Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because there’s a vidya where you can hear her verbalizing consistent with the claim, and it’s not a new issue about tasers, either (and connected to training)..

Chopblock 12 points ago +12 / -0

Meanwhile Trump passed Right to Try.

Chopblock 2 points ago +2 / -0

In order to complete the flowchart for a medical differential diagnosis we need to know what answer best helps Democrats cheat?

Chopblock 2 points ago +2 / -0

And the shortages proved they NEED T.P., for...

Chopblock 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, since you asked I’ll give it to you straight, like a knife to the kidney!

Paragraphs, fren! Paragraphs! —to keep your writing from being muddled, meandering, and mediocre. Paragraphs open up white spaces for the reader’s eyes to access and give your work structure and flow for the reader’s mind to follow your meaning. Solving the paragraphs problem will help you fix other problems, too — such as your tendency towards run-on sentences (two sentences incorrectly merged into one, only a comma separating the two distinct expressions [see what I did there?]).

Although there is no single best writing style, you’ll immediately benefit from following a process that grounds you in basic good practices. Follow these few tips and use revisions and editing to find your unique ‘voice’, rather than stumbling over words like Biden at an unscripted Air Force One Stairstep Presser:

  1. Identify your ‘thesis statement’. What’s the gist of your piece, in as few words as possible? Write an exact version, and a casual version you might say to a friend in a bar. In your example, you might end up with something like ’Scapegoating individuals only exacerbates divisive societal issues’ and ’If nobody ever made mistakes we’d never be able to learn from them!’, respectively.

  2. Outline the logic. Now that you know your ‘main point’ AND have a good idea for a direction of the ‘hook’ thrust, it’s time to write out (in ‘bullet’ form) the logical argument you’ll need to make. Here’s why Thing one is true. And Thing two is also probably true. Thing one and thing two put together means thing three must be true as well. For your example, it might be something like the following:

THESIS: Scapegoating individuals only exacerbates divisive societal issues

  • Law and order results from a process of aligning individual enforcement action with good policy.

  • Society has a habit of focusing on personalities and reactionary behavior during crisis.

  • Focus on individuals tends towards blaming and scapegoating rather than objective or fulsome analysis

  • Without analyzing policy, issues become intractable and escalate societal division.

  • Therefore, avoiding the tendency to blame individuals opens up opportunities to better solve divisive issues.

  1. Now write your first draft, with an intro paragraph, ONE paragraph of 2-5 sentences per ‘logic bullet point’, and another summary conclusion paragraph that includes ‘discussion’ topics (i.e. Here’s a few ideas about how to accomplish it, here’s a potential problem of holding bad actors responsible, etc.)

  2. Now Add your examples, illustrations, and other ‘extras’ as a following paragraph (again, 2-5 sentences) after the appropriate logic step. For example, your discussion of exclusively the victims’ point of view would follow the paragraph covering the second logic point, ’Society has a habit of focusing on...’ and your retail example would go after the paragraph covering the third logic point, ’Focus on individuals tends towards blaming...’

  3. Now rewrite a second draft. Focus on shortening your expressions to the fewest words necessary, and connecting the end of each paragraph to the beginning of the next (ask yourself what question am I leaving off with here that the next paragraph starts to answer? Then relay that to the reader.)

  4. Take a coffee break and let it sit for a little, and come back with ‘fresh eyes’.

  5. Now go back over your draft and check grammar and spelling. Look out for the run-on sentences and try to eliminate extra verbiage. Look for ways of switching the words you used for ones that are more exact, more concise, more powerful, or more poetic. Check your examples and illustrations to gauge if there’s clearer comparisons, richer or more vivid imagery, or more emotion-provoking language you might use. Double-check to see if your overall argument flows better or makes more sense if you move around the order of paragraphs (you’ll be surprised how often this is the case). Ask yourself ‘what’s missing?’ and ‘what would someone’s first objection to this idea be?’ as you progress word by word, sentence by sentence.

  6. Now rewrite your introduction and conclusion. Focus the introduction on the ‘hook’ that is interesting and topical, and adjust it to raise the issue correctly rather than simply stating your thesis. Your intro and your conclusion should read like a dinner date where one raises a inquiry, and the other gives an good answer without explaining all the reasoning. The intro should tell me what we’ll discuss and the conclusion should sum up your thoughts on the subject.

  7. Read it aloud and identify the parts that don’t roll off your tongue naturally, and fix them so they do. Proof-read carefully for punctuation, spelling, and grammar.

  8. Repeat steps 6-9 until you’re sick of the English language, and publish.

Chopblock 5 points ago +5 / -0

THE RIFLE ON THE WALL: “The political principle at stake is simple: to deny the state the monopoly of armed force, and, obversely, to empower the citizenry, to distribute the power of armed force among the people... This is not a right-wing position...

The notion that an armed populace should have a measure of power of resistance to the heavily armed power of the state is, if anything, a populist principle, and has always been part of the revolutionary democratic traditions of the left. Per George, above, and Karl, here: “The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

...From a left-socialist perspective, then, the concentration of wealth and the concentration of armed power in the hands of a few, are both bad ideas—and the one has everything to do with the other... “regulations” are limitations on a right, and rights, though never absolute, are to be valued.

...Those who hold that gun ownership is a fundamental political right correctly perceive, and are right to resist, the intended threat of its incremental elimination in gun-control laws that will have little to no practical effect, other than to demand more acts of compliance and submission to the armed authority of the state...

When you ban guns, you are not just eliminating a right, you are creating a criminal offense – in fact a whole set of new crimes? How many months or years will you have to be confined by the armed guards of the state for having a rifle with a pistol grip or a 10-round magazine? How many of those fifty million gun owners are you going to lock up, after raiding their homes?

One has to be kind of obtuse not to understand that a War on Guns, no matter how liberally inspired, will end up like all other such campaigns. It will create crime and pre-crime, and, as Kevin Carson says, “take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done.”

Can we really give up the right to gun ownership without giving up other rights? Can we pretend not to know that any new, stricter regime of “gun control” enforced by the American capitalist state will result in a greater curtailment of many rights, in more surveillance, in more criminalization of dissident radicalism, directed fiercely and selectively against the opponents of racism and imperialism?

...The net effect of eliminating the right of citizens to possess firearms will be to increase the power of the armed capitalist state. It will not be a more pacific, but a more authoritarian society, one in which the whole panoply of armed police we’ve already come to accept as part of the social landscape will be even more ubiquitous, while citizens’ compliance and submission will be more thoroughly assured. As Patrick Higgins puts it: “The formula for gun control seems pretty obvious to me. Less [sic] guns for the people who are most likely to need them, more guns for cops and soldiers and those sympathetic to them.”

...Here’s the thing, and everybody knows it: Whatever strictest possible gun-control regime is instituted by favored liberal and moderate politicians, the family who threw that party will still have all the guns that it wants at its disposal. Donald Trump (who always had one in New York City), Diane Feinstein, and their ilk will still have their carry permits. Goldman Sachs will have all the weapons it wants for its private army, which will still be working as an allied brigade of the supposedly public branch of the ruling class’s armed forces. There will be a system of waivers, fees, and private security armies for anyone in the .01%.

...Rights empower. Power is dangerous. Guns—certainly the personal firearms that are in question—carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect. Indeed, it is because guns are dangerous that the right to own one is important...

Let’s have a discussion on the left about reasonable gun regulations that firmly and sincerely recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental political right, which deserves a place of honor on our wall of historical achievements.

As Ida B. Wells put it, in the cauldron of the Klan’s lynching fever in1892, learning and teaching a valuable lesson (that Orwell would later echo): “Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves … and prevented it.””


Chopblock 2 points ago +2 / -0

The 6th was a demonstration, and quite a successful one at that.

Only fools with Hollywood notions about fighting ever thought that it would represent some big set-piece battle or decisive engagement.

Like all wars, the real fight happens in the discipline of continuous strategic planning and the determined grind of effort in the face of constant adversity, setbacks, and apparent defeat.

Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

They’ve known this since the Spanish flu, with loads of research proving it over the last 50 years.

Chopblock 6 points ago +6 / -0

One reinforces continued State authority power grabs

The other threatens them.

Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some big issues to add:

Policing - Rights violating policies like Stop & Frisk, and persistent surveillance are rolled out in minority communities first (to get a fooothold for expanding everywhere)

Cultural - Hollywood’s ubiquitous depiction of the ‘whitewashed black thug’ and ‘gangsta’ culture

Cultural - Divisive pushing of ‘Blame the Victim’ narratives framing (by both wings of the Uniparty)

Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice write-up, ‘pede!

“Democrats have played the racist card for decades, while encouraging the break-up of the families to keep them dependent on the government... a party that constantly seeks to divide everyone based on race is not interested in uniting the country.”


Chopblock 14 points ago +15 / -1

Her pink face-diaper is proof she’s a complyer — and no doubt screaming loudly about ‘But I AM complying!’ is her go-to phrase during the kettling and clearing phase.

Chopblock 11 points ago +11 / -0

Like every subject they invert, political hacks invoking ‘free markets’ do so in support of ideas antithetical to the term.

Chopblock 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sex and the City chicks come home to roost

Chopblock 19 points ago +19 / -0

“The NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one.  It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.

In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986.  It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.

If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.”  It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress -- and that’s saying something.

It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.”  That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came.  And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.

If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.

In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace.  It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.”


view more: Next ›