OT: John Cusack = Idiot?
Thrasher
RPG name?) and he started out pretty good. He read a dictionary
defintion of "Liberal" and then asked why that was a bad thing. Which,
of course, it's not.
But THEN he asks why so many people think there's something wrong with
taking a little bigger piece of the common pie and distributing it to
the poor fucks blah blah, "or LIBERALISM" he says, equatting the two.
COME ON, John Cusack!! You JUST READ the fucking defintion of Liberal
20 seconds ago and then in your next question you confuse Liberalism
with wealth re-distribution. How can somebody so stupid he can't even
understand a dictionary defintion he just read be so funny?
And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
Thrasher
republican or a democrat, I'm more Libertarian type guy - I like a lot
of what Ralph Nader says..."
Jesus fucking christ. People like me can't call ourselves Liberals
anymore because the hollywood communists of the 1950s took the name
for themselves when communism became grossly unpopular. So, we made up
a new term to describe our philosophy that means the same thing as the
old term, Liberal. Livertarian. Now, what, the hollywood fucks need to
steal that term too? John Cusack, you aren't a Libertarian. You are a
socialist. Call yourself a socialist. Or, better, just shut the fuck
up. Eh?
Bob Perez
"Thrasher" <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:heoai0tahlq7ag74l...@4ax.com...
Why would anyone think that the political opinions of a Hollywood actor are
interesting to a) people who like the actor; or b) people who care about
politics? That's what baffles me.
Every once in a while, a rare one comes along who can act and handle
political discussion without embarassing himself. I was surprised to find
myself impressed with Ben Affleck during the demo convention. Never thought
too much of him previously. The guy was actually able to express some
reasonably coherent thoughts. For a Hollywood actor.
Disappointed, but not surprised, regarding Cusack.
--
Bob Perez
"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
the flying dutchman
waters of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, i happened upon the crew of
Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com>:
>And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
>celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
>going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
>prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
A friend emailed this to me. I thought it mildly amusing...
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - jgr...@cinci.rr.com - July - 2004
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot
full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for
minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with
his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because
some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers
medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers
for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his
morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat
because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing
industry.
Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is
properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents
because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting
on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and
takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree
hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our
air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride
to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation
fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay,
medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some
liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joeąs employer doesnąt
want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or
becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment
check because some liberal didnąt think he should loose[sic] his home
because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some
bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some
liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who
ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below
market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that
Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and
earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work; he plans to visit his father this evening at
his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to
dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal
fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He
was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home
Administration because bankers didnąt want to make rural loans. The
house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his
nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those
rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark [otherwise].)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social
Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could
take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad
he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals
are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnąt tell Joe that his
beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit
Joe enjoys throughout his day.)
Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our
lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should
take care of themselves, just like I have."
--
salutations, mat
np: [winamp not running]
I WILL round this Cape even if I have to keep sailing until doomsday!
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>
>And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
>celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
>going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
>prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
He's an actor - as long as he can act, does it matter who or what he
supports in politics ?
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>Or, better, just shut the fuck up. Eh?
Excellent advice...
Morgan Sales
> And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
> celebrities?
Because that's what sells tickets. If you think it's a ridiculous idea then
fair enough (I do to), don't watch the interviews, and don't let yourself
get so upset by them.
--
Morgan.
----
* "___________________________" :- Silent Bob
Mail: Morgan...@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Nostromo
2004 11:17:27 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thrasher wrote:
>
>> And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
>> celebrities?
>
>Because that's what sells tickets. If you think it's a ridiculous idea then
>fair enough (I do to), don't watch the interviews, and don't let yourself
>get so upset by them.
Or just killfile the moron like I did - works a treat 99% of the
time...until some other moron gets sucked into his bullshit & quotes him &
wastes my f#$kin time. *huge Shrek sigh*
--
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
Kev the rev
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:14:47 GMT, Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
>>celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
>>going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
>>prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
>
>He's an actor - as long as he can act, does it matter who or what he
>supports in politics ?
Are there hints of Mcarthyism going on over there in the states these
days?
Mark Morrison
I remember in the run up to the war, when anyone spoke out against
invading, the Bush supporters were quick to label them 'terrorism
supporters'.
Michael Anderson
news:uktbi0p0g38qkrvf0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:38:20 +0100, Kev the rev <an...@anon.com> wrote:
> >Are there hints of Mcarthyism going on over there in the states these
> >days?
> I remember in the run up to the war, when anyone spoke out against
> invading, the Bush supporters were quick to label them 'terrorism
> supporters'.
There are rediculous, odious levels of name-calling out there on *both*
sides ... I feel caught in the middle. If you support the war you're a
Bush-tool, if not you're soft on terrorists. If you *don't* question Bush's
military service you're a Bush-apologist, but if you question Kerry's record
you're anti-patriotic ... just like if you support the death penalty but
don't support separate sentencing definitions for so-called 'hate' crimes
you're a racist twice ...
And nobody has a sense of humor - *everything* is offensive ... unless it is
about wealthy white men ...
Mike
Nostrobino
> I just watched this guy interview Barak Obama (isn't that a bullshit
> RPG name?) and he started out pretty good. He read a dictionary
> defintion of "Liberal" and then asked why that was a bad thing. Which,
> of course, it's not.
>
> But THEN he asks why so many people think there's something wrong with
> taking a little bigger piece of the common pie and distributing it to
> the poor fucks blah blah, "or LIBERALISM" he says, equatting the two.
>
> COME ON, John Cusack!! You JUST READ the fucking defintion of Liberal
> 20 seconds ago and then in your next question you confuse Liberalism
> with wealth re-distribution. How can somebody so stupid he can't even
> understand a dictionary defintion he just read be so funny?
It's incomprehensible, but when leftists call themselves "liberals," even
having just read the definition isn't going to give them any clues that
that's not what they are.
Leftists understand one thing: Leftism is thoroughly discredited almost
everywhere, and so they must never, ever, under any circumstances admit to
being leftists. So they have appropriated the term "liberal" instead, making
that word essentially meaningless, just as homosexual activists have done
with "gay" (which no longer has anything to do with gaiety of any sort,
thanks to this misappropriation).
>
> And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
> celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
> going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
> prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
Same here. I have no use for him anymore and never watch any movie he's in.
Hollywood mostly makes dreck anyway, so this is no sacrifice.
Kev the rev
wrote:
> Leftism is thoroughly discredited almost
>everywhere,
Oh, like capitalism is squeeky clean?
Nostrobino
"the flying dutchman" <mat...@northwestSPAMBEGONEconcerts.commie> wrote in
message news:24cbi05sugk8aeru6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:14:47 GMT, during a voyage through the cold
> waters of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, i happened upon the crew of
> Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
> >celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
> >going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
> >prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
>
> A friend emailed this to me. I thought it mildly amusing...
>
> A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
> A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
> By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - jgr...@cinci.rr.com - July - 2004
>
> Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot
> full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for
> minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with
> his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because
> some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
<much more of the same omitted for excessive redundancy>
Nothing in that whole list has anything whatever to with being liberal. It
all has to do with government REGULATIONS. All governments regulate.
Liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, they all produce regulations
for a variety of reasons and purposes, some good and useful, some not.
Leftist-"liberals" are more likely to stringently regulate gun ownership,
and many of them would regulate such legal ownership out of existence if
they could. If you're a leftist-"liberal" you probably love that idea. If
you're not, you probably don't. But in any case, there is nothing LIBERAL
about wanting to take away someone's constitutional right to own something.
Leftist-"liberals" are more likely to interfere with a property owner's
right to develop his own land, on the grounds that such development might
make a protected-species snail too nervous to have sex. If you think that
being so solicitous of the continued reproductive success of all those
species of snails is hugely important, you probably like that idea. If
you're someone who wants to build a house on his own property regardless of
the snails' feelings in the matter, you probably don't. Either way, there's
nothing LIBERAL about prohibiting someone from using his own property.
Nostrobino
"Kev the rev" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:gdlci0pqev077qa9c...@4ax.com...
No economic system is "squeeky clean," but capitalism works. Leftism makes
countries economic basket cases.
Morgan Sales
> It's incomprehensible, but when leftists call themselves "liberals,"
> even having just read the definition isn't going to give them any
> clues that that's not what they are.
>
> Leftists understand one thing:
I beg to differ.
> Leftism is thoroughly discredited
> almost everywhere, and so they must never, ever, under any
> circumstances admit to being leftists.
I'm quite left wing I'll have you know. Making me a 'leftist' (although
it's not a term we use in the UK), I'll happily and proudly admit that.
Which makes you incorrect.
--
Morgan.
----
* I'll get a bunch of monkeys, dress um up, and make um re-enact the civil
war.
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
I'll piss in this pot. The only forms of government that work, & have
'worked' historically are *benevolent* dictatorships (empires, monarchies,
etc). People are basically stoopid sheep & need to be told what's good for
them. Voting for some political rep 5 links down the chain & thinking you're
'empowered' with your choice of destiny is beyond ludicrous (actually, if
you have to have a democracy, I believe there should be a stringent
qualification process for voting, just like for jury duty, but that's
another topic).
As far as economic models go, capitalism only 'works' because 95% of us are
told we can become the other 5% if we struggle & slave away all our lives,
never accepting that chances are, we will always be one of the 5%. 'The Man'
will give us our trinkets & little tidbits to keep this farce going. And we
in the so-called western civilized world are leeches & parasites of the
highest order, living off the backs of the 2nd & 3rd world. Anyone thinks
otherwise, you need to get out of suburbia & your borders.
Ok, I've had enough venting now. No, I'm not trolling. It's a sore point,
because I grew up in a socialist/communist country & now live in a
capitalist one - I've experienced the difference to *know* the difference
1st-hand. Anything else is so much pissing into the wind...
Kev the rev
wrote:
So its ok for 90% of a countries wealth to be owned by 2% of its
population?
Bob Perez
"Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:9QsVc.5671$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Nothing in that whole list has anything whatever to with being liberal.
Agreed, it's a silly article, but it does make some funny points.
> But in any case, there is nothing LIBERAL
> about wanting to take away someone's constitutional right to own
something.
Well of course not, when you put it that way, lol. What *is* liberal about
this, however, is the idea that protecting the populace from the perceived
dangers of guns is a legitimate exercise of governmental authority. I think
it's a misguided effort and I don't think that any change in gun laws
(Constitutional or statutory) will solve America's problem with gun
violence. Canada has over 7 million guns but they don't have this problem.
Unfortunately, it appears that there's just something about our culture and
our history that makes it easier for us to resort to guns and violence.
If you're a conservative you may hear this comment as "yet another example
of how liberals hate America" and "always blame America first", but I don't
view this kind of recognition of reality as unduly pessimistic or indicative
of anything other than a loving and caring concern about a horrible
condition, and an attempt to understand it so that corrective action can be
taken. The disputes really should center around the nature of the corrective
action, not the patriotism of the various participants.
The gun problem is a very serious one and a tough nut to crack. I don't
think that taking away Constitutional rights or making guns illegal will
solve the problem. I'm inclined to agree with those who feel that part of
the solution is to toughen up existing laws against criminals of all types
and overhaul the pathetic system that we call "criminal justice" in this
country. I'm not saying we act too compassionately, I'm saying we act too
stupidly.
> Leftist-"liberals" are more likely to interfere with a property owner's
> right to develop his own land, on the grounds that such development might
> make a protected-species snail too nervous to have sex.
Q: What's the difference between a land developer and an environmentalist?
A: The land owner wants to build a huge house in the middle of a pristine
forest. The environmentalist wants to live in that house.
Bob Perez
"Morgan Sales" <morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2on45kF...@uni-berlin.de...
> I'm quite left wing I'll have you know. Making me a 'leftist' (although
> it's not a term we use in the UK), I'll happily and proudly admit that.
> Which makes you incorrect.
Liberalism is making a huge and strong comeback after being so soundly
beaten down for many years. Expect to hear a lot more about this resurgence
in the months and years to come. Just wait, someone soon will author a book
entitled "Up from Conservatism".
Kev the rev
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Nostrobino wrote:
>
>> It's incomprehensible, but when leftists call themselves "liberals,"
>> even having just read the definition isn't going to give them any
>> clues that that's not what they are.
>>
>> Leftists understand one thing:
>
>I beg to differ.
>
>> Leftism is thoroughly discredited
>> almost everywhere, and so they must never, ever, under any
>> circumstances admit to being leftists.
>
>I'm quite left wing I'll have you know. Making me a 'leftist' (although
>it's not a term we use in the UK), I'll happily and proudly admit that.
>Which makes you incorrect.
What I think the world needs is a 'third way', neither washington or
moscow, but something entirely different. I mean the world is in
turmoil at the moment and nothing anybody is doing is making it
better.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
I vote for a United Federation of Planets led by me as the Grand Chancellor.
Any seconds?
the flying dutchman
waters of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, i happened upon the crew of "Bob
Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov>:
>
>"Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> wrote in message
>news:9QsVc.5671$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Nothing in that whole list has anything whatever to with being liberal.
>
>Agreed, it's a silly article, but it does make some funny points.
Indeed. I had a good laugh reading it just as i would with
conservative pieces that use sweeping generalizations to bash the
left. It's hilarious from both "ends of the political spectrum".
Jim Vieira
> I vote for a United Federation of Planets led by me as the Grand
Chancellor.
> Any seconds?
The Romulan's abstain.
Bob Perez
> So its ok for 90% of a countries wealth to be owned by 2% of its
> population?
Well, yes, if the result is that that the 90% wind up living a higher
standard living than 99.9% of the rest of the world.
Bob Perez
"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:vvAVc.3112$Gk5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I vote for a United Federation of Planets led by me as the Grand
> Chancellor.
> > Any seconds?
>
> The Romulan's abstain.
OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers? Everything you bought would
be delivered "when it's done" and then you'd have to buy it again in a year
anyway.
Morgan Sales
> What I think the world needs is a 'third way', neither washington or
> moscow, but something entirely different. I mean the world is in
> turmoil at the moment and nothing anybody is doing is making it
> better.
Well it depends what you mean by Moscow, if you mean communist then you have
to remember that Communism is the extreme. You gave go a long way left
before you hit communism.
--
Morgan.
----
* ...I don't know how to teach, I'm a professor.
Kev the rev
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Kev the rev wrote:
>
>> What I think the world needs is a 'third way', neither washington or
>> moscow, but something entirely different. I mean the world is in
>> turmoil at the moment and nothing anybody is doing is making it
>> better.
>
>Well it depends what you mean by Moscow, if you mean communist then you have
>to remember that Communism is the extreme. You gave go a long way left
>before you hit communism.
Well its not as if you can call Blair left wing either is it? When you
say you are left wing, what do you mean?
Morgan Sales
> Well its not as if you can call Blair left wing either is it? When you
> say you are left wing, what do you mean?
Blair is about as left wing as Thatcher was. There's isn't really anyone
left wing in mainstream UK politics anymore (the Lib-Dems are about the
closest) I'm thinking more like Michael Foot, Aneurin Bevan and Barbara
Castle. They were left wing.
--
Morgan.
----
* I stole this accordion from a blind monkey.
Bob Perez
"Michael Cecil" <mac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:29vdi0l9hgspgv69b...@4ax.com...
> >OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers? Everything you bought
would
> >be delivered "when it's done" and then you'd have to buy it again in a
year
> >anyway.
>
> WTF! I have to register to download an update from UnderwearPlanet? That
> is soooo lame!
The UnderwearPlanet was bad enough, but when my wife starts prompting me for
a CD Key, well, that's just over the line!
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>
>"Michael Cecil" <mac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:29vdi0l9hgspgv69b...@4ax.com...
>
>> >OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers? Everything you bought
>would
>> >be delivered "when it's done" and then you'd have to buy it again in a
>year
>> >anyway.
>>
>> WTF! I have to register to download an update from UnderwearPlanet? That
>> is soooo lame!
>
>The UnderwearPlanet was bad enough, but when my wife starts prompting me for
>a CD Key, well, that's just over the line!
You can use a crack for that you know >8^D
Kev the rev
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Kev the rev wrote:
>
>> Well its not as if you can call Blair left wing either is it? When you
>> say you are left wing, what do you mean?
>
>Blair is about as left wing as Thatcher was. There's isn't really anyone
>left wing in mainstream UK politics anymore (the Lib-Dems are about the
>closest) I'm thinking more like Michael Foot, Aneurin Bevan and Barbara
>Castle. They were left wing.
Blair also believes in the creation, i.e that the world was formed
about 4000BC and has opened some schools which teach that. Thats just
nuts.
Foot was ok, Bevan was responsible for the welfare state which is
commendable, and about the best thing Labour has ever done, which
these days they seem to want to limit.
I take it you dont like Galloways new Respect party then? I have
misgivings about it as well, seems to be dominated by SWP yet again.
I tihnk the only solution is to vote Lib-Dems these days, but they are
so ambigious that I wonder what they would do if they were elected.
Perhaps thats what we need.
Kev the rev
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake "Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov>, Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:10:50 -0700,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>
>>"Michael Cecil" <mac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:29vdi0l9hgspgv69b...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> >OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers? Everything you bought
>>would
>>> >be delivered "when it's done" and then you'd have to buy it again in a
>>year
>>> >anyway.
>>>
>>> WTF! I have to register to download an update from UnderwearPlanet? That
>>> is soooo lame!
>>
>>The UnderwearPlanet was bad enough, but when my wife starts prompting me for
>>a CD Key, well, that's just over the line!
>
>You can use a crack for that you know >8^D
Does that mean anyone can access it then...?? ;-)
Gerry Quinn
nost...@spamfree.net.au says...
> in the so-called western civilized world are leeches & parasites of the
> highest order, living off the backs of the 2nd & 3rd world. Anyone thinks
> otherwise, you need to get out of suburbia & your borders.
That's rubbish, if the borders were sealed the First World would do okay
(pace a bit of conserving energy and recycling metals), the Third World
would starve.
The US is quite thinly populated and rich in resources, and thousands of
years of successfully destroying nature have left Europe with rich and
fertile farmland. Europe would get by, and the US would hardly suffer
at all.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
>
> What I think the world needs is a 'third way', neither washington or
> moscow, but something entirely different. I mean the world is in
> turmoil at the moment and nothing anybody is doing is making it
> better.
Heh, that could have been said any time in the last 4000 years, and
probably any time in the next 4000 too.
- Gerry Quinn
Morgan Sales
> Blair also believes in the creation, i.e that the world was formed
> about 4000BC and has opened some schools which teach that. Thats just
> nuts.
Seriously? That's got to be a rumour. There's no way they could get away
with that, it's got to contradict the national curriculum. Ofsted would nail
their heads to the wall.
> I tihnk the only solution is to vote Lib-Dems these days, but they are
> so ambigious that I wonder what they would do if they were elected.
> Perhaps thats what we need.
Same here the trouble is in this country, the media has such a massive sway
over public opinion that the Lib-dems will never get in until at least one
popular tabloid backs them. Or maybe I'm just cynical.
--
Morgan.
----
* "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. My life is my own." :- Number 6
Briarroot
>
> OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers? Everything you bought would
> be delivered "when it's done" and then you'd have to buy it again in a year
> anyway.
And of course, the stuff wouldn't work properly out of the box.
We'd have to "wait for the patches!"
And even then, it still wouldn't work for everybody. ;-0
Nostrobino
"Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:10icuhj...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> wrote in message
> news:9QsVc.5671$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Nothing in that whole list has anything whatever to with being liberal.
>
> Agreed, it's a silly article, but it does make some funny points.
>
> > But in any case, there is nothing LIBERAL
> > about wanting to take away someone's constitutional right to own
> something.
>
> Well of course not, when you put it that way, lol. What *is* liberal about
> this, however, is the idea that protecting the populace from the perceived
> dangers of guns is a legitimate exercise of governmental authority.
I disagree that that's a LIBERAL idea, whether or not it's "a legitimate
exercise of governmental authority." Real liberalism will always come down
on the side of promoting people's rights and freedoms, never taking those
rights away. There will always be rights and freedoms that some people don't
want, and think other people shouldn't have.
I would agree that "protecting the populace from [ANY REAL dangers] is a
legitimate exercise of governmental authority," but I don't see this as a
liberal vs. conservative issue. Protecting the people from PERCEIVED dangers
can get a little dicey. Conservatives are more likely to see pornography,
for example, as a danger from which people need to be protected (and such
"protection" can only be accomplished by taking away their right to view or
read it). Leftist-"liberals" are more likely to see guns, in and of
themselves, as a danger from which people need to be protected (and such
"protection" can only be accomplished by taking away their right to own
them). Neither of these is at all a liberal idea, even when self-identified
"liberals" fervently believe in the latter.
> I think
> it's a misguided effort and I don't think that any change in gun laws
> (Constitutional or statutory) will solve America's problem with gun
> violence. Canada has over 7 million guns but they don't have this problem.
Right, Canada doesn't have "this problem" now, and it didn't have "this
problem" before they passed all that draconian anti-gun legislation in the
mid-1970s either. Canada's rates of violent crime and homicide have not been
changed for the better by their 30-year-old gun laws. Neither have suicide
rates (which count for about half of the gun-related deaths in the U.S.)
changed for the better in Canada. Fewer Canadians commit suicide by shooting
themselves now; more commit suicide by jumping, and the rate remains about
the same.
Neither do many regions of the U.S. where guns are extremely common have
"this problem." Our northeastern states (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont)
actually have lower homicide rates than the Canadian provinces just over the
border, even though those states, at least in the rural areas, have guns in
virtually every household. Vermont does not even have a state gun-control
law (in the usual sense of that term) of any kind. Carrying a handgun
concealed without a license or permit is legal under Vermont law as long as
it is not "for criminal purposes."
> Unfortunately, it appears that there's just something about our culture
and
> our history that makes it easier for us to resort to guns and violence.
It's not just that. What you've called "this problem" is largely a problem
of the inner cities--where incidentally they already have plenty of
gun-control laws, in many if not most cases. The high homicide rates in such
places, and especially the homicides involving guns, appear to be mostly the
result of drug dealers and gang members shooting each other. Some years ago
the Hartford Courant (which is editorially strongly anti-gun) ran an article
listing the 40+ gun deaths in that city so far that year. Details of the
victims were given too, and guess what? They were all either known gang
members/drug dealers or reportedly connected with such.
>
> If you're a conservative you may hear this comment as "yet another example
> of how liberals hate America" and "always blame America first", but I
don't
> view this kind of recognition of reality as unduly pessimistic or
indicative
> of anything other than a loving and caring concern about a horrible
> condition, and an attempt to understand it so that corrective action can
be
> taken. The disputes really should center around the nature of the
corrective
> action, not the patriotism of the various participants.
>
> The gun problem is a very serious one and a tough nut to crack. I don't
> think that taking away Constitutional rights or making guns illegal will
> solve the problem. I'm inclined to agree with those who feel that part of
> the solution is to toughen up existing laws against criminals of all types
> and overhaul the pathetic system that we call "criminal justice" in this
> country. I'm not saying we act too compassionately, I'm saying we act too
> stupidly.
I fully agree with you there.
>
> > Leftist-"liberals" are more likely to interfere with a property owner's
> > right to develop his own land, on the grounds that such development
might
> > make a protected-species snail too nervous to have sex.
>
> Q: What's the difference between a land developer and an environmentalist?
> A: The land owner wants to build a huge house in the middle of a pristine
> forest. The environmentalist wants to live in that house.
And then stop further development, so he can enjoy what is now effectively
HIS pristine forest.
N.
Nostrobino
> Thus spake "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com>, Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:08:03
> GMT, Anno Domini:
>
> >
> >"Kev the rev" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> >news:gdlci0pqev077qa9c...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:42:28 GMT, "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Leftism is thoroughly discredited almost
> >> >everywhere,
> >>
> >> Oh, like capitalism is squeeky clean?
> >
> >No economic system is "squeeky clean," but capitalism works. Leftism
makes
> >countries economic basket cases.
>
> I'll piss in this pot. The only forms of government that work, & have
> 'worked' historically are *benevolent* dictatorships (empires, monarchies,
> etc). People are basically stoopid sheep & need to be told what's good for
> them. Voting for some political rep 5 links down the chain & thinking
you're
> 'empowered' with your choice of destiny is beyond ludicrous (actually, if
> you have to have a democracy, I believe there should be a stringent
> qualification process for voting, just like for jury duty, but that's
> another topic).
Up to this point, you're doing fine.
> As far as economic models go, capitalism only 'works' because 95% of us
are
> told we can become the other 5% if we struggle & slave away all our lives,
> never accepting that chances are, we will always be one of the 5%. 'The
Man'
> will give us our trinkets & little tidbits to keep this farce going. And
we
> in the so-called western civilized world are leeches & parasites of the
> highest order, living off the backs of the 2nd & 3rd world. Anyone thinks
> otherwise, you need to get out of suburbia & your borders.
Now you're way, way out there in left field, dutifully and faithfully
repeating all that tired old leftist-malcontent dreck that we've all heard a
few thousand times already. You cannot, of course, support a word of it with
logical argument or fact since it is totally fact-free.
I don't know who told you "[you could] become the other 5% if [you] struggle
& slave away all [your life]"--or for that matter why becoming "the other
5%" was so important to you in the first place. No wonder you're
discontented. They've told you someone else in making more money than you
and you can't stand it, is that it? Why do you even care?
I worked most of my adult life, worked reasonably hard but not excessively
so, certainly did not "struggle & slave away all [my life]," retired 20+
years ago and am living very comfortably on my pension and investments. I'm
not one of "the other 5%" and it doesn't bother me in the least. I have
everything I need and want, and am satisfied with that.
I have many interests, but whether some "other 5%" has more money or
property than I do is not one of them.
And no, we are not "leeches & parasites of the highest order, living off the
backs of the 2nd & 3rd world." On the contrary, we contribute a great deal
to the third world, who without us would be much worse off than they are
now. We cannot completely save them from their own folly, mismanagement and
corruption, that is true. As for the second world (communism), that is
slowly but inexorably self-destructing anyway, and becoming capitalist. The
U.S.S.R. no longer exists, and Russia's economic situation will improve as
it completes the inevitably painful transition to capitalism. Likewise the
rest of the old Soviet bloc. China may still be nominally communist, but in
reality is increasingly capitalist. What does that leave of the old
communist world? Those worker's paradises, North Korea and Cuba? <snort>
<guffaw!>
Capitalism works. Communism doesn't, and neither does the kind of class envy
you're trying to sell.
Nostrobino
I don't know if that's the case, but it's OK with me if it is. I worked most
of my adult life at a job I enjoyed, am now comfortably retired and have
everything I need or want. I don't care what percentage of the country's
wealth is owned by what percentage of its population.
If you like to stew over that sort of thing, then by all means go ahead and
take whatever pleasure you can from seething with class envy. There have
always been very wealthy people and there always will be. To be rich "beyond
dreams of avarice" is the goal of many people I suppose, and some of them
achieve it. Doesn't bother me. There are more interesting things in the
world than that.
Nostrobino
>
> > It's incomprehensible, but when leftists call themselves "liberals,"
> > even having just read the definition isn't going to give them any
> > clues that that's not what they are.
> >
> > Leftists understand one thing:
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> > almost everywhere, and so they must never, ever, under any
> > circumstances admit to being leftists.
>
> I'm quite left wing I'll have you know. Making me a 'leftist' (although
> it's not a term we use in the UK), I'll happily and proudly admit that.
> Which makes you incorrect.
Well, you're probably right, I was speaking really of the U.S. and it was
sort of hyperbole anyway. We do have our very own communists after all, and
they even run in elections here occasionally and get a dozen votes or so.
Mostly they just burn the American flag, carry placards and look dismally
unhappy about something or other.
The fact is that very few of our leftist politicians identify themselves as
leftist. They can now barely bring themselves to even call themselves
"liberals," since it's increasingly understood that "liberal" has come to
mean leftist. There was an elected Socialist politician in Vermont, but when
he (successfully) ran for Congress he dropped the "Socialist" label and I
doubt he has mentioned it since.
N.
Kev the rev
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Seriously? That's got to be a rumour. There's no way they could get away
>with that, it's got to contradict the national curriculum. Ofsted would nail
>their heads to the wall.
I read it in the independent some time ago now, here is a link i found
with a quote:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/092532.htm
"Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since
Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in
his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into
Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world's
creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000
years ago. Two of Sir Peter's schools are open already, in Gateshead
and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster. "
Whatever my spiritual beliefs are, I do believe in science and
rationality and think these are very dangerous ideas. But C'est la vie
Morgan Sales
> I read it in the independent some time ago now, here is a link i found
> with a quote:
> http://atheism.about.com/b/a/092532.htm
>
> "Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since
> Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in
> his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into
> Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world's
> creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000
> years ago. Two of Sir Peter's schools are open already, in Gateshead
> and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster. "
Thanks for the link. Bloody hell that's worrying, it reads like they're
talking about private schools which isn't quite so bad, it's still worrying
though.
> Whatever my spiritual beliefs are, I do believe in science and
> rationality and think these are very dangerous ideas. But C'est la vie
Yes I tend to agree, I don't think it's the place of a school to cram
religion down a child's throat, if parents want to indoctrinate their kids
then that's up to them. It's a sad state of affairs when one of the factors
that a school is judged by is how well it delivers religion, and whether or
not it enforces an "act or collective worship"
Personally I think it's far easier to teach morality and social
responsibility without using religion. Of course it'd be even easier if
parents did their jobs right in the first place.
--
Morgan.
----
* He's the political equivalent of a Manchester United fan.
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
You are entitled to your own fantasy, just a I am my own. I have no
delusions about wanting to be one of the '5%', nor do I care much about
unspendable wealth...what does concern me greatly is that you (& your kind)
really believe that this bourgeois vitriol you're spouting about how much we
help the 3rd world is so fucking noble. Un-fuckin-believable. And you call
my idealism drek? If my views make me a leftist or a commie (not that I
sunscribe to these labels either way), I'd rather be that than subscribe to
the Brave New World you're espousing.
Kev the rev
yeah imagine if war.historical ran the place...we would not have a
world left....
John Secker
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> "Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since
>> Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in
>> his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into
>> Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world's
>> creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000
>> years ago. Two of Sir Peter's schools are open already, in Gateshead
>> and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster. "
>
>Thanks for the link. Bloody hell that's worrying, it reads like they're
>talking about private schools which isn't quite so bad, it's still worrying
>though.
>
money in, that there is public money going in as well - this is
certainly true of more conventional "church" schools, where the
government pays much of the running cost and then hands the schools over
to the religion. Personally I think this is outrageous - it is bad
enough that children are fed these lies as "fact", but to hand over
public money (ie our taxes) to fund it is appalling. If people want to
indoctrinate children then they should do it on their own time and pay
the full cost themselves.
>> Whatever my spiritual beliefs are, I do believe in science and
>> rationality and think these are very dangerous ideas. But C'est la vie
>
>Yes I tend to agree, I don't think it's the place of a school to cram
>religion down a child's throat, if parents want to indoctrinate their kids
>then that's up to them. It's a sad state of affairs when one of the factors
>that a school is judged by is how well it delivers religion, and whether or
>not it enforces an "act or collective worship"
>
--
John Secker
Kev the rev
<morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the link. Bloody hell that's worrying, it reads like they're
>talking about private schools which isn't quite so bad, it's still worrying
>though.
Yes and the people who send their kids to these schools very probably
are white, rich middle to upper class christians whose kids then go on
to study at prestigious universities (oxford, cambridge) and end up in
high positions of power and authority.
Darin Johnson
> OMG, could you imagine a world ruled by gamers?
There'd be the "save anywhere" party throwing mud at the "save between
levels" party.
--
Darin Johnson
Support your right to own gnus.
John Secker
<an...@anon.com> writes
children to some extreme religious establishment which might make them
embarrassingly eccentric. Their children are sent to solid (and
expensive) schools which will give them the academic and social skills
to get into those top universities and then into the top jobs. Oxford
and Cambridge are not interested in people who think the world was
created in 4004BC and go around saying so. These religious schools are
for people who cannot afford to pay for their education, so the children
get a better schooling than they would at the comprehensive in the
middle of the local sink estate, but in return the religion gets a shot
at brainwashing them.
--
John Secker
Nostrobino
Who said anything about "so fucking noble"? I'm saying the third world is a
beneficiary of our economic and technological advancement. Some of that is
just a benefit of the inevitable spread of our technology, etc. Some of it,
yes, we DO out of generosity and concern for others, which is showing more
nobility to your third-worlders than they care to show to anyone else.
Anyway they have you to do their whining and complaining for them, for
whatever good that does either of you.
> And you call
> my idealism drek?
Your "idealism"? You mimic the endless complaining of assorted malcontents
and call that "idealism"? How much does that sort of "idealism" help all
those third-worlders you profess so much concern about? You really think
your "idealism" is more beneficial to them than, say, the electricity and
refrigeration they've gotten from the western world through no noticeable
efforts of their own?
> If my views make me a leftist or a commie (not that I
> sunscribe to these labels either way), I'd rather be that than subscribe
to
> the Brave New World you're espousing.
Enjoy, then. Enjoy.
Mean_Chlorine
>>I vote for a United Federation of Planets led by me as the Grand
> Chancellor.
>
>>Any seconds?
>
> The Romulan's abstain.
The Shingouz would be delighted to support this most worthy cause of the
esteemed Grand Chancellor for a paltry 200000 Bluxan pearls.
Bateau
>I just watched this guy interview Barak Obama (isn't that a bullshit
>RPG name?) and he started out pretty good. He read a dictionary
>defintion of "Liberal" and then asked why that was a bad thing. Which,
>of course, it's not.
>
>But THEN he asks why so many people think there's something wrong with
>taking a little bigger piece of the common pie and distributing it to
>the poor fucks blah blah, "or LIBERALISM" he says, equatting the two.
>
>COME ON, John Cusack!! You JUST READ the fucking defintion of Liberal
>20 seconds ago and then in your next question you confuse Liberalism
>with wealth re-distribution. How can somebody so stupid he can't even
>understand a dictionary defintion he just read be so funny?
>
>And why must we be constantly exposed to the idiotic opinions of
>celebrities? I used to like John Cusack. Now, every time I see him I'm
>going to think back to his TV interview where he read a definition to
>prove his point without ever realising he had just disproved it.
That's what happens when you make people famous for having no useful
skills.
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Gerry Quinn
jo...@secker.demon.co.uk says...
> No, the rich upper and middle classes know better than to send their
> children to some extreme religious establishment which might make them
> embarrassingly eccentric. Their children are sent to solid (and
> expensive) schools which will give them the academic and social skills
> to get into those top universities and then into the top jobs. Oxford
> and Cambridge are not interested in people who think the world was
> created in 4004BC and go around saying so. These religious schools are
> for people who cannot afford to pay for their education, so the children
> get a better schooling than they would at the comprehensive in the
> middle of the local sink estate, but in return the religion gets a shot
> at brainwashing them.
About 50% of what they teach at any school is crap, and a little extra
won't hurt. If anything, it will encourage critical thinking. It's not
as if the kids won't be exposed to other ideas.
The subject is at least an interesting one to children and should lead
to enthusiastic debates. And if some of them do leave school thinking
that the world was created in 4004 BC, I don't see precisely what
disastrous consequences would flow from that. Lots of people leave
school believing in crystal healing, which is a somewhat less coherent
and defensible theory.
- Gerry Quinn
Nostromo
02:45:07 +0200, Anno Domini:
I will need to get my Ferengi negotiators to broker this deal methinks.
Morgan Sales
> About 50% of what they teach at any school is crap,
Well that's debatable.
> and a little extra
> won't hurt. If anything, it will encourage critical thinking. It's
> not as if the kids won't be exposed to other ideas.
>
> The subject is at least an interesting one to children and should lead
> to enthusiastic debates.
What age group are you thinking of here? By the time they hit secondary
school the majority of kids these days would not find it an interesting
topic. .
> And if some of them do leave school thinking
> that the world was created in 4004 BC, I don't see precisely what
> disastrous consequences would flow from that.
It's about the fact that we should not be teaching religious doctrine as
fact.
--
Morgan.
----
* I don't like being outdoors Smithers, for one thing there are too many fat
children. :- C. M. Burns
Bryan J. Maloney
news:8JIVc.2572$Sj3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> "Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
> news:10icuhj...@news.supernews.com...
>> Well of course not, when you put it that way, lol. What *is* liberal
>> about this, however, is the idea that protecting the populace from
>> the perceived dangers of guns is a legitimate exercise of
>> governmental authority.
>
> I disagree that that's a LIBERAL idea, whether or not it's "a
Absolutely. It's a fascist and totalitarian idea, and anyone who
espouses it is a fascist/totalitarian. North Korea, People's Republic of
China, USSR, Nazi Germany: All of them insist upon keeping the populace
disarmed.
> I would agree that "protecting the populace from [ANY REAL dangers] is
> a legitimate exercise of governmental authority," but I don't see this
That's paternalism, which is ultimately nothing but
fascism/totalitarianism in a pretty mask. For the government to
"protect" the people from ANY real danger, it must ultimately obliterate
all liberty. If ANY liberty is to exist, the government cannot protect
people from ANY real danger. Knives are a real danger. Accidents can
happen while cooking. Therefore, to protect the people from this real
danger, the government would have to ban knives. Alcohol is a real
danger. Drunkenness can lead to injury and violance. Therefore, to
protect people from alcohol, it would have to institute Prohibition.
There are limits to what a non-totalitarian and non-fascist government
can and should protect people from. These limits include permitting
individuals to run risks from real dangers.
Nostrobino
"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.not> wrote in message
news:Xns954D58A41...@207.115.63.158...
Sure. We have no disagreement there, but those kinds of dangers aren't what
I meant. Perhaps I phrased it carelessly.
In order to protect people from ANY DANGERS AT ALL, we would have to have
some sort of padded-cell society. This doesn't work for obvious reasons:
someone would have to be outside the (real or figurative) padded cells to
maintain them, feed and care for the inmates, etc. No society can be made so
safe that every possible danger is eliminated.
There are, however, real dangers that it is the proper function of
government to protect the populace against, or at least substantially help
protect the populace against: Crime. Foreign invasion. Epidemics. Tainted
food. Polluted air and water. Unsafe drugs. Medical malpractice. These and
some others are things that the individual has little or no ability to
protect himself against.
The government's role in reducing these dangers is not "paternalism," it's a
reasonable, proper and necessary use of government.
Morgan Sales
> "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:8JIVc.2572$Sj3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> "Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
>> news:10icuhj...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>> Well of course not, when you put it that way, lol. What *is* liberal
>>> about this, however, is the idea that protecting the populace from
>>> the perceived dangers of guns is a legitimate exercise of
>>> governmental authority.
>>
>> I disagree that that's a LIBERAL idea, whether or not it's "a
>
> Absolutely. It's a fascist and totalitarian idea, and anyone who
> espouses it is a fascist/totalitarian. North Korea, People's
> Republic of China, USSR, Nazi Germany: All of them insist upon
> keeping the populace disarmed.
I never realised that the UK was a fascist/totalitarian country.
> That's paternalism, which is ultimately nothing but
> fascism/totalitarianism in a pretty mask. For the government to
> "protect" the people from ANY real danger, it must ultimately
> obliterate all liberty. If ANY liberty is to exist, the government
> cannot protect people from ANY real danger. Knives are a real
> danger. Accidents can happen while cooking.
The difference being.
Primary function of a knife = tool.
Primary Function of a gun = weapon.
Also if you're found carrying a knife around the streets in the UK it's
considered to be a weapon.
--
Morgan.
----
* God's not on our side because he hates idiots also.
Bob Perez
"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.not> wrote in message
news:Xns954D58A41...@207.115.63.158...
> >> Well of course not, when you put it that way, lol. What *is* liberal
> >> about this, however, is the idea that protecting the populace from
> >> the perceived dangers of guns is a legitimate exercise of
> >> governmental authority.
> >
> > I disagree that that's a LIBERAL idea, whether or not it's "a
>
> Absolutely. It's a fascist and totalitarian idea, and anyone who
> espouses it is a fascist/totalitarian. North Korea, People's Republic of
> China, USSR, Nazi Germany: All of them insist upon keeping the populace
> disarmed.
Ahh, gotta love extremists.
There is of course a huge difference between the liberal viewpoint that
government has a legitimate role to play in protecting the citizenry from
the perceived dangers of guns, and the notion that it's ok for a government
to forcibly disarm its population. When you stop frothing at the mouth and
hyperventilating, we can perhaps discuss this non-subtle difference, if you
really feels that it's necessary.
The traditional conservative viewpoint on this is that the power to regulate
guns is not one granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, and
would be therefore explicitly reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment,
even without a 2nd Amendment. But with the 2nd Amendment's explicit
guarantee of a right to bear arms, any Federal government (and by virtue of
the 14th Amendment, any State government) limit on this right is inherently
suspect as an illegitimate intrusion by the government into the rights of
the citizenry.
As with most Constitutional debates, there are powerful arguments available
to all sides and the matter becomes one of appropriately interpreting the
intent of the Framers in crafting an enduring system meant to provide a
solid dose of immutable moral absolutes with a flexible system capable of
adapting to historical context. Tricky stuff, and it will usually provide
enough wiggle room to allow for reasonable people to hold competing views.
But, just like our jury system, this system is based on a healthy dose of
common sense, and while it can be occasionally subverted when extremists
gain undue influence, usually it winds up producing the right result.
The liberal viewpoint takes a more expansive view of the Constitutional
power explicitly granted to the government to "promote the general welfare"
of the people. They see this provision as giving the government much greater
power to perform acts of social engineering than any respectable
conservative would allow. This kind of thinking promotes what Conservatives
view as both legislative and judicial activism.
That's what I mean when I say that it's a Liberal idea. These terms are so
overloaded in today's political climate, it's always worth a minute or two
to spell out some underlying assumptions.
> > I would agree that "protecting the populace from [ANY REAL dangers] is
> > a legitimate exercise of governmental authority," but I don't see this
Um, yeah, that's exactly why I used the term "perceived dangers", not sure
why that part of my comment was snipped.
> That's paternalism, which is ultimately nothing but
> fascism/totalitarianism in a pretty mask. For the government to
> "protect" the people from ANY real danger, it must ultimately obliterate
> all liberty.
So government has NO ability to protect us from ANY dangers, real or
otherwise, eh? LOL ok, looks like we have very little here to discuss. I
thought we were talking about the US Constitution there for a moment, didn't
realize we'd branched off into la-la land.
--
Bob Perez
"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Bob Perez
> The government's role in reducing these dangers is not "paternalism," it's
a
> reasonable, proper and necessary use of government.
Not to mention Constitutional.
Kev the rev
<cavag...@sbcglobal.not> wrote:
>Absolutely. It's a fascist and totalitarian idea, and anyone who
>espouses it is a fascist/totalitarian. North Korea, People's Republic of
>China, USSR, Nazi Germany: All of them insist upon keeping the populace
>disarmed.
lol, so Britain is totalitarian?
Kev the rev
<ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>About 50% of what they teach at any school is crap, and a little extra
>won't hurt. If anything, it will encourage critical thinking. It's not
>as if the kids won't be exposed to other ideas.
Critical thinking is good, and it also was a good thing when loads of
school students walked out of school when Blair went to war with Iraq.
Now that is a good thing, dont you agree?
Nostrobino
Or to the people--"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Yes. Of course, the federal government persistently violates the 10th
Amendment anyway, via the commerce clause etc. Ann Coulter is probably right
when she says that 75% of what the Congress does is unconstitutional. That
doesn't mean that it's all BAD, since much of what the federal government
does in the way of regulation is good, useful, necessary and would be a
regulatory nightmare if it had to be managed state by state on an individual
basis. Still the fact that there's no constitutional provision for all this
is troubling, if only because it weakens the Constitution itself. If a
federal agency can stop someone from developing his own property because
doing so might make a protected snail nervous--an interference with property
rights that seems of very dubious value and for which I doubt any basis can
be found in the Constitution--it is not a large step to saying anything else
that's politically correct or fashionable at the moment can be done by the
feds and the 10th Amendment be damned.
> even without a 2nd Amendment. But with the 2nd Amendment's explicit
> guarantee of a right to bear arms, any Federal government (and by virtue
of
> the 14th Amendment, any State government)
Except that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated," which frankly
strikes me as another piece of nonsense. In fact, the 2nd Amendment has not
protected anyone's gun rights at all.
I didn't snip it from your comment that I quoted in its entirety; it's still
in there. The change I made from "perceived dangers" in my reply was just to
clarify what I was agreeing with, since "perceived dangers" might mean
significant dangers really there, or dangers not really there or
exaggerated.
N.
Darin Johnson
> I wouldn't mind reloading my last quick save (after the next time I have a
> car wreck, chop open my hand, etc.)
You don't believe in personal responsibility?
What kinda pinko are you? :-)
--
Darin Johnson
"You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."
Darin Johnson
> an interference with property
> rights that seems of very dubious value and for which I doubt any basis can
> be found in the Constitution
The constitution is not the starting document from which all US laws
spring. There is also the common law of England that was borrowed.
The constitution does not grant property rights to anyone, they only
exist because of prior precedent. (and most of the land owned in the
US was acquired by forcibly taking it from the former residents)
> In fact, the 2nd Amendment has not protected anyone's gun rights at
> all.
Sure it has. The right to own guns has not been abolished anywhere.
Sure, there are plenty of restrictions on what types of guns can be
owned, requirements about proper registration, and limitations placed
on convicted criminals. The constitution protects the right to bear
arms, and the definition of "arms" is not spelled out - that
definition comes from common law and from court precedents.
The government has every right to ban private ownership of nuclear
weapons, and probably most people would grant it the right to ban
ownership of missiles and tanks. The debate really is about where
to draw the line, not a debate between all or nothing.
Darin Johnson
> lol, so Britain is totalitarian?
Well, the Nazis were all in favor of motherhood and apple struedel
also, so maybe those are bad ideas?
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
Bob Perez
> Or to the people--"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Yes. Of course, the federal government persistently violates the 10th
> Amendment anyway, via the commerce clause etc.
Yeah, the funny thing about that is that ultimately the government is us.
"They" persistently violate because "we" let them. Citizens in a democracy
get exactly what they deserve most of the time. As a nation, we're pretty
much slackers when it comes to holding people accountable.
> Ann Coulter is probably right when she says that
I don't think that Ann Coulter has been right about anything in her entire
life lol. This is one point on which Al Franken and I are in complete
agreement: Ann Coulter is a nutcase. Ok, maybe she's right about Joe
McCarthy, but omg she really is a nutcase. Whew.
> 75% of what the Congress does is unconstitutional.
But yeah, I agree with the overall sentiment of the comment, if not the
degree of the estimate.
> Still the fact that there's no constitutional provision for all this
> is troubling, if only because it weakens the Constitution itself.
But that's the beauty of our Constitution, it was specifically contemplated
that it would not be able to encompass and describe all situations of the
human condition as the nation progressed forward, it was always meant to be
a "living, breathing document", one that would be flexible enough to adapt
to new historical contexts and embrace worlds that couldn't be imagined in
1789. As such, it couldn't possibly have provisions for everything that it
was intended to cover. The Framers were smart enough to know this and they
devised core principles that could be used to guide future applications.
They could scarcely have known in 1789 the nature of threats to our privacy
today, yet Brandeis was quite right in finding support in the Constitution
for an inherent right of privacy, even though none is specifically called ou
t. A pure, literalist approach to the specifical language of the
Constitution would weaken, not strengthen it, because its inability to adapt
to a changing world would threaten its utility, then its legitimacy and
ultimately its authority.
> If a federal agency can stop someone from developing his own property
because
> because doing so might make a protected snail nervous
LOL! Yep, the Federal government does many stupid things like this every
day. When are we going to start holding accountable the morons who actually
make some of these decisions?
> Except that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated," which frankly
> strikes me as another piece of nonsense.
Agreed.
In fact, the 2nd Amendment has not
> protected anyone's gun rights at all.
Well, as long as there remains doubt on the individual rights issue, don't
expect this to change. The current Supreme Court could easily resolve this
issue if it had the political courage to do so. Given the reaction to Bush
vs. Gore, it might be a long time before they can muster up the kind of
courage that will require. Certainly not during this election year.
Bob Perez
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1isba...@nokia.com...
> The constitution does not grant property rights to anyone
Depends on what you mean by "grant". The Due Process clause prohibits the
government from depriving any citizen of "property" without Due Process and
in this very real sense, institutionalized the sanctity of individual
property rights in the new nation.
> Sure it has. The right to own guns has not been abolished anywhere.
The NRA has a slightly different view of that. ;-) If your point is that
there hasn't been the kind of wholesale confiscation that some gun control
advocates would urge, then I would agree with *that*. But -- and this is the
key point -- it's not because the Constitution protects an individual's
right to bear arms, it's only because there isn't enough political support
for wholesale confiscation. There isn't even agreement within the legal
community as to whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's
right to bear arms, as opposed to a State's right to equip a militia. This
is *still* an unsettled question.
> The government has every right to ban private ownership of nuclear
> weapons, and probably most people would grant it the right to ban
> ownership of missiles and tanks. The debate really is about where
> to draw the line, not a debate between all or nothing.
That's right, and I would add another dimension to the debate. There's still
an open question of who the 2nd Amendment protects, the citizens or the
States. Until this issue is resolved, it's not just a question of where you
draw the line, but also in whose favor do you draw it?
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
>> You are entitled to your own fantasy, just a I am my own. I have no
>> delusions about wanting to be one of the '5%', nor do I care much about
>> unspendable wealth...what does concern me greatly is that you (& your
>kind)
>> really believe that this bourgeois vitriol you're spouting about how much
>we
>> help the 3rd world is so fucking noble. Un-fuckin-believable.
>
>Who said anything about "so fucking noble"? I'm saying the third world is a
>beneficiary of our economic and technological advancement. Some of that is
Funny that - they only seem to have started have these serious economic &
socio-political problems since after the industrial revolution,
globalisation & the white man got in their faces.
>just a benefit of the inevitable spread of our technology, etc. Some of it,
>yes, we DO out of generosity and concern for others, which is showing more
>nobility to your third-worlders than they care to show to anyone else.
>Anyway they have you to do their whining and complaining for them, for
>whatever good that does either of you.
>
>
>> And you call
>> my idealism drek?
>
>Your "idealism"? You mimic the endless complaining of assorted malcontents
>and call that "idealism"? How much does that sort of "idealism" help all
>those third-worlders you profess so much concern about? You really think
>your "idealism" is more beneficial to them than, say, the electricity and
>refrigeration they've gotten from the western world through no noticeable
>efforts of their own?
How many 3rd-world foster-children are you sponsoring?
I really wonder how liberal capitalists like yourself would feel if you were
forced to live under the conditions the rest of the world has to.
Oh, & btw, I show my genuine concern with my vote as well, not by trying to
discredit other people's views on Usenet as so much 'endless complaining of
assorted malcontents'.
I'm sorry now I started off with you with friendly banter. Sometimes it's
the only way to see the true colours & it usually doesn't last long. Have a
nice day.
Nostrobino
> Thus spake "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com>, Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:28:35
> GMT, Anno Domini:
>
> >> You are entitled to your own fantasy, just a I am my own. I have no
> >> delusions about wanting to be one of the '5%', nor do I care much about
> >> unspendable wealth...what does concern me greatly is that you (& your
> >kind)
> >> really believe that this bourgeois vitriol you're spouting about how
much
> >we
> >> help the 3rd world is so fucking noble. Un-fuckin-believable.
> >
> >Who said anything about "so fucking noble"? I'm saying the third world is
a
> >beneficiary of our economic and technological advancement. Some of that
is
>
> Funny that - they only seem to have started have these serious economic &
> socio-political problems since after the industrial revolution,
Well, the Industrial Revolution has been an enormous benefit to mankind. You
want to turn it back or something? Sick and tired of fast transportation,
lighting, heat, central plumbing, refrigeration, telephone, radio, TV,
computers, supermarkets and the rest of that nasty stuff? Think being
without any of those things would make the third world a much better place?
A return to good old hunting and gathering, and slash-and-burn agriculture
would solve all their problems, you think?
> globalisation & the white man got in their faces.
Most of the third world seems to be in the mess it's in now because the
white man LEFT, and those people are now managing their own affairs. How
much of Africa that used to export food now can't feed itself, for example?
How many African countries once peaceful, orderly and prosperous are NOW
crime-ridden, disease-infested, murderous and poverty-stricken?
>
> >just a benefit of the inevitable spread of our technology, etc. Some of
it,
> >yes, we DO out of generosity and concern for others, which is showing
more
> >nobility to your third-worlders than they care to show to anyone else.
> >Anyway they have you to do their whining and complaining for them, for
> >whatever good that does either of you.
> >
> >
> >> And you call
> >> my idealism drek?
> >
> >Your "idealism"? You mimic the endless complaining of assorted
malcontents
> >and call that "idealism"? How much does that sort of "idealism" help all
> >those third-worlders you profess so much concern about? You really think
> >your "idealism" is more beneficial to them than, say, the electricity and
> >refrigeration they've gotten from the western world through no noticeable
> >efforts of their own?
>
> How many 3rd-world foster-children are you sponsoring?
Not a single one. How many of them would NEED "sponsoring" if it were not
for the mismanagement, corruption, thievery, rapacity and brutality of their
brothers? Will "sponsoring" so-called "foster children" really help any of
them or line the pockets of bureaucrats and frauds?
Eventually people (and peoples) have to help themselves. Some will, some
won't. Those who won't tend to live miserable lives. And they will do so
regardless of how much money you throw at them.
>
> I really wonder how liberal capitalists like yourself would feel if you
were
> forced to live under the conditions the rest of the world has to.
They are not "forced to" except by the failures, often horrible and gruesome
failures, of their own societies. Most of the third world lives in the midst
of plentiful natural resources. They destroy their own wealth.
>
> Oh, & btw, I show my genuine concern with my vote as well, not by trying
to
> discredit other people's views on Usenet as so much 'endless complaining
of
> assorted malcontents'.
Ah. It's okay for you to express your views and "discredit other people's
views" in the process, but no one must ever contradict you?
>
> I'm sorry now I started off with you with friendly banter. Sometimes it's
> the only way to see the true colours & it usually doesn't last long. Have
a
> nice day.
I'm sorry you're taking it that way, but have a nice day yourself anyway.
N.
Nostrobino
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1isba...@nokia.com...
>
> > an interference with property
> > rights that seems of very dubious value and for which I doubt any basis
can
> > be found in the Constitution
>
> The constitution is not the starting document from which all US laws
> spring. There is also the common law of England that was borrowed.
> The constitution does not grant property rights to anyone, they only
> exist because of prior precedent. (and most of the land owned in the
> US was acquired by forcibly taking it from the former residents)
Well, that depends on which "former residents" you have in mind. Some had no
conception of land ownership to begin with. Most of the land west of the
Mississippi we bought from the French. The remainder we bought (sort of)
from Mexico. As for land acquisition "by forcibly taking it from the former
residents," that is pretty much the way nations and tribes got their land
anyway, since way before we came along.
>
> > In fact, the 2nd Amendment has not protected anyone's gun rights at
> > all.
>
> Sure it has. The right to own guns has not been abolished anywhere.
> Sure, there are plenty of restrictions on what types of guns can be
> owned, requirements about proper registration, and limitations placed
> on convicted criminals. The constitution protects the right to bear
> arms, and the definition of "arms" is not spelled out - that
> definition comes from common law and from court precedents.
The Constitution has not protected that right at all, though it is supposed
to.
In Morton Grove, IL the town council took away people's right to own guns.
In NYC it is exceedingly difficult and a lengthy process to own a gun
legally (of course, there is no real obstacle for criminals who want to have
guns). Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976 (and incidentally saw its
homicide rate TRIPLE over the next 15 years, making that city "the Murder
Capital of the Country").
There is no real protector of Americans' right to own guns other than the
NRA. If not for that organization we'd have lost most if not all of our gun
rights many years ago. The anti-gun activists, the anti-gun politicians, and
the anti-gun media all know this perfectly well. Why else would they
constantly attack the NRA with such venom?
>
> The government has every right to ban private ownership of nuclear
> weapons, and probably most people would grant it the right to ban
> ownership of missiles and tanks. The debate really is about where
> to draw the line, not a debate between all or nothing.
The phrase "the right . . . to keep and bear arms" I think implicitly
excludes such things as nuclear weapons, missiles and tanks. One does not
"keep and bear" such weapons. IMO a plain reading of the amendment makes it
a reference to small arms only.
N.
Nostrobino
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b928bf95...@news.indigo.ie...
<guffaw!>
You've got that right! . . . And similarly goofy ideas about getting
"positive" or "negative energy" from various other things as well
(invariably from people who clearly have not the foggiest notion of what
energy is). Not to forget those who are sure the answer to "What sign are
you?" will tell them very important things about the other person. And I'll
bet 20 times as many people graduate from college believing at least some of
that nonsense as believe the world was created in 4004 B.C.
N.
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
For them? Yes, probably. For me? No. But I was born & raised & live IN the
first world (well, 2nd world for about 7 yrs) - I didn't get given 1/10th
the amenities & goods & then left to fend for myself once my resources had
been exploited & I was divested of my cultural uniqueness & survival skills.
Are you really this thick or just trolling? :-/
>
>> globalisation & the white man got in their faces.
>
>Most of the third world seems to be in the mess it's in now because the
>white man LEFT, and those people are now managing their own affairs. How
>much of Africa that used to export food now can't feed itself, for example?
>How many African countries once peaceful, orderly and prosperous are NOW
>crime-ridden, disease-infested, murderous and poverty-stricken?
Oh yes, white man left - he left behind just enough technology & guns so
that warlords could run small nations/regions & subjugate the populace into
poverty & famine, while forcing them to exploit their own natural resources.
>>
>> >just a benefit of the inevitable spread of our technology, etc. Some of
>it,
>> >yes, we DO out of generosity and concern for others, which is showing
>more
>> >nobility to your third-worlders than they care to show to anyone else.
>> >Anyway they have you to do their whining and complaining for them, for
>> >whatever good that does either of you.
>> >
>> >
>> >> And you call
>> >> my idealism drek?
>> >
>> >Your "idealism"? You mimic the endless complaining of assorted
>malcontents
>> >and call that "idealism"? How much does that sort of "idealism" help all
>> >those third-worlders you profess so much concern about? You really think
>> >your "idealism" is more beneficial to them than, say, the electricity and
>> >refrigeration they've gotten from the western world through no noticeable
>> >efforts of their own?
>>
>> How many 3rd-world foster-children are you sponsoring?
>
>Not a single one. How many of them would NEED "sponsoring" if it were not
>for the mismanagement, corruption, thievery, rapacity and brutality of their
>brothers? Will "sponsoring" so-called "foster children" really help any of
>them or line the pockets of bureaucrats and frauds?
Again, so noble of you to not do anything while pissing on others' efforts
because you've decided in your infinite wisdom (against the better judgment
of countless thousands of human rights & famine relief workers) that it's
all a pointless waste of effort. You must be so proud, you saint you.
>Eventually people (and peoples) have to help themselves. Some will, some
>won't. Those who won't tend to live miserable lives. And they will do so
>regardless of how much money you throw at them.
They mismanage their natural resources now because we've polluted their
culture & fucked up their identity. How old are you mate?
>
>>
>> I really wonder how liberal capitalists like yourself would feel if you
>were
>> forced to live under the conditions the rest of the world has to.
>
>They are not "forced to" except by the failures, often horrible and gruesome
>failures, of their own societies. Most of the third world lives in the midst
>of plentiful natural resources. They destroy their own wealth.
You've never been to Africa, ey? Well, you're about 10% right on that count,
I'll give you that. Strictly speaking, it's overpopulation that's the real
killer, again because we gave them urbanisation & then left them high & dry.
>>
>> Oh, & btw, I show my genuine concern with my vote as well, not by trying
>to
>> discredit other people's views on Usenet as so much 'endless complaining
>of
>> assorted malcontents'.
>
>Ah. It's okay for you to express your views and "discredit other people's
>views" in the process, but no one must ever contradict you?
The difference is, in this case I actually happened to know what I'm talking
about. You're spouting liberal rationalisations like the parrot you blame me
to be just to assuage your own guilty sub-conscience. Assuming you have one
on this topic.
>>
>> I'm sorry now I started off with you with friendly banter. Sometimes it's
>> the only way to see the true colours & it usually doesn't last long. Have
>a
>> nice day.
>
>I'm sorry you're taking it that way, but have a nice day yourself anyway.
Likewise. A good debate demands you see the other's PoV in order to argue in
a rational, constructive manner. I see yours, & I see the truth. You don't
even see mine. And I know this, because not so many deluded, ignorant years
ago I had *exactly* the same opinion as you on this topic. Then I got honest
with myself & my place in the world. Please continue to have a nice day. :)
Gerry Quinn
morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > and a little extra
> > won't hurt. If anything, it will encourage critical thinking. It's
> > not as if the kids won't be exposed to other ideas.
> >
> > The subject is at least an interesting one to children and should lead
> > to enthusiastic debates.
>
> What age group are you thinking of here? By the time they hit secondary
> school the majority of kids these days would not find it an interesting
> topic.
So why worry?
> > And if some of them do leave school thinking
> > that the world was created in 4004 BC, I don't see precisely what
> > disastrous consequences would flow from that.
>
> It's about the fact that we should not be teaching religious doctrine as
> fact.
We teach a lot of things as fact that ain't so.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
I really don't feel strongly about it. Of course children have always
tended to believe that they are better equipped to run the world than
adults, and philosophies such as pacifism and communism find a ready
audience among those who are - for the best reason in the world -
somewhat ignorant of life.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
nost...@spamfree.net.au says...
> >beneficiary of our economic and technological advancement. Some of that is
>
> Funny that - they only seem to have started have these serious economic &
> socio-political problems since after the industrial revolution,
> globalisation & the white man got in their faces.
Africa was a paradise back when they died young and sold the children of
other tribes to the Arabs as slaves?
Ah, the Pre-Industrial Eden. Devotee of Rousseau, are we?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> I really wonder how liberal capitalists like yourself would feel if you were
> forced to live under the conditions the rest of the world has to.
We'd be pretty envious of those who had the smarts to organise
themselves along liberal capitalist lines, I guess. No doubt among the
stupider and more vicious types, that envy might often fester into
hatred.
- Gerry Quinn
Nostrobino
Well, they can always go back to that, can't they? So what's the problem?
They are too stupid to know what's good for them?
> For me? No. But I was born & raised & live IN the
> first world
Isn't that beginning to sound sort of chauvinist or even racist? Hunting and
gathering, slash-and-burn are good enough for those poor backward slobs and
their miserable culture, but of course not for someone from a more advanced
culture such as yourself?
> (well, 2nd world for about 7 yrs) - I didn't get given 1/10th
> the amenities & goods & then left to fend for myself once my resources had
> been exploited & I was divested of my cultural uniqueness & survival
skills.
> Are you really this thick or just trolling? :-/
<guffaw!> They still have their "cultural uniqueness"! That's most of their
problem. And they still have their resources too. There's just as much
farmland in Zimbabwe as there ever was, but since they've murdered or chased
off so many of the white owners (and their black workers too) much of that
farmland now isn't producing anything.
>
> >
> >> globalisation & the white man got in their faces.
> >
> >Most of the third world seems to be in the mess it's in now because the
> >white man LEFT, and those people are now managing their own affairs. How
> >much of Africa that used to export food now can't feed itself, for
example?
> >How many African countries once peaceful, orderly and prosperous are NOW
> >crime-ridden, disease-infested, murderous and poverty-stricken?
>
> Oh yes, white man left - he left behind just enough technology & guns so
> that warlords could run small nations/regions & subjugate the populace
into
> poverty & famine, while forcing them to exploit their own natural
resources.
If that happens in the third world, why doesn't it happen to us? We have the
same "technology & guns" too, don't we? Isn't it that "cultural uniqueness"
that you believe so valuable that makes the difference?
Well, why haven't those "countless thousands of human rights & famine relief
workers" taken care of the problem by now if they have so much "better
judgment"? They've been at it long enough, and have certainly been well
enough financed and supplied. Why does the problem just get worse and worse
with the benefit of their "better judgment"?
>
> >Eventually people (and peoples) have to help themselves. Some will, some
> >won't. Those who won't tend to live miserable lives. And they will do so
> >regardless of how much money you throw at them.
>
> They mismanage their natural resources now because we've polluted their
> culture & fucked up their identity. How old are you mate?
Old enough to have heard all that nonsense many, many times before over the
decades and seen it thoroughly discredited. Old enough to remember when
those African countries were well-governed, peaceful and prosperous.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I really wonder how liberal capitalists like yourself would feel if you
> >were
> >> forced to live under the conditions the rest of the world has to.
> >
> >They are not "forced to" except by the failures, often horrible and
gruesome
> >failures, of their own societies. Most of the third world lives in the
midst
> >of plentiful natural resources. They destroy their own wealth.
>
> You've never been to Africa, ey? Well, you're about 10% right on that
count,
> I'll give you that. Strictly speaking, it's overpopulation that's the real
> killer, again because we gave them urbanisation & then left them high &
dry.
Which is of course exactly what they demanded: for us nasty white people to
decolonize Africa, turn the former colonies over for them to govern and
manage, leave them all the modern-world technologies and infrastructure, and
get out. So we did. Now you complain bitterly that this was "[leaving] them
high & dry." Oh, boo fucking hoo.
N.
Morgan Sales
>>> The subject is at least an interesting one to children and should
>>> lead to enthusiastic debates.
>>
>> What age group are you thinking of here? By the time they hit
>> secondary school the majority of kids these days would not find it
>> an interesting topic.
>
> So why worry?
Er, becasue it's time wasted when they could be learning something useful
for one thing.
>>> And if some of them do leave school thinking
>>> that the world was created in 4004 BC, I don't see precisely what
>>> disastrous consequences would flow from that.
>>
>> It's about the fact that we should not be teaching religious
>> doctrine as fact.
>
> We teach a lot of things as fact that ain't so.
Examples please?
The only things I can think of are in Science and Computers where certain
facts are simplified for comprehension reasons.
--
Morgan.
----
* I never knew the old Vienna before the war, with its Strauss music, its
glamour and easy charm - Constantinople suited me better.
Morgan Sales
> In article <gg1ii0h84tajdj589...@4ax.com>, an...@anon.com
> says...
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:55:22 +0100, Gerry Quinn
>> <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> About 50% of what they teach at any school is crap, and a little
>>> extra won't hurt. If anything, it will encourage critical
>>> thinking. It's not as if the kids won't be exposed to other ideas.
>>
>> Critical thinking is good, and it also was a good thing when loads of
>> school students walked out of school when Blair went to war with
>> Iraq. Now that is a good thing, dont you agree?
>
> I really don't feel strongly about it. Of course children have always
> tended to believe that they are better equipped to run the world than
> adults,
Actually they were just looking at it as an excuse to get out of school for
the most part. Even though, in at least my understanding of it, the protest
was supposed to be for post 16 students. Not school kids.
--
Morgan.
----
* ...The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an
arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.
Nostrobino
"Morgan Sales" <morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2oudcqF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
[ . . . ]
> >>> And if some of them do leave school thinking
> >>> that the world was created in 4004 BC, I don't see precisely what
> >>> disastrous consequences would flow from that.
> >>
> >> It's about the fact that we should not be teaching religious
> >> doctrine as fact.
> >
> > We teach a lot of things as fact that ain't so.
>
> Examples please?
>
> The only things I can think of are in Science and Computers where certain
> facts are simplified for comprehension reasons.
Not to butt in [he said as he butted in], but I could write for a week
giving you examples of misinformation I've personally seen delivered in
college classrooms by professors and instructors. And some of them are
doozies.
Starting with your "Science and Computers where [ahem] certain facts are
simplified for comprehension reasons":
My physics professor, discussing communications satellites in geosynchronous
orbit, explained to the class that such a satellite could be parked over
Paris. I protested, "surely not over Paris." Yes, he insisted, over Paris.
Why not? "Because," I said, "Paris is not on the equator." So what? he
replied. "A geosynchronous orbit has to be an equatorial orbit," I pointed
out. (I thought everyone knew that.) He didn't believe it. He wrote
equations on the blackboard showing that a satellite could be parked over
Paris, or anywhere else on the earth's surface. I finally did convince him
otherwise, but it took about three weeks as I recall.
The same professor wrote an equation for simple harmonic motion in a
vertical model. He just took the equation for the horizontal model and added
+mgh to the right side to represent gravitational potential energy. That
doesn't work. On a mid-term I used a different equation, not his, and was
marked wrong for my answer. My answer was correct, I proved it, and I showed
that his equation did not and could not work. He wrote a NEW equation (the
guy simply loved to write equations) which didn't work either. He ended up
writing four separate equations (all this after the test, you understand),
none of which worked. He wouldn't yield on the question so I formally
protested; the question and answers were sent to the science department of a
nearby university; my solution and answer were correct. My college's science
department head decided I should not get credit anyway because I "had not
sufficiently explained my answer" on the test. Never mind that my answer was
correct, and the professor could not (even after four attempts) correctly
answer his own question. . . . He did this again and again. He simply made
up his own "physics" as he went along.
I took a computer science course in the same college because I wanted to
learn something about networking, which according to the catalog was covered
in this course. It wasn't, and the course was a waste of time as I already
knew about the other topics covered--which was more than the instructor did.
The guy was the most amazing source of total misinformation I have ever met
in my life. Almost everything that came out of his mouth was wrong. The
classroom had dot-matrix printers (this was 15 or so years ago). The
instructor explained that letters were formed by pins striking an inked
ribbon, and asked if anyone knew how many pins there were in one of the
printers. A kid in the back raised his hand and said nine pins--which was
correct for those printers. "No," the instructor said, "FIFTY-SIX pins." The
ignoramus believed that the letters were formed in a 7x8 matrix (which
itself was wrong), formed all at once. He did this sort of thing day after
day.
I took an anthropology course in which the professor explained that pollen
analysis of the Shroud of Turin proved that it really did date from the time
of Christ. Of course this is nonsense. Pollen analysis can help date an
object only when it's found in the same region as pollen on objects which
have already been dated by other means (such as carbon-14 dating), which the
Shroud of Turin was not. The shroud (or whatever it is) actually dates from
about A.D. 1350, which was already known at the time I took that course.
But my real favorite is not from a college at all:
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the
people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence
says."
President Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996.
While not a professor at the time he said that, Clinton of course was a
former law professor at the University of Arkansas. As such, you'd think he
might know that a) the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are
entirely separate documents, and b) the phrase "of the people, by the people
and for the people" cannot be found in either--it's the most famous line in
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
N.
Morgan Sales
> "Morgan Sales" <morgan.sale...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> We teach a lot of things as fact that ain't so.
>>
>> Examples please?
>>
>> The only things I can think of are in Science and Computers where
>> certain facts are simplified for comprehension reasons.
>
> Not to butt in [he said as he butted in], but I could write for a week
> giving you examples of misinformation I've personally seen delivered
> in college classrooms by professors and instructors. And some of them
> are doozies.
>
> Starting with your "Science and Computers where [ahem] certain facts
> are simplified for comprehension reasons":
>
[Snip stuff about Collage]
Yes, my lecturers at University would also make the occasional mistake. (We
had one who was sub A Level standards at times.) And my dissertation had a
glaring inaccuracy in it that no one picked up on. However I wasn't really
referring to collage or university level education. I was talking more so
about Secondary schools (11-16 year old) as this is the context that started
the discussion. Secondary schools have to worry about external moderation
and external examinations.
--
Morgan.
----
* An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his
fools. :- Ernest Hemingway
Darin Johnson
> Depends on what you mean by "grant". The Due Process clause prohibits the
> government from depriving any citizen of "property" without Due Process and
> in this very real sense, institutionalized the sanctity of individual
> property rights in the new nation.
But is property something you can put in your pocket, or does it mean
chunks of land? Land is sort of a special case, because the
government and society have vested interests in the land that others
own. Thus the courts of upheld rules about what you can actually do
with land property (how many rusted out cars you can have in the front
lawn, whether you can store toxic waste, rent control). Governments
are also allowed to take some of that land back if you're compensated
(to build roads, airports), and they reserve some rights to put
infrastructure under the land. Rarely are such sorts of rules and
restrictions applied to personal property of the portable sort.
> There isn't even agreement within the legal
> community as to whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's
> right to bear arms, as opposed to a State's right to equip a militia. This
> is *still* an unsettled question.
I agree there. The amendment is very vague (though strong supporters
of either side will claim it is very clear :-). I note that early on
in the founding of the US there was an idea that a national military
would not be needed, and instead each state would supply a militia
when needed. However, the states' militias went away completely once
we got a military; even today's national guards aren't really the
same thing.
--
Darin Johnson
"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
Darin Johnson
> Well, that depends on which "former residents" you have in
> mind. Some had no conception of land ownership to begin with.
Which doesn't mean much. However, this was a common excuse to take
the land. Ie, the natives didn't have the concept of a lease or land
deeds and thus under the "law" brought over for Europe the land was
free for the taking. It's still an excuse though; conquest via lawyers.
> Most of the land west of the Mississippi we bought from the French.
> The remainder we bought (sort of) from Mexico.
And where'd they get it? Right of conquest; meaning that it belongs
to however can forcibly keep control of it. Which is exactly where
all the land in Europe came from also if you trace it back far enough.
> As for land acquisition "by forcibly taking it from the former
> residents," that is pretty much the way nations and tribes got their land
> anyway, since way before we came along.
And therefore it's ok to have some ethnic cleansing because they did
the same thing? That's like justifying slavery because the Africans
were involved in it also.
--
Darin Johnson
"Floyd here now!"
Bob Perez
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1isba...@nokia.com...
> (and most of the land owned in the
> US was acquired by forcibly taking it from the former residents)
Which is pretty much how most land on this planet has been "acquired"
throughout the millenia, eh?
Bob Perez
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> But is property something you can put in your pocket, or does it mean
> chunks of land?
Both. There are two types of property defined in the Common Law: realty and
personalty. Basically, real property is land, plants and structures on land,
things of that nature. Personal property is everything else that can be
owned.
> Land is sort of a special case, because the
> government and society have vested interests in the land that others
> own.
It's also because unlike other forms of property, land is very finite. There
is only so much of it and there are no new supplies coming. ;-) And it's
100% unique; there is no other parcel of property in the world that is 100%
similiary situated to yours. Real property has all sorts of special rules
applied to it because of these considerations and others.
> > There isn't even agreement within the legal
> > community as to whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an
individual's
> > right to bear arms, as opposed to a State's right to equip a militia.
This
> > is *still* an unsettled question.
>
> I agree there. The amendment is very vague (though strong supporters
> of either side will claim it is very clear :-).
I think it's like most other Constitutional provisions, reasonably clear but
subject to some interpretation (which was of course inevitable design for a
document intended to have great longevity). Frankly, I'm suprised at how
much mileage "collective rights" advocates have obtained from the
"well-regulated militia" phrase, given the startlingly obvious fact that
this Amendment is part of a package of rights created explicitly to protect
*individual*, not government, rights. It's an indication of how strongly
felt the views are on both sides.
Nostrobino
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> writes:
>
> > Well, that depends on which "former residents" you have in
> > mind. Some had no conception of land ownership to begin with.
>
> Which doesn't mean much. However, this was a common excuse to take
> the land. Ie, the natives didn't have the concept of a lease or land
> deeds and thus under the "law" brought over for Europe the land was
> free for the taking. It's still an excuse though; conquest via lawyers.
Well, in at least some cases we bought it from the Indians. Manhattan is
said to have been purchased for $24 worth of trinkets and baubles. The
Indians did not honor the new owners' right to what they had bought,
however. It may be that they didn't fully understand what selling that land
meant, but they must have understood they were trading away something.
This may have been just one facet of a cultural clash between Europeans and
a stone-age people. In some a case, the much less advanced culture is
inevitably going to come out on the short end. It would be unreasonable to
expect Europeans to adopt the Indians' view of property rights.
>
> > Most of the land west of the Mississippi we bought from the French.
> > The remainder we bought (sort of) from Mexico.
>
> And where'd they get it? Right of conquest; meaning that it belongs
> to however can forcibly keep control of it. Which is exactly where
> all the land in Europe came from also if you trace it back far enough.
My own point, as quoted in your next.
>
> > As for land acquisition "by forcibly taking it from the former
> > residents," that is pretty much the way nations and tribes got their
land
> > anyway, since way before we came along.
>
> And therefore it's ok to have some ethnic cleansing because they did
> the same thing?
Acquiring land is not the same thing as "ethnic cleansing," which is rather
a loaded term anyway.
> That's like justifying slavery because the Africans
> were involved in it also.
What do you mean, "also"? Slavery was practiced in Africa at least a
thousand years before any European set foot there. The black Mandingo
farmers of northwestern sub-Saharan Africa were much larger slaveholders
than any American plantation owner. Black African slaves for the New World
were SOLD to Europeans by their black African brothers. Only very rarely did
any white man go into the African bush to take slaves himself.
Nor was there any question of "justifying slavery" at that time. Virtually
every major culture on earth practiced slavery and almost no one thought it
wrong or unreasonable until a couple of hundred years ago. The Greeks and
Romans of classical times, Egyptians and Hebrews of Biblical times, Arabs
and Turks, Chinese and Japanese, Aztecs and Incas, and our own "Native
Americans" all practiced slavery. It was the normal practice worldwide.
For that matter, slavery is still practiced in Africa today, albeit on a
much smaller scale.
N.
Adam Russell
>
> "Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> news:cu1k6vp...@nokia.com...
> > "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> writes:
> >
> > > Well, that depends on which "former residents" you have in
> > > mind. Some had no conception of land ownership to begin with.
> >
> > Which doesn't mean much. However, this was a common excuse to take
> > the land. Ie, the natives didn't have the concept of a lease or land
> > deeds and thus under the "law" brought over for Europe the land was
> > free for the taking. It's still an excuse though; conquest via lawyers.
>
> Well, in at least some cases we bought it from the Indians. Manhattan is
> said to have been purchased for $24 worth of trinkets and baubles. The
> Indians did not honor the new owners' right to what they had bought,
> however. It may be that they didn't fully understand what selling that
land
> meant, but they must have understood they were trading away something.
It could also have been a misunderstanding on the settlers part. I imagine
that neither party was fluent in the others language. Perhaps the settlers
said "We give you this crap jewelry for all your land, ok", and the Indians
said "You have our permission to live here with us on this land, and thanks
for the token gift".
Nostrobino
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> "Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> writes:
>
[ . . . ]
>
> > There isn't even agreement within the legal
> > community as to whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an
individual's
> > right to bear arms, as opposed to a State's right to equip a militia.
This
> > is *still* an unsettled question.
>
> I agree there. The amendment is very vague (though strong supporters
It's not vague at all, but it has to be understood in the context of its
times.
It's clarified by the Militia Act of 1792, which REQUIRED males of military
age to equip themselves with muskets of regulation caliber (at that time, 14
balls to the pound) and certain kinds of regulation equipment such as
bayonets. The idea was "that every man be armed," and armed in a regulation
manner, so that he would be ready when and if called up for militia duty. It
also helps explain the term "well-regulated militia," though that remains
somewhat ambiguous. But the central idea was that there should be an armed
populace from which militia could be drawn in time of need. The nation
especially at that time could not afford to equip a large standing army or a
militia either. And the founding fathers were strongly against the idea of a
large standing army anyway, even if it had been affordable.
The Militia Act was largely ignored when it was in effect, and it has not
been in effect for a long time. It was superseded by laws which eventually
created the National Guard as we know it today. But as late as the Civil
War, the army still was organized more or less along state militia lines, so
that regiments were identified as the Second Connecticut, the New York
Seventh, and so on.
> of either side will claim it is very clear :-). I note that early on
> in the founding of the US there was an idea that a national military
> would not be needed, and instead each state would supply a militia
> when needed. However, the states' militias went away completely once
> we got a military; even today's national guards aren't really the
> same thing.
Correct, they are not. Federal law even today makes the distinction between
"organized militia" (the National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the
"unorganized militia" (essentially, all male citizens of military age).
Nostrobino
"Adam Russell" <REMOVETHIS_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2ovcv8F...@uni-berlin.de...
That's possible.
Darin Johnson
> Well, in at least some cases we bought it from the Indians. Manhattan is
> said to have been purchased for $24 worth of trinkets and baubles.
Yes. But was it actually purchased with full knowledge of what that
entailed by both sides? That is, did they read the fine print? I get
the impression that a lot of "purchases" of land from indians involved
a lot of misunderstandings. Ie, that the purchase was going to be
permanent, that houses were going to be built, that the settlers were
still going to use the surrounding area for hunting, that the settlers
wanted exclusive rights instead of shared rights, etc.
> This may have been just one facet of a cultural clash between Europeans and
> a stone-age people.
Yes, there was a culture clash. I wouldn't necessarily say stone-age,
as that implies lack of sophistication in more than just tools. Some
of the native cultures were reasonably well advanced.
> It would be unreasonable to
> expect Europeans to adopt the Indians' view of property rights.
I hope you mean that in the past tense. Because modern government
today do try and adopt to native views of rights and make
accomodations for them. That's because we've advanced socially
from where we were a few centuries ago.
> Acquiring land is not the same thing as "ethnic cleansing," which is rather
> a loaded term anyway.
No, there was quite a lot of ethnic cleansing. Indians were indeed
forcibly removed from desirable land so that it could be used by new
settlers. Biological weapons were even used in some instances
(smallpox infested blankets were purposely given to refugees). In
California there was wholesale slaughter of indians by gold rush
pioneers. Yes "ethnic cleansing" is a loaded term, but it was
intended that way rather than try and downplay the evils that
happened.
> > That's like justifying slavery because the Africans
> > were involved in it also.
>
> What do you mean, "also"? Slavery was practiced in Africa at least a
> thousand years before any European set foot there.
My point was not that this did not happen, but that it is not a valid
excuse. Yet I *do* hear this being given as an excuse, in the sense
of "we weren't so evil if other people did it too". It does not
matter if others committed slavery also, it is still wrong. And the
African slave trade actually *grew* because of American and European
desire for more slaves - we truned it into an industry.
> It was the normal practice worldwide.
But the sort of institutionalized and heredity slavery practiced in
the Americas was not practiced worldwide. Most slavery through
history was the result of conquest or to pay off debts and crimes, and
many times there were ways to legally obtain one's freedom.
Or to respond to your point another way, there was evil practiced
worldwide, and Americans were fully capable of being just as evil as
everyone else. There seems to be too much of a tendency for Americans
to try and glorify their past rather than face its historical flaws
head on for what they are.
--
Darin Johnson
"Look here. There's a crop circle in my ficus!" -- The Tick
Darin Johnson
> It's not vague at all, but it has to be understood in the context of its
> times.
It's vague since the mention of militias raises the question of
whether the right exists without a militia, or of the right was that
of states or individuals. It is also ambiguous since it doesn't
define arms, or whether assault rifles can be regulated or not, or
if a ten day waiting period constitutes an infringement.
In the context of the times, a hunting weapon and a weapon of war were
identical. Today that is not true. In the context of the times, a
single lunatic with a muzzle loaded rifle could not cause mass mayhem.
Today that is not true. It is not at all clear what the ratifiers of
this amendment would think of today's situation, and thus the
amendment is vague.
> It's clarified by the Militia Act of 1792, which REQUIRED males of military
> age to equip themselves with muskets of regulation caliber (at that time, 14
> balls to the pound) and certain kinds of regulation equipment such as
> bayonets. The idea was "that every man be armed," and armed in a regulation
> manner, so that he would be ready when and if called up for militia duty.
But militias no longer exist. They ceased existing very soon after
the founding of the republic, and a national military was put in place
(and the war of 1812 probably cemented this). There were state
regiments, but they were still part of the standing army and under
control of the federal government.
Yes, the founding fathers did not want a standing army, but we've had
a standing army since day one because we were in a state of
hostilities, pending hostilities, or expansion since day one.
--
Darin Johnson
"You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."
Coby
> "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> writes:
>> Acquiring land is not the same thing as "ethnic cleansing," which is
>> rather a loaded term anyway.
>
> No, there was quite a lot of ethnic cleansing. Indians were indeed
> forcibly removed from desirable land so that it could be used by new
> settlers. Biological weapons were even used in some instances
> (smallpox infested blankets were purposely given to refugees).
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
Once, maybe twice. Not good, obviously, but something far short of "ethnic
cleansing."
> Or to respond to your point another way, there was evil practiced
> worldwide, and Americans were fully capable of being just as evil as
> everyone else. There seems to be too much of a tendency for Americans
> to try and glorify their past rather than face its historical flaws
> head on for what they are.
I'd guess you have no way of knowing this (so I'm not trying to "gotcha" or
anything), but have you been anywhere near a U.S. high school or college in
the last 30 years? The trend has decidedly shifted to the point where most
U.S. public school students seem to take it on faith that their forebears were
the most dirty, rotten, ne'er-do-wells there ever were. My favorite example
is the recent renaming of slavery in at least a couple of textbooks to "the
African" and/or "Black Holocaust."
--
Coby
"Every year civilization is invaded by millions of tiny barbarians-
they are called children." Hannah Arendt
Charles Rydholm
> "Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> news:cu1k6vp...@nokia.com...
>
>>"Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> writes:
>>
>>>Well, that depends on which "former residents" you have in
>>>mind. Some had no conception of land ownership to begin with.
>>
>>Which doesn't mean much. However, this was a common excuse to take
>>the land. Ie, the natives didn't have the concept of a lease or land
>>deeds and thus under the "law" brought over for Europe the land was
>>free for the taking. It's still an excuse though; conquest via lawyers.
>
> Well, in at least some cases we bought it from the Indians. Manhattan is
> said to have been purchased for $24 worth of trinkets and baubles. The
> Indians did not honor the new owners' right to what they had bought,
> however. It may be that they didn't fully understand what selling that land
> meant, but they must have understood they were trading away something.
>
> This may have been just one facet of a cultural clash between Europeans and
> a stone-age people. In some a case, the much less advanced culture is
> inevitably going to come out on the short end. It would be unreasonable to
> expect Europeans to adopt the Indians' view of property rights.
Generally, I'm a lurker in this group, but I couldn't pass up commenting
on this story. The "bought Manhattan for $24" story has been around for
a long time and there are two interesting things about it that were not
mentioned. The first is that that $24 figure has not changed in as long
as I can remember. There's a good chance that the number has never been
adjusted for inflation. $24 dollars in the 17th Century is not $24 dollars
in the 21st Century. ;)
The other interesting thing about this story is its purpose, which
I guess is to show the difference between the "modern" European and
the "backward" Native American. The natives don't understand the true
value of Manhattan, but the Dutch do and buy it for a steal. Of course,
the truth behind this story paints a different picture. The natives the
Dutch bought the Manhattan from didn't live on Manhattan and, you could
say, didn't really own Manhattan. A separate tribe lived on Manhattan
then the one that sold it to the Dutch. So the natives who got the
$24 actually did pretty well, considering they didn't give anything
to the Dutch. The Dutch didn't really care either. They just wanted a
piece of paper justifying their taking of the land, and they got it.
The ones who got screwed in the deal were the natives living on
Manhattan at the time.
>>>Most of the land west of the Mississippi we bought from the French.
>>>The remainder we bought (sort of) from Mexico.
>>
>>And where'd they get it? Right of conquest; meaning that it belongs
>>to however can forcibly keep control of it. Which is exactly where
>>all the land in Europe came from also if you trace it back far enough.
>
>
> My own point, as quoted in your next.
>
Actually, the US bought France's claim to the land in the Louisiana
purchase and not really the land itself. For the most part, the French
didn't live on or own that land; Native Americans did. That didn't really
matter though, just like it didn't matter to the Dutch with Manhattan.
Chuck Rydholm
Nostrobino
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> "Nostrobino" <not....@ultranet.com> writes:
>
> > It's not vague at all, but it has to be understood in the context of its
> > times.
>
> It's vague since the mention of militias raises the question of
> whether the right exists without a militia, or of the right was that
> of states or individuals.
I don't think there can be any question about that. The directive part of
the Amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." There is no mention of any "right . . . of states," and no
reason to suppose that "the people" means anything different in the 2nd
Amendment than it does in the 1st, 4th, 9th or 10th Amendments. The 10th
Amendment in fact makes a distinction between "the people" and "the states."
If the intent had been to guarantee some states' right, it would have been
phrased that way.
> It is also ambiguous since it doesn't
> define arms, or whether assault rifles can be regulated or not, or
> if a ten day waiting period constitutes an infringement.
I don't see any ambiguity there. Clearly the Amendment is setting out a
principle, not laying out laws in detail. There is SOME point at which
"regulation" becomes infringement, and reasonable men may argue over where
exactly that point lies.
This is really no different from the 1st Amendment's guaranteeing freedom of
speech. That doesn't mean one has the right to slander, lie under oath, or
yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
>
> In the context of the times, a hunting weapon and a weapon of war were
> identical. Today that is not true.
But that's irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting weapons.
> In the context of the times, a
> single lunatic with a muzzle loaded rifle could not cause mass mayhem.
> Today that is not true. It is not at all clear what the ratifiers of
> this amendment would think of today's situation, and thus the
> amendment is vague.
It's not vague. In Switzerland today, men of military age are not only
allowed but REQUIRED to keep assault rifles and a supply of ammunition in
their homes. It has not created a problem there. How different is that
arrangement from the basic principle of the Militia Act of 1792? (And note
that in Switzerland those are real assault rifles, capable of full automatic
fire, not the semiautomatic look-alikes or other "assault weapons" which our
politicians have banned.)
>
> > It's clarified by the Militia Act of 1792, which REQUIRED males of
military
> > age to equip themselves with muskets of regulation caliber (at that
time, 14
> > balls to the pound) and certain kinds of regulation equipment such as
> > bayonets. The idea was "that every man be armed," and armed in a
regulation
> > manner, so that he would be ready when and if called up for militia
duty.
>
> But militias no longer exist.
Oh yes they do, even if not in the 18th-century sense. Federal law still
recognizes the "organized militia" (the National Guard and Naval Militia)
and the "unorganized militia" (most male citizens of military age). You can
argue that the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment no
longer exists, and that (in the way they thought of militia) is true.
This of course creates a problem: The Amendment says that such a militia is
"necessary to the security of a free state," but we no longer have militia
of that kind, clearly implying that we no longer have what is necessary.
Does that mean that the directive part of the Amendment ("the right of the
poeple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") must be disregarded
also? The Constitution doesn't allow that. The right as stated is an
unconditional one. As long as it's there, it's there, and it will be there
until it's repealed--and no one to my knowledge wants to do that, except for
one New York congresscritter whom no one pays any attention to.
> They ceased existing very soon after
> the founding of the republic, and a national military was put in place
> (and the war of 1812 probably cemented this). There were state
> regiments, but they were still part of the standing army and under
> control of the federal government.
>
> Yes, the founding fathers did not want a standing army, but we've had
> a standing army since day one because we were in a state of
> hostilities, pending hostilities, or expansion since day one.
True enough.
N.
Darin Johnson
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
>
> Once, maybe twice. Not good, obviously, but something far short of "ethnic
> cleansing."
The "ethnic cleansing" wasn't referring to only the smallpox
incidents, but to the entire process of pushing native Americans
aside; from moving them off their ancestral lands and into barren
reservations, to looking the other way when they were slaughtered by
settlers, to outright war.
> I'd guess you have no way of knowing this (so I'm not trying to "gotcha" or
> anything), but have you been anywhere near a U.S. high school or college in
> the last 30 years? The trend has decidedly shifted to the point where most
> U.S. public school students seem to take it on faith that their forebears were
> the most dirty, rotten, ne'er-do-wells there ever were.
Er, yes, I was in high school in the last 30 years (I'm 41). But we
mostly got a whitewashed version. Despite taking a course in
California history and visiting Indian campsites land, I didn't learn
about the massacres of California Indians until after high school.
--
Darin Johnson
Where am I? In the village... What do you want? Information...