Military knives

Sounds scary  And journalistically ‘military’ is supposed to evoke scary here when what it actually reflects is a certain kind of built in utility.  You don’t usually fight with military knives.  They got a big steel pommel for pounding nails, they have a low reflection rust resistant finish, they have a tacky leather handle, a kinda big blade.  I’m thinking the KA-BAR, which sets the pattern.  It’s yeah, specced as a ‘fighting’ knife, but it’s not primarily for fighting.  It’s for battlefield stuff like cutting rope and canvas etc.  So I perceive some journalistic gamesmanship going on.  To what ends?  I don’t know, because the implicit suggestion is we codify restrictions on knives with low reflection coatings, and that’s not serious.  Must be kind of a stylebook habit that they reach to when they write about crime, ie, make stuff scary.  Don Henley had observations about that I recall.

Jots w/ dots 6/4

Rare topical instance where I think the statistical link is probably demonstrated truthfully  Matthews argues, it appears, that GC might essentially thwart 10k  or 20k suicides nationally a year, and that’s persuasive just cuz life is valuable, worthwhile.  Which is true, no doubt, but this also argues identically if not more powerfully for restrictions on abortion, because of the numbers involved there.  So ya see where that argument can be taken by me or the like minded.  It’s just to say, the trade-off we make on gun freedom cuz ‘life’ is not unreasonable by comparison to abortion and quite a few other things.

Chait doubling back to make a defense of ‘you didn’t build that’.  with the help of a new study.  The upshot and then Chait’s position would be, ya figure, that because we don’t actually have meritocracy, as the study demonstrates, high progressive taxes are justified as a way to equalize wealth and income….  ya know, despite Chait continuing to argue that’s not the actually the liberal aspiration, to level wealth and income.  I don’t have much doubts the study somewhat accurately measures what it intends.  But I do think the study’s results are dependent on a myopic measurement of college grads that has no insight for a broader economic world.  The political question of ‘you didn’t build that’ is how hard you going to tax people who say at age 50 come to find they are doing a million dollars worth of plumbing supply or drywall business a year and are paying out like $150 or $200k in income to themselves.   These people are not that uncommon, and they actually did ‘build that’.  To expand on their per annum personal income tax bills of already tens of thousands seems extreme and unfair.  That’s what this is about.

Related.  Nice for a ‘cabin’ in SCF, WI no doubt  but the idea of a million dollar house ought to be losing its mystique in todays economy.  Again, its the journalistic assumptions that are wrong.

Yeah, and actually I think I have a Pinker like optimism


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s