Silicon Valley Redneck

Of shirtstorms, catcalls, and building codes

Two related items have grabbed the Internet's attention in the last few days: the foofaraw over a garish shirt, and the attention a curvy young woman attracted while walking through certain areas of New York City.

The catcall video: Surprise!  Some lower-class men can be rude, by the standards of the privileged classes.  This is of course completely unprecedented; in all other times and places, surely the lower classes were unfailingly polite to their betters.

The shirtstorm: Curiously enough, some creative people don't have the specific set of social skills and conventions-of-the-week to mix well with the modern clerisy.  This is absurd, as surely they can take time out from painting masterpieces and landing spaceships on comets to attend finishing school, and the weekly and annual refreshers.

We seem to have acquired a collection of classes - ruling, chattering, and academic - drawn from the wealthy and privileged ranks of society, and completely unaware that anyone outside their bubble even exists - or, when they're forced to notice, their reaction is that such people ought not to exist.

Which brings us to that third item.  Building codes certainly serve a good purpose; if I buy or rent a building, or take a job in one, I do want assurance that it's been built to proper standards, and duly inspected and certified as structurally sound and fit for use.

And yet: Many jurisdictions insist that building codes apply to structures that will be occupied solely by the builder, and make violations (including failure to secure the government's blessing) a crime.  So, buy a cheap bit of land out of sight of anyone, build a shack from scrounged materials, and live in it alone, without modern amenities, and just for that you become a criminal.

Back when we had that big recall election in California, and anyone with a few bucks and a few dozen acquaintances could run for Governor, I toyed with the idea of running on an Evil Overlord platform.  One of the planks was this: I planned to eliminate poverty in California though a system of regressive taxes which would force the poor to move out.

Alas, this notion has now gone mainstream, backed by a submerged version of the sentiment commonly misattributed to Marie Antoinette: "The peasants have no bread?  Well, can't they eat cake?"

The ones who make the rules, and who define (with ever-shifting social conventions) Polite Society, simply can't imagine any lifestyle other than their own, let alone anyone wanting to live that way.  Homesteaders, hillbillies, carnies, artists (the talented kind, not the rich and famous kind), or even the workmen who keep the cities running but can't afford posh penthouses: those people, if we must notice them at all, are scary!

The same attitude, by the way, is behind the Affordable Care Prevention Act, whereof the premise is that everyone is entitled to, and must have, the sort of comprehensive health plan to which the professional classes have become accustomed, and details of how the lower classes will pay for such a thing are of no consequence.

We must force everyone into the same mold!  Full conformity of lifestyle and opinion (apart from certain approved deviations for members of certain approved groups) must be attained!

Because we simply cannot tolerate the presence of Unmutuals in our society.

But... but... ya GOTTA have a license!

As Google shows off the latest and goofiest iteration of its Kroton-headed self-driving car, the world asks the single most important question:

What sort of license should be required to ride in the left* front seat?

Really, now: what kind of license is required to ride in a taxi?  Or a chauffeured limousine?  Or to take the bus?

If the car is actually self-driving, why should the occupant(s) need any license at all?

 

* Or right, according to national preference.

Now, here's an exercise in irrelevance

Mr. Justice Stevens proposes to insert a few words into the Second Amendment, thus:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Now, this goes to the heart of the collective-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment... and the reason this interpretation is absurd in the first place.

According to the Collectivists, the Second Amendment is only meant to prevent the Federal Government from disarming the various State militias.  But, since the State militia powers were already spelled out in the body of the constitution, this makes no sense, unless one believes that those powers might only apply to some sort of unarmed militia, whatever that might be*.

So: were we to make the proposed change, what, exactly, would the New! Improved! Second Amendment mean?

1. The Federal Government is forbidden to disarm itself?
2. Soldiers on active duty are allowed to carry weapons?

OK, so interpretation (2) is already being violated.  So this totally makes sense, right?  The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent military bases becoming victim-disarmament zones?

 

And here's a happy thought:

Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

For any currently fashionable value of "this area", right?

 

Considering some of the logic that comes out of the courts, maybe we should pick judges at random out of phone books.  Hey, if we have that Constitutional Convention, there's an amendment I'd like to suggest**!

 

* I suppose I shouldn't laugh; considering some of the amazing feats of sophistry demonstrated by the Court over the past couple of centuries, "unarmed militia" might not be much of a stretch.

** Along with picking legislators the same way.  And going back to picking juries that way, as opposed to carefully screening them.

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, first-world edition

Apparently technology is causing ZOMG cultural genocide of the deaf.

By, y'know, curing deafness.

And, by enabling the deaf to hear, eliminating the need for deaf culture.

This, apparently, is a Bad Thing.

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm?

Found this on Slashdot: seems that, statistically speaking, isolated Amazonian tribes have a huge population crash shortly after first contact with the modern world.

A quick skim doesn't turn up a reason.  Like, are a lot of the individuals dying off in the first year, due to exposure to new diseases to which moderns have better immunity?  Are they committing suicide after discovering that they aren't the master race after all?  What?

But, no clues offered.  Just: the population declines dramatically.  It's all collective.  The tribe dies off.

Which is the same thing that would happen if all the young'uns ran off to the big city to see the amazing new world that had just discovered them.

So... are individuals dying, or leaving, or just losing their tribal identity?  From the individualist perspective, there's a huge difference.  To a collectivist, it's all about the tribe, and what's happening to the individuals is of no consequence.