The right question

A lot of the debate coverage is an argument over which candidate won the kind of contest the author thinks should matter to the rest of us.

Drew McCoy wrote, “Before declaring one ‘the winner’ and the other ‘the loser,’ consider their goals, their specific audiences, etc. Did they accomplish them?”

What did blue-collar voters in swing states get from Hillary Clinton in this debate? What did college-educated whites in the suburbs get from Trump in this debate?

Glenn Reynolds calls it a draw on the ground that Trump didn't throw anything and Clinton didn't cough up blood.  Others point out that although Trump's arguments were lackluster, all he really needed to do was appear calm enough to dispel his persistent portrayal as a nut job; from there he can rely on the desperate desire of many voters for a change, any change.

Joe Bob Briggs was right on point:

I’ve got news for these Rhodes Scholars. People don’t care about who’s prepared. They care about who’s lying and, in this case, who’s lying more than the other liar. . . . This is where we end up—two liars arguing over who’s the bigger liar and who’s more crazy. Trump probably wins that argument, simply because all his sins were under the rubric of surviving in a brutal business world, whereas all Hillary’s were committed while serving as an office holder.

First Convention of States Simulation Completed

The first ever, historic Convention of States Simulation is now complete. One-hundred and thirty-seven delegates representing every state in the nation convened in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept. 21-23. It was an amazing experience and the Convention operated flawlessly. If you watch the live stream link below, we know you'll agree.

Click over to read the whole report and watch the vids.

Here is a summary of the amendments agreed upon:

1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.

And here's a PDF with the full amendments. Interesting stuff.

It's good, but I am disappointed that no check on the Supreme Court made it through.

Joe Bob Renders Judgment

Here is his summation of the debate.

UPDATE: It may be his style, but here as in the last long piece I cited from him, you have to read to the very end to get the point.

Analysis of an Analysis of the Alt-Right

There's a lot packed into this WaPo article which purports to analyze changes in the alt-right community over the last 9 months. The method of analysis, relying on new machine-assisted text analysis techniques, and the conclusions from that are interesting, and the article suggests a method for "de-radicalizing" people in the alt-right. How to change minds is a big question, and their suggestions seem good in general (not just for changing the alt-right), if difficult to accomplish.

On the other hand, the definitions and assumptions given by the author tell us a lot about the team that did the analysis. I wonder if we don't learn more about them than the alt-right.

We also find out that Facebook, Twitter, Google, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and ExitUSA have been working together to change minds within the alt-right. That's a bit creepy.

I don't have time to get into it right now, but if anyone cares to read it, I'll be back to discuss this evening.

Jill Stein Arrested For Trying to Participate in Presidential Debate

And boy, you can see why. I'm sure we're all grateful to the powers that be for making sure that only quality candidates like those two show up on our national stage.

I've heard her talk several times now. I don't agree with her about much of anything, but she's far and away smarter than either of those two. She has a better command of the issues as well.

Changing the Definition of Rape

I was unaware, until this morning, that the FBI had changed the definition of the crime "rape" for the purposes of its Uniform Crime Reports. We've discussed these reports at times. There are some known issues with them, but they are also the main tool that we have for trying to understand crime rates at the national level.

A change in the definition of a crime is a major change, as it means you lose backwards compatibility that would allow you to compare earlier years. Such a change should therefore be done only if there is some extremely good reason for doing it. Rape itself is not new, and indeed almost certainly more ancient than human history. So what could be driving a change in our understanding of it, if it is not a change in the nature of the offense itself?

Let's look at the definitions.

Previously, offense data for forcible rape were collected under the legacy UCR definition: the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Beginning with the 2013 data year, the term “forcible” was removed from the offense title, and the definition was changed. The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Attempts or assaults to commit rape are also included in the statistics presented here; however, statutory rape and incest are excluded.

So there are two particularly significant changes:

1) The old definition stated explicitly that only females could be raped.

2) The old definition was interested only in cases in which force was used to effect the rape, whereas the new definition doesn't care about the issue of force at all. It is only interested in whether or not there was consent.

If the issue of prison rape is taken seriously, just the first change should more than double the incidence of rape in America. It would also put an end to a statistical anomaly: rape has heretofore been the only violent crime that women suffer more often than men, and that will no longer be true. (So far they don't seem to be considering prison rape in these statistics, as the rate jumps according to the definition only from 24.0 to 39.0, and not to ~50+.)

The removal of force from the definition won't change the statistics as much as the change that removes the restriction against men being considered rape victims, but it is still also a very significant change to the standard.

Tomorrow's Debate

The Legendary Joe Bob Briggs will be live-"tweeting" the whole thing. I'm planning to read his summary rather than watching it myself. Given that the word of neither of these clowns can bear a feather's weight of trust, the words that they say will not matter one tiny little bit. Their words are empty and hollow.

The only thing that does matter is the spectacle, and how it sways human hearts. Joe Bob Briggs is a master at understanding this kind of blood-and-gore, low-budget, badly-acted, unbelievable farce. He's made his career out of performances like this. No one could be a better guide.

New Social Media Platforms

I dislike facebook and have been looking for other social media platforms. Have any of you tried any of these? If so, what did you think?

Codias: The Social Network for Conservatives -- This site seems more like a way to organize for political action and less of a way to share interesting pics and stories with friends. It's still in beta testing, but I signed up just to check it out. Apparently a week or so ago you had to swear an oath to join, but I didn't have to today.

Gab.ai: The People First Social Network -- A Twitter replacement? It apparently focuses on allowing users to control what they see rather than stopping people from posting offensive material. Emma Grey Ellis at Wired seems to think it's already alt-right dominated.

MeWe looks like a possible replacement for facebook. Its advertising focuses on privacy:

We are social creatures by nature and private people by right. That’s why MeWe offers the power of self-expression delivered under the umbrella of safety. 

At MeWe, you can enjoy amazing online experiences that give you the freedom and safety to be and share the real you. 

As individuals, our creativity and innermost thoughts require privacy. It’s how we change ourselves and the world. That’s why we believe that everyone should have the right to be their uncensored self online, without worrying about who can watch and where our information goes.

I like their Privacy Bill of Rights (click the pop-up link on their main page):

1. You own your personal information & content. It is explicitly not ours.
2. You will never receive a targeted advertisement or 3rd party content based on what you do or say online. We think that's creepy.
3. You see every post in timeline order from your friends, family & groups. We do not manipulate, filter, or change the order of your content or what you see.
4. Permissions & privacy are your rights. You control them.
5. You control who can access your content.
6. You control what, if anything, others can see in member searches.
7. We're a private network. That means we do not track or profile you.
8. Your privacy means we do not share your personal information with anyone.
9. Your emojis are for you and your friends. We do not monitor or mine your data.
10. Your face is your business. We do not use facial recognition technology.
11. You have the right to delete your account and take your content with you at any time.

Diaspora looks interesting as well. This is the first social network site (that I've seen, anyway) where they let you choose where your data is stored, so you could opt for a country that has stronger privacy laws. They also explicitly allow pseudonyms, and they provide integration for cross-posting to facebook, Twitter, etc.

Are there others you would recommend checking out?

September

But not for much longer.

A Useful Legal Analysis of Self-Defense with a Vehicle

Considering the Sage of Knoxville's recent suggestion to keep moving if surrounded in your car, Andrew Branca, a lawyer who specializes in self-defense law in the US, provides a quick analysis of how self-defense laws would be applied in the case of blocked highways and riots.

Here's a taste, but the whole thing is worth reading over at Legal Insurrection:

In short, one would apply the usual five elements of a self-defense justification to evaluate such a use of force against others, just as in any other instance of self-defense. Those elements are, of course:  innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness. 

When all required elements are present, the use of force was legally justified. If any required element is missing, whatever that use of force might have been it was not lawful self-defense. 

One of the challenges to legally justifying the use of force against highway blockades is the element of imminence. Do people who are merely blocking a roadway represent an imminent threat against which some defensive force might be justified?  

A second challenge is the element of proportionality.  That is, if the force contemplated to be used against them is one’s vehicle, this will almost always constitute deadly force–that is, force capable of causing death or grave bodily injury.   Deadly force can be used in self-defense only [when] the force with which you are threatened also constitutes deadly force.

Taking Trump Seriously...

...but not literally. The Atlantic makes a distinction between the press and those who attend Trump's rallies in how they are taking him. The press doesn't take him seriously, only literally. The people at his rallies turn that around.

The Hazards of Incomplete Planning

Planning a home invasion? Let's go through the checklist:

House has enough stuff to make it worth robbing? Check.

Do we outnumber the residents? Check.

Did we bring guns? Check.

Hey, did anybody stop to see what state we're in? Georgia?

Uh-oh.

Another Ring on the Equinox

I took this yesterday evening ...

According to the All-Knowing Wikipedia:

A great deal of folklore surrounds fairy rings. Their names in European languages often allude to supernatural origins; they are known as ronds de sorciers ("sorcerers' rings") in France, and Hexenringe ("witches' rings") in German. In German tradition, fairy rings were thought to mark the site of witches' dancing on Walpurgis Night, and Dutch superstition claimed that the circles show where the Devil set his milk churn. In Tyrol, folklore attributed fairy rings to the fiery tails of flying dragons; once a dragon had created such a circle, nothing but toadstools could grow there for seven years. European superstitions routinely warned against entering a fairy ring. ... 

Equinox

The end of this summer is more welcome than I can possibly convey.

The Sage of Knoxville Suspended from Twitter

I don't use the platform, which strikes me as ridiculous -- 'let's have a conversation in 140 characters or fewer!' -- but InstaPundit is as non-radical as they come. In the very near future of America, though, a law professor with even slightly unacceptable views will be forced out of the public space.

Tossed in the "basket of deplorables," I guess.

UPDATE: Apparently reinstated, provided he deletes what offended them. That was a suggestion that protesters shutting down freeways should be run down. It's a stupid tactic of protests, one that really does get people killed in terms of ambulances not being able to reach hospitals in time. If you are willing to kill people to make your point, you can't complain too much if they're willing to run the risk of killing you right back.

We're rapidly getting close to the point of real conflict.

UPDATE: Apparently his university is now investigating him.

Rolling South

Going to go meet my new niece tomorrow, the one who was born the same day that Dad died. If I hear another man say, "Oh, the circle of life!" I swear I will break his jaw. I won't hit a woman, no matter how many say it, but you men should know they've used up my patience for you. Somehow, "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away" does not provoke the same wrathful reaction from me, but I'm about done with the secular metaphor.

All the same, I'm looking forward to meeting her. I've been saving gasoline for days so I could make the trip, us having the Mad Max thing going on in Atlanta since that pipeline burst in Alabama. As of today, they've got a bypass rigged up, so within a few days we'll have gas available again. Right now, we don't, and the city's pretty dry.

No problem. I've still got five gallons in reserve, over and above a full tank.



UPDATE: I guess we're having riots in Southern cities like Charlotte, too. Maybe Atlanta tomorrow, I guess.

Well, that's a small matter compared to the gasoline. I'll take appropriate precautions.

Another Military Times Poll

Johnson, Trump in statistical tie overall. Clinton leads Trump among officers (but both lose to Johnson). Trump devastates Clinton among enlisted (and barely beats Johnson).

Among the front-line branches, Army prefers Trump to Johnson by 5 points, and Trump to Clinton by 16 points. Marine Corps goes Trump by clean majority, 24 points over Johnson and 40 points over Clinton.

There's Something About Her...

Watch the debate audience burst into laughter and boos when this politician tries to tell them that Hillary Clinton is "honest."



Twenty years ago, when Hillary Clinton was unaccountably put in charge of 'health care reform,' she dispatched agents across the land to hold town hall meetings to explain her arcane plan to ordinary Americans. A much-younger Grim attended one of these meetings in Gainesville, Georgia. The earnest young spokesperson they had sent tried very hard to explain all the graphs and charts about how this plan would make sure we got health care.

It was, in fact, a very complicated approach she had devised, and it was clear the audience was very skeptical that this giant new bureaucracy would work well. Finally, in exasperation, the spokesperson said (I quote from memory):

'Look, the thing you have to understand is that from now on you'll get whatever care you need, and it won't cost you anything!'

The auditorium broke into such peals of riotous laughter as were a joy to hear.

"Brave"

So, years ago now, Cassandra and I had one of our regular disputes over the trailer for a Pixar movie. (T99 wrote about it too.) Neither of us had seen the movie; both of us meant to do; but life is complicated, and I never got around to it. Not until this weekend, that is.

It turns out that we were all right, more or less. Cassandra nailed the basic plot (snot-nosed girl and overly controlling mother learn to respect and forgive each other through conflict). The portrayal of gender stereotypes was just as expected: the men were all oafs, loud and foolish, brash and ineffective. They somehow managed to repel invasions of Romans, English, and Vikings off screen, but it's not clear how since they were undisciplined, enthusiastically violent, but dangerous to nothing except the furniture. The Queen and the (warrior) Princess exercise all of the effective agency in the movie, determining everything that happens. (The only male figures who can accomplish anything turn out to be the triplet baby boys, who are another stereotype: 'boys will be boys' hellions who are constantly in mischief.)

This scene more or less captures the whole of the film:



The movie still manages to be charming in spite of having lived down to all of our expectations. There are some scenes that are downright funny. Too, the bold Highlanders may be oafish fools, but they are beloved by the women, and it is even possible to sense why at points. In an early scene, when the Queen is bossing the very young Princess about, the husband steps in and wins the girl a little space for her un-ladylike impulses. The Queen protests, "She is a lady!", and suddenly jumps and squeaks -- the husband, adults in the audience will realize, has just goosed her behind. The look on the Queen's face shows that she appreciates, to some degree, the reminder that he knows something about ladies.

There is another similar scene between the Queen and her husband later. Still, when she and the Princess get into a gigantic fight, he goes to the Queen and has her talk it through with him, listening to her patiently as she rants about what her daughter won't stop to hear her say.

So the stereotypes are just as expected, but it has its moments.

Trump and Aristotle

I'm not really going to talk about Aristotle, of course, or I'd be breaking Grim's rice bowl.  Still, he does come up in this Politico article about Trump, which makes several interesting points, including the following warning about what happens when we assume only the state can solve collective problems and ignore the natural functioning of private institutions and voluntary associations:

To its credit, the Democratic Party has made the convincing case, really since the Progressive Era in the early part of the 20th century, that the strong state is needed to rearrange the economy and society, so that citizens may have justice. Those who vote for the Democratic Party today are not just offered government program assistance, they are offered political protections and encouragements for social arrangements of one sort or another that might not otherwise emerge.

But where does this use of political power to rearrange the economy and society end? Continue using political power in the service of “identity politics” to reshape the economy and society and eventually both of them will become so enfeebled that they no longer work at all. The result will not be greater liberty for the oppressed, it will be the tyranny of the state over all.