Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Yup, you are correct.

It started with a long rambling post I made on Dec 1 which started…

“ I offer the below as a contemplation not as a statement of fact. The situation is very complicated and possibly volitile.”

Near the end I said ….
“I think thats why Rittenhouse got off, not because he acted properly (he didn’t but because he was on the side of order vs anarchy; God represents order and the Devil anarchy.”

Pops restated that as ...
“LOL, gunfights in the street is your idea of "order"? Rittenhouse, Zimmerman proves that if you can legally carry a gun, any murder is justified simply by saying "I was afraid he was gonna take my gun and shoot me!"

The rest is history.

My statement was about the mind frame of the jury, how I imagined they viewed the situation based upon my personal experience in a criminal case. My assumption is that when viewing the overall situation you have 2 sides. The first side to emerge was rioting and looting and setting fires. This is the anti-authoritarian side; anarchist. Only the did the second side appear who opposed the first side and set themselves up as the restrained or orderly side.

Now then you move forward to the trail, which takes place in a courtroom, officiated by a judge, which operates under the laws of the land, who choose a jury of law abiding citizens. Everything in that milieu supports the notion of order. It seems obvious that those selected for jury duty will be folks who have broadly conformed to the social and governmental norms. Rittenhouse may have been stone stupid and wrong in many ways, but it was not obvious that he was there with the intent to further break the law. His position was naturally aligned with the jury because they were required to be orderly people and Rittenhouse was opposed to the mob. To find him guilty would have required showing beyond reasonable doubt that he went there with the intent to do harm. That is a very high bar.

One of my personal rules is that “If you feel you need a gun to protect hour hime, move.” As a hunter I have no illusions about what shooting a living animal means. Given my experience and upbringing there is no way you would ever find me doing what Rittenhouse did, or his compatriots.

There is much more to be said about this, some of which we covered a few years ago during other riots. But this is enough for here and now.

It is hard to have good conversations especially in these written formats. Thoughtful answers tend to run on as this did.

Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think it is just a factor of Rittenhouse's motives for being there. They could have been as bad as the prosecution erroneously made them out to be and it would not have changed those few seconds where the men he shot were indeed attacking him with intent to kill him. In those seconds it was indeed "kill or be killed" and that made him justified and the juries verdict correct.

Yes, there are many facets to these discussions, many ways to look at them.

No doubt we live in interesting times.

In the meantime we have accepted a near full price offer on our house, so we are cutting our ties with the city. That is a relief as we have some additional challenges right now. I am always unsettled by these transitions, even if they are for the better.

AdamB wrote:
When you talk to these folks Toe_Cutter, what is the context? Are these co-workers, people you meet on the street who strike up a conversation about your mode of transport, blue collar/white collar? For example, never in my life, my entire life, has someone broached a topic like "gee, there is a shortage of living wage jobs".

The contexts are varied, but where I live, mostly street people or blue collar. Some of those street people have been people I went to college with and graduated with who ended up homeless. Recently, I overheard a conversation at a dollar store about wages being too low to attract workers. The cashier told a customer she worked THREE jobs, and could barely make rent. I did not participate in this conversation, merely heard it.

Whining about no job available that they'd like, something involving warming a seat, with a secretary, for a high salary, and no responsibility. I see that comment in the MSM all the time, but never once has a person during some conversation mentioned it.

Try paying for a basic $800/month rat/roach-infested hovel in the hood, plus utilities, plus food, plus transportation when you make $8/hr. You can forget about access to healthcare, going to school or learning a trade, or even doing anything fun. Throw offspring into the mix and it gets a lot worse. Everything costs money after all. The vast majority of the jobs available, are low wage, part-time, no benefits, and it is not uncommon for those who rely upon such jobs to make ends meet to work 2, 3, or even 4 of them, and often have nothing to show for it.

2/3 of Americans can't even come up with $500 in an emergency. It is not because they are all lazy or foolish with their money. Costs of living and prevailing wages for most of the jobs available simply do not match in this current economy.

Not the media though.

Lately, I've been hearing lots of random comments from people upset with the media's constant fear mongering regarding COVID.

And loss of opportunity, that could be a topic based on the socio-economic group you are hearing your information from.

If you want a good job, you're often locked out without having credentials, as employers no longer want to train employees nor retain them for long periods as used to be the norm decades ago. To get those credentials, it costs tens of thousands of dollars, commonly requiring student loans which are non-dischargable in bankruptcy court. Then once the credentials are obtained, graduates are forced to "compete" in a rigged global market designed to instill desperation and a race to the bottom regarding wages.

I've spoken with no shortage of people who will NEVER pay their student loan debt down, and not because there's no desire to, but that the jobs they were able to get don't pay enough for them to do so, if they got a job at all. To pay mine off, I made $50-60k a year out of college and lived in the ghetto as cheaply as possible. Some of my former coworkers who made the same money, decided to buy a modest house in a good neighborhood, a cheap ~$20k new car, start a family, and they ended up living paycheck to paycheck to do so and they're going to be paying their loans into their 60s. And we're the "lucky" ones. Some of the people I went to school with ended up HOMELESS, and they were neither mentally ill nor drug addicts.

I know a lot of people stuck in dead end jobs, often working 2 or 3 of them, living paycheck to paycheck. If they went to college and couldn't find work, they'd likely have ended up homeless like some of those I graduated with.

Do you have the option of moving to one, rather than the other?

Not yet. I've been helping to care for my mother who can't walk or work, and she's unwilling to move.

I'm doing better than I ever have at the moment with the job I obtained earlier this year. Other than buying parts for my vehicle projects along with splurging on an expensive velomobile to reverse engineer, I've continued to live like a poor person, and have accumulated significant savings as a result. If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I could last longer than a year. If my job lasts another year, I'll have enough to buy land somewhere and build my own Theodore Kaczynski paradise just as I've been wanting to since I was a kid.

I've got news, the ones in the past decade aren't the only massive riots that have happened in the US. Riots, in and of themselves, are unlikely to be indicative of any one cause, or a favorite one.

Last year alone, there were riots in scores of cities around the U.S. and mass protests in hundreds of others. While riots are nothing knew(in fact, it's arguable that many of the riots of the 20th century were greatly worse in damage caused than in any of the ones last year), the quantity of them certainly is something new. The causes are varied and many, but there is a common thread in all of them: a deeply seated discontent with the status quo among the paticipants.

And it isn't true just because of the underlying causes of globalization, inequity in incomes, or folks at the bottom end of the socio-economic pile unhappy that the US is more a global finance and technology power than a manufacturing one.

The "bottom end of the socio-economic pile unhappy" are currently about 3/4 of the population. This is the percentage of Americans that live paycheck to paycheck, and is also the percentage of Americans who do not have even $1,000 saved for an emergency. This group is constantly one missed paycheck, one medical emergency, or one unexpected catastrophe away from a downward spiral of events that could cost them everything they worked for. A large number of this group think they are "middle class" because they earn an income close to the median, and use the credit card to pretend they are such by borrowing to finance that new car or modest home that used to be affordable to a min wage burger flipper 50 years ago, and are often hopped up on prescription medications to cope with the stress of being overworked with no free time or safety net if things don't go according to plan.

I regularly drive through every small town county seat I travel past, and homeless encampments there are invisible, if they exist at all. Downtown areas of major cities however, that is entirely a different story.

The homeless tend to try to stay hidden in order to avoid being arrested and fined for "vagrancy". I've ridden past homeless camps in Hannibal, MO, Alton, IL, Cahokia, IL, Belleville, IL, and other smallish towns during the summer of this year, and these sites did not exist when I was a kid. They weren't located on main streets or major thoroughfares, mind you, but on side streets, back alleys or wooded areas in effort to stay relatively hidden. Also, Walmart parking lots are a location you'll find them, albeit they're the more well off ones living in vehicles.

Doly wrote:And if you look at the stats, what strikes me the most is the inequality levels. It's obvious to me that people living at one level really don't know about people living at the other level, and they sort of think that they must be lying, somewhat deluded or exaggerating. I think both of you are probably telling the truth as you see it, without exaggeration. And that's one of the big problems that the USA has as a country. Those levels of inequality can't go on for very long.

That level of inequality between people who live in my neighborhood and those of AdamB's socioeconomic class is completely dwarfed when you look at the inequality between the financial elites and those of AdamB's socioeconomic class. The main driver of this inequality is not the middle class.

Newfie, this post was an interesting read. thank you for sharing this. It mirrors a lot of the things I have seen in St. Louis, MO, albeit property values aren't nearly as insane. There are in fact a lot of properties for sale for close to $10,000 but they would cost far more money to make livable than they would be worth when done, and it is next to impossible to just buy one of these properties with cash, since the owners want you to buy a whole group of 100+ of them at a time! A lot of the problem comes down to building codes and zoning codes, along with Wall Street financiers owning many of these properties without any concern for the people who need them for shelter other than the fact that they want to milk them for as much as possible. A lot of properties worth only $20,000-30,000 cost $1,000/mo to rent around here.

There's definitely racial tension here. I'm a target in my neighborhood being that I'm white. Last year a kid of about 10 years old fired a gun at me while I was riding my vehicle down the street, for no reason. Fortunately, he missed.

Regarding Rittenhouse, I used to be under the impression that he attacked and murdered some black people. That impression was false, but I never deeply looked into the case by that point or cared to do so. Recently, I started looking into it after the not-guilty verdict and found video footage of the incident, which looked to me to be a clear case of self-defense. And while the people he later killed attempted assault and possibly murder on him, he tried to avoid conflict with them, and the people he shot in self defense were white.

Newfie wrote:I offer the below as a contemplation not as a statement of fact. The situation is very complicated and possibly volitile.

...

So I can see the stage set for some pretty dramatic civil strife as these various parties attempt to work things out. That strife can then easily fall over into a general disruption which tanks the already wobbly economy. How far it goes is anyones guess. Will it devolve into a general collapse? Who knows. But it is a possibility.

The_Toecutter wrote:
That level of inequality between people who live in my neighborhood and those of AdamB's socioeconomic class is completely dwarfed when you look at the inequality between the financial elites and those of AdamB's socioeconomic class. The main driver of this inequality is not the middle class.

Quite true Toecutter. People at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, like AdamB, can't see this disparity though, to them the elites are like gods beyond the clouds and their anger at being left out of the social contract focuses on the only target they can see, those of us who drive by them in our nice cars towing our beautiful boats. They are totally powerless to pull themselves out of the muck too. It's one reason why they come to forums like this and sprout their hate and lies, it's there way, their only way really, of attacking those who have the things in life they crave but will never own.

I should show more compassion toward them, but then I think, "Na, [email protected]"

vtsnowedin wrote:Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think it is just a factor of Rittenhouse's motives for being there. They could have been as bad as the prosecution erroneously made them out to be and it would not have changed those few seconds where the men he shot were indeed attacking him with intent to kill him. In those seconds it was indeed "kill or be killed" and that made him justified and the juries verdict correct.

I didn't say the verdict was incorrect.

When it's legal to carry anywhere, any time, and self-defense must be disproven by the prosecutor, shootouts in the street between skateboards and AR-15s are totally legal—in fact shooting an unarmed person is justified because they "might" take the gun. The shooter has no responsibility even though it was the very presence of his gun that directly instigated all three shootings. Obviously some think that is the sign of law and order, I personally think vigilantes (the local sheriffs' word) in the street is anarchy, the definition of which is lack of or disregard of authority.

--
Once upon a time men had enough sense to leave their phallic symbols home, for this very reason. What's changed?

I put the whole gun thing in the same boat with all the other evidence that uneducated white males have lost their way. I know a few educated people, none of which carry. In Missouri, gunslingers everywhere, the garbageman with a pistol on his belt, a trucker, some yahoo at Walmart in a dirty shirt and tennis shores— none appear educated or even middle class. I don't really think these guys are scared of BLM down here, maybe they are, but showing their gun obviously fills some need for them other than actual defense—we all know who is most liable to die from a gun.

They fall into the whole "deaths of despair" category of ODs and suicides in uneducated white men and women. Deaton and Case who authored the first study on this in 2015 attribute the angst to the shrinking of the middle-class since the 70s. The end of unions, offshoring (containerization & computers), meritocracy, labors lower share of profit, reduced taxes on the top, etc

The "top". Now there is the funny thing. All the things that are hurting uneducated whites, and every other color, have benefited the top. And the top in turn panders to the angst they created by sponsoring the gun and abortion fights to prevent a class revolt. It is not surprising in that context to see why our political parties, who are paid good money by the top, have focused on identity and social issues. All this angst and pain got us trump, with the Ds are as much to blame for abandoning the working class to pander to the educated. trump is not conservative at all but merely a spiteful, stupid white guy with trailer park taste and a trust he blows on hookers and gold toilets— the perfect representative of the party of white dropout despair.

Josh Hawley is a smart guy. Smart enough to see why trump's bluster succeeded where other's policies failed. Hawley designed his attack on liberals for sissifying men as a refinement to trumps natural gift of being the textbook example of toxic masculinity. It may work but I kinda think it is a bit too clever. When trump harumphs around pretending to be the big man, he's putting up a front just like all the lost boys packing heat to Walmart and BLM riots— and none of those guys would ever admit that they are merely overcompensating for being emasculated by the system — least of all by the owners at the top who finance all the right to carry laws.

---
But never fear, the end of oil —if there is no suitable replacement— will bring back the reign of muscle and the boys can resume their traditional role, it'll be great.

.

Pops wrote: it was the very presence of his gun that directly instigated all three shootings.

Is that similar to blaming a rape victim for the crime for wearing "suggestive" cloth?

mousepad wrote:

Pops wrote: it was the very presence of his gun that directly instigated all three shootings.

Is that similar to blaming a rape victim for the crime for wearing "suggestive" cloth?

How is killing people like being raped?

Once upon a time men had enough sense to leave their phallic symbols home, for this very reason. What's changed?

Guns manufacturers are making lots of money selling guns to people, and promoting the gun lobby. Problem is, it's hard to get people to buy guns and just store them at home. People feel they have to do something with those guns, or they might feel like they wasted their money. I reckon that's what's changed. Before, there weren't people with lots of guns they didn't actually need for anything. Now, there are.

It just happens that a good bunch of the demographic that buys guns is white males, but that sort of misses the point. Since American politics these days is divided by demographics, it was inevitable that whichever demographic was most likely to buy unnecessary guns would get demonized. I don't mean to excuse the idiots that go around buying guns as some sort of fashion statement because they've been brainwashed by gun advertisement, and then find themselves in gunfights because they are unable to put two and two together. I just mean to point the finger at the people most responsible for the problem: those that are more than happy making lots of money selling dangerous weapons to people who objectively don't need them for anything.

Doly wrote:

Once upon a time men had enough sense to leave their phallic symbols home, for this very reason. What's changed?

Problem is, it's hard to get people to buy guns and just store them at home. People feel they have to do something with those guns, or they might feel like they wasted their money. I reckon that's what's changed. Before, there weren't people with lots of guns they didn't actually need for anything. Now, there are.

Most of the gun people I am related to and hang out with certainly buy guns and store them at home. Otherwise I wouldn't have an original Kentucky rifle, or some other collectibles from the American West or since discontinued models once used by great granddad for hunting in Alaska. Filled a closet with them. I've got several I myself have never fired, but were used a century or two ago, and 1 new one I haven't even fired yet, it being new, and at least 4 others I haven't fired since I bought them and tested them lightly back in the early 90's, and they've sat ever since. My wife likes Snow Baby collectibles. I happen to enjoy firearms, pistols in particular.

Doly wrote:I just mean to point the finger at the people most responsible for the problem: those that are more than happy making lots of money selling dangerous weapons to people who objectively don't need them for anything.

Do you have a personal objection to folks having hobbies? Or businesses manufacturing and selling their wares in general? Weapons are tools, and of course they can be dangerous when in the hands of the incompetent, the criminally insane, or general nutbags. Firearms themselves are perfectly safe, sitting there, doing nothing. Now, you get humans involved and well...now you have a potential problem, whether it is firearms, steak knifes, automobiles or thermonuclear weapons.

Do you have a personal objection to folks having hobbies?

Modern guns aren't 'collectible!' There are far too many of them in circulation that people were 'duped' into buying to 'protect' themselves from, maybe, colored joggers, mostly minding their own business.

Most of the gun murders are by “colored” folks who are buying illegal guns because of their lifestyle, their circumstances.

The whole gun thing in the USA has lost any sensible explanation. Guns, per se, are not the problem; which is why regulating guns is not very effective.

There are multiple problems and guns are one of the symptoms. But like so many issues we have retreated to our political corners and are simply hurling insults across the political isle. Nothing will change until that changes, and I have little hope for that.

Thjs general trend though is indicative of a society that is becoming less manageable. It is almost bound to get worse as the economy slows and degrowth kicks in.

Doly wrote:

Once upon a time men had enough sense to leave their phallic symbols home, for this very reason. What's changed?

Guns manufacturers are making lots of money selling guns to people, and promoting the gun lobby. Problem is, it's hard to get people to buy guns and just store them at home. People feel they have to do something with those guns, or they might feel like they wasted their money. I reckon that's what's changed. Before, there weren't people with lots of guns they didn't actually need for anything. Now, there are.

but that sort of misses the point. Since American politics these days is divided by demographics, it was inevitable that whichever demographic was most likely to buy unnecessary guns would get demonized. I don't mean to excuse the idiots that go around buying guns as some sort of fashion statement because they've been brainwashed by gun advertisement, and then find themselves in gunfights because they are unable to put two and two together. I just mean to point the finger at the people most responsible for the problem: those that are more than happy making lots of money selling dangerous weapons to people who objectively don't need them for anything.

You are very misguided there Doly.
For one saying a man carrying a gun openly is displaying a phallic symbol is just a cheap insult suitable for junior high school debates.
And then you want people to "just store them " in their homes?
Where would you like them to store them? Down at the bank in a safety deposit box? That worked really well for people that had gold once upon a time.
And yes people "have to do something with their guns" They are a tool that does not operate by itself. The owner needs to train and practice with it to become a proficient and safe owner . Locked away in a wall safe when an intruder is kicking in your door is no time to pull out the instruction manual.

It just happens that a good bunch of the demographic that buys guns is white males,

Well that used to be the norm but not today. With the breakdown in law and order nationwide 40 percent of first time buyers today are women.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/recor ... r-BB1cMAYl
People both men and women are not buying guns they have no need or use for. True they don't need them every day but there is that one day or one hour when they see they might need it and they intend to have it if and when that hour comes.

jedrider wrote:

Do you have a personal objection to folks having hobbies?

Modern guns aren't 'collectible!'

I can generally agree with that. But I can't find a matching Glock to go with my WInchester Model 71. So I guess I'll continue to be forced to collect modern pistols to hang out with the oldies but goodies.

jedrider wrote: There are far too many of them in circulation that people were 'duped' into buying to 'protect' themselves from, maybe, colored joggers, mostly minding their own business.

I agree again. In the modern era, there is just more expensive, and less expensive, and I tend to prefer the latter. And while I understand that some people might buy guns for some stupid reason or another, I certainly don't advocate it, and don't know any other self respecting concealed carry permit holder and user that does. Are you saying you know some yourself? They must be out there somewhere, as I said, once humans get in involved, all kinds of stupid stuff becomes possible, including using firearms improperly, or unwisely, or criminally. It is the intent that matters, not that some carefully machined piece of steel and plastic sitting the corner closet is suddenly going to get an attitude and begin spraying projectiles throughout the house.

There have been a series of random lootings of boutique department stores and retail here in Northern California. I'm almost willing to suggest that we pay some Kittenhouse fellow to patrol the shopping malls.

That could be the face of 'degrowth', having more desperate people around willing to commit brazen theft. My daughters Prius has had the catalytic converter stolen enough times now, that owning an automatic (gun) doesn't seem to be so far fetched to me anymore.

jedrider wrote:There have been a series of random lootings of boutique department stores and retail here in Northern California. I'm almost willing to suggest that we pay some Kittenhouse fellow to patrol the shopping malls.

That could be a faced of 'degrowth', having more desperate people around willing to commit brazen theft. My daughters Prius has had the catalytic converter stolen enough times now, that owning an automatic (gun) doesn't seem to be so far fetched to me anymore.

How about just moving, and leaving the kind of squalor behind where honest God fearing folk can't even keep their catalytic converters safe?

jedrider wrote:There have been a series of random lootings of boutique department stores and retail here in Northern California. I'm almost willing to suggest that we pay some Kittenhouse fellow to patrol the shopping malls.

That could be the face of 'degrowth', having more desperate people around willing to commit brazen theft. My daughters Prius has had the catalytic converter stolen enough times now, that owning an automatic (gun) doesn't seem to be so far fetched to me anymore.

Not at all clear where you are trying to go with this.

I don’t recall anyone here praising Rittenhouse for his decision to patrol. Which is an entirely different question from the subsequent shootings. Thus the message is muddled.

There is a rather clear logic to how government develops, its roles and responsibilities, and when it needs to be replaced. This has been fairly well traced out in early American history and supported with much subsequent investigation.

There are clear signs the American governmental experiment is reaching a crisis point. The question is “Will it adapt or will it fail?” There are any number of stressors on this governmental system and they all play together to make a confusing mix. Which makes it interesting to me. The answer to the above question is not entirely clear, but I lean strongly towards failure to adapt.

The widespread acquisition of guns leads me to believe that an increasing percentage of the population doubts governments ability to fulfill its main purpose, make them safe. This is not a failure of the people but of the government, it is a vote of “no confidence.”

I don’t like how things are going, but I try to see them clearly. Not an easy task.

Newfie wrote:

jedrider wrote:There have been a series of random lootings of boutique department stores and retail here in Northern California. I'm almost willing to suggest that we pay some Kittenhouse fellow to patrol the shopping malls.

That could be the face of 'degrowth', having more desperate people around willing to commit brazen theft. My daughters Prius has had the catalytic converter stolen enough times now, that owning an automatic (gun) doesn't seem to be so far fetched to me anymore.

Not at all clear where you are trying to go with this.

I don’t recall anyone here praising Rittenhouse for his decision to patrol. Which is an entirely different question from the subsequent shootings. Thus the message is muddled.

There is a rather clear logic to how government develops, its roles and responsibilities, and when it needs to be replaced. This has been fairly well traced out in early American history and supported with much subsequent investigation.

There are clear signs the American governmental experiment is reaching a crisis point. The question is “Will it adapt or will it fail?” There are any number of stressors on this governmental system and they all play together to make a confusing mix. Which makes it interesting to me. The answer to the above question is not entirely clear, but I lean strongly towards failure to adapt.

The widespread acquisition of guns leads me to believe that an increasing percentage of the population doubts governments ability to fulfill its main purpose, make them safe. This is not a failure of the people but of the government, it is a vote of “no confidence.”

I don’t like how things are going, but I try to see them clearly. Not an easy task.

I think you see it clearly. I am optimistic that the population will, along with arming themselves in self-defense, will at the next opportunity vote out these fools that have brought this plague upon us.