Political Potpourri VIII

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-17 06:40:55

*The word empire seems outdated or only pertaining to fiction. Of course that's not so, but I never think "I live within an empire" or "My nation is an empire." ::shrugs::

I had the "empire epiphany" so long ago it seems alien to think otherwise. The continental US is huge in itself, then we have territories, then a slew of culturally and economically dominated friendly nations, troops stationed all over the place in those nations.

For example, one could make the case that Japan is an American vassal state rather than an ally.

But we're kind of "big and cuddly" as far as empires go. Doesn't bother me in the least.

And it confounds raving Lefties when they start ranting about American imperialism and I just shrug and say "yeah, so? Just figuring that out?" They hate that.

And while we have no reason to make it "official" complete with all the imperial trappings, we do need to accept the reality and understand that what Grypd stated before is essentially true. Only we can lose the Empire. If we fall it'll be our own damn fault.

And now for something completely different. . .

The head of the TSA has recently called for some changes. Among them getting rid of that shoe-screening thing, loosening some of the screwier restrictions, allowing certain people (pilots, high ranking military officers, etc.) to bypass screening.

But my favorite, The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights.

I can't make this stuff up. And while I'm sure the majority of you are thinking "what the hell?" I think this, while not exactly the best choice of items to list, hits on something that needs to be discussed.

When you ask most people why the 9/11 hijackers were able to take over the aircraft most people will answer "because they had boxcutters." This misses something very important. It wasn't boxcutters that allowed it to happen, but rather the training of the crew. Up to that point hijackings always ended with negotiations and the release of the vast majority of passengers. Consequently crews were trained not to resist and passengers were urged to do the same.

So edged weapons on planes weren't the problem at all, the old "don't fight the rapist" mindset was at fault here. Those pilots had an axe in their cockpits, they could have fought off a couple guys with boxcutters had they chose to do so.

Of the four planes, three hit their targets and killed a bunch of people. One was brought down in a field because the passengers resisted when they started getting indications that this was not a normal hijacking.

Now imagine if the crews and passengers of all four had resisted from the beginning. Five guys with boxcutters trying to take over a plane full of fighting passengers? Try that now and those five guys are gonna get their asses kicked.

Maybe the new TSA director has figured it out. Screening for tiny little cutting implements totally misses the point and may actually be detrimental to security.

I'll be handing out knives and throwing stars to passengers as they board. Have a safe flight.

Palomar · 2005-08-17 07:25:04

*The word empire seems outdated or only pertaining to fiction. Of course that's not so, but I never think "I live within an empire" or "My nation is an empire." ::shrugs::
I had the "empire epiphany" so long ago it seems alien to think otherwise. The continental US is huge in itself, then we have territories, then a slew of culturally and economically dominated friendly nations, troops stationed all over the place in those nations.
For example, one could make the case that Japan is an American vassal state rather than an ally.
But we're kind of "big and cuddly" as far as empires go. Doesn't bother me in the least.
And it confounds raving Lefties when they start ranting about American imperialism and I just shrug and say "yeah, so? Just figuring that out?" They hate that.
And while we have no reason to make it "official" complete with all the imperial trappings, we do need to accept the reality and understand that what Grypd stated before is essentially true. Only we can lose the Empire. If we fall it'll be our own damn fault.

*I agree.

It's not denial on my part...it's simply home (sentiment) and perhaps taking certain facts for granted. The U.S. is an Empire but more than that, it's home. Somehow the two concepts just don't fully "connect" (and not because I don't want it to connect, it just doesn't on a certain level). A bit difficult to explain...

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-08-18 23:33:50

The Wolfenstein nightclub opens in Japan

http://www.planetwolfenstein.com/images … 122201.jpg

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-19 23:42:19

CC:-

Maybe the new TSA director has figured it out. Screening for tiny little cutting implements totally misses the point and may actually be detrimental to security.
I'll be handing out knives and throwing stars to passengers as they board. Have a safe flight.

More good points from CC.
Reminds me once again of the town in America somewhere, the name of which escapes me, in which everyone 18 years old (or 21?) and over is required to own a gun and to have completed an approved course of instruction in how to use it.
-- Result: A virtually crime-free town. Every crook knows there's at least one gun in every home .. and a person who knows how to use it!
-- Should be more of it. 8)

Palomar · 2005-08-20 05:05:48

CC:-
Maybe the new TSA director has figured it out. Screening for tiny little cutting implements totally misses the point and may actually be detrimental to security.
I'll be handing out knives and throwing stars to passengers as they board. Have a safe flight.
More good points from CC.
Reminds me once again of the town in America somewhere, the name of which escapes me, in which everyone 18 years old (or 21?) and over is required to own a gun and to have completed an approved course of instruction in how to use it.
-- Result: A virtually crime-free town. Every crook knows there's at least one gun in every home .. and a person who knows how to use it!
-- Should be more of it. 8)

*I don't know about this. ::shakes head:: The old phrase "violence begets violence" comes to mind.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (my father had two shotguns, my husband has a pistol and a shotgun), but if we "have to" arm everyone then you're implying (which sort of scares me) that the overall crime issue is so terribly out of control...

Must we resort to (pardon the pun) this sort of overkill? I hope not.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-08-20 06:02:42

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (my father had two shotguns, my husband has a pistol and a shotgun), but if we "have to" arm everyone then you're implying (which sort of scares me) that the overall crime issue is so terribly out of control...

Married or maybe not

Have you got written permission?
From your lawyer of course.

Please give thought to what I said.
A nuptial is no joke.

It can be peace of mind, you know,
like a loaded fourty-five under your pillow.

Yes dear, I know you dont like guns,
But it is all for the best.

And lets not forget the importance
of seperate rooms and beds.

Yes, I know she up and left him.
There is no reason to retrieve her scraps.

Of course Ken needs a real Woman.
But if Barbie takes him back?

Yes Dear, I know you are only twelve.
But it is all for the best.

-srmeaney

reddragon · 2005-08-20 09:49:44

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (my father had two shotguns, my husband has a pistol and a shotgun), but if we "have to" arm everyone then you're implying (which sort of scares me) that the overall crime issue is so terribly out of control...

I agree. I tend to feel that police carry guns so the rest of us don't have to. The government is supposed to provide a trained, professional force to deal with crime. Giving that responsibility to the citizens, who are not trained in law enforcement, seems both irresponsible and a bad idea. Further, I think that the right to own weapons also basically includes the right to not do so.

If everyone is armed, it may help to keep down crime, but it also may lead to vigilante violence or dueling in the streets. Also, having a gun in every home greatly increases the risk of domestic violence.

If everyone has to have a gun, it's a problem not a solution.

Rxke · 2005-08-20 17:16:35

Remember the "four more years" slogan during elections?

Four more years it is... In Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … _interview

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-21 04:41:47

Cindy:-

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (my father had two shotguns, my husband has a pistol and a shotgun), but if we "have to" arm everyone then you're implying (which sort of scares me) that the overall crime issue is so terribly out of control...

Hmmm. Well, I happen to feel that the "crime issue" is out of control, at least here in Australia. The reason for it is the illicit drugs problem.
-- I happen to espouse the notion that the tendrils of the drug business reach far and wide, into the law enforcement organizations and even into government. I have a friend, an ex-politician, who was a Minister in State Parliament, who has told me he reported specific drug crimes to the Police Commissioner's office in his state some years ago. My friend had his and his family's life threatened and his property damaged as a result. What he'd told the Commissioner's office had been reported directly to the drug gangs because those 'tendrils' I'm telling you about had reached and infiltrated that office!
-- Now, it seems very likely to me that if the Police Commissioner's office was implicated in the drug business, then echelons higher up still were probably involved .. and probably still are.

I firmly believe that this is the reason the drug problem, with all its criminal ramifications, will never be solved. There are far too many people 'on the take' at all levels of law enforcement and government. I don't know what goes on in the U.S. but I'd be very surprised if it's not exactly the same there.
-- It's estimated that 90% of all crime in Australia is drug related. If you took away the drug problem, we'd be back to the much lower crime rates of the 1950s, when people in my home town could leave their cars and houses unlocked with a better than 99% chance they wouldn't be robbed or burgled.

So yes, I think the crime issue is very much out of control and the honest police, assuming there are some left, are physically unable to deal with all the crime we're faced with. Every day here in Australia, innocent people are subjected to appalling violence and the law courts hand down laughable sentences - usually community service or suspended sentences.
-- Makes me wonder if elements of the judiciary are also 'on the take'.

There are places here in my country where it seems like madness not to own a gun. And yet, the politicians and the judiciary have gradually seen to it that ordinary law-abiding citizens have no chance of ever being able to get hold of one. Sometimes I wonder what the real reasons are. :?

... (my father had two shotguns, my husband has a pistol and a shotgun), ..

That would be illegal here in Australia in an urban environment. However bad the restrictions on personal liberty are in America, believe me, they are much worse here. Only the criminals have guns in Australia.
-- We never needed them at all until the drug problem started. Now, we're not allowed to have them to defend ourselves. Interesting, isn't it?

[:: EDIT :: This post was edited by me about an hour after the original version was posted. I altered some references to certain people, which, in retrospect, I thought were too specific and explicit. The main points of the original post remain intact.]

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-22 05:46:59

I suppose it is time for this again.

There's no need to require everyone to be armed, but there most certainly is a need for allowing people to be armed. There is simply no better deterrent to criminal activity than the knowledge that every potential victim could well be fully equipped to defend themselves.

Interestingly, a simple statistical correlations shows that, in Western countries at least, the places with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates and further that crime rates increase as restrictions are tightened.

What was it that Einstein said about insanity?

Sure, we have professional police to handle crime, or so we are taught, but the fact is that police respond after the fact to investigate and apprehend. In most cases they can't protect you. In fact there have been court cases where it was ruled that they aren't even obligated to! Police are not bodyguards, we can't rely solely on them to protect the citizenry from crime.

Shaun also raises a good point about the drug trade being an integral factor in the present level of crime. An obvious parallel of course is America's experience with Prohibition. Infer from that what you will. The simple fact is that we are enacting policies that tend to increase the appeal of criminal activity to certain elements and then when that criminal activity increases, we deny the non-criminals the means to defend themselves from it. It's so absurd that it's hard to believe it's still an issue for debate. It would be comical if there weren't so many people being robbed, raped and murdered as a direct result of it.

Or as the bumper sticker says, guns cause crime like flies cause garbage

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-22 06:57:54

CC:-

Or as the bumper sticker says, guns cause crime like flies cause garbage

Palomar · 2005-08-22 07:48:43

Or as the bumper sticker says, guns cause crime like flies cause garbage

*And just as flies are attracted to garbage, criminals are attracted to weapons.

It's not that I disagree with many of the points you and Shaun are making...but my point of disagreement is with the sentiment that, for example, all passengers aboard an airplane should be armed or given weapons.

If you'd listened for years to all the reports I've transcribed of all the disturbed people out there (let alone the outright mentally ill on medications)...not a good idea. And then there's the propensity for mischief. Of course it won't happen anyway, but still.

I do commisserate with Shaun's comment:

-- We never needed them at all until the drug problem started. Now, we're not allowed to have them to defend ourselves. Interesting, isn't it?

Seems to be the unfortunate norm as human relations go. The responsible, productive and law-abiding good people are somehow "supposed to" gladly suffer fools and assholes. I don't buy it nor like it...and then the good folks enable it inadvertently by figuring it's hopeless to try and change the situation to their own advantage. ( ::edit:: Which, in a way it IS hopeless because then the idiotic moral relativists come out with their assinine attempts at guilt-inducing the innocent with silly accusations along the line of "well, you're no better than anyone else." Sure, John Dillinger was no worse than Pa Ingalls. NOT. Give me a break).

Vicious cycle.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-22 08:25:22

It's not that I disagree with many of the points you and Shaun are making...but my point of disagreement is with the sentiment that, for example, all passengers aboard an airplane should be armed or given weapons.

I wouldn't say that all people should be armed, whether on a plane, a street or wherever. There are some nutjobs out there that shouldn't have so much as a disposable razor. But they are a tiny minority. Better to screen them out than blanket-prohibit weapons of self-defense unless an individual can prove they deserve and need it.

It's easy to slip into oft-repeated platitudes on this but the simple fact is that "bad guys" always manage to arm themsleves and the police can't protect everyone all the time. If the individual is denied the means to defend themself from attackers the odds that they will be victimized increase dramatically.

In other words, the need for guns is like the need for armies. We may not like it but the simple fact is that sometimes you need them and when that time comes you better have 'em.

reddragon · 2005-08-22 09:23:06

Interestingly, a simple statistical correlations shows that, in Western countries at least, the places with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates and further that crime rates increase as restrictions are tightened.

This seems surprising, although I don't have any hard data on it. The US, for instance, has high crime rates and it is fairly easy to get guns here. Also I would compare specifically violent crime rates, rather than crime rates in general. If you have, say, more burglaries and fewer murders, you may have slightly more crime of less severity.

While I do not propose denying people the right to keep and bear arms, I think that if we all carried weopons all the time, we would go back to the age of "gentlemen" dueling over an insult.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-22 17:05:31

Cindy:-

If you'd listened for years to all the reports I've transcribed of all the disturbed people out there (let alone the outright mentally ill on medications)...

Yes, I certainly see the sense in that argument. Sometimes I wonder just what percentage of humanity is certifiably nuts! And when I think of some of the 'head cases' I've met over the years, imagining them all with guns is definitely an unpleasant thought. :shock:

Reddragon:-

While I do not propose denying people the right to keep and bear arms, I think that if we all carried weopons all the time, we would go back to the age of "gentlemen" dueling over an insult.

Yeah, and that's just the "gentlemen"!
What about the "ladies"? I've met quite a few "ladies" over the years, too! :?
And I don't think many "ladies" or "gentlemen" these days would trouble themselves to politely arrange a duel at dawn, either. A few well-chosen profanities and a quick bullet through the head is much more like it.

Hmmm, I'd better be careful here. I'm starting to sound like the anti-gun lobby!
[Must stop seeing both sides of an argument .. gets too confusing .. ]

reddragon · 2005-08-22 18:01:49

Sometimes I wonder just what percentage of humanity is certifiably nuts!

This especially applies to criminals, particularly those who commit really horrible crimes. I sometimes wonder how anyone in their right mind could do some of these things. But only a small portion are actually found to be mentally unstable and are put in psych-hospitals rather than regular jails. Ultimately, I suppose, insanity is rather subjective anyway.

Palomar · 2005-08-22 18:57:38

Hmmm, I'd better be careful here. I'm starting to sound like the anti-gun lobby!
[Must stop seeing both sides of an argument .. gets too confusing .. ]

*Well...based on what you've told us about the situation in Australia, I definitely see the wisdom of the right to bear arms.

But within limits.

I can't understand the need for anyone (private citizen) to have assault rifles, machine guns, etc., nor access to same. The founders of the U.S. couldn't have foreseen such formidable weapons; in their day the musket was all they had. That should be taken into account.

I've considered purchasing and registering (of course) a lady's purse pistol; one of those cute little dandies which could easily fit into my hand, has the mother-of-pearl handle and etc.; especially when gang violence was rampant in the area (8+ years ago) and drive-by shootings occurred nearly every weekend. But there's always the awful possibility of being overpowered and having a weapon used against you.

So now I wear a lifeguard's whistle around my neck. I have good lungs and when the time to blast that baby comes... LOL! {{knock wood}}

--Cindy

P.S.: Okay, I've found what Shaun's current sig [POTESTATEM OBSCURI LATERIS NESCIS] means via Google. But Cobra's? No return from Google...the last 2 words I do know/get the jist of. What does it mean altogether, Cobra? [Compone! Accomoda! Supera!]

clark · 2005-08-22 19:08:37

But Cobra's? No return from Google...the last 2 words I do know/get the jist of. What does it mean altogether, Cobra? [Compone! Accomoda! Supera!]

Improvise! adapt! overcome!

I always thought the worst thing about owning a gun is the moment you have to actually use it against someone else. [sigh]

Stellis Aequus Durando.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-23 06:02:57

Cindy:-

Okay, I've found what Shaun's current sig [POTESTATEM OBSCURI LATERIS NESCIS] means via Google.

Ha-ha!!
I was wondering how long it would take before someone discovered the translation!

"You don't know the power of the psychedelic side." {Chuckle, chuckle!! Nice one, Cindy!} :!:

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-23 06:30:16

Quote:
But Cobra's? No return from Google...the last 2 words I do know/get the jist of. What does it mean altogether, Cobra? [Compone! Accomoda! Supera!]

Improvise! adapt! overcome!

Yep.

And clark, "Stellis Aequus Durando"? Are you sure your betrothed would back you up on that?

And back on topic, albeit fleetingly.

I can't understand the need for anyone (private citizen) to have assault rifles, machine guns, etc., nor access to same. The founders of the U.S. couldn't have foreseen such formidable weapons; in their day the musket was all they had. That should be taken into account.

Not looking for a heated debate, but it must also be understood that the reason for the Second Amendment (Right to bear arms for our non-American members) wasn't only to hunt and defend ourselves from criminals, but was meant as the last check against foreign invasion and government tyranny. Consequently (and there are legal cases that back this interpretation) it permits weapons of military value. So strictly speaking, fully automatic weapons should be permitted and are in fact the implicit purpose for the amendment in the first place. Not to be confused with the much ballyhooed "assault weapons" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look like military arms. The most striking difference between an "assault weapon" and a typical hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle uses more powerful ammunition.

What it really comes down to is that one murderer with a butcher knife is vastly more dangerous to society than 10,000 law-abiding citizens with fully-automatic AK-47s. Too much focus on the tool at the expense of the user is a useless waste of time and resources.

That said, the "big guns" aren't real useful for home or personal defense in most cases, just as they are hardly ever used in crimes. Outright banning them doesn't make much sense, but neither would a nation of people roaming the streets with them. A pistol firing 9mm hollowpoint ammunition is quite sufficient for most personal defense scenarios. Easily concealed, good stopping power, the projectile stays in the target instead of passing through and hitting who knows what else. . . What's really needed to make our streets safer is more handguns.

clark · 2005-08-23 06:53:00

Sex before marriage is wrong.

BWhite · 2005-08-23 06:57:39

Sex before marriage is wrong.

Ask Judge Roberts. If he really is a good Catholic that new movie must be about him.

clark · 2005-08-23 07:02:13

What movie, "The Aristocrat"?

Palomar · 2005-08-23 07:08:16

*Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it does relate to 1920s politics. My husband and I saw the 1966 movie The Sand Pebbles starring Steve McQueen on AMC this weekend. At one point the ship engaged a blockade (many thickly braided bamboo cables run between stationary Chinese vessels, running the entire width of a "narrow" water channel). A group of American soldiers, under Captain's command of course, jumped onto one of the Chinese vessels for hand-to-hand combat. I was surprised to see the Captain himself engaging in hand-to-hand combat on that Chinese vessel. Isn't the Captain always supposed to stay with the ship?? Or was that Hollywood "artistic license"? I asked my husband and he wasn't sure (not into military stuff).

Just wondering. Not sure why I'm wondering but danged curiosity...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-08-23 08:08:13

What movie, "The Aristocrat"?

No

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2005-08-17 06:40:55

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#252 2005-08-17 07:25:04

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#253 2005-08-18 23:33:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#254 2005-08-19 23:42:19

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#255 2005-08-20 05:05:48

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#256 2005-08-20 06:02:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#257 2005-08-20 09:49:44

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#258 2005-08-20 17:16:35

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#259 2005-08-21 04:41:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#260 2005-08-22 05:46:59

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#261 2005-08-22 06:57:54

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#262 2005-08-22 07:48:43

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#263 2005-08-22 08:25:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#264 2005-08-22 09:23:06

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#265 2005-08-22 17:05:31

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#266 2005-08-22 18:01:49

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#267 2005-08-22 18:57:38

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#268 2005-08-22 19:08:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#269 2005-08-23 06:02:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#270 2005-08-23 06:30:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#271 2005-08-23 06:53:00

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#272 2005-08-23 06:57:39

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#273 2005-08-23 07:02:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#274 2005-08-23 07:08:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#275 2005-08-23 08:08:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer