New Mars Forums

Better is easy, it's perfect that neither I nor anyone else has yet conceived.

Indeed it is, quite another story.  Convincing oneself is the easy part.

But I think I've needlessly bashed enough unworkable fantasy for the moment. 

Didn't forget, it falls under option 3.

That said, if you've got a gun pointed at some intruder in your house, as soon as he starts pulling his own it's reasonable cause to believe your life is danger, shooting first is legally justified in most parts of the US. So provoking the criminal to violence by brandishing a weapon in your own defense is only a real threat if you're bluffing.

Sounds like some people I know.

If any of us had the answers for the  perfect system of government we wouldn't be arguing it on a message board.

Relayed to me by a friend via Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … xhome.html

WTF? <bursts into laughter>

This is definately one of those times when I'm in complete agreement with Robert. Damn right.

Preposterous yes, but true.
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

Some highlights:

This is a case where three women were repeatedly raped in their own home after calling police twice.

Several other similar cases with similar rulings exist, a few listed in the link. The police can't protect you. They don't even have to try.

If you're a mugger or burglar what are you gonna do with a cruise missle? How would you hide it?

A small 9mm pistol on the other hand, easily hidden and extremely valuable in that line of work. Especially if some well-meaning but ill-advised politicos disarm all the victims.

Fallacy. The actual number of people that are a threat with a weapon, the real criminal types, are a small segment of the population. It doesn't take many weapons to fuel them. So say we outright banned gun ownership and prosecuted anyone manufacturing them. We still have millions of unrecoverable guns already on the streets and vast quantities of ammunition. Further, reloading ammo is not that hard, smuggling it is fairly easy and the criminal element has a "professional need" of it. Even then the manufacture of new guns wouldn't be stopped, if street thugs can set up clandestine drug labs that can sure as hell set up crude machine shops.

Pakistan is littered with them for example.

Criminals already have a desire for guns. Banning them makes them more attractive because they are more effective against unarmed victims. It creates an underground market, leading to further criminal activity.

Unless you think that "War on Drugs" thing is working out. 

Those are the cases where it's most important that they work. If some violent goon was after your family would you rather they have the means to protect themselves or hope that they can call the police who may or may not arrive in time if they deign to respond at all?

And I'm sure you are sincere about licensing making sure that only people who can handle a gun safely can get one. But many people treat "licensing" as a back-door ban, make the licensing requirements so strict and the fees so high that no one can get one.

Guilty until proven innocent. 

Are you a convicted felon? Ever been in a mental institution? Ever been a member of a terrorist group?

No? Then what's the problem. Most likely you aren't going to go and shoot up the office tomorrow. A calculated risk based on the needs of the one versus the whole. Real "social contract" kind of stuff.

Unless your entire premise of governance revolves around paranoid distrust of law-abiding citizens and the fantasy that "we'll protect you" when something goes wrong.

In most cases, yes, there are better ways. But sometimes there aren't. What you suggest is denying that last resort, revoking that option. If the cops don't come and you can't talk the bad guy out of whatever he intends, tough. Enjoy the robbery/rape/murder or combination. I find that stance sickening and morally vacant. In essence advocating that people rely on the mercy of those who have none and cling to unrealistic hopes of the cavalry showing up in the nick of time.

The simple fact is that gun bans make things real easy for violent criminals. I'd rather work the other side of it.

From where I'm sitting it seems that Cindy, Robert and I are in basic agreement on the bulk of the issue. Something seems to be happening to the Earth's climate and human activity probably plays some role in it alongside natural processes, the significance of that contribution being wide open for debate.

For every scientist advocating the current global warming theory there's another that debunks it. Either a significant percentage of scientists are thinking in a very unscientific manner, or there simply isn't enough data to make any kind of definitive determinations.

In either case, those guesses aren't a good foundation for policy.

But assuming the accuracy of the theory, Kyoto's projected environmental effects range from insignificant to nonexistant. It's economic effects however are severe, particularly on the United States should this nation accept the protocol. And therein lies my suspicion, coupled with China, the worlds dirtiest and fastest growing polluter being exempted. Something smells funny and it ain't diesel fumes.

Even though it's like trying to convince the Pope there's no God, I must address this again.

Localized climate changes do not necessarily translate to global changes and the presence of global changes in no way leads to the conclusion that humanity is the sole cause or even a primary factor. But even if we accept the whole human-caused global warming theory as ironclad gospel truth, Kyoto is a joke.

However I have to Robert credit here:

Quite right. Preparing for observed trends is required and makes immensely more sense than finger-wagging over unsubstantiated theories about the cause of those trends.

<Resume regualrly scheduled blame casting>

Side dishes?! Storage bowls?!  Blasphemy.   

I never really thought of big knives as dishes. Seriously, that's all we use at barbecues. A butcher knife (doubles as a spatula) and other edged implements as needed.

Rapidly slicing up a watermelon with a katana is always a favorite. 

Remember when watermelons had those big black seeds, before they engineered them out? Better the old way.

I usually wake up a minute or two before the alarm goes off. Not one of those annoying buzzers (I tend to break those) this one plays CDs. My wife has a disc of Celtic music in there now, but I'm thinking the Imperial March might put me in a better mood at 05:30.

If that alarm fails I have a very reliable double-redundant backup. Phobos and Deimos are used to the routine and expect to be fed.

In The US "government responsibility" can mean many things. Federal, state, county, city/local; all these levels of government have specific areas of jurisdiction and responsibility. From a legal perspective the federal government taking control of the New Orleans levees would be as out of place as the Mayor of New York negotiating arms treaties with the Chinese. There are sovereignty issues that need to be respected, jurisdictional lines that create great difficulty when crossed.

So before Katrina, maintaining the levees was a state and local government responsibility. Some federal dollars are used on such things, largely due to various levels of government selectively usurping or declining certain tasks. The state and local governments put other priorities ahead of flood defenses.

Even after the hurricane, it still isn't a federal responsibility in most respects. The military forces in place are National Guard troops, essentially state troops under the authority of their respective Governors. Even FEMA, the federal agency charged with disaster management, has limited authority and capability. They are not meant to be first responders, FEMA is not supposed to be on-site when the first crack appears in a levee.

The federal government will be appropriating funds for relief and reconstruction, but even this it does largely outside of its constitutional mandate.

But don't take my word for it, this has been covered by people with far more authority on the matter of Constitutional intent than I.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents"

James Madison.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders were clear on the matter, these two statements are but a sampling.

I think you miss the underlying point here. State and local governments blew it and mismanaged what they had. Go back as far as one likes, from not forcibly evacuating days before the hurricane all the way back to the first French settlers building a city below sea level, the crux of the problem is local. The Feds have to foot the bill now largely because of previous mismanagement.

But none of that matters now. Things are being taken care of as well as can be expected given the present circumstances and further bickering of primary blame is pointless. A more productive course would be to correct the things that are wrong so that next time we're better able to handle it. Dumping everything onto the federal government isn't the answer.

I intend that the residents be treated as Americans who have just had their city destroyed. American citizens in unfortunate circumstances, not helpless victims, dim-witted pets or so many head of federal chattel. No hand-wringing, no passing out a trillion dollars worth of free credit cards to them, no turning their plight into a political hammer against the Administration.

But for the few that actively engage in violence, do what must be done. For the rapists and murderers, shoot them. Order must be imposed, from that all else follows.

That old responsibility thing again. 

<grunts>

Saturday we had a mass-barbecue, a dozen people, bonfire, sorrounded by forest with no sign of civilization, big dogs running around, cooking over an open flame and just "being" much as our distant ancestors once did. Nothing planned, just worked out that way.

Some of the couples sneaking off into the woods as well, much as our distant ancestors. 

If there are dishes to clean you haven't barbecued right. 

A contributing factor almost certainly, how can 6 billion animals not have an effect. Anything more is pure speculation. Every time I turn around the theories change as new data turns up. Pollution causes global warming, no wait, pollution is slowing global warming. 

Fact is we just don't know enough to sit here and make absolute statements about an immensely complex system from a human-centric standpoint.

The converse of that is this: I wouldn't put much faith in a commander who maintains that we can avert the inevitable at the expense of preparing for what's coming. "Don't worry about the perimeter defenses, the negotions will avert a war."   

I'm all for cutting pollution, I'm just not going to get into a frothing panic about it. We're not all going to die if the average global temperature increases by 1 degree over the next century, and that projection is based on theories based on an incomplete understanding of the system.

Better to prepare for the climatic conditions we expect than to pretend we can stop bad weather by driving electric cars.

There are violent gangs taking over the streets. Murders and rapes are rampant. My sense of civilization demands that steps be taken to stop the barbarism.

Know who's shooting at relief helicopters? Those same criminal gangs. Know why? Because they don't want relief to get too far because they rule the streets. If some thugs have to get shot before the decent people can receive help, so be it.