Morning Reads for Tuesday, January 22, 2013


Not Georgia!

  • Goodbye, Anecdotes! The Age Of Big Data Demands the end of prate (The Awl)
  • Lack Of Up-To-Date Research Complicates Gun Debate (NPR)
  • Unlucky (Lame) Ducks? Second half victories of Presidents past (WSJ)
  • Behind the scenes of an NFL Broadcast (SBNation)
  • Several Gun Control Options, from the Pew perch (Pew Research Center)
  • Facebook’s Bold, Compelling and Scary Engine of Search (Wired)
  • On Oliver Sacks and looking into the brains of the nation (NYMag)
  • Gallup on America on beliefs on creation (Gallup)
  • Airlines won’t tell you what anything costs on a plane (Gulliver)
  • Golden Globe win worth millions more than Oscar gain (MediaFile)



  1. atlanta_advocate says:

    NPR, we will be happy to provide up to date statistics on guns when your side does the same on abortion, the only medical procedure for which no demographic or other statistics are allowed to be taken by those who receive it. Fair trade? Yes? No?

    Incidentally, none of the gun control policies will actually reduce crime or even accidental shootings. Why? Because the vast majority of guns used in crimes and accidental shootings are handguns. Assault weapons aren’t favored by street criminals because they are very expensive and impossible to conceal because they are so large. Criminals prefer cheap handguns that can be concealed in pockets and such, and also because it really doesn’t take an assault rifle to hold up a liquor store, mug somebody or eliminate a rival gang member. And accidental shootings with assault rifles are rare because they are mostly bought by gun enthusiasts who are very well trained and responsible with their very expensive weapons. Instead, accidental shootings occur most often with people who are irresponsible in storing and securing their cheap handguns and rifles.

    Now the people who want to ban assault weapons know this already. They know that banning weapons that are used in an infinitesimal percentage of violent crimes won’t do a thing, because the weapons that are used in 99.999% of crimes will still be legal and easy to obtain. Instead, what is actually good at combating crimes are measures aimed at criminals and not the guns that they use like 3 strikes and truth in sentencing laws and more effective policing like NYPD police commissioner Bill Bratton’s broken windows theory, which by the way the gun control supporters generally despise and oppose.

    So if the gun control advocates are proposing gun control measures that will not reduce violent crime and oppose measures that do reduce violent crime, then what is the real agenda of the gun controllers? You tell me.

    • Stefan says:

      Well, the broken window theory didn’t originate with Bratton, but taking your point, do you think most people would be in favor of massive private infrastructure repair and clean up in areas of gun violence? Clean teams doing weekly sweeps for instance? Because if not, that’s just blaming the victimized neighborhood.

      As far as effectiveness, the motivation here is mass shootings, which are not accidental nor perpetrated by gang members, so it is possible a restriction in the clip size and background checks that involve mental illness might help.

      • mountainpass says:

        Whenever magazine size becomes an issue then lives are already hanging in the balance. If they want to save lives remove the reprehensible GFZs. Think about that, so the government’s answer is “We are going to allow the criminal to only get off 10 rounds before a mag change and all the law-abiding folks since yall are unarmed, wait and pray you live until he stops, then rush him all the while hoping he didn’t bring another gun.” I realize that statement is silly as the criminal will not make sure to get 10 round mags in order to carry out his crime
        Also mag size endangers law-abiding people, it restricts their ability to defend themselves and their family. In the recent Loganville home invasion the woman had a gun that held 6 rounds, she used them all. Five found their mark and she was able to get herself and her children to safety, but the bad guy was able to get up, go downstairs, get in his vehicle and leave the scene. What if there had been two or three thugs? What if she missed with just another round? I would imagine that family rethinks their choice of weapon.

        It’s inhumane to limit how many rounds one can have to defend themselves.

      • atlanta_advocate says:

        “but taking your point, do you think most people would be in favor of massive private infrastructure repair and clean up in areas of gun violence?”

        Most people would if the people in those areas weren’t prone to electing people like Marion Barry and Kwame Kilpatrick to represent them.

        “Because if not, that’s just blaming the victimized neighborhood.”

        But it is the people in the neighborhood that is victimizing the other people in the neighborhood with violent crime. You can choose to believe that they are being victimized by guns, but the truth is that they are being victimized by criminals who choose to use guns. And going back to the Marion Barry and Kwame Kilpatrick thing, despite being victimized by criminals who live in their communities, they still vote against and reject leaders who would like to impose law and order in their communities and end their victimization. The broken windows theory didn’t originate with Bratton, but he implemented it, it resulted in homicides in these very communities dropping by 2/3rds, and yet the residents of those communities where crime drastically dropped still preferred soft on crime “leaders” like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Bratton. When Los Angeles sought to hire an NYPD leader to try to reduce the crime rates there, the leaders of these victimized communities opposed it. He was finally hired under the condition that he would not be allowed to implement anything in Los Angeles that actually worked in New York. And that is why folks don’t support massive infrastructure investments in places like that.

  2. atlanta_advocate says:

    It is ironic that the “I Have A Dream” speech is still private property when it was written by 2 card carrying members of the American Communist Party, Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones, who were adamantly opposed to the concept. Strange huh? And it is even stranger that the media and academia chooses to withhold the fact that the speech was written by communists from us. Gee, why do you suppose that is?

    • Stefan says:

      Speechwriters are generally not publicized by the media. I wish they were. Whether the authors of that speech were communists isn’t particularly relevant to me. I was not able to confirm anything beyond that the above authors contributed to the speech with Dr. King, but your point about their lack of belief in intellectual property rights may well be correct. It seems to be based on a 1994 decision of questionable validity.

  3. Baker says:

    Not that this is anything new really, but I’m glad you pointed out about I Have a Dream not being in the public domain.

    I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be a King child, but the degree to which they have corporatized their father is really astonishing. They rarely get called out on it, I guess I don’t blame the media for that.

    There’s only so many times the media can do that and you don’t want that to start to be the focus of King talk, but it’s something worth thinking about on the day after MLK Day.

    • Stefan says:

      True. Not sure if they have control over the rights any longer, but if so, think they’ll go after the Telegraph? I don’t think their fair use claim will go very far.

  4. bgsmallz says:

    Thanks for the link to Marta. Nice to have a CEO come in and say ‘let’s make changes and then talk to the state’ rather than the tired approach of using the state as a crutch for all your problems. That’s not to say that the state is to absolved of blame…it’s still dumb that there isn’t more dedicated dollars to transit in Atlanta from the state…however, it’s a fresh approach.

    BTW- the comments on CL are classic. All the special friends are out and in a tizzy that the new CEO would have the gall to actually want to try to make a significant argument that it’s house is in order before asking for more funding.

    Here’s a link to a post about it in Atlanta Mag, too

Comments are closed.