Posts by Sacha
-
US Secret service study sheds light on the motivations of assassins.
The study of U.S. assassinations over the last 60 years debunks some key myths about the miscreants behind the attacks. The Exceptional Case Study Project, completed in 1999, covers all 83 people who killed or attempted to kill a public figure in the United States from 1949 to 1996.
...
Contrary to popular assumptions about public killings, the attackers didn’t conform to any particular demographic profile. But when Fein reconstructed their patterns of thinking, he was able to distill them into a handful of recurring motives for killing a public person — motives that seemed consistent regardless of whether a given individual was delusional or not (and three quarters of those who pulled the trigger were not).
Some hoped to achieve notoriety by killing a well-known person. Others wanted to end their pain by being killed by Secret Service. Still others hoped to avenge a perceived, idiosyncratic grievance unrelated to mainstream politics. Some hoped, unrealistically, to save the country or call attention to a cause. And some hoped to achieve a special relationship with the person they were killing.
-
Katha Pollitt considers the political landscape around gun control in the wake of the Arizona shooting.
Democrats abandoned gun control years ago, when they decided it lost Gore crucial votes in 2000 and they pivoted to go after the white male vote. Even progressives dropped the issue as hopeless, part of what made NASCAR dads and other red-state he-men see them as effete, effeminate and out of touch. Jon Tester, Brian Schweitzer and Jim Webb got high marks from both the NRA and progressives. Now there are some sixty-five pro-gun Democrats in Congress, including, ironically, Giffords.
...
We can't ban speech. But whatever Loughner's demons turn out to be, what let him kill six people and wound fourteen was that he had access to a gun—and a magazine that let him shoot thirty-three bullets without reloading. (Indeed, the Glock 19 was the same model gun Seung-Hui Cho used to kill thirty-two people at Virginia Tech.) It's a little pathetic—has it really come to this, that it will be a huge uphill battle to ban something that has no purpose except to kill up to thirty-three people before anyone can stop you? Apparently, yes. In Arizona, Glocks have been flying off the shelves since the shootings.
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to Kracklite,
Well, indeed it might be.
unless you can *prove* otherwise
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Joe Wylie,
During the following 25+ years - their peak earning years when people pay the most in income tax, they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract that had built up for several decades. Within a few years their parents and grandparents were having to sell their homes to fund their hospital care.
That was a political decision, much like the ones that will be presented for support during this election year (or just done anyway like GST changes and stripping Canterbury's democracy).
In a relatively short time in the late 80s/early 90s - and with little or no renegotiation of social expectations - tax revenue was cut and surcharges and asset tests were added for retirement and aged care services.
In general it is true that different generations benefited from and were harmed by those changes - but they only happened because poltiicians were able to make them (which in turn led to pressure for MMP, another chapter to be revisited this year).
Individual boomers may not have made those decisions about their own grandparents. But all voters and other civic actors share responsiblity for what's done in our name. And the relative loudness of our voices are affected by factors like wealth, social capital and access to influence and organising ability. Demographic trends affect that too.
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Danielle,
I don't get why this is such an awful argument that Kyle's making. It's honestly not all that controversial to note that *in general*, those born in the years following World War II were relatively prosperous compared to those who had come before and those who were born after 1965. IN GENERAL. Due to the confluence of a number of factors, many of which had nothing to do with the tax burden.
I take Joe's point about not unfairly maligning individuals who don't fit the trend discussed. Given the sheer size of that generation, most we can say is going to be true only for some.
However it is true that the big picture here is marked by a dramatic change in the 1980s of the overall distribution of income and wealth. And at a more specific level, the balance of who pays for services like retirement, health and education.
The inadequacy of class or other traditional ways of analysing that shift led NZ academic David Thomson to write Selfish Generations (reviewed by Ann Reeves of MSD's Social Policy team and by economist Brian Easton). I won't delve into their assessment of the work, but feel free to.
What we're discussing also reflects the thesis of Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers - that the relative success of individuals is sometimes best explained by being born at the right time and place to take advantage of larger social trends. New Zealand even gets a mention as producing the safest pilots - because our national culture encourages challenging authority, which prevents crashes.
Gladwell also considers the richest 75 people throughout history, and notices that 14 of them are Americans born in the same 9 year period.
What's going on here? The answer is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860's and 1870's, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it really matters how old you were when that transformation happened.
If you were born in the late 1840's, you missed it. You were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820's, you were too old: your mindset was shaped by the pre-Civil War paradigm. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect for seeing the potential that the future held. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity. . .
-
Hilarious - he's still trying
-
I want what he's smoking
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to nzlemming,
bringing logic to a knife fight.
Teeworthy
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Or George W Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL, circa 2004.
The difference is that by most standards, he was.
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to nzlemming,
I think you'll find that's Grant Johnston, Key's Chief Policy Advisor.
Just noticed Bryce's excellent article saying that too. Sorry.