to see the other guy’s side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn’t you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two? Isn’t that what this column-writing business is supposed to be about?

Mitch McConnell's admission in 2009 that the GOP's main priority was not

jobs, not the economy, but that it was ensuring President Obama failed was

breathtaking in its candor.

Sometimes you almost have to admire Republicans' honesty when admitting

they really are dishonest.

In that same spirit of admission, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike

Turzai (R-Allegheny) acknowledged today that the end game in passing his

state's Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically and thus to ensure

that Romney is elected president.

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve

talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members.

Then Turzai mentioned the Pennsylvania [voter ID] law among a laundry

list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature:

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine - it’s done! First pro-life

legislation - Abortion facility regulations? done! Voter ID, which is gonna

allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania? Done!”

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the largely Republican

audience. It also stunned the Democrats, who recognized it as an admission

that they had helped pass a bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote - and

not to prevent voter fraud - as GOP legislators had claimed.

PA Democratic spokesman Mark Nicastre commented, “Instead of working

to create jobs and get our economy back on track, Mike Turzai and the Republicans

in Harrisburg have been laser-focused on a partisan agenda that simply helps

their donors and political allies."

What? You mean it was about Democratic voter suppression? I'm shocked, Shocked!

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/211631.html

introducing Me

I will try not to tell you what to think, rather I will tell you what you ought to be thinking about.