Ten oz

"Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons."  Here

The 1911 House Reappointment Act increased "membership of the House from 391 to 433, with provisions to add two more Members when New Mexico and Arizona became states." Here

The 1911 House Reappointment Act was the last time the number of House members has been expanded. At that time there was roughly a House Representative per 200k citizens. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of House representatives at the size outline in by the 1911 Act, 435 members. Today the number of citizens is about 750k per House representative with the largest District being nearly 900k and the smallest being 120k. Numbers I do not think Politicians imagined back in 1929 or if they did I imagine they assumed a new Apportionment Act would be passed to address the growth.

What has been the impact on limiting House members and should Congress consider a repeal? I think it enabled more aggressive gerrymandering, fed partisanship, limited independent Candidates, and diminish the strength of the House of Representatives. I am curious what impacts (pro or con) members think followed the Act, whether or not it should be repealed, and if repealed what should replace it.

I vaguely recall a conversation about this here a couple years. I don't remember if it had its own thread. So I apologizes if this is a redundant thread.

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At what point does the cultural norm break from the topic of this thread?

 

Provided it relates to Kamala Harris, Biden's VP selection process, or the roles associated with VP it isn't off topic. I think what thery're signaling is an inability to continue the discussion without venturing into territory that might be labelled as sexist.Vague analogies about societal expectations among some unidentified portions of the population provides a safe distance to launch problematic observations from.

It will be interesting to see if conversation about Harris evolves beyond her gender. If the keys to election victory are eventually said to be policy related rather than just pageantry.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't thing you'd see H Clinton wearing a bright red leather jacket ( or K Harris ); probably because they want people to concentrate on what they say.

Clinton wore an entirely Red Suit to a debate. You're attempting to establish a cultural norm which doesn't exist. It is similar to when Obama was attacked for wearing a Tan suit. The insistence was that it was un-presidential to wear anything other than a dark colored suit. Of course Reagan, Ford, JFK, and others had also worn Tan suits. It wasn't really a first and no such norm existed.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Gender discrimination ( or sexism ) is also a crime.
Yet a lot of people still do it.

Only the most egregious cases are prosecuted. Even in the U.S., where we have more prison inmates than any other nation, there isn't a single person in prison for gender discrimination. 'He said she said' exists in our popular lexicon for a reason. There is no equivalent saying for stealing. Those who steal are called thieves and prisons has plenty of them.  Meanwhile people online debated endlessly on Brett Kavanaugh's behalf citing 'he said she said' as a form of plausible deniability.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

It's not OK to steal either, but there are those who do, and I'm sure you don't leave your wallet in plain sight, in your parked vehicle.
If I asked you to put your wallet in your glove-box, or your back pocket, are you going to assume that I think it's OK to steal ?

Difference being that there are clear, well established, and regularly enforced laws against stealing. It is even biblical "thou shall not steal" for those so inclined. Everyone is able to identify it and very few ever attempt to make light of it. Stealing is unambiguous in most modern cultures. If Biden, Harris, Pence, or nearly any politician were caught stealing Phi's wallet it would end their political career. The overwhelming majority of even their own most partisan supporters would reject that behavior.

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I voted for Hillary Clinton because I felt she was VERY qualified to be president.  She really scraped her way up as a lawyer.  She lost her election by a slim margin.  I don't want Biden/Harris to lose by a slim margin.  It will help them WIN if Kamala, a super-great choice to prosecute Trump every day until the election, will follow more the Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel school of subdued expressions, rather than the all out, cut-loose, big toothy grin and bulging eyes of Hillary Clinton. 

Numerous people from Trump's 16" campaign are felons today Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc. Trump was named by the guilt parties as a co-conspirator on some of those charges. National Intelligence, even the people Trump appointed, have confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump in 16' and is doing it again now. Courts have tossed election rules in place back in 16" in several states which were key to Trump. All of that went down in 2016. I am not even venturing into the more subjective stuff like Comey's last minute decision, Cambridge Analyticia's involvement, etc or standard campaign gaffes. All of that made the difference not Hillary Clinton's smile.

Currently Trump is publicly work to interfere with mail in voting, has openly floated moving the election, FL is still in court trying to keep a million people from voting, National Intelligence has conformed foreign interfere, COVID19 is killing a thousand people a day, etc, etc matter more than Kamala Harris's smile.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

One might argue that she actually lost the election to the electoral college, but that's another thread

I would argue she didn't lose and the election was manipulated.

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Just heard a quick take from Perry over at FiveThirtyEight and it aligns exactly with my thinking.

The suggestion is Biden prefers Rice in terms of governing and working together to get stuff done, but prefers Harris in terms of campaigning and actually winning the election. 

Obviously just opinions, but they’re informed opinions.

The Vice President presides over the Senate. It is the only Constitutional duty the VP has. Susan Rice has never held elective office while Kamala Harris is currently a Senator and sits on the committees for Budget, DHS, Intelligence, and Judiciary. Biden appears to have had a good working relationship with Rice but ultimately Harris fits the bill on paper better to do the job itself. Not just the campaigning stuff but to work with her current colleagues in the Senate to advance the Presidents agenda. Harris has been in the Senate working these last few years while Rice has been out of govt.

My guess is Rice will be Biden Sec of State or U.N. Ambassador which is a natural fit for the progression of her career.

On 8/9/2020 at 11:34 PM, Airbrush said:

For 1/3 of Americans, entertainment is very important to come from their president.  Their favorite entertainment, besides pro wrestling and Nascar, is watching Trump bashing Dems, the cruder the humor the better.  I will never forget the big, long-lasting grin on Maria Bartiromo's face while Trump battered "Crooked Hillary" calling her a "nasty, nasty, woman" at the WH Correspondent's dinner.  Don't forget the 1/3 have been suffering for 8 years of Obama's tyranny, which to them was a never-ending nightmare, which is not entertainment.  Trump was the perfect "anti-Obama" at the perfect time.  Since the 1/3 really like what Trump is doing, they are with him all the way.  They also probably like his looks, WWE swagger, and incessant sarcasm.

I think you are correct about "mail-in voting false flag operations" leading up to the election.  There may be fraudulent ballots manufactured and ALL blamed on Dems. 

During the 2016 election only 55% of eligible voters participated. Of that Trump got 46% of the vote. Meaning only 25% of eligible voters in 2016 voted for Trump. So saying 1/3 of Americans is too high.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you're forgetting the history of what reasonable people can be persuaded to accept; Goebels and his ilk, are very good at the job. 

While I do doubt/hope Americas travel is unlikely to be quite so extreme on this swing, I do think there's more travel left.

History shows us their aren't limits. Many people, not me necessarily, think Humans as a species with eventually destroy/extinct ourselves. So subjectively we can get to a point where the pendulum can never return.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the pendulum only has so much travel before it returns

I disagree with this axiom. Events over the last couple years have taken us beyond what most reasonable people would have considered the travel range.

On 8/7/2020 at 11:31 PM, OldChemE said:

I very much agree the leadership of the NRA should be held accountable for any provable acts along the lines of those charged.  As a gun owner, I want the Second Amendment to remain, but have long felt that the organizations that know gun technology best (Manufacturers and the NRA) should have been working with government to solve the problems instead of blindly fighting everything.  So-- I hope this lawsuit will lead to some positive results.

If dissolved I suspect the NRA will continue on a private organization and little will change. The NRA will simply have to offload the present assets and start paying taxes moving forward.

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Occasionally, the police manage to shoot the right person. It's also not unheard of for a citizen to do so.
In fact it happens something like once a day in the US.

George Zimmerman falls into this category. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to murder  him (a felonious act). I thin is fair to say Zimmerman's account of events are questionable. Problem is there were no witnesses. So Zimmerman's account stands unchallenged. I suspect a number of the cases which make up the stats in your like fall into that category. The numbers are probably lower than what's recorded. Unfortunately I don't what to what degree. 

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

Crimes like robbery, burglary, assault, rape, car jacking, stealing, theft or shoplifting is very  universal and these crime can be put into two groups like property crime and violent crimes.

 I accept this is your definition as context for questions and statements posed in this thread. However I worry we'll read into some struggles.

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

Crimes like public loitering, drinking in public, littering , parking in no parking zone, gambling, sex and drugs so on are more social taboo crimes that may be legal or not legal in some areas.

 Kleptomania  is a known mental disorder. It is also stealing. Which fits into your definition for crime. I would argue that psychologically Kleptomina is more akin to gambling than rape, murder, etc. Kleptomania is a compulsive disorders. Gamble too can be as well. One is a crime and the other a taboo, I suppose, because of the amount of inconvenience they cause others?

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

One of the posters above said when kid growing up has exposure to family fights, domestic violence and people fighting the kid grows up being violent. Be it the kid learns and thinks this is okay to do or some how it has an effect on the brain and the kid that grows up the brain cannot understand right from wrong. So not sure what is going on here on the brain.

Right vs wrong are constructs society creates. In some societies it is acceptable (Right) for parents to use violence on their children as a form of punishment. In other societies is not (wrong). So in discussion the effects on the brain that anything (drugs, violence, etc) has I think it is best to remove subjective stuff like right vs wrong.

There are stages to the Human brains development. Stress creates fight or flight responses in the brain that impact the way a developing mind develops (stress isn't limited to violence of course. There is research out there suggesting the daily struggles of poverty too impacts brain development, here.). The impact can result in a person being more prone to fight than flight or vice versa. For that matter one can development a greater sensitively to stress and respond aggressively to what society would broadly view as mild stress. Here is an interesting study about the potential impacts on the brain, here.

34 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Crime is arbitrarily defined by whoever possesses a credible threat of force. Aron Nimzowitsch said something to the effect of "The threat is greater than the execution." A crime is any act that is forbidden by some authority that possesses a credible threat of force to enforce their rule. For example, I can draft my own law right now, the drumbo law, anyone who disagrees with me shall be imprisoned. However, since I do not possesses a credible threat of force to enforce that rule you will probably not obey it. On the other hand if I was a dictator and had control of the army and police then you would be much more likely to comply, since I would possess a credible threat of force. Not paying your taxes is a crime, since if you do not your paychecks may be garnished forcefully, if you contravene that somehow then your property may be seized, if you try to contravene that physical force will be used against you to seize your property, and if you try to resist that you may be injured or killed. Therefore not paying your taxes is a crime, since it is enforced by a credible threat of force. The execution controls one man, but the threat controls a million.

I don't disagree. I just need nec2009's define to better address the question they ask.

5 hours ago, nec209 said:

That is problem when courts are made up of non doctors and Scientists. So How can this be fixed?

I do not feel you have defined crime yet. There is a huge difference between the behavioral reason and possible genetic precursors for breaking various laws. Serial killers and people who avoid paying their taxes are very different yet both commit crimes. Even with a specific category of crime I see broad differences. Take statutory rape. A 20yrs engaging in such an act with a 17yrs in a locality where 18yrs old is the limit is committing that crime. However in my opinion the motives for doing so, underlying mental issues, threat to the community, etc are different for that 20yr old than say a 55yr old who does the etc same thing. Both are bad but I think one is far worse yet legally they are identical in many place.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Somehow your applause seems little different from the rage of the gun supporters. I agree with iNow. It would be a more reasonable approach to remove their tax status because of the corruption they've been found guilty of. Even people who don't like the NRA might defend them if you just try to dissolve them.

My understanding (which is admittedly limited) is that legally a non-profits assets can only be allocated to another non-profit, here. I think those assets would all have to be transferred away if its status were changed. Those assets legally couldn't be part of a new for profit vs of the NRA less of course the NRA purchased them all back with money acquired post being a non-profit. Dissolution is a State managed process. Where as Tax Exemption is both State and Federal. Far as I can tell from light reading the IRS doesn't distinguish between Dissolution and other ways an organization loses its Tax Exempt Status, here. So I think dissolution and removing their tax exempt status are functionally the same thing. Seems dissolving the organization is the route a state would go vs the federal govt.

1 hour ago, hoola said:

there will be "rage conversations" regardless of any attempt to reign in such an organization, and I applaud the "shock and awe" value used this time, for good. The district of Columbia has announced similar proceedings

As an organization the NRA is very political. However that doesn't mean holding them to legal standard is political. If the charges could be shown in court to be purely politically motivated that would be cause dismissal. I assume you know this which is why this thread is in Ethics and not Politics. You seek a discussion of the cases specifics and not an opinion on the NRA as a whole.

NY's AG is saying that the NRA misused over $60 million dollars worth of charitable funds on this link vacations, non-board member approved contacts to allies, gifts, etc. Per NY law all charitable moneys must go towards the organizations stated charitable mission. The NRA's stated charitable missions is (Summary): Defend the Constitutions, promote law & order nationally, train firearm safety nationally, promote firearm sports nationally, promote hunting nationally. We is the complete suit file, here.

Because of the domestic nature of the NRA's stated mission I think they will have a difficult time explaining how expensive African Safaris and private chartered jet flights to the Bahamas support their mission. It is an interesting chase. I personally think it too a lot of courage to file the suit. Because the NRA is such an established politically juggernaut there will absolutely be criticism. Many will feverishly defend the NRA purely out of political loyalty. It would be unethical to withhold a suit for fear of political optics though.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Well I think you may be saying that we  cannot trust any  observation to be a   completely faithful record of an observed series of events.

 

Another thing we can be sure of then  (after death and taxes) ;the "information deficit "

I've told this story before in another thread here so I will summarize it this time. True story, my wife and I we in a minor fender bender back in 2009. I was driving and have a crystal clear memory of the event. I remember the people driving the the other vehicle, the make and color of the vehicle, etc, etc. A couple years back for whatever reason my wife and I were discussing the event and she remembered a different color, make, and different passengers. My wife keeps all her old cell phones. She she pulled out her old phone, charged it up, and produced photos from the fender bender. Her memory was accurate and mine was not. I misremembered the make, color, and passengers.

Craziest part is now that I am away of the truth my memory is still of the wrong make, color, and people. I just know that it is wrong now.

42 minutes ago, geordief said:

You are surely not suggesting that the external world is not real?

No, I am merely pointing out that I am not making any definitive claims about the external world.

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

Not quite sure what "as such" implies but no I don't see a clear demarcation between them.

There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between them  and ,I suppose to another mind ,my mind is  (to it )something external ,an object of potential study even.

 

To an  individual mind everything seems external  but when it observes (or attempts to observe) its own functioning  does it consider that external or internal?(or something else perhaps:does dynamism change the description?)

 

 

The distinction I am referencing is between the observed world (what ones mind observes) and the external world. Ones mind can falsely observe things. When I realize I have seen, heard, felt, smelled, remembered, etc things which are not real I am realizing that distinction. What I observe in my mind in a moment and what can be observed with consistency (by oneself over time, collectively by peers, with measuring devices, etc) are different things.

That doesn't make the external world real. It just means there is a distinction between what creates the data the mind receives and the way the mind processes data. If the two were the same there wouldn't be discrepancies between what is observed and what is believed to be. I would never hear something which I determine not to be there.

23 hours ago, geordief said:

Yes ,I have mistakenly heard  things which weren't there ,so I suppose seeing things that aren't there would be the same kind of thing.

And yes , schizophrenia  is too extreme to generalize from.

As such there can be a distinction between your mind and the observable world?

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, that's true. But then the question arises of course - if there is no 'external' world, why would the mind need to conjure up any models at all?

Considering we cannot philosophically say why there is life at all to begin with any philosophical question about life that starts with why be either the begin or end of discussion.

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Overall I would say that there being an external world is the more likely and philosophically less problematic position - but I would also say that the external reality in itself is almost certainly very different from our mind's model of it.

I agree with this overall conclusion minus the philosophically less problematic part. I think that part is relative.

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That question goes to the heart of the matter; it all depends on the political spin, as to the perps repentance.

It's all to easy to paint a gay person/murderer as unapologetic (because he/she didn't cry,well enough) while a good actor not only, gets off, but is paid.... 

True. I think the OP made a mistake framing their question around crime. I think what they were trying to ask is more centered around which behaviors are beyond vs within our control. I may be able to control whether or not I initiate the use of alcohol but my genetics will possibly determine addiction.

On 7/25/2020 at 10:13 PM, nec209 said:

I know there is not much information out there and there is lot of talk but not any hardcore science. But the theory why some people do crime and not other people is their brain yes the way their brain is wired and well some other people say chemical imbalance problem that these people have well really hard time to control his or her own self.

And there seem to be this debate among people that some people say low IQ and other people say chemical imbalance. But is there well any agreement among doctors and scientist today?

And well people who are poor may well steal or go around asking people for money at the 711 they are not normally violent or have hard time controlling his or her own emotion and pulled out gun, shoot some one or fight some one because you said some thing or looked at the person the wrong way or road rage or some one cheating on the lover.

If it is the way their brain is because of the way their brain is wired or a chemical imbalance are they really responsible or because of low IQ? 

Unless the person did not take his or her meds to me normal are they responsible for such crimes?  

You did not make an attempt to define crime. What is or is not a crime varies by locality. That said there are studies that look at the impact exposure to violence (many forms of violence are criminal throughout the world) has on the brain as it develops. Exposing a child to violence does impact brain development, increases adult health risks, and increase the likelihood the child with be violent.

Witnessing domestic violence as a child limits said child's attachment to parents and is associated with lower IQ. HERE

Another study links violence exposure at a young age to inflammatory issues than lead to increased health risks from cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and dementia, HERE

And of course exposure to violence at a child increase ones likelihood of being incarcerated as an adult. HERE.

On 7/26/2020 at 4:23 PM, nec209 said:

I guess you need tools to show there is brain damage or some thing wrong with their brain  than other people their brain or a chemical imbalance problem.

The problem is the critics that say this is just theory and there is no science proof. Well why because if there is no brain damage and there is nothing wrong with their brain it is the same as other people their brain the brain is not wired wrong and no chemical imbalance than it comes down to other things that may be the cause of crime.

If it is because of social issues and not psychology than people are going to be less empathy to the criminal.

That if there is chemical imbalance or brain is well different it is beyond the  person control and the person needs to take meds to not do crime. 

But I don’t think psychology gone that far to day say this today or psychology is that advance to day to say this so in the end this is  just theories floating around.

In some country it is a crime to be gay. Throughout much of the world until recently it was a crime to marry someone outside ones race. There are and or have been crimes against premarital intercourse, drawing images of God, etc, etc, etc. I would imagine for each type of crime much debate could be had about whether or not chemical imbalances at a play and whether or not medical is appropriate or could be success in altering the behavior. That is why a specific definition is need for crime.

Does merely labeling something a crime reduce empathy for said behavior? Look at addiction. In the U.S. it is legal to drink Alcohol. As such society is fairly tolerate of people with varying degrees of Alcoholism. Provided one gets treated being an alcoholic doesn't hold one back from opportunities (employment, financing, security clearances, etc) Yet here is the U.S. narcotics are illegal. A history of narcotics addiction will hold one back from opportunity.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone's... 😉

Stone tools were the limit to what was created without money. At a minimum math had to exist first. Otherwise how would any of the money get counted. 🧐

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure? 

How are you able to reply?

Opinions aren't certainties but I am reasonably comfortable in my view.

Tools existed long before money.

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Welcome back Ten...

I wonder, did you read the thread before your answer?

Money has elevated many from poverty and many more from ignorance, so the question of a better world isn't so black and white, for instance the monetisation of money without checks leads to an ever increasing discrepancy of wealth, as we see today; but when the wealth is checked/regulated by the populous/government, we can shoot for the moon...

I have not read the whole thread. It is why I only answered the OP. As such perhaps my response was redundant.

Discrepancy of wealth isn't unique to monetary systems in my opinion. Nearly all animals that live in groups have hierarchical structures where individuals receive treatment which can be described as preferable. That isn't to say inequity is a good thing. Rather it is to say it is a natural impulse. Perhaps one Humans are capable of developing beyond. Perhaps one Humans should develop beyond. All the same one not created by money.

On 7/3/2020 at 8:47 AM, Othmane Dahi said:

Hey guys,

I imagine a world without money. In this world you have the right to have whatever you want in a certain limit. For example, you have the right to have something to have breakfast but you have a list of combinations you have to choose from. In return, you have to do your mission too. 

What do you think? Is it a better world? Is it possible? WHY?

If you have any question about the world you are free to ask

Money is a fairly new concept/practice. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without it. In the animal kingdom Humans are the only ones observed to be practicing a monetary system. So the world can definitively functions without it. Humans can function without it. So the answer to your question of whether or not it possible is Yes. However your other questions are more difficult to answer as they are subjective. What one thinks and what is considered better subjective.

What I think - the example of getting breakfast in return for doing something oneself, this for that, is too limited. Society is far more dynamic that a perpetual even exchanges could ever manage. Ultimately people do things for more abstract reason. People sacrifice for their families, show off to impress, are greedy, are lazy, etc, etc. One for one exchanges can't satiated the multi dimensions of what motives people. Money has a set value but still functions fairly abstractly as it can be sent long distances, saved, gained at increasing rates of return, one can borrow against the future, steal it, lose it, etc. The exchange isn't a linear one for one. So something more dynamic would need to replace money.

Is it a better world - I personally don't think so. Murder, rape, hatred, etc aren't ills created by money. While it may seem at times that things are perpetuated by money and greedy the archeological evidence implies humans have been killing each other since long before money.

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Those delusional people will assume that the evidence for their delusions is false (everyone else can be in on the plot to fool them).

 

I think they may agree they have imagined episodes but only after their medical  condition has cleared up.

This isn't true. To various degrees I think we all have moments were we misinterpret the external world and later realize it. Schizophrenia is a more extreme example but I think most people have episodes where they think the see something or someone only to later realize it isn't there. The mind must interpret the data it receives from the eyes, ears, skins, nose, etc and use it to create a full working understanding of the world around oneself in real time. Sometimes the mind does this better or worse. When a person is tired, sick, dehydrated, etc they are more susceptible to confusion and misinterpreting the world around them. 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

That is why I don't believe it. But it is important to know that it is just a belief. There is no way of empirically testing it.

There is no way to know for sure what is in anyone's mind. Even if a person attempts to tell you what's in their mind they can be mistaken or lying. However individual senses can be tested. Those sense are what provided the mind the data it uses to create an understand of the outside world. Different people have measurably different levels of hearing, eyesight, smell, equilibrioception, etc, etc. So it is logical to assume that it the data collected is different the conclusions determined from that data would be different.