Security and Imagination...
Jack C Lipton
so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
little nightmares:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
This is just bringing forward how people in the
post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me
"When a unified theory of human personality is finally published
it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me
HangingJester
> The DHS seems to like bizarre "Movie Plot" threats,
> so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
> little nightmares:
>
> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
>
> This is just bringing forward how people in the
> post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
>
terrorist based plot lines.
Is this really such a good idea?
~ Jester
Nohbody
You mean like the end of Clancy's _Debt of Honor_ providing the idea for
the tactics on 9/11?
That is, not at all.
And besides, real life isn't necessarily all that sensible, anyway.
Remember the so-called "shoe bomber"? :)
(Of course, there's also Mark Twain's observation: "Of course truth is
stranger than fiction. Fiction, after all, has to make sense.")
Dan Poore
--
About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
[political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
without. -- Rowan Hawthorn, in alt.callahans (2/28/05)
Jack C Lipton
The point to the whole thing is that it is impossible
to defend against all of the potential movie-plot
threats because there's almost no end to imagination
and ingenuity of human beings.
Defending against a large array of *specific* threats
is NOT sustainable; working at the other end, in
terms of basic intelligence (sadly lacking in the
current administration) and knowing what the goals
REALLY are...
A terrorist wants to induce terror and undermine faith
in civilization-- or, at least, a person's current
culture. What terrorism strives to do is to destroy
the trust that allows us to function, making us all
believe that EVERY ONE OF US is living in a "worst
case scenario" when, in fact, terrorists DO NOT have
the capability to make more than mosquito bites.
So, like a mosquito bite, we act like we're allergic
and the whole nation goes into anaphylactic shock.
The point is that the odds of being impacted directly
by any of these acts is fairly small... and, by
taking this crap so seriously (the news organizations
help this) we end up not living our lives the way we
would want to. IOW the terrorist win because we are
living in fear.
The attacks of 9/11 were as nothing compared to the
exercise of "fiduciary responsibility" by the various
institutional investors to commit treason (after
imploring the American People to be "Patriotic
Stock-Holders", allowing the big boys to dump their
stocks at better prices, leaving everyone else to
be screwed). It was this "money is everything"
backlash that *really* did the deep and lasting
damage to the USA... and continues to this day.
HangingJester
> On 2006-04-04, HangingJester <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Jack C Lipton wrote:
>>
>>>The DHS seems to like bizarre "Movie Plot" threats,
>>>so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
>>>little nightmares:
>>>
>>> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
>>>
>>>This is just bringing forward how people in the
>>>post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
>>>
>>
>>Some of the people who are posting on that website are providing
>>terrorist based plot lines.
>>
>>Is this really such a good idea?
>
>
> The point to the whole thing is that it is impossible
> to defend against all of the potential movie-plot
> threats because there's almost no end to imagination
> and ingenuity of human beings.
I've got nothing against free speech, but lightly making suggestions, or
hypothetical scenarios of plots for terrorist actions, seems a bit cold
and possibly perverse in this post 9/11 world.
> <SNIP> in fact, terrorists DO NOT have
> the capability to make more than mosquito bites.
Look at the far ranging effects of terrorism in this Nation since then.
The watering down of Constitutional rights by the so called 'Patriot
Act.' The Department of Homeland Security holding off FEMA needed
disaster relief mobilizations, because a terrorist act *might* occur.
Government officials telling us that we may have to give up more rights
because of *possible* future terrorist acts. Not to mention the media is
almost as obsessed with spreading terrorism paranoia, and the government
seems more paranoid than the general public. I think I would classify
these affects as is a bit more than "mosquito bites."
> The point is that the odds of being impacted directly
> by any of these acts is fairly small... and, by
> taking this crap so seriously (the news organizations
> help this) we end up not living our lives the way we
> would want to. IOW the terrorist win because we are
> living in fear.
I think the terrorists win more by our loss of freedoms, than by
temporary fears. Why shouldn't we taking terrorism seriously? So long as
we simply fix the problems and vulnerabilities, and don't go overboard
by enacting useless 'knee-jerk' b*llsh*t. Certainly most of us already
have been affected in numerous ways. When was the last time you went to
the airport to board a plane? Today we have grannies strip searched and
little children refuse from boarding because they happen to have the
same name as in on a "do not fly" list. A few years ago we wouldn't
think twice about passing a discarded gym bag, box or other package. Now
people call the bomb squad.
> The attacks of 9/11 were as nothing compared to the
> exercise of "fiduciary responsibility" by the various
> institutional investors to commit treason (after
> imploring the American People to be "Patriotic
> Stock-Holders", allowing the big boys to dump their
> stocks at better prices, leaving everyone else to
> be screwed). It was this "money is everything"
> backlash that *really* did the deep and lasting
> damage to the USA... and continues to this day.
While I agree that is despicable, it is hardly related to the issue of
terrorism. As far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather they were writing
scathing plot lines on the greed and hypocrisies of those two-faced,
money-hungry, robber-barons. And I hope they give them all the notoriety
they're due.
~ Jester
Matthew Russotto
Nohbody <noh...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:13:02 -0700, HangingJester
><hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>> > The DHS seems to like bizarre "Movie Plot" threats,
>> > so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
>> > little nightmares:
>> >
>> > http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
>> >
>> > This is just bringing forward how people in the
>> > post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
>> >
>> Some of the people who are posting on that website are providing
>> terrorist based plot lines.
>>
>> Is this really such a good idea?
>
>You mean like the end of Clancy's _Debt of Honor_ providing the idea for
>the tactics on 9/11?
"Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!"
-- from "Scream"
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
HangingJester <hangingjester...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>I've got nothing against free speech, but lightly making suggestions, or
>hypothetical scenarios of plots for terrorist actions, seems a bit cold
>and possibly perverse in this post 9/11 world.
Some people make a living at it, and no one calls them perverse... or
at least not for that reason.
>> <SNIP> in fact, terrorists DO NOT have
>> the capability to make more than mosquito bites.
>
>Look at the far ranging effects of terrorism in this Nation since then.
> The watering down of Constitutional rights by the so called 'Patriot
>Act.' The Department of Homeland Security holding off FEMA needed
>disaster relief mobilizations, because a terrorist act *might* occur.
>Government officials telling us that we may have to give up more rights
>because of *possible* future terrorist acts. Not to mention the media is
>almost as obsessed with spreading terrorism paranoia, and the government
>seems more paranoid than the general public. I think I would classify
>these affects as is a bit more than "mosquito bites."
None of them done by the terrorists. All done by our own government.
If you choose to slap a mosquito bite while wearing Freddy Krueger
gloves, you can't really blame the mosquito for the loss of your arm.
>I think the terrorists win more by our loss of freedoms, than by
>temporary fears. Why shouldn't we taking terrorism seriously? So long as
>we simply fix the problems and vulnerabilities, and don't go overboard
>by enacting useless 'knee-jerk' b*llsh*t.
Well, for one thing it isn't simple to fix the problems and
vulnerabilities, not if you don't actually want to adopt the mentality
of a fortress under siege.
Wesley Struebing
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
Well, as true as the above is, it ain't the terrorists that done it.
We done it to ourselves. We didn't HAVE to respond as we did. We
could have (as so many were saying at that time, the terrorists win
ONLY if "blah, blah...". Well, we DID "blah, blah...".
Frankly, I think at times the *real* terrorists were mostly in
government, but even then WE (the people) let them pander their
fear-mongering to us. Those who blew up buildings and killed those
people destroyed only physical things. We let those who were supposed
to serve us co-opt our thoughts. Even more scary, and certainly
longer-lasting. In that sense, we got (the current situation) what
we deserved. (And before ANYONE mis-reads what I just wrote, I am NOT
saying we "deserved" 9/11...)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:43:56 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Look at the far ranging effects of terrorism in this Nation since then.
>> The watering down of Constitutional rights by the so called 'Patriot
>>Act.' The Department of Homeland Security holding off FEMA needed
>>disaster relief mobilizations, because a terrorist act *might* occur.
>>Government officials telling us that we may have to give up more rights
>>because of *possible* future terrorist acts. Not to mention the media is
>>almost as obsessed with spreading terrorism paranoia, and the government
>>seems more paranoid than the general public. I think I would classify
>>these affects as is a bit more than "mosquito bites."
>>
>
> Well, as true as the above is, it ain't the terrorists that done it.
> We done it to ourselves. We didn't HAVE to respond as we did. We
> could have (as so many were saying at that time, the terrorists win
> ONLY if "blah, blah...". Well, we DID "blah, blah...".
>
> Frankly, I think at times the *real* terrorists were mostly in
> government, but even then WE (the people) let them pander their
> fear-mongering to us. Those who blew up buildings and killed those
> people destroyed only physical things. We let those who were supposed
> to serve us co-opt our thoughts. Even more scary, and certainly
> longer-lasting. In that sense, we got (the current situation) what
> we deserved. (And before ANYONE mis-reads what I just wrote, I am NOT
> saying we "deserved" 9/11...)
>
>>
>>temporary fears. Why shouldn't we taking terrorism seriously? So long as
>>we simply fix the problems and vulnerabilities, and don't go overboard
>>by enacting useless 'knee-jerk' b*llsh*t. Certainly most of us already
>>have been affected in numerous ways. When was the last time you went to
>>the airport to board a plane? Today we have grannies strip searched and
>>little children refuse from boarding because they happen to have the
>>same name as in on a "do not fly" list. A few years ago we wouldn't
>>think twice about passing a discarded gym bag, box or other package. Now
>>people call the bomb squad.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Wes Struebing
"Can I just say 'IAWTP'? Both of them?"
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
0mn1vore
(in message <slrne32sa6....@soup2nets.darktech.org>):
> The DHS seems to like bizarre "Movie Plot" threats,
> so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
> little nightmares:
>
> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
>
> This is just bringing forward how people in the
> post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
>
I think people always focused on weird stuff [or was that just
me...?], only now they have different weird stuff to focus on.
Thanks, some were giggle-making. :-) No keyboard damage, but no
coffee either. I'd thought ahead.
--
Escapist, moi? [When replying,
Of course not. it's called `eMail',
There is no escape. not `yMail', silly.]
0mn1vore
(in message <x8ednbyITf2...@speakeasy.net>):
> None of them done by the terrorists. All done by our own government.
> If you choose to slap a mosquito bite while wearing Freddy Krueger
> gloves, you can't really blame the mosquito for the loss of your arm.
Yeah, that pretty much says it all.
0mn1vore
(in message <slrne33pjg....@soup2nets.darktech.org>):
> On 2006-04-04, HangingJester <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>>> The DHS seems to like bizarre "Movie Plot" threats,
>>> so here's a contest for folks to submit their own
>>> little nightmares:
>>>
>>> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html
>>>
>>> This is just bringing forward how people in the
>>> post-9/11 world tend to focus on the weird stuff.
>>>
>> Some of the people who are posting on that website are providing
>> terrorist based plot lines.
>>
>> Is this really such a good idea?
>
> The point to the whole thing is that it is impossible
> to defend against all of the potential movie-plot
> threats because there's almost no end to imagination
> and ingenuity of human beings.
>
> Defending against a large array of *specific* threats
> is NOT sustainable; working at the other end, in
> terms of basic intelligence (sadly lacking in the
> current administration) and knowing what the goals
> REALLY are...
>
> A terrorist wants to induce terror and undermine faith
> in civilization-- or, at least, a person's current
> culture. What terrorism strives to do is to destroy
> the trust that allows us to function,
Oh, I'd already lost that. But induce terror? No, not when
you've had half your life to get used to the idea. The novelty
kind of wears off after a while.
My first response -- I mean when the planes were crashing on the
news, and a friend yanked me over to the TV at his place to see
this -- my first reaction was not surprise. Shock maybe, horror
for sure, especially with people jumping out the windows to avoid
the flames, but not surprise.
Not with US foreign policy being what it is.
I don't mean to condone the attack in any way, because it
actually came as quite a disappointment, that I could understand
the motive so easily. More like; what's wrong with me, to be
able to think like that?
What's happened since then, in the US, induces terror. Even
though I don't live there, I've been a little scared for its
citizens, its enemies, and even a few of its allies for a while
now.
HangingJester
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:43:56 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, as true as the above is, it ain't the terrorists that done it.
> We done it to ourselves. We didn't HAVE to respond as we did. We
> could have (as so many were saying at that time, the terrorists win
> ONLY if "blah, blah...". Well, we DID "blah, blah...".
Yet, would the responses have happened without 9/11? I hold that "we"
(the American people) did not "do it it to ourselves." nor did "we"
initiate our government's reactions to 9/11. They rarely bother to ask
or really listen to the general public. Our government officials decided
most of the policies all on their own. Nor do I necessarily blame the
voters, because of the stranglehold the two major parties have on our
election system. Added to this is the media who continually try to
manipulate voters minds into telling them who and what to vote for.
Nearly every time someone runs who the talking heads don't like, they
state the old lie that "if you vote for (the person *they* don't want)
you are throwing your vote away." Many times in history this has been
proved incorrect. (Jessie Ventura for example.) And nowhere in the
Constitution does it call for a "two-party system."
> Frankly, I think at times the *real* terrorists were mostly in
> government, but even then WE (the people) let them pander their
> fear-mongering to us. Those who blew up buildings and killed those
> people destroyed only physical things. We let those who were supposed
> to serve us co-opt our thoughts. Even more scary, and certainly
> longer-lasting. In that sense, we got (the current situation) what
> we deserved. (And before ANYONE mis-reads what I just wrote, I am NOT
> saying we "deserved" 9/11...)
I would agree that our government is chock-a-block with power-hungry
control freaks, elitist politicos, manipulators, corrupt
bribe-takers/bag men/puppets, and other undesirables, but I wouldn't go
so far as labeling them as "the *real* terrorists." Many of our
government officials do instigate policies that make it easy for the
terrorists to sell their messages of hate, but I can not agree that this
means we should pass the blame that the terrorists rightly deserve on to
them. We should not leave out the dirty hands of the media reporters
and spin doctor's who do all they can to stir up fear, and who those who
really do try to co-opt our thoughts. While your final line could be
read a number of ways, I would have to say in general, No. I don't think
"we" (the people) have gotten what "we deserved." If you would like to
say what you really mean by that, I might grant a point here and there,
but I can't go along with a blanket statement like that.
~ Jester
Wesley Struebing
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>Wesley Struebing wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:43:56 -0700, HangingJester
>> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Well, as true as the above is, it ain't the terrorists that done it.
>> We done it to ourselves. We didn't HAVE to respond as we did. We
>> could have (as so many were saying at that time, the terrorists win
>> ONLY if "blah, blah...". Well, we DID "blah, blah...".
>
>Yet, would the responses have happened without 9/11? I hold that "we"
>(the American people) did not "do it it to ourselves." nor did "we"
>initiate our government's reactions to 9/11. They rarely bother to ask
>or really listen to the general public. Our government officials decided
>most of the policies all on their own. Nor do I necessarily blame the
>voters, because of the stranglehold the two major parties have on our
>election system. Added to this is the media who continually try to
>manipulate voters minds into telling them who and what to vote for.
>Nearly every time someone runs who the talking heads don't like, they
>state the old lie that "if you vote for (the person *they* don't want)
>you are throwing your vote away." Many times in history this has been
>proved incorrect. (Jessie Ventura for example.) And nowhere in the
>Constitution does it call for a "two-party system."
You're almost COMPLETELY missing the point, 'Jester.
1. What did the terrorists do? Committed three (almost four)
extremely heinous acts.
2. What was our response? We enacted "duck your head between your
legs and kiss your freedoms good-bye" "laws."
3. Did we have to respond that way? Hell, no. But we let our
putative leaders do so. (I'm not quite sure what the non-sequitur
about a two-party system is all about...)
4. I say we let them because we elected these assholes. From
supposedly representing US, they pandered to the fearmongers
(including a bunch in Government) and sold our freedoms down the
river.
The point being - while "we" didn't crash those planes into our
buildings, and "we" didn't enact those anti-freedom laws, we sure as
hell elected the people who permitted those buildings to be attacked
and then enacted those anti-freedom measures.
I'd say we deserved what has been wrought, but I don't believe ANY
people "deserves" what has happened here. And have we made ourselves
any safer? Indications are that we have not. For what price!?
I DO agree, however, that our elected officials do not listen. It's
like once they move to Capitol Hill they develop selective deafness.
But, again, that IS ultimately "our fault." We have let them develop
that deafness.
The problem with the media is two-fold, as I see it (and this applies,
as you seem to indicate, to either of many sides of a story). First,
they have in many cases (though usually not quite so egregiously as
FOX) become shills for the incumbents (that also ties in with "wasting
a vote.") And secondly, we, as a people seem to have forgotten how to
read for content.
But it still falls on our heads, because we as citizens HAVE A
REPONSIBILITY to participate, to reason, to rant, and, if need be
"throw the fuckers out."
It just seems at time, ''Jester, that we have become far too used to
having those we've installed in the corridors of power tell US what
color "black" is.
(the Graybeard grins sheepishly) Oops, sorry - didn't notice that
soapbox sneaking up under my feet.
Anyone else want it?
(and BOYC for your post, 'Jester?)
Matthew Russotto
Wesley Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>You're almost COMPLETELY missing the point, 'Jester.
>
>1. What did the terrorists do? Committed three (almost four)
>extremely heinous acts.
>
>2. What was our response? We enacted "duck your head between your
>legs and kiss your freedoms good-bye" "laws."
>
>3. Did we have to respond that way? Hell, no. But we let our
>putative leaders do so. (I'm not quite sure what the non-sequitur
>about a two-party system is all about...)
>
>4. I say we let them because we elected these assholes. From
>supposedly representing US, they pandered to the fearmongers
>(including a bunch in Government) and sold our freedoms down the
>river.
By doing this you spread the responsibility so thin it can no longer
be found. It's the same sort of reasoning -- though in reverse -- that
allows terrorists to hold individual Americans reponsible for actions
of the US government.
>The point being - while "we" didn't crash those planes into our
>buildings, and "we" didn't enact those anti-freedom laws, we sure as
>hell elected the people who permitted those buildings to be attacked
>and then enacted those anti-freedom measures.
No, we did not. Perhaps you did. I didn't vote for a one of them.
HangingJester
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:09:18 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> You're almost COMPLETELY missing the point, 'Jester.
>
I didn't miss the point at all, I fully understood what you said. I just
don't quite agree with it AS said. Of course, friends don't always see
things the same. ;-)
>
> (and BOYC for your post, 'Jester?)
Sure Wes, but I've got the next round.
~ Jester
Wesley Struebing
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <s9o832tja348h36c0...@4ax.com>,
>Wesley Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>>
>>You're almost COMPLETELY missing the point, 'Jester.
>>
>>1. What did the terrorists do? Committed three (almost four)
>>extremely heinous acts.
>>
>>2. What was our response? We enacted "duck your head between your
>>legs and kiss your freedoms good-bye" "laws."
>>
>>3. Did we have to respond that way? Hell, no. But we let our
>>putative leaders do so. (I'm not quite sure what the non-sequitur
>>about a two-party system is all about...)
>>
>>4. I say we let them because we elected these assholes. From
>>supposedly representing US, they pandered to the fearmongers
>>(including a bunch in Government) and sold our freedoms down the
>>river.
>
>By doing this you spread the responsibility so thin it can no longer
>be found. It's the same sort of reasoning -- though in reverse -- that
>allows terrorists to hold individual Americans reponsible for actions
>of the US government.
I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I don't see it watered down
- I just see as assigned properly. There's more than enough to go
around without diluting it.
>
>>The point being - while "we" didn't crash those planes into our
>>buildings, and "we" didn't enact those anti-freedom laws, we sure as
>>hell elected the people who permitted those buildings to be attacked
>>and then enacted those anti-freedom measures.
>
>No, we did not. Perhaps you did. I didn't vote for a one of them.
Did you vote?
Wesley Struebing
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>Wesley Struebing wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:09:18 -0700, HangingJester
>> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>> You're almost COMPLETELY missing the point, 'Jester.
>>
>
>I didn't miss the point at all, I fully understood what you said. I just
>don't quite agree with it AS said. Of course, friends don't always see
>things the same. ;-)
Indeed. That's one of the things I tend to like about disagreements
in A.C.
>
>>
>> (and BOYC for your post, 'Jester?)
>
>Sure Wes, but I've got the next round.
>
Great! A Dr. Pepper, if you please...
HangingJester
> <SNIP>
>
>>>(and BOYC for your post, 'Jester?)
>>
>>Sure Wes, but I've got the next round.
>>
>
> Great! A Dr. Pepper, if you please...
Make mine mulled mulberry melomel Mike my merry man..
~ Jester
Tim Merrigan
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
But they're the reactions to the terrorists (the anaphylactic shock
Jack mentioned), not the actions of the terrorists.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
HangingJester
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:43:56 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jack C Lipton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><SNIP> in fact, terrorists DO NOT have
>>>the capability to make more than mosquito bites.
>>
>>Look at the far ranging effects of terrorism in this Nation since then.
>> The watering down of Constitutional rights by the so called 'Patriot
>>Act.' The Department of Homeland Security holding off FEMA needed
>>disaster relief mobilizations, because a terrorist act *might* occur.
>>Government officials telling us that we may have to give up more rights
>>because of *possible* future terrorist acts. Not to mention the media is
>>almost as obsessed with spreading terrorism paranoia, and the government
>>seems more paranoid than the general public. I think I would classify
>>these affects as is a bit more than "mosquito bites."
>
>
> But they're the reactions to the terrorists (the anaphylactic shock
> Jack mentioned), not the actions of the terrorists.
>
The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do
you want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their
act's direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
~ Jester
Matthew Russotto
HangingJester <hangingjester...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
>They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
>government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
>the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do
>you want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their
>act's direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
Most of those actions weren't really reactions to terrorist actions at
all. They were items on law-enforcement's wish list for years,
opportunistically passed after 9/11. That's how they got the bill
written so quickly.
As for absolution, I don't want to absolve the terrorists of
anything. But the officials in government are moral actors
themselves; they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the
actions they take by claiming they were merely links in a chain of
events started by someone else.
Rowan Hawthorn
> In article <h0d_f.1221$3s4.1056@fed1read11>,
> HangingJester <hangingjester...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
>>They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
>>government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
>>the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do
>>you want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their
>>act's direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
>
>
> Most of those actions weren't really reactions to terrorist actions at
> all. They were items on law-enforcement's wish list for years,
> opportunistically passed after 9/11. That's how they got the bill
> written so quickly.
"And the bill *itself*, IMO, had probably been written for quite some
time, just waiting for the opportunity to use it."
>
> As for absolution, I don't want to absolve the terrorists of
> anything. But the officials in government are moral actors
> themselves; they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the
> actions they take by claiming they were merely links in a chain of
> events started by someone else.
"Exactly; let's not absolve the foreign terrorists, but let's not
absolve our *own*, either: 'enemies, foreign or domestic,' as it were."
Tim Merrigan
Because I want to put the blame for the reactions where it belongs, on
the Bush administration.
The correct reaction, IMNSHO, would have been to treat the 9/11
incidents as the particularly heinous criminal acts they actually
were, not as military attacks, and to rally various investigative
organizations from Interpol, to the FBI, to NYPD (acting within their
constitutional restrictions) to track down and bring to trial the
particular perpetrators and planers of that crime, on approximately
3000 counts of murder. The invasion of Afghanistan would probably
have been necessary in order to facilitate the arrest of Osama bin
Laudin and other al'Qaida leaders. The implementation of the Patriot
Act, and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security,
were not. Nor was the indefinite, and often secret, internment,
without charge on mostly trumped up INS violations of anyone in the
country form anywhere in the middle east (except Israel).
Denny Wheeler
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>. Why do
>you want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their
>act's direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
Why do you want to drag in this idiotic strawman? Nobody suggested
anything that absolves the terrrorists from responsibility for THEIR
acts. Why do you seem to want to absolve the government ("of the
people, for the people, and by the people") of the US from its
responsibility for reacting in almost the exact way the terrorists
would most have wished?
(Personally, I was somewhat surprised to see Jester ask the above
question--I think it's below him.)
--
-denny-
Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans
Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html
Peter Eng
"HangingJester" <hangin...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h0d_f.1221$3s4.1056@fed1read11...
>
> The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
> They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
> government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
> the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do you
> want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their act's
> direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
>
So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
deadly weapon?
No. I don't buy it. I'm responsible for my actions, and my reactions. I
could have blocked the punch, I could have ducked, I could have rolled with
the punch and pretended to be unconscious. Rational responses to the
situation, as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
In the same way, the terrorists attacked, and the U.S. Government's response
was at least partially irrational. But that isn't the terrorists' fault.
They aren't responsible for anybody else's stupidity.
They are, however, responsible for their own actions.
Peter Eng
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
>deadly weapon?
I think a better analogy would be 'a guy throws a punch at you, and
you shoot his family.'
HangingJester
> "HangingJester" <hangin...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:h0d_f.1221$3s4.1056@fed1read11...
>
>>The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
>>They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
>>government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
>>the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do you
>>want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their act's
>>direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
>>
>
>
> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
> him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
> deadly weapon?
Depending on the circumstances, yes it's possible.
You're using an example that is vague on details, but this type of
scenario is not uncommon. You could try walking away, running, pulling
the gun and warning him first. The but if the person insists on on
assaulting you, you have the right to self defense.
> No. I don't buy it. I'm responsible for my actions, and my reactions. I
> could have blocked the punch, I could have ducked, I could have rolled with
> the punch and pretended to be unconscious. Rational responses to the
> situation, as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
> against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
Maybe the guy attacking you is not really interested in just brawling.
Without all the circumstances of the situation, there is no way to state
the proper response. Perhaps he is just pissed off at you, or he might
be homicidal, deranged, intoxicated, or he might simply want to beat the
crap out of someone for fun. Ask a cop what he would do. Ask someone who
has been assaulted.
> In the same way, the terrorists attacked, and the U.S. Government's response
> was at least partially irrational.
I agreed with that.
But that isn't the terrorists' fault.
> They aren't responsible for anybody else's stupidity.
IMO they bear at least part of the responsibility. If you don't agree,
fine, that's your opinion.
~ Jester
HangingJester
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:12:09 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>. Why do
>>you want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their
>>act's direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
>
>
> Why do you want to drag in this idiotic strawman? Nobody suggested
> anything that absolves the terrrorists from responsibility for THEIR
> acts. Why do you seem to want to absolve the government ("of the
> people, for the people, and by the people") of the US from its
> responsibility for reacting in almost the exact way the terrorists
> would most have wished?
>
> (Personally, I was somewhat surprised to see Jester ask the above
> question--I think it's below him.)
>
The terrorists are not "strawmen." They were directly involved in the
sequence of events. *Period*. If you want to turn to insults, then I am
done arguing this with you. :-(
~ Jester
HangingJester
I do blame the administration, Congress, and the rest of the government
officials for their for their actions (prior and post 9/11) and their
reactions. I also blame the terrorists for their part in creating the
attacks, and in being the catalyst for the actions taken.
~ Jester
HangingJester
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <h0d_f.1221$3s4.1056@fed1read11>,
>> HangingJester <hangingjester...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist
>>> actions. They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some
>>> of the government's measures, but they are still an end result of
>>> reactions to the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of
>>> events. Why do you want to absolve the terrorists from any
>>> responsibility from their act's direct influence in the measures that
>>> have been taken?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of those actions weren't really reactions to terrorist actions at
>> all. They were items on law-enforcement's wish list for years,
>> opportunistically passed after 9/11. That's how they got the bill
>> written so quickly.
>
>
> "And the bill *itself*, IMO, had probably been written for quite some
> time, just waiting for the opportunity to use it."
It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that many elements were.
>> As for absolution, I don't want to absolve the terrorists of
>> anything. But the officials in government are moral actors
>> themselves; they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the
>> actions they take by claiming they were merely links in a chain of
>> events started by someone else.
>
>
> "Exactly; let's not absolve the foreign terrorists, but let's not
> absolve our *own*, either: 'enemies, foreign or domestic,' as it were."
I agree, Let's place all blame properly where it is due.
~ Jester
Jack C Lipton
Actually, I recall that there was a push for a lot
of the PATRIOT acts's provisions of extra police
surveillance powers were already being pushed even
BEFORE 9/11 and so, as a reaction, the lumped the
various wish-lists, pumped 'em up a bit, and gave
it to Congress to pass, along with a song-and-dance
over how anyone voting against it would be, due to
the name of the act, UN-patriotic.
Oddly enough the "American Character" (as if there
really *is* a singular definition) is one of a
compulsive dissenter except when the NIMBY effect
kicks in, in which case it becomes an ORGANIZED
kind of dissent.
There's a lot of the movie "Dragnet" in the 9/11
response since it basically handed the keys to both
the treasury *and* our freedoms to a bunch of folks
who saw it as a way to make lots of money.
Then again, sometimes satire is too f**king real...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/
I know it's satire but I am certain there are ways to
"game" the system within the rules because it all
depends upon what "is" is.
--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me
"When a unified theory of human personality is finally published
it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me
Jack C Lipton
> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> HangingJester wrote:
>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>>>> <SNIP> in fact, terrorists DO NOT have
>>>> the capability to make more than mosquito bites.
>>>
>>> Look at the far ranging effects of terrorism in
>>> this Nation since then. The watering down of
>>> Constitutional rights by the so called 'Patriot
>>> Act.' The Department of Homeland Security holding
>>> off FEMA needed disaster relief mobilizations,
>>> because a terrorist act *might* occur. Government
>>> officials telling us that we may have to give up
>>> more rights because of *possible* future terrorist
>>> acts. Not to mention the media is almost as obsessed
>>> with spreading terrorism paranoia, and the government
>>> seems more paranoid than the general public. I think
>>> I would classify these affects as is a bit more than
>>> "mosquito bites."
>>
>> But they're the reactions to the terrorists (the
>> anaphylactic shock Jack mentioned), not the actions
>> of the terrorists.
>
> to terrorist actions.
Ummmm... have you heard of something called an epi-pen?
It's an easily injected dose of epinephrine that allows
a person to survive an insect bite that they're allergic
to. This is roughly equivalent to Schneier's remarks
that we need to handle RESPONSE mechanisms in order to
handle the sudden stress and, with his recommendation
of better analytics using the pre-existing surveillance
mechanisms rather than throwing on new surveillance
powers that there's no analytical ability to manage is
one mitigation strategy.
It can be argued that many of the limitations of our
freedoms is equivalent to putting a person with serious
allergies into a bubble to insulate them from the risks
of *LIVING*.
It can be argued that our response mechanisms are *bad*
because they don't _help_ worth a damn (Katrina could
have been less of a disaster but DHS concentrates on the
WRONG mechanisms that are neither scalable, resilient or
otherwise re-targetable).
So the issues are "mitigation" and "response". Many of
the so-called PATRIOT acts's efforts at "mitigation"
are not useful in solving the real problems but make it
easier to use the new powers for intimidation.
At the same time the response system is finely tuned
for "movie plots" instead of dealing with just general
reality. People forget Patton's Law which is a corollary
to Clausewitz' (I think) observation that "no battle plan
survives contact with the enemy".
A generalized response system would have handled Katrina
in stride despite the size of the problem because the
system would be far more flexible.
There was a whole part of the movie "Dragnet" about the
scheme to play the "religious" and the "pagans" off
against each other with one person driving both ends of
the spectrum in an effort to have the "evil" he drove
allow him to look like a savior. There are times when,
given my recall that most of the PATRIOT act police power
provisions were already being floated to an unimpressed
Congress *before* 9/11, that this was like a Godsend to
the Shrubbery, allowing everything they wanted but could
not get the votes for to suddenly drop into their laps.
I'll grant that it's not like they had anything to do
with arranging 9/11 but realize that there will be
conspiracy theorists analyzing this the way Pearl Harbor
has been analyzed as a conspiracy since it let FDR go
to war in Europe.
> They were reactive, not proactive.
Don't forget, the PATRIOT act crap was on the table
even before and 9/11 made a lot of these draconian
desires suddenly palatable to a non-cooperative Congress.
We chose mitigation strategies that, like placing someone
in a bubble to avoid an insect bite, deny the ability to
fully _enjoy_ what life is possible.
In some ways it is up to each of us to choose the risks
we take in life, so that we can select the mitigation
strategies *we*, as individuals, want. Additionally,
a response mechanism has to be flexible, too.
Basically, our elected representatives have chosen to
sell off a lot of our sense of "living" in exchange for
the illusion of safety.
Finally, don't forget that 9/11 was almost like using
Jiu-Jitsu, using our own strengths-- freedom-- against
us.
Mind you, flight 93 showed what citizens (instead of
subjects) can do, and, in fact, it can be argued that
maybe we should be handing knives to every adult
passenger so that *we* provide the check-and-balance.
Jack C Lipton
> Peter Eng wrote:
>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws
>> a punch at me, and I shoot him, he's responsible
>> for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
>> deadly weapon?
>
> I think a better analogy would be 'a guy throws
> a punch at you, and you shoot his family.'
No, shooting the attackers family came a bit later.
So, if we don't count the wars that got triggered
by all of this, 9/11 was someone throwing a punch
at us in a non-vital area, then we pulled out a gun,
and, in the process of trying to aim it, we shot
our own d!ck off (the "PATRIOT" act). Given some
of the tap-dancing around The Constitution, the gun
has no "safety", either, so drawing it is how we
also shot ourselves in each foot in an attempt to
make believe we could "look good" after 9/11.
It was only *after* that event that TPTB chose to
distract people from the painful wound through a
couple of entertaining wars... which is when the
shots to our feet occurred. It is only a miracle
that the Shrub didn't manage to get it on full auto
during this process though I think he did that by
late 2005 w/ Katrina.
Gawd, knee-capped at full auto...
Jack C Lipton
> The correct reaction, IMNSHO, would have been to
> treat the 9/11 incidents as the particularly
> heinous criminal acts they actually were, not as
> military attacks, and to rally various
> investigative organizations from Interpol, to the
> FBI, to NYPD (acting within their constitutional
> restrictions) to track down and bring to trial
> the particular perpetrators and planers of that
> crime, on approximately 3000 counts of murder.
> The invasion of Afghanistan would probably have
> been necessary in order to facilitate the arrest
> of Osama bin Laudin and other al'Qaida leaders.
Don't ever under-estimate the investigative reach
of NYC's Parking Violations Bureau. With the right
parking ticket they could have found and extracted
Osama pretty easily... unless he paid the fine.
Mind you, the reaction that actually occurred did
work to centralize more power in the hands of the
man I feel amongst the least likely to be trusted
with it. If we look at it as a power grab this
makes far more sense.
'Tis a pity that the people who we could *really*
justify applying the RICO act against are precisely
the people who are the only ones empowered to
*execute* the act.
HangingJester
You are entirely correct. Federal and States Law Enforcement have been
trying to get some of these measures passed for years. but were stymied
by those who were concerns about the Constitutionality of the measures
and their possible abuses. The creators of the "patriot bill" added in a
few provisions that were relevant to stopping similar such attacks to
convince Congress to pass it. Knowing Congressional irresponsibility,
I'm sure very few of them (if any,) actually read and understood the
whole bill. Labeling it the "Patriot Act" was so obviously a linguistic
ploy, that it should have set off warning signals all over Capital Hill.
It's outrageous to me that they were able to get it passed again. I was
against passing it both times, and wrote my Congressional
representatives voicing my concerns. (I of course received the usual
staffer sent form letter reply.) I will assuredly "remember in November."
> Oddly enough the "American Character" (as if there
> really *is* a singular definition) is one of a
> compulsive dissenter except when the NIMBY effect
> kicks in, in which case it becomes an ORGANIZED
> kind of dissent.
Unfortunately, in many situations, few NIMBY's really know the details
other than what they are told in the press and/or by protest organizers.
~ Jester
Denny Wheeler
Please--read carefully. "Why do you want to absolve the terrorists
from any responsibility from their act's direct influence..."
is the strawman.
It should be very clear from my paragraph above (the sentences right
after "idiotic strawman") that I didn't say the terrorists were
strawmen. I said that your claim someone wanted to absolve the
terrorists from responsibility was a strawman. And it is. And if
you're unaware of the meaning of 'strawman' in this context, check
here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Referring to your use of that particular logical fallacy--and as the
fallacy itself as 'idiotic'--was not intended as, nor should be taken
as, insult. Note the "somewhat surprised..." sentence.
0mn1vore
(in message <slrne3lakr....@soup2nets.darktech.org>):
[...]
>
> Don't forget, the PATRIOT act crap was on the table
> even before and 9/11 made a lot of these draconian
> desires suddenly palatable to a non-cooperative Congress.
>
> We chose mitigation strategies that, like placing someone
> in a bubble to avoid an insect bite, deny the ability to
> fully _enjoy_ what life is possible.
>
> In some ways it is up to each of us to choose the risks
> we take in life, so that we can select the mitigation
> strategies *we*, as individuals, want. Additionally,
> a response mechanism has to be flexible, too.
>
> Basically, our elected representatives have chosen to
> sell off a lot of our sense of "living" in exchange for
> the illusion of safety.
>
[...]
>
> Mind you, flight 93 showed what citizens (instead of
> subjects) can do, and, in fact, it can be argued that
> maybe we should be handing knives to every adult
> passenger so that *we* provide the check-and-balance.
[topic drift...]
I can't remember the title, haven't actually read the story
myself, but I've heard of this one short SF piece in which
someone worked out a fairly low-tech, fairly cheap and effective
laser [or something like a laser] that didn't require a whole
hell of a lot of power to run. From a functional standpoint, it
was as simple, and its possible uses as diverse as a knife; could
be considered a tool, weapon, measuring instrument [at low power,
like a ruler or chalk-line], or all of the above.
But instead of patenting it, the inventor released his plans and
building instructions far and wide -- as far, and as widely as he
possibly could, actually.
Why? Well, for the same reasons you mentioned. Instead of
letting it fall into the Wrong Hands, he wanted to make sure
*everybody* could have one.
--
Escapist, moi? [When replying,
Of course not. it's called `eMail',
There is no escape. not `yMail', silly.]
HangingJester
> HangingJester wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> ...I'll grant that it's not like they had anything to do
> with arranging 9/11 but realize that there will be
> conspiracy theorists analyzing this the way Pearl Harbor
> has been analyzed as a conspiracy since it let FDR go
> to war in Europe.
No argument with any of that.
>>They were reactive, not proactive.
>
>
> Don't forget, the PATRIOT act crap was on the table
> even before and 9/11 made a lot of these draconian
> desires suddenly palatable to a non-cooperative Congress.
True, but Congress's finally voting for it was reactive, as were some of
the amendments. We can blame a good part of that on the fear-mongering
and frenzy stoked by political spinners and the news media, and the
natural anger response of the people demanding action for such heinous acts.
> We chose mitigation strategies that, like placing someone
> in a bubble to avoid an insect bite, deny the ability to
> fully _enjoy_ what life is possible.
>
> In some ways it is up to each of us to choose the risks
> we take in life, so that we can select the mitigation
> strategies *we*, as individuals, want. Additionally,
> a response mechanism has to be flexible, too.
>
> Basically, our elected representatives have chosen to
> sell off a lot of our sense of "living" in exchange for
> the illusion of safety.
>
> Finally, don't forget that 9/11 was almost like using
> Jiu-Jitsu, using our own strengths-- freedom-- against
> us.
Precisely, and that was one of the intended goals of the Terrorists. In
this case, they succeeded in our government's reaction to the events.
Terrorism is not just about the immediate damage caused by the act, but
also the resultant cascade of events, the emotional feelings, and the
infamy the terrorist organization gains.
> Mind you, flight 93 showed what citizens (instead of
> subjects) can do, and, in fact, it can be argued that
> maybe we should be handing knives to every adult
> passenger so that *we* provide the check-and-balance.
That's not likely to happen. However, the airport security can not
confiscate martial arts training.
~ Jester
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
I said "within their *Constitutional* restrictions, RICO is
unconstitutional.
HangingJester
It was said that the Terrorists are not responsible for the measures
taken after 9/11.
Since at least some of the measures enacted were done so due to the
modus operandi of the terrorist attacks, and were made into law by
Congress as a result of the attacks, and enforced by the current
administration to stop further similar attacks, the attacks were in part
a factor in the actions taken. The terrorists were part of the equation,
and all parts of a formula are responsible for the result. That is not a
strawman argument. Nothing there is misrepresented, exaggerated, or
distorted.
When law is enacted as of the actions of people, those people bear part
of the responsibility for that law being enacted. Especially when it is
*known* that prior to the actions committed by said people, that there
was such opposition, that the law very likely may not have been
otherwise created.
Simply blaming it on the American voters, *IS* a strawman argument.
~ Jester
Wesley Struebing
Precisely. On that I find little disagreement.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
Wesley Struebing
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:50:49 -0700, "Peter Eng" <dorn...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>>him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>deadly weapon?
>
>I think a better analogy would be 'a guy throws a punch at you, and
>you shoot his family.'
...and his acquaintenances...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
Tim Merrigan
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
The Patriot Act, and DoHS are no more their fault, than the political
infighting about Freedom Tower.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
>"HangingJester" <hangin...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:h0d_f.1221$3s4.1056@fed1read11...
>>
>> The actions taken by the government were in answer to terrorist actions.
>> They were reactive, not proactive. I don't agree with some of the
>> government's measures, but they are still an end result of reactions to
>> the original terrorist acts. It was a cascading flow of events. Why do you
>> want to absolve the terrorists from any responsibility from their act's
>> direct influence in the measures that have been taken?
>>
>
>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
>deadly weapon?
It's worse than that. Using your analogy, a guy throws a punch at
you, you shoot a third party whom you're known to dislike and vaguely
resembles the guy who threw the punch, and the guy who threw the punch
is responsible.
>No. I don't buy it. I'm responsible for my actions, and my reactions. I
>could have blocked the punch, I could have ducked, I could have rolled with
>the punch and pretended to be unconscious. Rational responses to the
>situation, as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
>against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
>
>In the same way, the terrorists attacked, and the U.S. Government's response
>was at least partially irrational. But that isn't the terrorists' fault.
>They aren't responsible for anybody else's stupidity.
>
>They are, however, responsible for their own actions.
>
>Peter Eng
>
Indiana Joe
Wesley Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 01:48:02 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:50:49 -0700, "Peter Eng" <dorn...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
> >>him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
> >>deadly weapon?
> >
> >I think a better analogy would be 'a guy throws a punch at you, and
> >you shoot his family.'
>
> ...and his acquaintenances...
...and his neighbors (who he doesn't even like)...
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
india...@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Matthew
>
>
> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>
Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
confusion, IMHO)
--
"Forget the Force. Trust in the spread of the gauge."
"If knowledge creates problems, ignorance will not solve them"
-Isaac Asimov.
I try not to repeat my mistakes. That way, I can invent exciting new
ones to make.
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock."
-Will Rogers
"Cry 'CHEEBLE' and let slip the hamsters of war."
"Those who learn from history are condemned to watch others repeat it."
- Henry Kissinger
0mn1vore
(in message <lrE_f.2933$%U2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>>
> Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
> several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
> what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
> confusion, IMHO)
>
Neo-conservative.
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:24:22 -0700, Matthew wrote
> (in message <lrE_f.2933$%U2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
>
>
>>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>>>Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>>>they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>>>9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>>>
>>
>>Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
>>several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
>>what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
>>confusion, IMHO)
>>
>
> Neo-conservative.
>
>
"Emphasis on 'con' - the only ones they're 'serving are themselves..."
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Matthew
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:24:22 -0700, Matthew wrote
> (in message <lrE_f.2933$%U2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
>
>
>>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>>>Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>>>they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>>>9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>>>
>>
>>Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
>>several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
>>what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
>>confusion, IMHO)
>>
>
> Neo-conservative.
>
>
0mn1vore
(in message <XdF_f.2963$%U2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
> 0mn1vore wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:24:22 -0700, Matthew wrote
>> (in message <lrE_f.2933$%U2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
>>
>>
>>> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>>>> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>>>> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>>>> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
>>> several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
>>> what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
>>> confusion, IMHO)
>>>
>>
>> Neo-conservative.
>>
>>
> umm... yeah, I got that much. Not exactly helpful, though.
>
>
Sorry. I'm guessing far-right wing, with strong religious
overtones and a great deal of intolerance. Not to mention an
overall control-freakish mindset.
Oh! Oh! And lots of money, with an overpowering desire for more
of it so totally unrestrained that it would make any other kind
of addict blush [thanks for reminding me, Rowan].
Just an opinion, of course.
MajorOz
Peter Eng wrote:
> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
> him, he's responsible for it?
Of course he is.
> I don't get arrested for assault with a
> deadly weapon?
Not in my or 23 other states.
> No. I don't buy it. I'm responsible for my actions, and my reactions. I
> could have blocked the punch, I could have ducked, I could have rolled with
> the punch and pretended to be unconscious. Rational responses to the
> situation,
...no doubt in some philosophies and locations, but not everywhere
>as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
> against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
"Why, them boys waz jest lookin' to have some fun" Not with me.
At the age of 12, a larger classmate grabbed my glasses. He and two
others (also larger) played "keep-away" with me. As soon as I figured
out what was going on, I simply pounded one into the ground, went to
the next one and pounded him. The third handed me my glasses.
Other than pulling a bully off my little brother at about 14 or so, I
haven't been in a fight since.
> In the same way, the terrorists attacked, and the U.S. Government's response
> was at least partially irrational.
Only according to your value system.
>But that isn't the terrorists' fault.
HORSESHIT. They could have stayed home.
> Peter Eng
...who just has to be from New England (or Jersey)
cheers
oz, who always takes a gun to a knife fight
HangingJester
>
>>
>>The terrorists are not "strawmen." They were directly involved in the
>>sequence of events. *Period*. If you want to turn to insults, then I am
>>done arguing this with you. :-(
>>
>>~ Jester
>
>
> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
Not all "Law and Order" proponents are Conservative, some are Liberal
and others Moderate. As for Congressional NeoCons:
House vote on the Patriot Act:
YEAS 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats, 1 Independent
NAYS 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, 1 Independent
Senate vote on the Patriot Act:
YEAS 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Independent
NAYS 0 Republicans, 1 Democrats, 0 Independent
> The Patriot Act, and DoHS are no more their fault, than the political
> infighting about Freedom Tower.
Patriot Act is not *totally their fault*, but it would have not even
come to a vote had 9/11 not happened. The people who had been trying to
get these measures enacted for years had been totally unsuccessful until
the attacks. Therefore, the terrorist actions had a definite result in
that they made possible the passage of the Patriot Act.
~ Jester
Denny Wheeler
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
And correctly said, too. None of the terrorists voted for the Patriot
Act.
>Since at least some of the measures enacted were done so due to the
>modus operandi of the terrorist attacks, and were made into law by
>Congress as a result of the attacks, and enforced by the current
>administration to stop further similar attacks, the attacks were in part
>a factor in the actions taken. The terrorists were part of the equation,
>and all parts of a formula are responsible for the result. That is not a
>strawman argument. Nothing there is misrepresented, exaggerated, or
>distorted.
Again. And again, and again: you imputed that *someone* (I don't know,
or care, who you were addressing with that sentence) wanted to
"absolve the terrorists of their ..."--and since no one took such a
stance, that argument is indeed a straw-man argument.
>When law is enacted as of the actions of people, those people bear part
>of the responsibility for that law being enacted.
Well, no. If, that is, your "is enacted as of the actions of people"
means "is enacted in response to the actions of people" (if it doesn't
mean that, I can't parse it at all). The *entire* responsibility for
the passage of any law resides in those who vote for said law. Well,
and also in those who abstain from voting against that law. (whether
the law is good, bad, or indifferent, is irrelevant here)
>Especially when it is
>*known* that prior to the actions committed by said people, that there
>was such opposition, that the law very likely may not have been
>otherwise created.
Maybe I'm just tired (it's 2 AM in the morning), but I can't make any
sense of the above sentence. Perhaps you could rephrase?
>Simply blaming it on the American voters, *IS* a strawman argument.
Well, no. It can't be a strawman argument. (see the definition of
the straw-man fallacy for why that's the case)
But in fact, ultimate responsibility for any law passed by a people's
elected representatives lies in that people.
I'd love to echo MurphyMom and say "Dubya is NOT MY president"--but so
long as I'm a citizen of these United States, the elected president IS
my president. And--very unfortunately, IMV--my agent.
But--given this subthread so far, and the subthread involving the
'punches me and I shoot him' analogy--I think we'll have to agree to
disagree on this issue.
So, (<denny tosses a few SBAs into the cigarbox>) have a drink, and
sing us a song--I'll sing along sotto voce so's not to upset anyone
with sensitive ears. Perhaps--suitable in a way to this thread--a
rebel song. Irish, of course--"the land of happy wars and sad love
songs."
>
>~ Jester
denaldo
>
>
>>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>>deadly weapon?
>
>
> you shoot his family.'
>
And then go a little southwest and shoot the family of
a guy that once dissed your daddy.
--
"Reginald wrote, 'Never be a pioneer. It is the early
Christian that gets the fattest lion.'" Saki
Send 'POINT'less replies to den...@ePOINTv1.net.
Jack C Lipton
> Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context?
A "neocon" is someone who *looks* and *sounds* like a
conservative but who spends money like water, feels
they are empowered by their (usually religious) beliefs
but is otherwise a crook, gathering police power to
themselves so they cannot be prosecuted.
"Real" conservatives find the Shrubbery to be offensive
and are insulted when people do not refer to that whole
crop of crooks as "conservatives", to the point that
one conservative magazine published an editorial during
the last presidential election recommending that the
Shrub should be voted *against*.
The point is that claiming to be a fiscal conservative
while not *acting* like one means that they're "not
really" a conservative, hence "neo-conservative".
Sadly, the claim of being a conservative is actually
more of embracing that "old time religion" instead of
something *useful* to the nation as a whole.
Read John Brunners "The Stone that Never Came Down".
Shalon Wood
> Peter Eng wrote:
>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>> him, he's responsible for it?
>
> Of course he is.
>
>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>> deadly weapon?
>
> Not in my or 23 other states.
I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
Shalon Wood
--
Check out Strange Love -- an ezine of science fiction, fantasy, and
paranormal erotica. Only $2 for more than 20,000 words of fiction!
The TheatrElf
news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx:
> "MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> writes:
>
>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at
>>> me, and I shoot him, he's responsible for it?
>>
>> Of course he is.
>>
>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>> deadly weapon?
>>
>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>
> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly
> suspect you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force;
> neither, in the vast majority of cases, would it make you fear
> for your life.
A well-directed punch CAN kill. And who knows if they are going
to stop at ONE punch? Multiple blows certainly can kill. And if a
person is willing to punch you, they are probably willing to pick
up a club and beat your brains out.
If someone attacks me, and I shoot them during that attack, it's
self defense whether or not the attacker had a weapon.
You do _not_ have the right to attack me, and I _do_ have the
right to protect myself from attack.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
A nudist is just a person in a one-button suit.
Shalon Wood
My understanding of the law -- and I will admit that it could be in
error -- is that in the above situation you're going to be charged
with ADW, Manslaughter, Murder, or some combination of the above. If
you can convince the jury that you were in honest fear for your life
you may get off, but you'll still be charged and arrested.
The TheatrElf
This isn't a cut and dried situation, so one can't say with any
confidence that it's always this way or that way. There will be
mitigating circumstances, or local variations in the law, that
will change how such cases are handled.
BUT in most of the US if someone attacks you and you shoot them
while they are attacking you, it's considered self-defense.
MAYBE you will be charged for an illegal weapon. MAYBE you will
be charged with excessive force. But it's not murder unless you
instigated the attack, or planned to lure the person into
attacking you so you could shoot them. It's not ADW because you
were the one being attacked. It maybe a lesser count of
Manslaughter, but in most places that would only happen if the
person didn't actually throw a punch at you.
I have seen a 98 pound women charged with assaulting a 180 pound
man. This person was in a heated discussion with the guy, and
she grabbed him to shake him, refused to let go of him despite
his putting his hands up and demanding "let me go", and finally
dumped her drink on him. She though it was ludicrous that she
should be charged because she "obviously couldn't hurt the guy."
But she put the guy into the position of having to defend
himself, and that could easily have resulted in harm to her at
his hand, which in itself can be psychologically damaging to man
defending himself. By grabbing him and refusing to let go of
him,she initiated an assault, whether or not she actually could
have injured him.
Same with our case of someone throwing a punch at a person and
getting shot for it. The person throwing the punch put the other
person into the position of defending himself. It does not
matter how much damage the attacker could actually have done
because we can't know that. We only know that they attacked, and
forced a response from the other person - in this case, an armed
response.
The person throwing the punch had no right to do so; there is no
"right to attack another person." The person being attacked
absolutely had the right to defend himself; and when attacked,
you want to make sure the attack ends. And the threat of bodily
harm warrants the use of deadly force. The victim did not choose
to be attacked, so yes, the person throwing the punch is
absolutely responsible for provoking their victim to shoot them.
So don't go around punching people.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
MajorOz
Jack C Lipton wrote:
> Sadly, the claim of being a conservative is actually
> more of embracing that "old time religion" instead of
> something *useful* to the nation as a whole.
Sadly, those who are not, or actively dislike, conservatives are the
ones most anxious to define what conservatism is. They do so, so that
they can define it in such a way to justify their disdain.
In the spirit of equal time, one may substitute most any belief system
for "conservative" in the above statement.
Not only are they devoid of understanding, but of logic.
cheers
oz, can you say "circuitous"; I knew you could
HangingJester
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:12:28 -0700, HangingJester
> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> But--given this subthread so far, and the subthread involving the
> 'punches me and I shoot him' analogy--I think we'll have to agree to
> disagree on this issue.
>
> So, (<denny tosses a few SBAs into the cigarbox>) have a drink, and
> sing us a song--I'll sing along sotto voce so's not to upset anyone
> with sensitive ears. Perhaps--suitable in a way to this thread--a
> rebel song. Irish, of course--"the land of happy wars and sad love
> songs."
No one seems to understand where I'm coming from, while the logic of my
argument is clear to me. Perhaps my emotions over this issue are making
it hard for me to get my point across. Honestly, I have been getting
increasingly PO'ed about this whole argument, to the point that I need
to just walk away from it. I'll come back and join in a drink and song
after I cool off.
~ Jester
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
Oz, I think Jack was referring to those who name themselves
"conservative" but aren't. Just as a large group on the right terms
those they disdain as 'liberals'--even when the people so categorized
are *not* liberals.
Matthew Russotto
>"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> writes:
>
>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>>> him, he's responsible for it?
>>
>> Of course he is.
>>
>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>> deadly weapon?
>>
>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>
>I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
>you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
>majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
Depends on who is throwing it and who is receiving it. Further, in
many states, deadly force may be used to respond to a threat of
serious but less-than-deadly force.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Wesley Struebing
~Jester, while what you say above is probably true (it's a logical
fallacy in that you have no sure way of knowing that, but I wouldn't
worry about we all do it), the attacks were used as a excuse. We
didn't HAVE to crawl into our burrows and pull our heads in after us.
We could have said we will NOT be intimidated! and meant it. We said
it, but our actions proved we didn't really believe it.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
Desideria
"Shalon Wood" <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in message
news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx...
.
>
> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
> you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
> majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
>
> Shalon Wood
You know, I seldom weigh in on such discussions but I need to on this. To my
mind, it would depend. If a man punched me, even once--or if I feared that
he was about to start punching me--I would feel justified in shooting him in
self defense.
My punching back is unlikely to do much good as self defense, after all. Nor
can I run fast enough to escape a determined assailant in many
circumstances.
Desideria
Desideria
> Denny Wheeler wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:12:28 -0700, HangingJester
>> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, (<denny tosses a few SBAs into the cigarbox>) have a drink, and
>> sing us a song--I'll sing along sotto voce so's not to upset anyone
>> with sensitive ears. Perhaps--suitable in a way to this thread--a
>> rebel song. Irish, of course--"the land of happy wars and sad love
>> songs."
>
> No one seems to understand where I'm coming from, while the logic of my
> argument is clear to me. Perhaps my emotions over this issue are making it
> hard for me to get my point across. Honestly, I have been getting
> increasingly PO'ed about this whole argument, to the point that I need to
> just walk away from it. I'll come back and join in a drink and song after
> I cool off.
And I'll buy, sweetie. I've hated to see two of my favorite guys
disagreeing.
Desideria
Shalon Wood
>
> We could have said we will NOT be intimidated! and meant it. We said
> it, but our actions proved we didn't really believe it.
Indeed. We could have -- SHOULD have -- said 'Go ahead. Take your best
shot. You can kill us, but you can't scare us.'
Instead, we ran and stuck our heads under the bed, with our ass
sticking out for anyone to kick if they wanted to.
Shalon Wood
Peter Eng
"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:1144730032.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Eng wrote:
>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>> him, he's responsible for it?
>
> Of course he is.
>
>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>> deadly weapon?
>
> Not in my or 23 other states.
>
Well, good point - if I remember correctly, assault is threatening somebody
with the weapon.
And, as an aside, I didn't realize that level of response to a low-level
threat was legal in some states.
>
>> No. I don't buy it. I'm responsible for my actions, and my reactions.
>> I
>> could have blocked the punch, I could have ducked, I could have rolled
>> with
>> the punch and pretended to be unconscious. Rational responses to the
>> situation,
>
>>as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
>> against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
>
> "Why, them boys waz jest lookin' to have some fun" Not with me.
>
> At the age of 12, a larger classmate grabbed my glasses. He and two
> others (also larger) played "keep-away" with me. As soon as I figured
> out what was going on, I simply pounded one into the ground, went to
> the next one and pounded him. The third handed me my glasses.
>
I'm not talking about children. I'm talking about adults.
>
>
>> In the same way, the terrorists attacked, and the U.S. Government's
>> response
>> was at least partially irrational.
>
> Only according to your value system.
>
>>But that isn't the terrorists' fault.
>
> HORSESHIT. They could have stayed home.
>
>> Peter Eng
>
> ...who just has to be from New England (or Jersey)
>
What gives you that hair-brained conclusion?
I'm from Washington State. Western Washington, to be exact. Buncha
liberals, for the most part.
Peter Eng
Shalon Wood
> "Shalon Wood" <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in message
> news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx...
> .
>>
>> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
>> you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
>> majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
>>
>> Shalon Wood
>
> You know, I seldom weigh in on such discussions but I need to on this. To my
> mind, it would depend. If a man punched me, even once--or if I feared that
> he was about to start punching me--I would feel justified in shooting him in
> self defense.
>
> My punching back is unlikely to do much good as self defense, after all. Nor
> can I run fast enough to escape a determined assailant in many
> circumstances.
I should be more clear, perhaps; this is my understanding of the law,
not what makes sense.
The two rarely coincide, sadly, and everyone I know who's contemplated
it pretty much assumes that even if it's a righteous shoot, you're in
for hell. If there's any ambiguity in it -- such as a lack of weaponry
on the other side -- that hell just got a lot worse.
I'm not saying that's the way it should be, just that it's how -- to
the best of my understanding; I don't yet have a CCW -- it is.
Shalon Wood
Peter Eng
"denaldo" <den...@ePOINTv1.net> wrote in message
news:123n41v...@corp.supernews.com...
> Denny Wheeler wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:50:49 -0700, "Peter Eng" <dorn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>>>him, he's responsible for it? I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>>deadly weapon?
>>
>>
>> I think a better analogy would be 'a guy throws a punch at you, and
>> you shoot his family.'
>>
>
> And then go a little southwest and shoot the family of
> a guy that once dissed your daddy.
>
I'm not trying for an accurate summary of what's happened. I'm going for
the view that using lethal force against somebody that is not using lethal
force is a poor response, but it doesn't make the guy that threw the first
punch responsible for the usage of the gun.
Peter Eng
MajorOz
> >> situation,
> >
> >>as opposed to the over-reaction of pulling out a gun and using it
> >> against a guy who was going for a bare-knuckle brawl.
> >
> > "Why, them boys waz jest lookin' to have some fun" Not with me.
> >
> > At the age of 12, a larger classmate grabbed my glasses. He and two
> > others (also larger) played "keep-away" with me. As soon as I figured
> > out what was going on, I simply pounded one into the ground, went to
> > the next one and pounded him. The third handed me my glasses.
> >
>
> I'm not talking about children. I'm talking about adults
.The childhood experience is simply a generic example of not putting up
with what some would say is innocent fun -- but not the victim.
The "meat" of the response is that I am not obligated to be a victim of
"...a bare-nuclke brawl".
> > ...who just has to be from New England (or Jersey)
> >
>
> What gives you that hair-brained conclusion?
The opinions expressed.
It was just playing the odds, but I lost.
> I'm from Washington State. Western Washington, to be exact. Buncha
> liberals, for the most part.
Yeah, I know. Lived near Puyallup for 12 years. East coast, west
coast -- little philosophical difference -- must be the water. :)
cheers
oz, who, to his everlasting shame, was a delegate to the '88 WA GOP
caucus/convention that nominated Pat Robertson (I was a Dole delegate)
Jack C Lipton
> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>> Sadly, the claim of being a conservative is actually
>> more of embracing that "old time religion" instead of
>> something *useful* to the nation as a whole.
>
> Sadly, those who are not, or actively dislike,
> conservatives are the ones most anxious to define what
> conservatism is.
Just as many who are *not* liberals want to define what
liberalism is in order to paint 'em into a corner.
The point being that people who talk about themselves
will tend to put in qualifiers, like "fiscal conservative",
just so they don't sound like a Shrub-hugger.
The problem is that the current crop of Shrubbery is
busy claiming to be "conservative" and yet are radically
changing existing systems to fit some religious model
(i.e. "pandering to the Religious wRong") instead of
actually trying to maintain mechanisms that have worked.
Governments, IMHO, only function in the wide world if
they are SECULAR.
Why secular government?
Because government requires the concept of "compromise".
Sadly, religions have very little "give" on many issues
and so will not settle for "half a loaf" and want to
say "my way or the highway".
What's funny is that the Muslims, with the Danish cartoon
melt-down, aren't that different from many of the various
Christian-based sects that believe themselves to be
worthy of running the USA.
The question is "what are these people conserving?"
Other than perhaps the ability to steal all the money
they want to from the rest of the nation.
Money (TTTO "And the money..." from "Evita")
"And the money kept rolling in to the I R S..."
Duhbyas little hands reached out and they reached wide
Now you may say enrichment should be a voluntary cause
but that's not the point, my friends..."
(sighs)
Then, of course, there's my efforts to re-write "Popular"
from "Wicked" into "Competent":
CHENEY
(spoken) Duhbya - now that we're in office,
I've decided to make you my new project.
DUHBYA
(spoken) You really don't have to do that
CHENEY
(spoken) I know. That's what makes me so smart!
(sung) Whenever I see someone
Less intelligent than I
(And let's face it - who isn't
Less street-smart than I?)
My hardened heart
Tends to start to stop
And when someone needs to train up
I simply have to take up
I know I know exactly what they need
And even in your case
Tho' it's the toughest case I've yet to face
Don't worry - I'm determined to succeed
Follow my lead
And yes, indeed
You will look:
Competent!
You're gonna look Competent!
I'll teach you the proper times
When you blow your lines
Little ways to duck and run!
I'll show you what shows to watch
How to hide your stare
Everything that really counts
To look competent
I'll help you look competent!
You'll hang with the right cohorts
You'll have good retorts
Know the slang you've got to know
So let's start
'Cause you've got an awfully long way to go:
Don't be offended by my frank analysis
Think of it as personality dialysis
Now that I've chosen to be come a pal, a
Vee Pee and adviser
There's nobody wiser
Not when it comes to competence -
I know about competence
And with an assist from me
To be who you'll be
Instead of stupid who-you-were, well, are:
There's nothing that can stop you
From looking competent
La la la la
We're gonna make
You com-pe-tent
When I see depressing creatures
With unprepossessing features
I remind them on their own behalf
To think of
Celebrated heads of state or
Specially great communicators
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!
They looked competent! Please -
It's all about competence!
It's faking aptitude
Im the way you're viewed
So it's very shrewd to look
Very very competent,
Like me!
(spoken) Why, Mister President, look at you. You look *sharp*.
DUHBYA(spoken) I - I have to go:
CHENEY
(spoken) You're welcome!
(sung) And though you protest
Your disinterest
I know clandestinely
You're gonna grin and bear it
Your new found competence
La la la la
You'll look competent -
Just not as quite as competent
As me!
Meffy Ellis
> La la la la
... and a bunch more.
*applause* Magnif.
Must see if I can locate the shrubby Wizard of Oz knockoff I posted to
some Web forum before the previous election. If only they'd listened to
me! O, Atlantis.
Tim Merrigan
<matthe...@mail.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>>
>Can someone define "neocon" when used in this context? I've heard
>several definitions, and I'd rather get everyone on the same page as to
>what's being talked about (differing definitions lead to serious
>confusion, IMHO)
New-Conservatives, a group of allegedly libertarian economists and
political philosophers mostly from the University of Chicago, who
persuaded George W. Bush to run for president and implement their
policy agendas. Including, among other things, the invasion of Iraq,
the abolition, as much as possible, of all taxes, the implementation
of various surveillance laws, and the removal of restrictions on law
enforcement authorities, and on corporate Boards of Directors and
CEOs.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Tim Merrigan
<hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 03:56:41 -0700, HangingJester
>> <hangin...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>
>>>The terrorists are not "strawmen." They were directly involved in the
>>>sequence of events. *Period*. If you want to turn to insults, then I am
>>>done arguing this with you. :-(
>>>
>>>~ Jester
>>
>>
>> The 9/11 attacks were an excuse the NeoCons, along with other "Law and
>> Order" proponents in congress, used to implement programs and policies
>> they wanted to do all along. What the terrorists did in connection to
>> 9/11 ended when the dust from the plane crashes settled.
>
>Not all "Law and Order" proponents are Conservative, some are Liberal
>and others Moderate. As for Congressional NeoCons:
>
> House vote on the Patriot Act:
>
>YEAS 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats, 1 Independent
>NAYS 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, 1 Independent
>
> Senate vote on the Patriot Act:
>
>YEAS 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Independent
>NAYS 0 Republicans, 1 Democrats, 0 Independent
It was a brilliant move on the part of the opponents to the
Constitution to put their draconian bills together into an omnibus
bill ready to be voted on within hours of the attacks, and to push for
a floor vote without giving the legislators time to read the bill.
Almost as though they had had it ready beforehand, just in case
something happened. (At least there were people who managed to put
sunsets on it (much good that did)).
>> The Patriot Act, and DoHS are no more their fault, than the political
>> infighting about Freedom Tower.
>
>Patriot Act is not *totally their fault*, but it would have not even
>come to a vote had 9/11 not happened. The people who had been trying to
>get these measures enacted for years had been totally unsuccessful until
>the attacks. Therefore, the terrorist actions had a definite result in
>that they made possible the passage of the Patriot Act.
This I can agree with, except remove "totally".
>~ Jester
Tim Merrigan
Actually, by touching him it escalated to Battery (and she poured her
drink on him to boot), she's right, it is ludicrous that she was only
charged with Assault.
>Same with our case of someone throwing a punch at a person and
>getting shot for it. The person throwing the punch put the other
>person into the position of defending himself. It does not
>matter how much damage the attacker could actually have done
>because we can't know that. We only know that they attacked, and
>forced a response from the other person - in this case, an armed
>response.
>
>The person throwing the punch had no right to do so; there is no
>"right to attack another person." The person being attacked
>absolutely had the right to defend himself; and when attacked,
>you want to make sure the attack ends. And the threat of bodily
>harm warrants the use of deadly force. The victim did not choose
>to be attacked, so yes, the person throwing the punch is
>absolutely responsible for provoking their victim to shoot them.
>
>So don't go around punching people.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
Wesley Struebing
<Desi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Shalon Wood" <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in message
>news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx...
>.
>>
>> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
>> you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
>> majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
>>
>> Shalon Wood
>
>You know, I seldom weigh in on such discussions but I need to on this. To my
>mind, it would depend. If a man punched me, even once--or if I feared that
>he was about to start punching me--I would feel justified in shooting him in
>self defense.
>
>My punching back is unlikely to do much good as self defense, after all. Nor
>can I run fast enough to escape a determined assailant in many
>circumstances.
>
>Desideria
>>
I sort of agree with this (heck - I'm in Colorado, where the saying
is, "if you kill him make sure you drag him across the threshold
before he bleeds outside your house...")
...but I'd be aiming to incapacitate - not kill in that instance.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>
>"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>news:1144730032.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I shoot
>>> him, he's responsible for it?
>>
>> Of course he is.
>>
>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>> deadly weapon?
>>
>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>>
>
>Well, good point - if I remember correctly, assault is threatening somebody
>with the weapon.
>
Doesn't have to be with a weapon...although if you had that weapon and
threatened someone, you would (IANAL, but I believe so) be guilty of
assault, it's not commutative. (A + B = B + A)
--
"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat.
You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat."
- Albert Einstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wes Struebing (str...@carpedementem.org)
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:53:03 -0700, "Desideria"
> <Desi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Shalon Wood" <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in message
>>news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx...
>>.
>>
>>>I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly suspect
>>>you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither, in the vast
>>>majority of cases, would it make you fear for your life.
>>>
>>>Shalon Wood
>>
>>You know, I seldom weigh in on such discussions but I need to on this. To my
>>mind, it would depend. If a man punched me, even once--or if I feared that
>>he was about to start punching me--I would feel justified in shooting him in
>>self defense.
>>
>>My punching back is unlikely to do much good as self defense, after all. Nor
>>can I run fast enough to escape a determined assailant in many
>>circumstances.
>>
>>Desideria
>>
> I sort of agree with this (heck - I'm in Colorado, where the saying
> is, "if you kill him make sure you drag him across the threshold
> before he bleeds outside your house...")
>
> ...but I'd be aiming to incapacitate - not kill in that instance.
"The problem is that most people aren't really a good enough shot to
pull that off safely. I am, and I still wouldn't try it.
Think about it this way: if he's within, say, ten feet of you when he
attacks, you have *at most* a couple seconds before you're actually
being struck (or cut - don't assume that just because he starts for you
with his fists that he intends to actually remain bare-handed.)
If you miss? He's going to be right on top of you. If you absolutely
have to shoot, shoot for dead center and don't miss. If he survives,
that's fine, *as long as he stops*. If he doesn't, well, he should have
thought of that *before* he tried to pick on somebody he thought was an
easy mark..."
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Tim Merrigan
<jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Shalon Wood <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in
>news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx:
>
>> "MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me,
>>>> and I shoot him, he's responsible for it?
>>>
>>> Of course he is.
>>>
>>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>>> deadly weapon?
>>>
>>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>>
>> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly
>> suspect you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither,
>> in the vast majority of cases, would it make you fear for your
>> life.
>
>The laws vary by state, but the general legal principle is the test of
>the "reasonable person" in the specific circumstances. If, in the
>circumstances, a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or
>serious bodily harm, then use of deadly force in self-defense is
>justified.
>
>If the person throwing the punch is half your height and 1/4 your
>weight, responding with deadly force is going to be very difficult to
>justify. However, if the sizes are reversed, you have a pretty good
>case. Knowledge of the person's skills also plays a part. A
>professional boxer's hands are considered deadly weapons, e.g. If you
>know you're up against a pro, you may legally respond in kind.
>
>At the end of the day, it comes down to what you can sell to the judge
>and/or jury.
There's one situation which would fit the original hypothetical
(though not the analogy to 9/11), and for which pulling a gun, or even
a knife, would indeed be a gross over reaction. That is if the
original man throwing a punch was in a bar where a part of the normal
entertainment is brawling.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
David
"Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
news:8e1r329n2g4celbsn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:11:57 -0700, "Peter Eng" <dorn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>>news:1144730032.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me, and I
>>>> shoot
>>>> him, he's responsible for it?
>>>
>>> Of course he is.
>>>
>>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>>> deadly weapon?
>>>
>>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>>>
>>
>>Well, good point - if I remember correctly, assault is threatening
>>somebody
>>with the weapon.
>>
> Doesn't have to be with a weapon...although if you had that weapon and
> threatened someone, you would (IANAL, but I believe so) be guilty of
> assault, it's not commutative. (A + B = B + A)
> --
("I'm going to beat you to a pulp"), while battery is an actual attack. So
any reasonable threat can be considered assault. There are also degrees of
additional difficulty, if that's the correct term, such as assault with a
deadly weapon, which could be more serious than simple fisticuffs.
Dave
Ree
Ree.
Rowan Hawthorn
> David wrote:
>
>>
> Soooo......threatening is assalt and actually apeppering him is battery?
>
> Ree.
"BOOOOOOO!!! Here, have some peanuts to go with that..."
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
"By the way, that's incorrect. Battery is what Long John Silver's uses
to coat their fish (and one of the clubs where I play has beer-batteried
onion rings. Yum...)"
MajorOz
Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> Ree wrote:
>...one of the clubs where I play...
What (instrument / type of music) do you play
cheers
oz, dobro picker and bottleneck blues slider
Ree
> Ree wrote:
>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Soooo......threatening is assalt and actually apeppering him is battery?
>>
>> Ree.
>
>
> "BOOOOOOO!!! Here, have some peanuts to go with that..."
>
> 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>
> "By the way, that's incorrect. Battery is what Long John Silver's uses
> to coat their fish (and one of the clubs where I play has beer-batteried
> onion rings. Yum...)"
>
Wow! I think that's my first ever peanut barrage!
Ree.
Ree
soprano.
Ree.
Rowan Hawthorn
"Lead, rhythm, and bass guitar, lead/backup vocals. Mostly new
country/classic rock, with some new rock/classic country. And the
occasional 'offbeat' tune that doesn't classify well."
Rowan Hawthorn
"Heh! Stick around, looks like you have a bright future in legumes..."
David
"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:--ednfz_R6e...@giganews.com...
> Ree wrote:
>> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>>
>>> Ree wrote:
>>>
>>>> David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Soooo......threatening is assalt and actually apeppering him is
>>>> battery?
>>>>
>>>> Ree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "BOOOOOOO!!! Here, have some peanuts to go with that..."
>>>
>>> 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>>>
>>> "By the way, that's incorrect. Battery is what Long John Silver's uses
>>> to coat their fish (and one of the clubs where I play has beer-batteried
>>> onion rings. Yum...)"
>>>
>>
>> Wow! I think that's my first ever peanut barrage!
>>
>> Ree.
>
> "Heh! Stick around, looks like you have a bright future in legumes..."
>
Dave
Rowan Hawthorn
"No, just pecan on her..."
Wesley Struebing
Yup. Permit me to condiment you on your perspicacity...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
Wesley Struebing
Is that where you bark you car?
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
Well, at least she's out of her shell.
Wesley Struebing
<jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Shalon Wood <ds...@pele.cx> wrote in
>news:87mzesk...@pele.pele.cx:
>
>> "MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Eng wrote:
>>>> So, let me get this straight. If a guy throws a punch at me,
>>>> and I shoot him, he's responsible for it?
>>>
>>> Of course he is.
>>>
>>>> I don't get arrested for assault with a
>>>> deadly weapon?
>>>
>>> Not in my or 23 other states.
>>
>> I'd like to hear Jerry weigh in on this, but I rather strongly
>> suspect you're full of it. A punch is _not_ lethal force; neither,
>> in the vast majority of cases, would it make you fear for your
>> life.
>
>The laws vary by state, but the general legal principle is the test of
>the "reasonable person" in the specific circumstances. If, in the
>circumstances, a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or
>serious bodily harm, then use of deadly force in self-defense is
>justified.
>
>If the person throwing the punch is half your height and 1/4 your
>weight, responding with deadly force is going to be very difficult to
>justify. However, if the sizes are reversed, you have a pretty good
>case. Knowledge of the person's skills also plays a part. A
>professional boxer's hands are considered deadly weapons, e.g. If you
>know you're up against a pro, you may legally respond in kind.
>
>At the end of the day, it comes down to what you can sell to the judge
>and/or jury.
As long as it's not Amway...
Ree
> David wrote:
>
>> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:--ednfz_R6e...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> Ree wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ree wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Soooo......threatening is assalt and actually apeppering him is
>>>>>> battery?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "BOOOOOOO!!! Here, have some peanuts to go with that..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>>>>>
>>>>> "By the way, that's incorrect. Battery is what Long John Silver's
>>>>> uses to coat their fish (and one of the clubs where I play has
>>>>> beer-batteried onion rings. Yum...)"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow! I think that's my first ever peanut barrage!
>>>>
>>>> Ree.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Heh! Stick around, looks like you have a bright future in legumes..."
>>>
>>
>> Are you calling her a nut? ;)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> "No, just pecan on her..."
>
Ree.
Rowan Hawthorn
"And it gets worse! Oh, my acorn head..."
David
Dave