Wow, I step away for a couple days to get some work done and see what happens!

Guess I probably should clarify that I'm not totally anti-gun or anything -- I have a .22 in my closet -- but I do lean more towards the left on this one. (FWIW, I'm a liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense to you...) I genuinely feel that I do so in the interest of my own personal safety and the safety of people I love, just as I assume everyone else does. As such, it seems like we could all arrive at a consensus, but I know I'm dreaming...

Just want to make a few points:

1. "Arms", in the second amendment debate, are for some reason assumed by gun-rights advocates to be handguns and semi-auto assault rifles. It's an arbitrary definition. ASSUMING "arms" equals hand-carried weapons (which I've still not convinced of), that still includes not just handguns and semi-auto assault rifles, but also shoulder-fired rockets, fully automatic midi-guns, sachel grenades, suitcase nukes -- are these not also protected under the 2nd Amendment? It's just that much more potential for mass murder, if you ask me. Sure, NYC would be MUCH safer with 3 million suitcase nukes trundling about in the hands of Joe American... :rolleyes: Imagine the damage a disgruntled ex-employee could do -- prolly take out an entire city block and kill thousands. Hurray for arms rights!! Hah, good luck defending yourself against that one.

Gun rights groups assert that the "right to arms" is absolute, but that's a fantasy. We would all do well to lose the absolutist fanatacism, recognize that the line is indeed arbitrary, and boil it down to WHERE that line should be drawn and why -- which is actually a determination of just how much killing power Joe American should have.

(In effect, though, the gun control vs. gun rights debate do that for us. It's just frustrating, for both sides, to not have a clear definition that lasts more than a coupla years.)

Again, though, I really do think the US constitution intended us to be free to own ANY weapon, without restriction. But, bright as they were, even they could not have forseen the destructive power of modern weaponry.

2. The assertion that more guns always make society safer is just wrong. In Denmark (my wife's native country) a few years ago, a policeman was shot and killed. It was a *huge*shock -- the first time it had happened in the entire country in like 10 years, if not ever, and it was easily the top story in the country for several days. (Law officers getting shot is, sadly, a pretty common occurance here in the States.) Nobody has guns over there. The violent crime rate is 1/10th what it is here in the US. You can walk through the middle of downtown Copenhagen at 2:00am without fear for your personal safety. (After living here for nearly 10 years, my wife still doesn't understand that it's a BAD IDEA to do that in a US city.)

Of course Danish culture is different than US culture. And no doubt there are situations where more guns equals less crime. But to assert as fact that it's always true (dunno that anyone here is, but it's certainly implied) just stinks of fanaticism.

3. The notion that citizens should have weapons specifically so that they can ignore laws with which they disagree is, well, disturbing. Somebody look up the definition of "criminal" for me. Or are you only a criminal if you break a law that you agree with? (huh???)

Oh well. Good debate!! :3eye:

Sorta but there are competing rights which the courts have found. My take on it is that just by starting contruction on a suitcase nuke, you're committing reckless endangerment. I dunno how much reckless endangerment is a part of the law though.

Argh, i'm a sucker for punsihment, one more before i head off for a well deserved break.

I haven't see a democrasy colapse due to the citizens to wield assult rifles yet. In this day and age i don't beleive it makes the slightest in a western democrasy. Law enforcement is a job for police, not vigilantes, if you want personal defense, carry a nonlethal weapon. Talking of simplistic, you paint criminals as people whos primary interest is kiling people, if thats not simplistic i don't know what is.

Pfft bullshit. Least in sth east asia. i spoke in detail to over 20 people who have done the kakoda trail, outer thailand, burma, cambodia etc. Some of them have been robbed. Based on their expereince and those of others they spoke to carrys arms means you are far more likely to get shot, these guys are ogranised, heavily armed and nervour, try and pull a pistol and you'll have a clip of AK-47 in you.. I cannot speak for america but that was the overwhelming advise i recieved. I intend to take it. Its not based on any bullshit you're trying to put into my mouth, its based on the experience of those who've been there and done that.

More space, machinery and technicial expertise is needed to produce a beretta replica than a block of herion.

As for CA guns laws, of course they cannot control guns, they're so easily avaiable across the border. Drug prohibition is of course a joke, like booze prohobition, guns are different in many, many ways.

Yes, exactly my point! At some point, one man's right to bear arms becomes reckless endangerment of others. (Incidentally, this is exactly why it is other people's business what weapons I choose to keep -- allow me too much power and they are potentially put in danger.) Now whether to draw the line at suitcase nukes, assault rifles, or sharp pointy sticks is another question, but an absolute right to bear arms is a fallacy. Sounds good for NRA rallies, but it doesn't make sense in the Real World. FWIW, I think the courts "get it", but the public does not, at least not consciously.

But remember kids, suitcase nukes don't kill people; people kill people. (Sorry, need more coffee... :D )

At least one fundamental flaw with having this particular argument (as Undertoad has already pointed out) is that we are arguing about very different parts of the world.
First, jag (and, to a lesser extent, sludge), my right to carry arms is fundamentally different from yours. In the United States, we get (in theory, at least) to carry weapons for self-defense. The government doesn't get to take that right away (again, in theory). The Australian government doesn't work like that. That's fine if that's the way they think their citizens want their country.
But...
you still have yet to prove to me that guns are inherently bad. You say they are bad because they are designed to kill. I say they are good for exactly the same reason. My argument can be stated thus:
If someone wants to hurt me or mine, I will stop them any way necessary.
We have come to an impasse that we will not be able to surmount, two radically different ways of looking at the same thing. I have something for you to mull over though:
A gun is neither inherently good or bad. It is simply a tool. Yes, the primary purpose of that tool is to make stuff disappear in a wicked awesome conflagration of smoke, fire, and lead. But, I put it to both of you to prove that a gun is inherently bad. I will already state that I cannot prove a gun is inherently good. It seems that the intentions of the user of that tool are what matters.

*Discuss*

Yes, that's it! - in the hands of the bad guys, a gun is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a gun is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc.

In the US you are Constitutionally a good guy (or gal) until proven otherwise. This frustrates local municipalities no end because we all know some of those good guys are actually bad. They want to limit gun usage but have no basis on which to do it. They're left to do things like creating arbitrary restrictions and limiting the number of permits and such. Studies show it doesn't work...

Let's play word substitution: "in the hands of the bad guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc."

Argh, I hate that argument, cuz it's so irrelevant -- EVERYTHING is a tool, with no inherent goodness or badness. A hammer is a tool. A rock is a tool. Cocaine is a tool. A torture device is a tool. A strap-on dildo is a tool. Some tools are good for pounding nails; some tools are good for killing people. What's yer point?

And ya know, it's true -- nukes are tools too -- but Joe American really does not need to have a nuke in his basement. Bad Idea. It's a question of HOW MUCH POWER Joe American should have before it endangers others. Not a question of whether guns are "bad", per se, but a question of whether guns in the hands of avg. Americans are bad.

As an aside, not really relevant to the arms rights discussion, but indicative of my feelings on the matter:

Guns just require too little effort, IMO. Maybe that's what pisses me off about 'em. Any schmoe can get $99 pawn shop special and cap me in the back of the head for the change I'm carrying. Doesn't matter how much heat I'm packing -- pull that trigger finger 1/2" when I'm not looking, I die. Too easy. Maybe it pisses me off cuz I'm a fairly big guy, which is a GREAT deterrant for fist fights, but means nothing vs a gun. If you're gonna kill me, I at least want to make you work for it. It takes a lot more rage and sweat to beat someone to death than *POP*; hence it's less likely to happen, as people are fundamentally lazy.

Ideally, my killer would be a 5th degree black-belt. You know, train his whole life for it. At least he would have earned it...

headsplice: Check my profile -- I'm an American, at least I *think* South Carolina still qualifies...

Not to disagree in spirit, but "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
(original Jeffersonian text before the politicians peed in the soup)

Everybody has the same rights "derived from that equal creation" . Those rights are inherent and inalienable, and I beleve those rights include the right to keep and bear arms. I suppose a people could elect to waive thier rights in this regard, since the powers of government "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". But I'm too much of a libartarian myself to cotton to surrendering my rights "for the good of the collective".

My point is that everybody has the same rights, including those who have waived them voluntarily.

But it's not irrelevant, it's *true*. The fact that it undermines your line of argument is what bothers you.
See, this is that same old "prove you *need* something before we will let you have it" argument that is so perverted. The question isn't "are guns bad", guns or any other object aren't capable of being bad or good. You're looking for a shortcut past "malum in se", (which is such a hard call to make) so you can go directly to "malum prohibidum".

The question isn't "what does a gun become in the hands of an 'average American' (whoever *that* is, we are a populaton of extremes and variety, not averages). The question you should really be asking is "are <b>people</b> good or evil?"...a question that can't be answered in bulk. We have a process here for deciding that on an individual basis. It is based on evidence and credibility, and we call it the justice system.
Ah! The light begins to dawn! You want to preserve your personal physical advantage. The idea that you are as vulnerable as everybody else is what <b>really</b> bugs you about the right to keep and bear arms. But why should you be entitled to hold more power than your fellow citizens, who have the same rights you do? Just because you're bigger and stronger? You're not an inherently superior being just because you're a jock, you know.

Abstract absolute rights. Something i've heard throw about here before. They don't exist. Freedom of speach is not absolute freedom of speach. Its free as long as its not libel, or slander, or a threat or piss anyone off enough. Its limited freedom of speach. There is no such thing as absolute rights. You have no rights. When the shit hits the fan, your rights will be ignored. Look at two of the US suspects of terror. Locked up without trial, with access to lawyers. Every right you have is given to you until you piss someone off enough for them to take it away. You can't defend against that, people protesting in the streets won't change that. Our own apathy and greed destroyed the concept of a functioning democracy generations ago. We're at baseline politics now. At a macropolitical level the actions of individual are meaningless and the actions of groups are meanless unless they offer political power or money. Guns on thier own offer nether anymore. The tools of power have changed.


Man, you really are bitter aren't you? That statement shows more about your mentality than anything else. Guns are the big equaliser eh? Now i can take on that tough guy. What happens when someone gets a bigger gun. What happens when all thsoe bad guys you're just itching to blow away get bigger guns. What happens when they're nervous, they don't want to die, shaking hands on tigger fingers. Not good.

Issac Asimov.
Never heard a truer sentence.

EDIT: tools....knew i forgot something. Fundamentally a gun is desigend to kill people. That is in my book a bad thing, no matter who does the killing or why. There are many alternative forms of self defence that are designed to injure or incapacitate, killing should be a last possible alternative, not the first. Therefore guns, for your average joe are an unnessacary risk in terms of self defence.

Metropolitan Los Angeles has 4 times the number of people in metro Sydney (16 million vs. 4 million). Los Angeles city alone has 3.7 million. Based upon the populations alone, I'd say that there will be more guns in Los Angeles.

Now, is it likely that there are more drive-by shootings in Los Angeles? I would say so, based on numbers alone. As far as your chances of getting shot...you're not helping your case in using California, as Maggie noted.

I'd like to see some stats on that (though I would think them hard to find, if they're even kept).

Jag, when those new gun laws kicked in, do you think that the criminals said, "Dum de doo. I guess I'll have to turn in my gun now."? I'd wager that you probably still have the same folks with the same guns in the same clubs. I suspect the security you and others feel is probably a psychological effect, with no basis in fact.

It's only abstract to you because your rights in this connection are already gone. For me the issue is still quite concete, thanks. And nobody said "absolute" either; there's plenty of ways self-defense rights are abridged. Some I agree with, some I don't.

So you've set up a "straw-man" augument and then torn it down. Bravo.
(Will you be taking a class in argumentation when you get to college? You *are* going to go to college, right? We haven't heard much about that lately, and September is next month.)
Well, I can certainly see that the functioning of <b>your</b> democracy is impaired, whether we're talking obout the right to keep and bear arms or the right to see what you want on the Internet. But then "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", as long as we're flinging quotes about. <b>Our</b> democracy still seems to be struggling along somehow...not perfect, but arguably still the best deal in town. YMMV.
I beleive the quote is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant", from the "Foundation" trilogy. Don't you see that when one employs a weapon in self-defense, it is against such an incompetant who has taken refuge in violence?

Dr. Asimov was an impressive polymath, a good science fiction writer and a delightful gentleman. I met him at a convention in NYC once; I don't think he'd be pleased at the way the words of his character Salvor Hardin have been abused since then. Hardin also said: "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Oh, dear, we're back to this again. "Anyone who arms themselves for protection must be in the grip of blood lust." Of course, training with and carrying a blade among a disarmed population is noble, it's just <i>firearms</i> that are implicitly evil.

Yes, weapons <b>are</b> an equalizer in combat between the bigger and stronger and the smaller and weaker. That's a trend since Ogg the caveman first picked up a stick. It's continued through the invention of the spear, the sword, armor, the longbow, and so on. Firearms have removed the last advantage of the brute.The possibility that ordinary people may be legally armed with concealed handguns makes comitting violent crime a much trickier and more dangerous affair--<b>for the criminal</b>. I like it that way. Too bad if you don't. But will you ever stop conflating the desire to not be helpless in the face of violence with the desire to <b>be</b> violent?

Sludge feels much better when he's the biggest guy in the joint, and doesn't have to worry that that guy over there who *looks* like a pushover might not actually be. And you seem unable to abide the idea that there are people with the freedom to legally choose to arm themselves, they all must all be slavering murderers looking for an excuse to unleash a bloodbath. (That's called "projection", and even if you don't get a class in argumentation, they'll cover that for you in freshman psych, under "defense mechanisms".)

Look, the process of licencing for concealed carry filters out the great preponderance of people likely to commit *any* crime, much less starting a random spray of fire at a disco (which is your violent fantasy) or sneak up behind Sludge and put a bullet in his head, depriving him of a dramatic struggle on some "Mortal Combat" field of honor, may the best man win.

Those are <b>crimes</b>. I know many folks licenced for concealed carry personally; they are gentle, careful, responsible people. I'm not uncomfortable around them in the slightest. Unfortunately you have little chance to learn the truth of that, since anyone who's armed where you are is by definition a criminal.

So spare me your "you must be bitter". That's a ludicrous red herring...especially after your jaded assertion that democracy is dead and our rights are dead abstractions. Methinks the pot calls the kettle black.

I don't remember linking that to arms rights. I don't remember linking it ot my rights either. Please stop attempting to put words in my mout, particuarly when you misinterpreting deliberately or not what i said.


Its called uni here. Yea most likely. THe way my marks are going 'I'll be able to get into my course either some breathing room. Either way what the heck does that have to do with anything? The style of my writing here is terrible. If i handed it in i'd get a D if i was lucky. The crap i write on here is nothing like my actual work, i write this entirely on the fly, no review time, no rewrites, no forward thinking about structure. I've got a bunch of opinionative stuff coming up for school, i might able able to twist one of them towards gun rights (taeacher asked me to submit a list of topics so...) so i might be able to write some real stuff on the issue, factually back up logically structured bulletproof stuff unlike the random rablings i'm usually posting.

Thats bloody debateable. TOu have two parties which squeese out a fair competition with anyone else, and your currant leader was elected by the supreme court. In fact just under 1 quarter of your population voted for him. Best deal in town my ass. The only truely effective democracy existed in Ancient Greece, its a pity our sociopolitical structure jsut would not allow such a system. These days Britan inho has the ebst system, although their judicial wing could do with some redessing. Representative democracy is flawed either way.



Pardon? Ok i went a little over on the bloodlust stuff, sure ill admit that but where did you pull the knife stuff from?

It merely makes the criminal more likely to be armed, more nervous and more likely to shoot you. Wonderful, now everyone is equal - until someone gets a bigger gun, a point which you don't seem to willing to address. If everyone is equal you're just as likely to be shot, what have you really gained?


Firstly i'm not sure where you got my "violent fantasty" from. I've got a friend with a plastic kneecap from an incident in a sydney nightclub.

Hehehehe. I'm not in the least bit jaded about it, i understand hw the system works and how to twist it to my advantage, Why would i be jaded? I find the whole thing quite fun really.

OK, cynical rather than jaded, then.
Oh...I see. Sorry, I thought you *meant* what you said here. If *you* call it crap, why bridle when I style it "blather"?

If this isn't your "actual work", and doesn't engage your attention, concern or craft, then I'll ignore it. After all, if your words here aren't worthy of *your* attention, they're certainly not worth mine.

Yes, i'm cynical.

Time? I do what i can. I've got school and getting back and forth from 6:30 to 4, homework on average is around 4 hours a night, going up to 6 or even 8 depending on the day. On top of that i'm doing some work on the side for a little spare cash. At the moment writing folio work alone has me writing on average a fully polished 1000 word essay every 2 days not to mention regional secuirty analysis papers on the Spratleys which will take up most of this week, i simply don't have time to polish my posts. I don't see why that invalidates them. either way this thread is going nowhere useful, i should be able to play with one of the topics enough to do an essay on this, ill post that later.

Please, please, PLEASE post it here, in a new thread, when you're finished.

Thank you.

gotta write on paper in class in a book we don't get back sadly, can post pages all my notes though.
Nothing too facinating, just a 2000 or so word summary, causes, history, competing NI outline, external factors, resolution attempts, regional stability impact analysis, bit of stuff of the role of Taiwan in particular to tie in with other stuff and some enviromental stuff.

It's just what I said...if it's not worth your time to write them well, it's certainly not worth my time to analyse (and too often, decrypt) and then respond, only to have you blow it all off with the likes of "Oh, it's not my *good* work" or . ."Sorry I'm incoherent, or went overboard because I'm getting no sleep".

As for polish vs. validity, when you write carelessly <br>
--either trivially so as with random spelling and erratic punctuation
<br> --or more deeply with vitriol or wild accusations,
<br>--or at the very deepest level by littering your arguments with enthymemes and classic fallacies of argumentation like question-begging, red herrings and straw-man arguments<br>
...you shirk work you were unwilling to do, leaving it to be done by the people reading your words.

In fact I'm busy with several projects of my own. But I don't consider writing for the Cellar to be "slumming" just because the software is bloggish. Why not take some time and compose your words (and your thoughts as well)...any given thread will still be here for the posting, when you're done.

Or if you really <b>don't</b> have the time, maybe you should just forget about it and concentrate on the stuff you consider more important.

That is what i just said.

To Asimov I would append a sentence that improves his contention: Countervailing violence -- resisting evil -- is a tool of the strong of soul.

As to the last sentence of your coda, Jaguar, the experiences of 33 states, Switzerland, and Israel all militate to the falsification of your entire thesis. Furthermore, your argument -- all unbeknownst to you I know, but nonetheless -- opens the way to genocide. A hostility towards private armaments leads to restrictions and bans on guns; and bans on guns are an essential precondition to episodes of genocide -- one of three, the other two being hatred and governmental power. You'd have some awareness of all this if you'd bothered to do the homework in reading Simkin, Zelman, and Rice, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Key To Genocide , no ISBN, but available through JPFO's website among other places. I am impressed with this book because the bulk of its pages are devoted to facsimiles of the gun control laws in nations where genocides have occurred, with translations into English on the pages facing each page of original text. Jaguar, I speak, read, and write three of those languages -- the translations are honest, for at least the Spanish, the French, and the Russian. They have relevance to the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos, the killing fields of Cambodia [which got its gun control when it was a French protectorate], and the Stalinist unpleasantnesses from the Terror Famine through 1953.

www.jpfo.org

You must master this material before you can persuade the enlightened that you've got it right, and no amount of your misspelled prose will obscure the fundamental flaw of not having this in your knowledge base -- their argument cannot be ignored by rational persons; in my experience it is frequently ignored by those who are not rational about arms.

Evil. That’s an odd word to associate with violence in all cases. I don't see how countervailing something is a tool either....but I digress.

Israel I do not think is an example of a peaceful state. Switzerland on the other hand does have a very low murder rate. I'd attribute that to socioeconomic factors rather than a blanket presence of firearms. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of their murders by weapon.

Pretentious, didactic prattle (aplenty) aside I will admit this is an issue I’m not familiar with, its not something I have much experience arguing with either and thus my knowledge base is not that big. I don't intend to purchase books about it either, it simply is not that much of an interest.

That said I don't think the Khmer Rouge are a good example of the dangers of gun control. Obviously I’m no scholar of pre-revolutionary Cambodian/Indochina law and since you've declined to actually quote anything out of the holy bible of gun control you espouse so highly ill have to guess exactly what your point is.

Apart from the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos which I’m not even slightly familiar with and so in no position to comment on your examples are brutal totalitarian regimes. These are not known for their freedoms and oddly enough aren't to keen about leaving firearms in the hands of a populace who would just love to rebel.

So your conclusion appears to be that since massacres have and do occur under despotic regimes that have gun control, gun control is the key factor, not the existence of the despotic regime in genocides occurring. I assume the counterargument is that the despotic regime in question could not have come to power without weapons.

Your more obscure (at least to me) example aside your genocidal states seem to be examples of poverty, or at least less economic successes (lets not get into the nitty-gritty of Stalin's Russia) than your less violent countries, Switzerland and Israel (at least inter-Israeli wise). Maybe socioeconomics have a far larger role to play in your examples than gun control? Just a thought. Or sorry I forgot. I’m an irrational raving loony for opposing you.

Distinguish here between "violence" and "agression". Not all violence is agression.

That's one serious problem with the Asmov quote lifted out of context. While the last refuge of the incompetant may indeed be violence, it does not follow that all violence is the acts of desparate incompetants...which is the implicit argument when somebody trots that quote out. This is called "affirming the consequent" , and it's a logical fallacy.

<blockquote>
<i>To act against with equal force, power, or effect; to thwart
or overcome by such action; to furnish an equivalent to or
for; to counterbalance; to compensate.</i></blockquote>

An umbrella countervails against rain. A flashlight countervails against darkness. A fire extinguisher countervails against fire. An antibiotic countervails against disease. A weapon used defensively countervails against agression.

Of course, a tool can be used agressively as well. I could try to poison you with a pharmaceutical, or try to smother you with a fire extinguisher.

Evil intent will find a tool. Gun prohibitionists ban guns, and then claim success when firearms crime is displaced by violence with other weapons, in greater volume because the victims are known to be disarmed.

Victim was warned of 'shooting spree'

Slain woman had sought protection

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN AND TERRI SANGINITI

Staff reporters

08/17/2002

A woman whose ex-boyfriend shot her to death Thursday outside police headquarters sought court protection from the man 10 days ago.

"He says he's going to get his gun and go on a shooting spree, and I'm first," Lettie A. Lyons, 42, said in a petition seeking a protection from abuse order.

The order was granted Aug. 5, and included a requirement that the man, Christopher M. Williams, 43, surrender his shotgun to police that day. He did not.

Williams shot Lyons about 6 p.m. Thursday as Lyons attempted to seek protection at New Castle County Police Headquarters on U.S. 13 and then shot himself to death, police said.

Thankyou for the lesson, very informative I assure you. I'd love to know what it has to do with the line you quoted from me.

Talking of that quote, While you imply that violence is not always the tool of the incompetent, from what I remember the books certainly suggest it is. It is chronicling of the rise of the foundation without the use of force, in my mind that surely suggests that violence is indeed the tool of the incompetent. By the way its Asimov not Asmov. It’s also incompetent, not incompetant and desperate not desparate. Either that or Americans have different ways of spelling these things.

Yes. Correct! The weapon/umbrella/flashlight/fire extinguisher is the tool. Not the countervailing. That was my point. Excuse me while I ram my head into a brick wall.


As opposed to.....?

Glad you found it helpful. Actually the whole Logical Fallacies site is worthy of your attention.
My point being that not all violence is evil. That was either the point you were making, or absolutely contradicted your point, I'm not sure which.
Um, no, I'm not implying it. I've been stating it flat out, repeatedly.
So, by your reading, during W.W. II, inbetween writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical.

I'll take note that spelling criticism is once again fair game, too. :-)

So, by your reading, during W.W. II, in-between writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical. [/quote] News to me. Maybe it was, I’m not sure. The books to me certainly suggest that it was. The key point in the books certainly seems to me to be the use of intelligence instead of violence to resolve problems. I'd have to reread now but maybe it does suggest that there are situations where violence is unavoidable. What exactly was he working on?

That was my origional point, i still don't know what you were talking about apart from a good chance to tundle out some fancy terms for the blindingly obvious.

You missed an l in volume.

Can't imagine why you'd need to reread it, since you referred to it (as a misquote, admittedly) claiming you'd "never heartd a truer sentence". You wouln't make that claim about something without actually knowing what it <b>meant</b>, would you?
As far as I have been able to tell, his work was classified and he never discussed it, even after the war.

Heinlien was <b>famous</b> for his obstinacy in not disclosing the nature of the work he did there. It has been conjectured by some to have had to do with aiming antiaircraft fire from radar signals, and some of his writing indicates that he'd thought about that problem extensively. I don't even know for sure that he, Asimov, and deCamp were all working on the same project, but we do know that they became close friends.

Asimov was indeed interested in the idea of solving political problems without violence, but unfortunately he failed to pass on to us Salvor Hardin's mathematical models that would have enabled us to predict social outcomes with the precision and reliablity of problems from physics. Without them, I suppose we may all look "incompetant" next to Hardin. We're left only to console ourselves with the fact that he is a <b>fictional</b> character, and thus perhaps not the best source for ethical guidance.

Asimov also died without revealing a synthesys or structure for the remarkable compond "thiotimoline". His paper "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" described a chemical so incredibly water-soluable that it would dissolve <b>before</b> being added to water. A telegraph system that consisted of a battery of thiotimoline cells would have obvious application in finance (by transmitting pricing information from the future) and significant military applications by allowing early-warning of a future attack with any desired lead time. This would certainly have revolutionized the concept of "preemptive strike".

I do know that Asimov was highly disconcerted when, as the final question during his doctoral orals, he was asked to speak on the subject of thiotimoline's endochronitic properties. I guess he didn't realize anybody on the senior faculty read <i>Amazing Science Fiction</i>.

There are often subtleties in a text that can escape you or forget after a while. Interpreting what an author meant is never a precise art; I would not be willing to delve into a more detailed analysis of the messages in the books without re-reading them.

While it was classified this reluctance suggests maybe it was hypocritical or at least something he was not entirely comfortable with talking about

The fictional nature of the text does not take away from the value of the message.

You missed a d in wouldn’t.

Who woulda thunk that the opportunity to correct Maggie's spelling would be all the incentive Jag would need to give us posts we can read. Thanks to both of you. ;)

Especially when he is misquoted, as you are fond of pointing out. :-)
How about it just suggesting that he took his secrecy oath seriously...which is a vastly simpler explanation than inventing some mythical embarassment? My point isn't that he wouldn't talk about it, but rather that he was working on weapons systems while writing the series, which casts some doubt on this "Asimov was a pacifist" theory. Henlein was just as stubborn about not talking about his work there, and I can <b>promise</B> you <i><b>he</b></i> had no qualms about the work he was doing.

Besides being a better SF author. :-)
Yes, but the message may be "If you can predict the future, you can afford to be snide about all those 'incompetents'." "Not a precise art", you know. :-) Still, life in the real world is a bit trickier without Seldon's quite fictional crystal ball.

My theory is that Jag finally figured out how to pipe stuff from his browser to a spelling checker. So now he's spell checking his posts <b>and</b> mine. I can live with that. It works so well I'm not even going to point out the ones he's missing.

It may be somewhat akin to the subtle effect that eating with chopsticks has on the enjoyment of food. There's more to it than just better spelling.

The foundation didn't have a crystal ball, only their wits and the occasional message. Whether it was predicted before or not is irrelevant. The message in the way they did things is the same and just as strong.

Quite possibly. There does seem to be a clash to me though. Maybe the work had an effect on the direction of the books, who knows, we can both espouse theories until the sun explodes, it’s pointless.

I'm still waiting for Urbane to get back to me.

Nah no spellcheck, they tend to be american spelling which annoys the hell out of me.
I'm just marginally more alert. In the middle of a batch of english pieces which helps too. It's generally not so much an issue of spelling (although ill admit mine is nowhere near as good as it should be) as typing.

This was actually proposed in Vermont a few years back. Anyone that didn't own a gun would be assessed with a special "non-gun owning" tax of $500.

I love the state, but that scares the crap out of me.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legisla...2000/guns.html

Why?

After all, that's almost heaven compared to the situation in California, where I live, with its blockheaded, genocide-friendly anti-"assault weapon" law. Until a couple of years back, one of the arms prohibited by this law (this has since been rectified by amendment) was a single-shot shotgun that had a pistol grip on it. It got on the banned list entirely because of its exotic looks. Of such irrationalities is antigun thinking built, and antigun/pro-genocide law passed.

The abysmal moral inferiority of Jaguar
 

A quick scan of your recent posts here shows me that not only would you rather remain in the poor moral condition of being someone who prefers to keep the gate open to genocide rather than to close it, but even worse, you declare in print that you are not even interested in lifting a finger or reading one lousy book to even prepare to become a moral person with a decent human being's degree of opposition to genocide and the creation of its necessary conditions. You shock and disgust me when you plead disinterest, as you did. You annoy and disgust me when you plead want of time to study, as I am sure you will.

I oppose genocide, and work to create conditions that strangle it stillborn. You would fertilize the ground for it to flower, and genocide is indeed a fleur du mal.

In words both short and curt, given all the above, just what the fuck do you think you have to say to me?

I have not declined to quote anything. I merely have not done it yet. Now, how is it that you cannot think how the Khmer Rouge exemplify the perils of gun control? Gun control creates an imbalance of access to killing tools, and there is no surer way to guarantee the oppression of the unarmed by the armed than that. The Khmer Rouge had the guns, the general Cambodian populace had none, and there are two million bleaching human skulls piled in pyramids all over Cambodia, with gun control a contributing factor in these needless deaths. When someone is seized with such a Big Idea that his morals go into suspension, general misery is invariably the result. Adolf Hitler had a Big Idea. Pol Pot had a Big Idea. Mao Tse-Tung, the same Big Idea. Lethal Laws gives a deliberately conservative accounting of their butcher's bill.

Herewith, in translation, is the text of the relevant sections of Cambodia's Code Pénal et Lois Pénales:

From Royal Ordinance no. 71, of 11 April 1935:

Art. 322 -- The manufacture of, importation of, dealing iin, and distribution of firearms, of weapons using liquefied gases, of weapons using compressed air, of ammunition, and of explosive materials or devices, is forbidden. Violations of this prohibition are punished as first degree criminal offenses. In all cases, the making of a weapon or of ammunition for the personal use of the maker is punished as set forth in Article 324.

Art. 323 -- The manufacture, importations, and the distribution of steel weapons of the same type used in the military; of concealable offensive weapons such as a stiletto, dagger, switchblade, truncheon, barss knuckles, etc., is forbidden. Violations of this prohibition are punished as third degree criminal offenses. The additional punishments of a loss of civil rights and a prohibition against entering certain localities may also be imposed. In all cases, the making of a weapon for the personal use of the maker is punished as set forth in Article 325.

Art. 324 -- The acquisition of firearms, of weapons using liquefied gas or compressed air -- and of ammunition -- their possession, storage, or carrying are prohibited to all persons not provided with the prescribed permit, according to the conditions set forth by the regulations established by the French authority. Violations of this prohibition are punished as third degree offenses.
All persons convicted of having sold, given, loaned, rented, or entrusted weapons or ammunition which they had a right to possess, to a person not provided with the prescribed permit, are punished as accomplices to the crime specified above.

From Royal Ordinance No. 55 of 28 March 1938

Art. 325. (Amendment resulting from Law no. 791-NS of 29 May 1953) -- The carrying of offensive or concealed steel weapons, i.e., of truncheons, brass knuckles -- and all weapons of the same type -- is prohibited, as is the transportation of such arms without a legitimate reason.

All persons found on a public road, carrying -- or transporting -- a concealed offensive weapon, are punished with the correctional penalty of the first degree.

Carrying of arms at an election campaign gathering: see Criminal Code: Article 283.

Art. 326 -- A holder of a permit to carry weapons -- whether issued for a fee or gratis -- who, without proper authorization, buys or obtains ammunition, is punished with first degree correctional penalties. The revocation of the permit to carry weapons may, besides, be ordered. The same punishments apply in the case of the sale or the exchange of weapons without prior notification.

Art. 327 -- Every violation of the regulations on permits to carry weapons -- whether the permit is issued gratis or after payment of a fee -- is punished with the correctional penalties of the first degree; moreover, revocations of the permits may be ordered. This also applies to the following: the renewal of a permit, the presentation of permits -- issued gratis or paid -- for periodic authorization; the declaration of the loss of a weapon, of ammunition, or a permit; the handing over of a weapon, ammunition, or a permit, when the permit has expired, been revoked, or when the bearer has died or disappeared.

Art. 328 -- Every person convicted of having kept a weapon -- for a period exceeding eight days -- after the revocation or suspension of the permit, is punished with the penalties applicable to one who owns a weapon without a permit. The possession of several weapons by one who has a single-weapon permit -- and equally the possession of an amount of ammunition exceeding that authorized -- is punished by correctional penalties of the first degree; the revocation of the permit may be ordered. (punctuation as in the original)

These laws set up a very tight control over arms and ammunition of all types. Even air rifles come under this control, though somewhat more loosely regulated. Permits were issued solely at the government's discretion. This setup means that only the favored of the government get arms; everyone else is shut out.

Note that these regulations were in effect for decades before the Killing Fields fell upon the Cambodians' unsuspecting heads -- and their heads fell upon those fields. To say that one cannot see warning signs of genocide on the horizon is to say nothing or worse than nothing; genocide is always a surprise to its targets. Always.

Since despotic regimes always have the gun control without which they cannot long exist, I think you draw a distinction without a difference.

For the moment, I don't think I'll call you irrational -- merely "ignorant and prejudiced by your environment." It is not that you oppose me, but that I oppose you.

This is quite amusing. I think I've just met a new type of individual. I've never had the misforture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H privilege of coming across somehow how has spliced the absolute moral piety, righteous fury and unshakable faith of a fundie with the 'logical clarity' of a gun rights type. No offence to gun rights people, there are many logical and sound arguments there, I don't debate that. You on the other hand are an entertaining mass of utter trash. "Moral inferiority", outright abuse and the most pious, pompous pile of pontificated pissfarting around I've been unlucky enough to bother replying to. (can you tell I'm feeling like talking in alliterations) .

Yes. That was my point. The regime leads to genocide, and gun control is an aspect of the regime. Not the other way round. Thus genocide is the product of the regime, not gun control. Find an example of a non-despotic regime with gun control committing genocide.

Yes. This is a topic that does not greatly interest me? Different people are passionate about different things, this may come as a shock to your system. Want me to talk stuff that really interests me? Talk politics, foreign affairs, international disputes, diplomacy, technology, and society. Not gun control. Why read your book? I know what's in it; it will not interest me and I doubt ill glean anything interesting from it.

Come back when you can construct a sentence that makes sense, fool. I was reading your post in class, you had people literally crying they were laughing so hard at your farcical attempts at arguments coupled with such a ridiculous tone. I never thought I'd say it but I'd far rather argue with Maggie about this, she at least generally has a point worth listening to. I don't want time to study whatever you think i should. I have no interest in conforming your narrow definition of a moral person, in fact the entire concept scares me. Your myopic malise is better kept to whatever hole in the ground you crawled out of. Ill waste no more of my time reply to your flamebiat filled frivilious posts, your tone and message make a good enough mockery of you on their own.

Um...tell you what. Find an example of a non-despotic regime comitting genocide, and then we'll talk. :-) I kind of think despotic power (<i>absolute in power; possessing and abusing unlimited power; tyrannical; arbitrary</i>) is a prerequisite to committing genocide.


Gun prohibition is quite naturally a subject that enflames emotions, both on the part of the people who wish to disarm others, as well as the people whom they wish to disarm. Because of this, I do my best to try to keep the debate on-point and with as little vitriol as possible.

Losing control and spewing in a public forum does little to convince folks that your position is well thought-out and reasonable, no matter which position you espouse. And there certainly are uncontrolled spewers on both sides of this debate.

"When the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- John Locke

You love reiterating my points don't you?

Unlike the not-so urbane guerrilla. I have to admit I’m coming round on this issue. In the end I think it depends if you want a big government or not, or at least the degree of government control. In the end I think the basis of my opinion is that I don't like the majority having power, on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic. Doesn't mean its no the best system but...

This begs a question:

on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic.

Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

Um...not always. Here I thought you were saying "It's because a regime is despotic that it comits genocide."

My point is that a regime can <b>become</b> despotic because its power is absolute, and to hold absolute power one thing they must do is disarm their people. A regime that is bent on disarming people is one that is moving to consolidate its power.

And it's that apathy that makes it possible for a depot to gain control. This is why folks opposed to gun prohibition feel they need to raise their voices every time there's a move to prrohibit guns.

Even in the "violent , militaristic" US, most people don't have guns. Being already disarmed, they are apathetic on the issue; there's this sheep-like "doesn't affect me, sounds like a good idea, go ahead" reaction and then they roll over and go back to sleep. Then when trouble comes to their door, and the cops show up half an hour later, they're outraged and look for somebody to sue.

Those of us who <b>do</b> care about this issue often feel we must speak strongly for our voices to be heard. Unfortunately, for some folks this sometimes combines with frustration from trying to explain our views to the "sheeple" to produce strident, hyperbolic tone of rhetoric. All I can say in defense of that is there's plenty of hyperbole on the other side too.

They can't be trusted UT! Dontcha know that's why we have the electoral college?

Zactly. Thats why i've always had leaning towards Plato and his enlightened dictatorship, pity such a thing is close to impossible.

Interesting, i doubt up the arguement you just put forward in my origional reply to urbane but forgot to rebut it hehehehe.

I'm still not buying that arguement though. For a start a few civvies with guns is not going to ahve any effective presence against an organised army (bloody sunday anyone?) The number i cannot see anywhere would be large enough to ahve an impact even if they were organised anyway. In the case of cambodia it certinaly didn't stop the Khmer Rouge getting weaponary either.

Half your country didn't bother to vote, its not just guns they're apathetic about.

OK, I now beleive Jag's not spell checking. Anymore. :-)

Once again I'll say: the effect and effectiveness of an armed citizenry in preserving their own freedom is something that can't be understood in terms of raw firepower.

Especially since the standing army is drawn from our own populace--in the event of an internal conflict the military would simply not be reliable. (We saw this the *last* time we had open armed conflict in the country.) We do have 1.37 million on active duty with our armed forces. But the population of the country is 278 million including about 71 million males age 15-49. And many of the males older than that know a hell of a lot about guerilla warfare; having learned it while matriculating at the University of The Nam.

Having a armed citizenry is a "canary in the coalmine" too. A despotic regime would have to disarm the citizens first, which is another reason a lot of us see red when our right to self-defense is threatened.

Jag, even your custom user text is mispelled. How about re-reading your messages before you post them? It might make it easier to sway people over to your point-of-view.

Christ I type out one post in a hurry and I get the spelling Gestapo on my back. meh, that’s the last time I try and reply in a free period.

I think in most caases of despotic regimes they at least come to power with the backing of the majority, even if only for a short while. Armed rebellion down the track is already too late.

As for armies not turning on their own, look at Tiananmen Square.

When we talk about this we are not just talking about the US you know. I could be flamebaity and say you already have a despotic regime but I’m not in the mood. Actual gun control legislation I think would have little effect in an established despotic regime once the seeds for rebellion had been sown.

You took delight in nitpicking my posts for occasional dropped vowels when they were still quite legible; with multiple transposition errors per sentence and completely indecipherable words you're just gonna hear about it when your own legibility suffers. Too late for whining about Gestapo now, after playing that game yourself you've lost your innocence.
I was speaking specifcally about the US. I don't pretend to understand the national psyche of the Chinese in depth at this point. Still, it does seem that most Chinese are content to struggle along under their current govenment; Tienanmen Square was pretty much Kent State writ large; a student demonstration, not a popular movement by any stretch. If the students in the square had been armed with something more than rocks and bottles, things would have been different. Probably not "better", but certainly different. But that's a counterfactual; the authoritarian regime in China knows better than to allow its people arms. So your example has nothing to do with an armed citizenry.
So you thought you'd say it anyway. Our "regime" still looks pretty good from here, and the result of the next presidential election here is pretty much still up in the air; hardly "despotic", even if <b>you</b> don't like their policies.

All things considered I'm glad Bush rather than Gore was in charge when 9/11 hit the fan. How much longer we're going to let him drive I don't know; we have some domestic issues that need attention.

You didn't give him a driving licence last time, but he's on the road anyway, driving recklessly. (seems to be the mainstream European view)

X.

Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done? He would have formed a commision, launched a few Tomahawks at empty targets, and meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days.. It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

I guess you really can't put a price on human life (or civil liberties), then. The view from Europe sees the approximately <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">3000</a> dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.
Speculation doesn't get you anywhere. Clinton was perfectly content to bomb Iraq whenever necessary, and to send US troops to fight on foreign soil. Since we don't know what Gore would've done (and being politically aware, he would have followed public opinion, which was screaming for blood), any further speculation invalidates conclusions drawn from it.
I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks. Do you seriously think that the attack on the US was merely the first of many on several other countries? (and if so, if those attacks had taken place in any countries that did not directly ally with the US) Was it a Belgian warship that was nearly blown out of the water and had crewmen killed? Was it an Italian border on which people were arrested, trying to smuggle components for a nuclear device into the country? Was it Belgium that is blamed (perhaps wrongly) for many of the ills of the Arab world? It is Spain who has been financing Israel and propping up the corrupt authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia? Is it Portugal that had its embassy sacked and its personnel held hostage in Iran? Is it Italy that financed the war against Russian occupation in Afghanistan?

Was it a symbol of Jewish-American economic and political strength that was destroyed?

As I said: speculation invalidates your arguments. You are arguing from emotion, suggesting that Europe should be happy the US acted, otherwise it'd have been under attack. Instilling fear is not a valid means of argumentation; certainly not a logical one.

Unfortunately the US government desperately needs European support for any further foreign policy ventures. The European papers this week have reported in-depth on US diplomatic maneuvering, desperately trying to get European backing. (If you feel like reading German, try http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...210499,00.html and http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...210484,00.html )

You may not care what Europe thinks, but unless the US is going to retreat into isolation (again), European opinion remains vitally important to US politics, and policies. This is not my opinion, but what has been demonstrated time and again by diplomatic argumentation from US; its only true ally in Europe is Britain, and even there, public opinion is slowly - but surely - moving the government's position further and further away from unquestioningly backing any US move.

Feel free to direct the insult straight at me, as I'm European. 'Seeming' and 'being' are two different things, as I'm sure you probably know. If you have actual specific problems rather than sweeping, imprecise, (ostensibly insulting) statements, feel free to say what they are, and I'll try to address them, hoping to elaborate on and elucidate the 'European' position. (in itself too sweeping and generalizing)

Anyone?

X.

The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.




Look, the notion that "It can't possibly happen here" is one that we isolationist Americans no longer have. The result of not giving a crap was a shitload of death and destruction.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? Didja notice that 15 engineers got blown to smithereens in Pakistan a few months ago, and they were all French? Didja notice that the official explanation for the torching of the Israeli embassy in Paris was utterly lame? Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany? Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know. This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism. See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

The sorry truth is that Europe is desperate for the US to want that support. That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod. The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking. Their military budgets have gone soft over the years.

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own. Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Those of us who voted here (yes, I was one of them) have a pretty clear idea; we've seen it before. If the electorate had known that we would have a war of this kind on our hands within a year of the election, it certainly wouldn't have been the incredibly close contest that it actually was.

My own view is that we lucked out. I'm hoping we can arrive at an international situation with more long-term stability in time for the next election; as I said we need to put in somebody with some credibility on domestic issues for the next four years. I'm afraid that isn't Dubya.

I don't have much to add to what Tony said.

Talking of generalisations...
Excuse me I'm going back to reality now, aniteuropean lalaland is getting a little scary now.

Didja notice that was an Iraqi dissident group and has no connection to whatever point you're trying to draw?

Well. Yes. Arabs hate Jews, visa versa. Notice the Daniel Perl video? "I am a Jew my mother is a Jew" ? Notice support of Israel is one of the primary was of recruiting people in much of the middle east?

Oh get the fuck over the anti-Semitism line. Its the most hyperbolic attempt to silence people I've ever heard and I'm sure has hell getting sick of it. Europe has every valid reason to be disgusted with Israel, you might want to consider that 1/3 of the US supports Israel because of the role it plays in the second coming of Christ (Source: Time poll).

We haven't had that since the fall of the soviet union. Pax Americana Cleary doesn't work so don't expect it anytime soon.

Erm... Stop watching CNN and maybe start reading quadrant. An area with that much economic, political and military force is never irrelevant.

Well, if that's what a Time poll said, I guess it must be true. :-)

That's a theory you'll have to explain further; what you're saying is people here beleive if we give aid to the Isaelis we get bonus points when the Rapture hits, is that it?

Here's the pot calling the kettle black again; are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"? Had you noticed that they're the same company?

And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant. Where was all this force while Kosovo was sliding into the toity?

Tony, Maggie - I'll address your points separately and answer them in sequence. Apologies if I misattribute anything. I'll try to number my points as well, to make it easier to cross-reference later.

Mistake No 0: (I am using computer science counting methods here, starting at 0 :) ) 'The French' don't believe that, it was merely a conspiracy theory that came partly from France, and is generally considered to be somewhat absurd. To claim that this is true is akin to claiming that 'Americans believe that there are UFOs at Area51'. A small hardcore conspiracy-obsessed group may believe it, but that's it. Regarding the 'anti-semitism problem', I'd like further details on how you perceive it, especially regarding the considerable number of French Jews in the French Parliament and French Government. Much was made in US about Joseph Lieberman being the first Jew to potentially be the US VP, with <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Why_Lieberman_not_Kerry_was_the_right_choice_for_Gore+.shtml">some</a> sources <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/wick134.htm">claiming</a> that the choice was going to be yet another factor that would lose the Democrats virtually every southern state (and possibly some of the black vote). (Quote: "Some Democrats privately expressed concern that there would be a voter backlash against Gore for having a Jew on the Democratic ticket." Quote: "black voters "need to be suspicious" of a Jewish vice presidential candidate because Jews care more about money than anything else.") Anti-semitism is on the rise in France, as well as everywhere else in the world, including the US. Singling out France merely weakens your statements, although sweeping claims such as the one above it invalidate them to a certain extent as well.

We'll talk again when the US has had a Jewish head of state, like France has in the past.

Mistake No 1: That is not 'Europe's' body count, it was done by a professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Mistake No 2: Your link is a 'Letter to the Editor', without any further link to the AP report it indicates. (please provide it; I provided my link to the actual report reference above) It suggests that Taliban doctors exaggerated the civilian body count, as reported by, quote, "Afghan journalists." You do realize that Afghanistan had no free press under Taliban rule, thus any Afghan 'journalists' are going to be inevitably opposing the Taliban? Their reports are unverifiable, their motivation unclear. At best we have third-hand reports from second-hand sources. You can thus not claim that your one source invalidates Dr. Nathanson's report.

Even one of the most conservative sources on the matter, the Project on Defense Alternatives, which specializes in military research, <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html">concludes</a> that there were most likely at least between 1000-1300 civilian casualties, twice the 500-600 'at most' specified in the quoted AP report in the Letter to the Editor linked by you. That data was drawn solely from "Western press sources" and were "disinclined to accept on face value official Taliban reports or accounts from the Pakistani press", qualifying for the criteria mentioned in that letter. That additional report shows the lack of credibility in the source you linked, which in itself was little more than an opinion piece, concluding with a patriotic statement by G.W. Bush.


Mistake 3: Maggie's original piece referenced London, Belgium, and Rome. In the ad absurdum section of my reply where I held that several countries would not have been attacked, I included Belgium and Rome/Italy, but omitted Britain. In fact, I later stated that Britain was the only US ally in Europe.

This is why the absurdity of her earlier statement is so transparent: the US was under attack, and the only true US ally, the only country in Europe that would provide a take-off point for US bombers for the April 1986 bombing of Libya, the only European state that will unquestioningly fall into line, and thus the only logical enemy for those targeting the US.

Mistake 4: We've lived with the threat of terrorism for as long as you've been alive, Tony. I have friends who have lost relatives to IRA bombs. I have seen the RAF's effects in Germany first-hand; I've seen a man - in person - who was crippled by a terrorist assassination attempt. Please don't repeat the nonsense about Europe having its head in the sand: I've lived with terror and fear, right next door to me, for as long as I can think, and so have many others of us, in Britain, in Ireland, in Germany, in Spain, in Greece. For many of us, things have improved considerably over the 90s.

The embassy occupation was done by ostensible enemies of Saddam Hussein, wanting to hasten the attack on Iraq. Those are the types of men that Iraq will be liberated for. They didn't particularly resist arrest, by the way, mostly wanting to make a statement.

Mistake 5: Stop watching CNN, come live in Europe for a few years, then speak again: most of that anti-immigrant rhetoric is quite soft compared to that of the Republican right in the US. Fact. The much-maligned Dutch LPF is so 'virulent', as you put it, because the immigrant Muslims are directly threatening the tolerant and enlightened Dutch society, directly opposing the legalization of drugs, moral liberty, and a variety of other modern approaches. You yourself <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2005">questioned</a> such multiculturalism in a Cellar post recently.

Don't just blankly believe the ever-returning 'Europe is falling to the extreme right' droning overhyping, realize that most supposedly radical right-wing parties that are anywhere near government in Europe are nowhere near as radical as the Republican right. None of them seriously propose adherence to religious values, not even the 'Christian' Democrats in Germany, the party that was in power in Germany for much of the after-WW2 period. What is considered right-wing in much of Europe is at best middle-of-the-road in the US, especially seeing how European right-wingers often promote social responsibility through state-sponsored health insurance, decent unemployment benefits, etc. The only serious 'threat' was Le Pen in France, and for the French, very few seriously wanted him to win the presidential election: it was a protest vote.

Mistake 6: Sweeping generalizations about a continent with vastly diverse cultural, social, and political attitudews, when your sole information about it seems to be either from the Internet or the media, without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life, are a mistake. So are run-on sentences, but what the heck. :)

I myself mentioned in my last post that such generalizations are unwise (as I made them myself), but I tried to restrict myself to general brief observations on a specific subject, namely G.W. Bush's presidential legitimacy and the consequences thereof. As unfair as any generalized European snap judgments on one individual may be (and I am sure that they are), it is comparatively easy to conclude from the general mood in several European countries that common opinion on him is very low.

Mistake 7: I mentioned the US propping up of Saudi Arabia, which is much-criticized in Europe, despite Europe's dependency on Arab petrol. Moral rights and wrongs rarely depend on economic circumstances.

Mistake 8: No. My 'rant', as you call it (why the subliminal insult; why the need to be passive-aggressive?), mentioned that the attackers may have seen it as a reason. I did not say that it was right, it was merely seen as one (of many?) motive(s). For the record, I do not believe that it was the only reason, my own Political Science studies indicate that to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.

Allegations of anti-semitism are low; I explained one of the causes that made some of those attackers hate; I never specified whether it was right or wrong.

Maybe you wish to shout 'without us you'd all be speaking German' at this point? I appreciate the protection of NATO, although I myself did grow up in the country with the largest standing land army in Western Europe. I never said anything about NATO, or that anything makes the attacks 'ok', you are putting words in my mouth whilst simultaneously insulting me.

I understand that this may be an emotional subject for you, but ultimately rage won't get you anywhere.

This is patently absurd; is there any need to resort to insults because I mentioned that the US-Israel closeness was a factor?

I assume your German is good enough to have read the articles I specified; they come from one of Europe's most respected news weeklies. The details were quite specific.

The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil, and the US is currently <a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/18/wiraq18.xml">threatening</a> all Arab countries in the middle east, using 'be with us or against us' rhetoric. The US Ambassador to Germany has repeatedly complained about the German attitude towards the imminent attack on Iraq, repeatedly criticizing the government's refusal to stand with the US. Why all the sound and the fury if there's nothing there?

At this point, the sweeping nature of your statements becomes absurd. As an aside, unfortunately the US <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137298.html">can't</a> handle the Iraqi invasion (for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137295.html">whatever</a> reason)on their own.

Sometimes being wrong is worse.

(As an aside, I would appreciate it if you ceased to directly insult me or put words in my mouth. I've managed without doing so myself, I hope, and I'd like to see the same civility from you. Thanks in advance.)

Very true, I am in full agreement. The current EU move towards joint armed strike forces, with sovereignty over individual armies being ceased to a joint commanding authority is the first step in that direction. It is of course completely opposed by Britain, unwilling to cede any authority and sovereignty, and with that any pull coming from NATO and Britain's privileged role as America's European ally. So far Europe has relied on NATO, but pretty much all EMU countries are moving rapidly away from relying on NATO. The changeover will be interesting, and the US will lose all military influence in Europe, with NATO being more and more relegated to irrelevance, especially considering how Russia has been given a virtual veto right on NATO missions.
CNN has to fight a ruthless ratings war, with Fox News etc. gaining, or winning outright. The audience for CNN and the audience who spends maybe 20 minutes reading a Time Magazine article is somewhat different, attention spans being one factor, and the desire for opinion and editorializing rather than factual information being another factor. I do agree that Time, with its comparatively shallow reporting especially regarding world politics issues (compared to The Economist in the US/UK, or Der Spiegel in Germany) is not all that far away from CNN.

X.

Thanks Xugumad but there is a larger factor to it. I read time. I also the read The Guardian, The Economist, The Australian, The Age and many other print and online sources of news, opinion and analysis. I treat all with equal amounts of skepticism. The range just amongst the ones I listed includes both left and right leaning publications, there is a good reason for that.

I'm actually insulted you pointed that out. Not only have you completely missed the huge difference between Print and TV media but you've assumed I don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of the hierarchy of corporate America.

UT you claim I have no view of the 'real' America, you've just proven you have no concept of life here or in Europe. Touché. Thanks once again Xugumad for doing a far more through rebuttal than i did/would have and in a remarkably civilized tone under the circumstances.

No. Basically without getting bogged down in it the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite for it to happen, which is of course followed closely by the fundie brigade who see everything from S11 to the launch of vanilla coke for the last 500 years as a sign of the second coming. Most of them are in the Republican Party.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_basics.jpg
I saw an interesting question today. Would guns be so popular if by law they all had to be neon pink and fluffy.

Good response X. I won't go point by point because we've both had our say, and it gets old, but I do have some specific notes.

- It's a New Hampshire professor's body count: precisely. How far did one have to go to find the highest body count possible? New Hampshire. Halfway around the world. That alone should set off your bullshit detectors. How far off are the estimates? The "official" number is closer to 800, I think. How can the numbers be that far off? The prof relied on media and internet body counts because he was mad at the media not paying attention to body counts. Gee, I don't smell credibility here, do you?

Who reported his numbers and gave him credibility? The Guardian, the same rag that saw fit to proclaim Jenin was a massacre for its body count of 500 (later revised to 50).

At this point your bullshit detectors should be pinned, if they are not faulty.

- I watch CNN: yes I do, sometimes all day. I have no fantasies about what it is or isn't; I know exactly what it is. People from the right are aghast that I would watch such a leftist broadcast, which makes it funny that you guys want to fault me for paying attention to something mainstream and shallow. I should think I would earn some points just for not watching Fox?

The real reason I watch it is for the same reason some people like background music on all day. It's filler. It's a lifestyle, not a primary information source. But it does have the benefit of providing a lot of raw facts coming directly from sources in live press conferences. And the release of the Al Queda tapes this week has been priceless. That's great raw information.

- <i>The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil,</i>

You've picked up the most important word in their recent announcement: <i>soil</i>.

That new base in Qatar is well within range of Baghdad - if one takes the direct route. If one has to fly over the Persian Gulf and enter Iraq through Kuwaiti airspace, it's do-able but a little far. But fly over Saudi airspace - not on their <i>soil</i> - and the fighters can go more directly, without worrying about running out of fuel. Military planners must have been thrilled to hear that one; it's exactly what they needed. (Ground troops could be inserted through Kuwait this time, and it might even be preferable to hoofing it across the desert.)

- <i>...to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.</i>

The long-range goal is destruction and/or conversion of all the infidels and Islamic world domination under sharia, Islamic government. Step one was to convince all Muslims to declare Jihad on the US, which the Muslims would win by the grace of Allah. Once the US was destroyed, Israel would be a speed bump, and then Europe would be next.

I don't know why you Euros would have such patience for that kind of thing. Being lower on the food chain doesn't make you exempt. But you didn't even want to go into Afghanistan. Come on. I know war has been hard on you all but it works differently this time. Now we have night vision and laser-guided munitions and unmanned recon drones, and the bad guys blow up real good.

Wake up man. They want to kill you and they've proven to have both the will and the way.

- <i>"...without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life,"</i> Wow! You have a remarkable ability to remember pertinent personal facts from posts that happened long ago.

Nice to see you've been by a-human-right.com.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/guessing_s.jpg
Oleg is a Pink Pistols member, and has done a lot of wonderful photographic work supporting our cause.

The problem with "neon pink and fluffy" guns is that they would be terribly difficult to conceal or use. For the same reason the flourescent pink fanny packs with the built-in concealment holster are so unpopular that they're being sold off at a deep discount.

This image doesn't do the saturation of the colors on this thing justice, I've seen them in real life:

http://store3.yimg.com/I/cdnn_1600_2306276

There actually are handguns with pink grips, but they are indeed not very popular, although members of the Pink Pistols often joke that they're considering buying one.

http://www.cdnninvestments.com is the source, but the gun prohibitionisists have driven their ads for actual firearms offline. You'll have to download their catalog to actually see one.

Failing that, pink replacement handgrips for the venerable Colt Model 1911 are available:

http://store3.yimg.com/I/cdnn_1584_475100

You know, computers wouldn't be so popular if by law they all had to be colored flourescent-puke green and covered with rubber cement, either.

Well, I wouldn't expect to find them in the Democratic Party, that's for the Jews, queers, Blacks and Hispanics, right?

I do have to correct your assumpton--many of the true fundiefolk here--the tinfoil-hat squad of the apocalypse-watchers--are neither Republican nor Democrat. When push copmes to shove they're more likely to support a Republican, of course, but they're not happy with either mainstream party...they tend to form splinter parties of their own, much to the relief of the GOP, who finds them embarassing.

The idea that they're 1/3 of the *US population* (as opposed to a third of the participants in whatever survey that was) is beyond ridiculous. Do tell us what the methodology and other choices in that survey were and who the cohort was...certainly if I saw a survey where that was one of the possible respnses I don't think I'd bother to participate.

It certainly seems that your perception of the US is about as accurate as that of AU conveyed by "Crocodile Dundee". We're 280 million people living in 9 million square km.; movies, network TV and Time Magazine can't tell you our real story any more than they can accurately convey what China is about. You're ready to vacation in Cambodia...swing by the Great Satan sometime.

The only pink-gripped handguns I've seen weren't exactly made by reputable companies, which may have SOME contribution to their unpopularity. IIRC, they were made by Lorcin, and came in all sorts of colors. Lorcin is (well, was) well known for making cheap and crappy firearms.

Take a break to enjoy some Photochopped spoofs of the self-defense poster:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comm...?IDLink=278533

FWIW, they slam both sides pretty well.