U.S. politics isolation tank

[Keroin]

Something weird. A hell of a lot of Canadians DO have guns. And yet....

we remain crazy.

Guns plus pressure plus proximity or something?

You can find all that in Toronto, too. It's weird.

Yeah, I've yet to figure it out. I am literally surrounded by guns where I live. We have a ton of hunters and back country enthusiasts out here. One of my close friends proudly displayed the new re-loader he got for Xmas. And, yet, I never feel unsafe here the way I do when I travel south of the line.

Gun regulation works here but, as a culture, Canadians are more accepting of regulation. Maybe we value the overall well being of the community above the freedom of the individual? I don't know. I do know that for all the wishful thinking in the world, leaving people entirely to their own devices and expecting them to do the right thing rarely works. Wall Street anyone?

While the 2A stuff may seem pretty strange, a lot of us are equally or more insane about 1A which ties into education, expression, literacy.

You're probably right but I can't ever remember seeing the kind of frothing at the mouth arguments in the media that you see with gun control. Not even close.

It's interesting that in the 2A "freedom" community there's such a culture of actually believing their majority myths are under some kind of foreign invasion, that Muslims are the reason you need guns and assorted asshattery. A real consistency problem.

From way over here, I see a whole lot of crazy from that community. Scary crazy. I get the sense that they really do believe that shit. And yet these are the same people who, when confronted with gun death statistics, will swear that the real dangers out there are cars, swimming pools, and hammers. So if those are the real dangers, why even worry about imaginary foreign invaders? Why not pour all that anger and effort into swimming pool safety? (I jest, but you get the point, I hope).

I guess to me, the issue with both dangerous words and dangerous weapons is that there's enough dialogue to balance them and cancel them and mitigate them, ideally.

Fingers crossed.

 

[BiBunny]

Do you think our breed of crazy has something to do with the way the health care and, in some cases, prison systems are run? I have no idea, just speculating.

 

[Keroin]

Do you think our breed of crazy has something to do with the way the health care and, in some cases, prison systems are run? I have no idea, just speculating.

I have no idea either but I think it's a very complex mix of things that makes America what it is. My writing partner is Texan and, hence, on the opposite side of the gun control fence from me. We have discussed the issue (civilly) but our cultural divide is so wide that we might as well be speaking different languages. Our "normal" is too different.

Which is why I've kind of given up on piping up on the US gun control debate for the most part.

I will say that I like social safety nets. I've often thought of how horrifically crappy some points in my life would have been were it not for universal health care and other social programs.

 

[Keroin]

It's like why I won't call myself an atheist any more. I don't want to be associated with the assholes in atheism.

@Homburg your comment on using the title atheist (or not using, as the case may be), was timely. I am reclaiming the title for the non-crazy. In fact I'm about to write a blog post about just that. Ironically, it was a post on Facebook, related to the latest mass shooting that made up my mind for me.

Little Myth Atheist

Only semi-related to US politics.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Little Myth Atheist

Only semi-related to US politics.

Awe-freakin'-some! You rock, girlie... but then we already knew that.

 

[Homburg]

The ongoing ethnic-cleansing-by-imprisonment-and-poverty-and-gangs that has gone on and on - believe me we're not talking about 100 people - has never or rarely provoked the same "we must DO SOMETHING" agreement throughout the mainstream.

Why a buyback in Chicago, but no buyback in Newtown?

Time to be non-PC.

The (mostly white) people in small-town Connecticut tend to have legal guns. If they want to get rid of them, they can take them to a gun store or some other legal way to sell them.

And, hey, we don't mind white people with guns. Well, except the crazy ones and the felons. White people with guns are safe. It's those inner cities minorities that we really don't want to have guns.

And, in case anyone is wondering, that is the persistent subtext of a LOT of gun control, historically and currently.


--

I was just thinking last night, however, that it would be interesting if there was as much zeal in the US about education and literacy as there is about the second amendment.

Yeah, I know.

Actually, there's plenty zeal for education and literacy. It's just not sexy or insane, so it doesn't make the news. Guns, like abortion, are extremely mediagenic. They get ratings.

Hell, you've worked in the industry. Guns, explosions, fast cars, and tits are all things that sell more movie tickets and ad spots than books and math problems. Firearms create instant tension, and tension sells.

@Homburg your comment on using the title atheist (or not using, as the case may be), was timely. I am reclaiming the title for the non-crazy. In fact I'm about to write a blog post about just that. Ironically, it was a post on Facebook, related to the latest mass shooting that made up my mind for me.

Yeah, the post about how the shooting happened because there was no prayer in school, and that jesus would've somehow protected those kids made me want to vomit.

That's one thing I can say with some conviction - I may think that inflicting more gun restrictions is likely to do little to nothing, it'll do more than jesus will.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, there's plenty zeal for education and literacy. It's just not sexy or insane, so it doesn't make the news. Guns, like abortion, are extremely mediagenic. They get ratings.

I'm afraid the drastic defundings, firings, over the past five years, not to mention the media outcry against wasting tax dollars on "useless research projects" disproves you there.

And also;

‎"Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler." -- Jon Stewart

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ol-hitler-alex-jones-20130109,0,2159226.story

 

[Homburg]

Something weird. A hell of a lot of Canadians DO have guns. And yet....

we remain crazy.

Guns plus pressure plus proximity or something?

Guns plus population pressure plus proximity plus socially restrictive society plus stupidity in regards to recreation drugs plus war on drugs plus lead exposure plus unwanted kids plus welfare state plus plus plus

And I am firmly convinced that a major reason is that the Canucks are just simply better than we are at following Wheaton's Law ("Don't be a dick.")

It's interesting that in the 2A "freedom" community there's such a culture of actually believing their majority myths are under some kind of foreign invasion, that Muslims are the reason you need guns and assorted asshattery. A real consistency problem.

I used to say that I had my guns for defense against tyranny, home defense, etc. These days, meh. I have them because I like them. Sure, some are slotted for home defense, and, should the desperate need arise, can be used for other purposes, but I didn't get me an AK47 to defend mahself from them jack-booted ATF thugs.

My attitude overall is that it doesn't bloody well matter *why* I own a firearm so long as I am not using it for an illegal purpose.

(I don't own an AK, by the way. Can't stand em. Never found one that shot worth a crap. I don't care how reliable it is if I can't hit the broad side of stupid with it.)

--

From way over here, I see a whole lot of crazy from that community. Scary crazy. I get the sense that they really do believe that shit. And yet these are the same people who, when confronted with gun death statistics, will swear that the real dangers out there are cars, swimming pools, and hammers.

Having worked in the auto insurance/collision field for a decade and a half, I think I can safely say, with some credibility, that cars ARE the real danger, comparatively speaking.

(All numbers here are averages of a few years, roughly**)

179 million cars in the US produce about 40,000 fatalities. Roughly 4500 cars on the road for every one car that kills someone.

300 million guns in the US produce about 11,000 non-suicide fatalities*. Roughly 27,000 guns out there for every one that kills someone.

Per unit, one item is significantly more deadly than the other. And this is neither pedantry nor sophistry. This is physics. A handgun bullet, or even a rifle bullet, is a piker compared to the kinetic energy of 4,000lbs of detroit steel moving at 35mph.

(I can PM you some rough math to support the point if you want. Not going to blow half a screen to go into cheesy physics 101 equations to show a rifle bullet has circa 81 newtons of force and 260psi, while a car at 60kph has roughly 502,000 newtons of force and 880psi)

I see roughly 600 units a year, and around 0.5-3 of those will involve a fatality. In fifteen years of doing this, I've handled one that had more than one death involved. This follows the NHTSA statistics (which they've not published that I've seen, but have referred to in reports), as multiple deaths in a fatal car crash are comparatively rare, same as multiple fatalities from shootings are likewise comparatively rare.

It may sound mad to say this, but it's just physics, and the statistics bear out the physics. And hammers? Fuck a hammer. Those things are DEADLY.


* - I'm ignoring suicides because they complicate shit weirdly, because someone serious about suicide will get the job done gun or no, and because the auto statistics I have access to don't reflect suicide by auto either. (Yes, this is a thing, though way less common that suicide by gun.)

** - Auto fatalities are trending down. As technology enhances, air bags, predictive braking, etc all combine to slowly reduce the incidence of fatal auto accidents each year. The trend is measurable.

That said, the number of firearm homicides (along with all crime) has been dropping for quite a while as well, with a recent uptick.

There is likely to come a point where they reach parity, or at least they will if suicides are included, as firearm deaths by suicide are 1.5-2 times the homicide rates depending on the year, producing total deaths around 30k average.

So if those are the real dangers, why even worry about imaginary foreign invaders? Why not pour all that anger and effort into swimming pool safety? (I jest, but you get the point, I hope).

None of the various arguments along these lines of reasoning are intended to somehow make firearms not seem deadly or dangerous. They are intended to provide perspective on the amount of threat we are talking. Your car, a faithful, reliable, innocuous companion of your daily travels is roughly six times more likely in a given year to kill someone than my gun (If we add in predicted useful lifespan of the device, it becomes even more extreme a number). Does this mean cars should be outlawed? No, but it helps put the overall threat into perspective. (as well as offering reasons why car ownership is more legislated and controlled than firearms ownership)

In my case, it is an interesting exercise in mathematics, as well as hopefully illustrating to a complacent public that your car is FUCKING DANGEROUS, and driving should not be undertaken lightly.

And, honestly, the intent is the other way. The gun wacko is trying to get his opponent to see that there's more deadly shit out there that nobody gives a damn about. Me? I'd look at tobacco. 443,000 deaths per year.

But, c'mon Homburg, people do that shit to themselves. Guns are used to kill other people! Okay, cool, I can accept that, even though those numbers are fucking obscene. So let's limit it to deaths to second hand smoke. You know, people who don't smoke but are killed because of others smoking around them. 49,000 of those folks are killed each year by other people smoking near them. That's people killed by other folks indulging in a vice.

But to me, safety is not the argument that I care about. I regularly partake in activities that many people don't consider safe. I shoot, I lift heavy, I ride my mountain bike on rough trails, I ride said bike on busy urban streets, and I argue with strangers on the internet. Oh, and I'm involved in BDSM.

*shrug* Have your vices, your hobbies, even if they're a bit dangerous. This section of Lit is a discussion board dedicated to activities that many locales would deem assault or domestic violence. We regularly skirt or outright break numerous laws, and every year we hear about yet another person dying because somebody was stupid and didn't follow best practices. And occasionally we deal with some yahoo that either wants to ban BDSM activities or otherwise suppress us.

Well, Wikipedia tells me that, for example, some 250-1000 deaths happen each year in this country from autoerotic asphyxia. Doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed.

And, no, to forestall pedantic butthurt, I'm not equating BDSM and guns. I'm talking about freedom and the ability to partake in activities that others may see as dangerous. So long as you, the responsible law-abiding adult, are not actually harming anyone, you should be allowed to do what thou wilt.

In the end, gun violence, and gun culture, is on the decline. If you're patient, it'll happen without all the rigamarole, screaming matches, and potential for bloody insurrection by crazy people.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/...re-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/

(Goddamn I'm long-winded...)

 

[Homburg]

I'm afraid the drastic defundings, firings, over the past five years, not to mention the media outcry against wasting tax dollars on "useless research projects" disproves you there.

I have a public school teacher sleeping upstairs from me right now. Trust me, I know. But the defundings and so forth do not show a lack of zeal. They show a lack of effectiveness on the part of those who possess that zeal, and a lack of give-a-shit on the part of gen-pop.

And also;
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ol-hitler-alex-jones-20130109,0,2159226.story

I saw that. As always, Jon Stewart is brilliantly funny. Did you see the bit on the house republicans completely fucking up the Hurricane Sandy relief bill? It was one of the best things he's done yet, both from a humor and discursive standpoint.

There was plenty that he said that I disagreed with, and some that I agreed with. Much of the stuff I disagreed with was done for comedic effect (assault muskets? Really? LOL). The agreeable stuff were some of the actual points he throws in that are intended to make sense and give meaning and credibility. That's exactly what allows his rants to rise beyond some political comedy show.

Personally, whether I agree with him or not on a given issue, I consider Jon Stewart to be among one of the most important voices in politics today.

 

[Homburg]

Little Myth Atheist

Only semi-related to US politics.

(I consider this plenty related as religion is wound into politics here like the metastasizing cancer that it is.)

This is, as expected, a well-written piece, but I do take issue with a few points.

First, I do not consider it cowardice to avoid a label associated with politics and activities that I do not agree with. I may agree overall with the core logic of Michael Nudow's various lawsuits, but I in no way agree with the asshattish methodology he espouses. And, frankly, there are some core differences between myself and many atheists to the point where I do not consider the label accurate.

Statement 1: There is a God.
Statement 2: There is no God.

Ontologically, epistemologically, and flat out semantically, both of those statements hold the exact same level of veracity. While it is impossible to empirically show that god or gods exist, it is equally, if not MORE, impossible to empirically show that they do not exist. The universe is vast beyond comprehension, and there is a certain statistical possibility that an entity, or entities, that would be worthy of the term deity may exist. Sans omniscience (itself a godly trait) it is impossible to positively know.

Or, in short, you cannot prove a negative.

The theist believes god exists while the atheist believes god does not exist. In each case, the person is defined, in this context, by belief. In my world, I see no difference. I do not believe that no god exists. I see no proof, and see no reason to believe. And as I see no proof, the question of disbelief is meaningless and not worth the mental and emotional energy to believe an unprovable negative regarding the existence of same.

So, no, not really an atheist. Non-believer works well, and encompasses the whole nicely enough.

Second, I don't hide behind that label. I tend to use it, and then use the inevitable question to make my rather simple point. I don't believe, either way, and I disagree with many of the people using the label 'atheist'.

Third, you may not want to make people feel stupid for their beliefs, but all too often you do. And you do this not by being a condescending douchewad (though many, many, MANY atheists very much are condescending douchewads on the topic of faith), but simply by implication. The existence of the atheists calls the reality of faith and god into question, and some people's beliefs are simply not sturdy enough to stand any question, even an implied one.

It is an unfortunate fact of life, but when a religious person hears someone say they're an atheist, the instant assumption is that said atheist thinks they're crazy. Why? Because even religious people tend to know that what they do is silly at least in some extent. Yeah, man, grape juice and wafers? Totally makes sense...

Aside from that, I agree in large part. I won't stop calling myself a non-believer, but, as noted above, I have a few additional reasons for not doing so. I don't blame you, or think you're in any way wrong for doing so. It's just not my choice in the matter.

 

[BiBunny]

Discussions like these always make me want to start a thread on religion, belief, lack of belief, and so forth. Then, the part of me that knows better starts screaming ''NOOOOOOO!'' because it knows that things would start off OK until a handful of pedants with chips on their shoulders showed up and sent the whole thing straight to hell in a hand basket for everybody.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

But hell doesn't exist, either... and what the he... what the dev... what IS a handbasket, anyway? Do they exist any more?

 

[Homburg]

But hell doesn't exist, either... and what the he... what the dev... what IS a handbasket, anyway? Do they exist any more?

Religion-based epithets are perfectly fine to appropriate even if you aren't religious. You use words from non-English languages on a regular basis and there's not much difference there. It's an emotive expression. Intent is more important than belief or lack thereof.

If anything, you flaunt disbelief with religion based curse words. For a believer, that sort of thing is blasphemy. For me? Emotional release.

And, as an aside, the inestimable (and eminently atheist) Stephen Fry did a multipart series on language for the BBC. All three parts are, or were, on YouTube. The relevance* here is that part if it was a fascinating discussion on cursing. If you are remotely interested in language, check it out. It's brilliant stuff.

* - Stephen Fry is always relevant.

 

[midwestyankee]

Do you all remember the faux crisis over the "Ground Zero Mosque?" And how the rational response to the outrage was to point out that of the several hundred million followers of Islam, only a few thousand were actually threats on the order of al Qaeda? And then the reply to this was, "Where are the moderate Muslims? Why are they not speaking out against their irrational brothers?"

Remember all that?

Where are the moderate gun owners? Why are they allowing the crazies dictate the pro gun-ownership side of this discussion?

 

[Keroin]

(I consider this plenty related as religion is wound into politics here like the metastasizing cancer that it is.)

This is, as expected, a well-written piece, but I do take issue with a few points. <Snip>

Wow, H, feeling feisty lately?

BTW, I came up with that post before your comment so none of it was directed at you, not even .00001%. I was not calling you a coward - that was the given reason for my behaviour. I'm sorry but I do fit the atheist label and I have consciously chosen not to use it for fear of being offensive. It just occurred to me in a 'blinding flash of light' moment that there was no reason I shouldn't use it. Catholics don't stop calling themselves Catholics because of the past or present atrocities committed by the bad elements of their faith, same for other religions.

I don't believe in deities. It's as simple as that. If saying that makes me a douchebag, so be it. I'll have to live with it. If you think I'm a douchebag, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Believers are allowed to speak freely about their believe. I just think non-believers and atheists deserve to speak freely about their lack of belief, without shame or fear.

BTW, you seem a bit...I don't know the exact word. Hostile? Is everything OK?

 

[Keroin]

None of the various arguments along these lines of reasoning are intended to somehow make firearms not seem deadly or dangerous. They are intended to provide perspective on the amount of threat we are talking.

Yes, I am aware of the statistics. Cars are dangerous. I agree. So is tobacco. Which is why those two things have come under heavy scrutiny and there have been serious efforts at regulation, safety measures, education, etc. Where I live, you cannot smoke in pretty much ANY public place except the street now. Smokers kicked up a royal fuss but they adapted, life went on, non-smokers are no longer subjected to second-hand smoke. It's awesome.

Just because the world is full of danger, which it is, doesn't mean that where we can lessen unnecessary danger we shouldn't. And I'm not referring to gun control, just talking about the general man-made dangers out there.

 

[Keroin]

Sorry, H, couldn't resist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/142-plane-crash-victims-were-statistically-more-li,20353/

Totally stumbled on this by accident this morning.

OK, yes, I'm a douchebag but the Onion is just too damned funny.

 

[rosco rathbone]

ANyone seen 0 Dark 30?

Some amazing scenes...the look of utter defeat in the eyes of a detainee after water boarding as it sinks in that he has been broken by the very same people hatred of whom inspired him to become a jihadi in the first place...commandos shooting down parents in cold blood and then immediately shushing the screaming kids "shh, it's ok, it's ok" in that All-American, we're-the-good-guys, the-firemen-are-here-to-rescue-you accent.

 

[Homburg]

Where are the moderate gun owners? Why are they allowing the crazies dictate the pro gun-ownership side of this discussion?

Hi, I'm Homburg, and I'm a moderate (sort of) and a gun owner. And I'm trying here.

Two problems with this idea. First off, moderates are just not as motivated to speak out and get loud as the crazies are. And second, moderate doesn't sell as space, but crazy sure does. Do you think if Piers Morgan would've invited me on his show that anyone would watch? But inviting looney shit for brains Alex Jones means ratings. (And Jones asked for it with his dipshit anti-1st amendment petition to have Morgan deported)

The moderate Muslims said the same thing - provide a platform for me to speak and I most certainly will

 

[Homburg]

Wow, H, feeling feisty lately?

BTW, I came up with that post before your comment so none of it was directed at you, not even .00001%. I was not calling you a coward - that was the given reason for my behaviour. I'm sorry but I do fit the atheist label and I have consciously chosen not to use it for fear of being offensive. It just occurred to me in a 'blinding flash of light' moment that there was no reason I shouldn't use it. Catholics don't stop calling themselves Catholics because of the past or present atrocities committed by the bad elements of their faith, same for other religions.

I don't believe in deities. It's as simple as that. If saying that makes me a douchebag, so be it. I'll have to live with it. If you think I'm a douchebag, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Believers are allowed to speak freely about their believe. I just think non-believers and atheists deserve to speak freely about their lack of belief, without shame or fear.

BTW, you seem a bit...I don't know the exact word. Hostile? Is everything OK?

I totally apologize if that came off as hostile. And the "you" in that post was intended as generic. Any hostility in tone there was likely because I was dealing with tech support whole writing it.

I recognize that it was not aimed at me. Just replying with my individual viewpoint. I was contemplating asking if I could link the piece to my FB page.

In general, I'm fine wound up over politics and the erosion of 2A gun rights, 1A speech rights (calls for movies, tv, video games to be forced to remove violence), and the eventual damage to 4AM that all this implies. It bugs me. Trying to keep grumpiness out if my tone.

It's also a general irritation at seeing folks whose reasoning I usually respect suddenly going stupid for political reasons. That bugs me. Not pointing fingers here, so you know. I'm actually posting here because the major players are all consistent to expressed positions held in previous years.

 

[Homburg]

Sorry, H, couldn't resist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/142-plane-crash-victims-were-statistically-more-li,20353/

Totally stumbled on this by accident this morning.

OK, yes, I'm a douchebag but the Onion is just too damned funny.

ROFLSnort. Onion is good stuff I may be irritated but I've retained a sense of humor. I laughed at Jon Stewart's screed. It was funny.

 

[midwestyankee]

Hi, I'm Homburg, and I'm a moderate (sort of) and a gun owner. And I'm trying here.

Two problems with this idea. First off, moderates are just not as motivated to speak out and get loud as the crazies are. And second, moderate doesn't sell as space, but crazy sure does. Do you think if Piers Morgan would've invited me on his show that anyone would watch? But inviting looney shit for brains Alex Jones means ratings. (And Jones asked for it with his dipshit anti-1st amendment petition to have Morgan deported)

The moderate Muslims said the same thing - provide a platform for me to speak and I most certainly will

And therein lies the problem: the moderates blame circumstances for their silence. And yet silent they remain. And as long as it remains this way, the Wayne LaPierre's and Alex Joneses of the world will define the guns debate. If there are some unpleasant controls put into place, my guess is that it will be in large part because LaPierre and Jones and their ilk have pissed off too many otherwise reasonable people.

Did Gandhi wait until someone provided him with a platform? My guess is that most moderates are staying quiet for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that they maintain a confidence that the big bad NRA will win out in the end and they won't have to break a sweat to keep the status quo.

 

[Keroin]

I totally apologize if that came off as hostile. And the "you" in that post was intended as generic. Any hostility in tone there was likely because I was dealing with tech support whole writing it.

I recognize that it was not aimed at me. Just replying with my individual viewpoint. I was contemplating asking if I could link the piece to my FB page.

In general, I'm fine wound up over politics and the erosion of 2A gun rights, 1A speech rights (calls for movies, tv, video games to be forced to remove violence), and the eventual damage to 4AM that all this implies. It bugs me. Trying to keep grumpiness out if my tone.

It's also a general irritation at seeing folks whose reasoning I usually respect suddenly going stupid for political reasons. That bugs me. Not pointing fingers here, so you know. I'm actually posting here because the major players are all consistent to expressed positions held in previous years.

Well, then, cupcakes all around.

You are welcome to post that to your FB page, if you like. Apparently 4 other people have already done so, and it's been re-tweeted a bunch.

My intent is not to provoke so much as enlighten. I also hope that maybe some poor kid who doesn't believe and is too afraid to "come out" might see that and find some kind of comfort in the knowledge that he/she is not alone.

This is a much better post on the topic, however, by Ricky Gervais.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hi, I'm Homburg, and I'm a moderate (sort of) and a gun owner. And I'm trying here.

Two problems with this idea. First off, moderates are just not as motivated to speak out and get loud as the crazies are. And second, moderate doesn't sell as space, but crazy sure does. Do you think if Piers Morgan would've invited me on his show that anyone would watch? But inviting looney shit for brains Alex Jones means ratings. (And Jones asked for it with his dipshit anti-1st amendment petition to have Morgan deported)

The moderate Muslims said the same thing - provide a platform for me to speak and I most certainly will

We need a new movement in this country; Radical moderation.

And honestly, I think we are beginning to see it happen.

One thing moderates need to learn is that platforms are a DIY proposition. You don't get them provided. You make them.

 

[DemianBiros]

We need a new movement in this country; Radical moderation.

And honestly, I think we are beginning to see it happen.

One thing moderates need to learn is that platforms are a DIY proposition. You don't get them provided. You make them.

stella,I am falling in love with your mind and general good sense!