“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K. Dick, quoted in the Penobscot Bay Pilot, Maine
Militias and the law
The danger posed by America’s militia groups was brought home when the FBI revealed it had thwarted a plot by one to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan. These bands of armed vigilantes have become increasingly visible, staging protests and organising street patrols with the purported aim of protecting property.
Alarmingly, they claim to have the Constitution on their side, citing the Second Amendment’s mention of the importance of a “well-regulated militia” to protect the state. But that’s hogwash. What that phrase meant is that, rather than relying on standing armies, which were perceived as a threat to liberty, leaders should be able to call on groups of able-bodied citizens who would act under their command. There has never been a right in any state for a group of armed individuals to set themselves up in opposition to, or in competition with, the civil authorities.
The fact that Biden has been fairly and decisively elected and will be the next President does not mean that groups of armed thugs will go away. They will continue to be an ominous threat. A physical threat, too, and deeply unsettling to those of us law-abiding people who value safety, law and order, the Constitution and Epicurean peace of mind – not necessarily in that order.
State and local officials should have no hesitation in enforcing the law. which is on their side. (Adapted from articles in The Week and the New York Times 24 October 2020)
An apt quotation
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” (Harlan Ellison, quoted in the I newspaper).
My comment: More than ever in history has there been less excuse for being ill-informed and spreading fabrications and lies. We are almost inundated with news and opinion online, on TV and in the Press. What is missing in some people is approaching that news with critical intelligence. Is it really likely that the election was interfered with on a scale massive enough to be invisible to investigators? Is it really likely that State Republican officials are going to declare a fair election in favor of the opposing party if they know for a fact that all votes were valid and were counted and re-counted?
But we have heard all this multiple times. Three cheers for integrity and honesty! May everything come off the boil, peace of mind return and plodding common sense triumph.
Couples don’t grow more alike
Scientists in the US have disproved an enduring theory in social science – that couples in long-term relationships come to look like one another. The “convergence in physical appearance hypothesis” dates back to a 1987 study based on an analysis of photographs of a small number of married couples. The idea attracted wide attention, and even found its way into psychology courses.
Now, however, scientists have re-investigated it – and have found it isn’t true. The Stanford University team compiled a database of pictures of 517 couples, taken soon after they had married and between 20 and 69 years later. They then assessed facial similarity using two methods – human judgement and a “facial recognition algorithm” – and found no evidence that the couples’ looks had converged over time.
But they did discover that at the start of a marriage, couples tended to look more alike than random pairs. Pin Pin Tea-makorn, a co-author of the study, published in Nature Scientific Reports, speculates that people may be attracted to people who look like them because we prefer the familiar: “Since we grew up being familiar with ourselves in the mirror, or our family members, we tend to develop likeability to people who look similar to us.” (The Week 24 Oct 2020)
My comment: Speaking only for myself, I would never have married my wife had I felt she looked remotely like me. She is exponentially better looking. In fact, just better all round. What weird subjects researchers do pick to research! However, Mr. Pin Pin (your name is the best bit of this snippet of news), thank you for a moment of amusement.
Interruptions: tips on how to stop them
May I report an effective way to counter interruptions while I am talking?
In the 1980s, I sat on the council of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs trade union in the UK. Meetings were always attended by the extrovert and voluble general secretary, Clive Jenkins. He would frequently interrupt speakers during what were otherwise disciplined and strictly non-interrupted meetings in order, as he put it, “to be helpful and progress business”.
One member, who seemed to be interrupted more than others, developed the technique of instantly stopping speaking and waiting in silence until Clive, with his usual sweet smile of acknowledgement, had finished. She would then immediately continue speaking at precisely the same point in the sentence she had been delivering as when interrupted. There was never any loss of sense, grammar or syntax. It was as if the interruption had never occurred. This was so effective that it eventually cured Jenkins of his habit.
It is a very difficult trick to carry off, but it can be devastating.
From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK. (published in the New Scientist).
My take: Some people assume a conversation to be competitive – who can “win” the debate and best persuade the audience. This attitude starts in childhood, and is very British. The habit (really annoying, and one I used to be mildly guilty of) gets back to upbringing. Glad to hear that a public figure (which Clive Jenkins certainly was, in England) was capable of absorbing the message.