They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to 
celebrate Thanksgiving.

Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and 
you spend a happy time with families.

They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying 
the turkey.

That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of 
those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept 
that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.

The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War 
Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)

Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being 
thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but 
especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done 
their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US 
foreign policy).

Anyone have any comments on this?

Can/is anything be/ing done?

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5qnnnvF10lia4U1@mid.individual.net...
> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>
> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
> you spend a happy time with families.
>
> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
enjoying
> the turkey.
>
> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
> those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but
accept
> that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>
> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>
> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done
> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US
> foreign policy).
>
> Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> Can/is anything be/ing done?

< http://www.va.gov/ > is the starting point for finding benefits
available to U.S. veterans.
< http://www1.va.gov/opa/vadocs/fedben.pdf > is a booklet
titled, "Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents".

Furthermore, each state has a program to assist veterans. For
example, benefits provided by the State of Florida may be
found at < http://www.floridavets.org/ > with a summary of
benefits given in < http://www.floridavets.org/pdf/fvbg.pdf >.

The United States and the states operate homes for "eligible"
veterans and "eligible" is a specific limitation.

There are advocacy groups and private initiatives through
organizations, such as, the American Legion
< http://www.legion.org/ >, chartered by Congress, and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars < http://www.vfw.org/ >, a
not-for-profit organization.

The local franchise of "Golden Corral"
< http://www.goldencorral.com/ > offers a free steak to
veterans on or about Veteran's Day (Nov 11). This year it
was Nov 12.

To the best of my knowledge there are no initiatives, specific
to veterans, to provide a Thanksgiving meal.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>
> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
> and you spend a happy time with families.
>
> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
> enjoying the turkey.
>
> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the
> lot of those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we
> can, but accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble"
> problem.
> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>
> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and
> done their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs
> of US foreign policy).
>
> Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> Can/is anything be/ing done?

Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
program that failed.

In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed was 
challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to 
society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The 
insane asylums were emptied.

Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their 
insults upon the masses.

The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they 
reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health 
failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence of 
liberty.

Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not enough 
to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity. 
Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony (in 
many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to 
voting).

Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.

If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are 
doing pretty well.

As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to 
>celebrate Thanksgiving.
>
>Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and 
>you spend a happy time with families.
>
>They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying 
>the turkey.
>
>That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of 
>those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept 
>that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>
>The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War 
>Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)

Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
duty military. 

Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.

Women are only 12% of the US military and less than 20% of homeless.

800K homeless is only 2/10 of 1 percent of the population. 

African-Americans are disproportionately homeless. They constitute 50% of the homeless,
12% of the US population. 

66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness. It
is unknown how many of the rest are former Cobol programmers. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S2101&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/homeless.shtml

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:42:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> enjoying the turkey.
>>
>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the
>> lot of those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we
>> can, but accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble"
>> problem.
>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>
>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and
>> done their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs
>> of US foreign policy).
>>
>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>
>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
>Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
>program that failed.
>
>In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed was 
>challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to 
>society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The 
>insane asylums were emptied.
>
>Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their 
>insults upon the masses.
>
>The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they 
>reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health 
>failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence of 
>liberty.
>
>Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not enough 
>to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity. 
>Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony (in 
>many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to 
>voting).
>
>Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
>
>If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are 
>doing pretty well.
>
>As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>

You are so far off base that I can't believe I'm wasting my time even
typing this short reply.  To those who don't live in the USA, none of
was posted here is anywhere near reality.

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"Grammar has gots to be one of the most importantest things ever?"
-- Anonymous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
> > celebrate Thanksgiving.
> >
> > Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
> > and you spend a happy time with families.
> >
> > They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
> > enjoying the turkey.
> >
<snip>
Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:

Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do anything to
help their friends, and to a certain extent even their enemies.  But the
average American is ingorant, agressive, and parochial.  At their worst,
they are capable of most intense bigotry.  You, sir, are not an example of
the best of Americans.

> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
> program that failed.
>
> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed
was
> challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
> society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The
> insane asylums were emptied.
>
> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
> insults upon the masses.
>

We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or manic-depressives?

> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they
> reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health
> failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence
of
> liberty.
>

I wonder if you have the guts and intellectual honesty to take up a homeless
lifestyle yourself?  Or even to go out and talk to a few dozen of them?  If
you take to the streets with only the clothing on your back and attempt to
survive you'll know whereof you speak, instead of making ridiculous
generalizations.

> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not
enough
> to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity.
> Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony
(in
> many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to
> voting).
>
> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.

No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?

>
> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are
> doing pretty well.
>
> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
>

I am appalled that a supposedly well-educated man, citizen of a country and
society that looks upon itself as a beacon of hope to the world, can spew
forth such venom. "Send them, the tempest-tossed, to me ...  I lift my lamp
beside the golden door".  Still, that's one of the benefits of living in a
liberal society, that you're allowed to do so.

PL

tlmfru wrote:
> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing
>>> to celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>>
>>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful
>>> for and you spend a happy time with families.
>>>
>>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>>> enjoying the turkey.
>>>
> <snip>
> Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:
>
> Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do
> anything to help their friends, and to a certain extent even their
> enemies.  But the average American is ingorant, agressive, and
> parochial.  At their worst, they are capable of most intense bigotry.
> You, sir, are not an example of the best of Americans.

I see you're posting from Canada. Many believe Canada is America's attic, 
you know, where we keep the crazy aunt. Let's see.

>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>> liberal program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally
>> disturbed was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard
>> to themselves or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in
>> supervised facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>>
>> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work
>> their insults upon the masses.
>>
>
> We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
> manic-depressives?
>
>> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That
>> they reached this choice - and through it drug addiction,
>> malnutrition, health failure - through impaired mental processes is
>> an unfortunate consequence of liberty.
>>
>
> I wonder if you have the guts and intellectual honesty to take up a
> homeless lifestyle yourself?  Or even to go out and talk to a few
> dozen of them?  If you take to the streets with only the clothing on
> your back and attempt to survive you'll know whereof you speak,
> instead of making ridiculous generalizations.
>
>> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not
>> enough to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political
>> popularity. Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those
>> convicted of a felony (in many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is
>> a life-long prohibition to voting).
>>
>> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes
>> generations.
>
> No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
>
>>
>> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs
>> are doing pretty well.
>>
>> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>>
>>
>
> I am appalled that a supposedly well-educated man, citizen of a
> country and society that looks upon itself as a beacon of hope to the
> world, can spew forth such venom. "Send them, the tempest-tossed, to
> me ...  I lift my lamp beside the golden door".  Still, that's one of
> the benefits of living in a liberal society, that you're allowed to
> do so.

Thank you for the well-expressed, emotionally felt, but factually devoid 
response. You make assumptions that are not supported by the facts. For 
example:

"We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or 
manic-depressives?"

I said "paranoics, manic-depressives, AND Democrats..." It was a JOKE, son. 
But, as with most jokes, some truth obtains. There have been several 
instances reported of Democratic operatives rounding up the homeless, with 
the promise of free cigarettes, in return for their vote.

And I'm sure Republican women have had abortions. But.

It is estimated that, in 1982, 70,000 abortions were performed in Florida. 
In 2000, those 70,000 would have been eligible to vote. Oh, some would have 
moved away, some died, some incarcerated, many would not have bothered, but, 
of the residual, the vast majority would have followed the political 
leanings of their parent(s). Let's say a 25,000 to 5,000 
liberal/conservative split. As you may recall, George Bush won Florida, and 
with it the presidency, by ~570 votes.

You are correct about America being a wonderful place, truely the land of 
opportunity. If I took to the streets with nothing but the clothes on my 
back, as you suggest, I have no doubt I could find a subsistence job in but 
a few hours, a better job within a week, and, by the time a month had gone 
by, be back to 75% of my current standard of living.

Where else but American can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man 
and marry Elvis Presley's daughter?

As for interacting with the homeless, I've worked with and talked to 
possibly thousands more than you - I spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.

And as for "being allowed to do so" in a liberal society, well, no, we're 
not allowed. A first grade boy who hugs a girl has to go to a sexual 
harrassment re-education camp, Christmas trees are banned as being 
"insensitive," and so on. Heck, a department supervisor was nearly tarred 
and feathered for using the word "Niggardly." No, a "liberal" society has 
driven the PC bus off the cliff.

HeyBub wrote:
<snip>

> "We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or 
> manic-depressives?"
> 
> I said "paranoics, manic-depressives, AND Democrats..." It was a JOKE, son. 

<snip>

> As for interacting with the homeless, I've worked with and talked to 
> possibly thousands more than you - I spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.

<snip>

In no particular order:

I suspect that a lot of homeless people don't have frequent contact with 
law enforcement;  you *may* have been dealing with a small and not 
necessarily representative sample.

As to your comment about paranoiacs, manic-depressives, and Democrats, I 
am a registered Democrat.  I have worked with Democrats, lived with 
Democrats, and, in more interesting times, slept with Democrats.  There 
have been occasions when I would say that in lumping Democrats with the 
clinically insane, you do the insane a disservice.

Louis

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to 
> celebrate Thanksgiving.
> 
> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and 
> you spend a happy time with families.
> 
> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be enjoying 
> the turkey.

That's because we have a Republican administration.  By reading the 
reports from our media, between 1993-2001, we didn't have any.  :)  (It 
sounds cynical, but it's the truth.  They didn't go away, they just 
weren't reported.)

> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of 
> those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but accept 
> that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.  HeyBub 
addressed (humorously, at times, but accurately) some of the reasons the 
US homeless find themselves without a home.

> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War 
> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
> 
> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being 
> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but 
> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done 
> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US 
> foreign policy).

I don't know of any organized "turkeys for vets" program.  However, that 
being said, there are lots of private charity programs to help those who 
need it.  The trick is, you can't just go out on the streets and force 
them to come in and eat.  For those who don't ask for the help, there's 
not much that can be done.

> Anyone have any comments on this?
> 
> Can/is anything be/ing done?

By far, the biggest charities in this country are private.  Nearly every 
city has a "rescue mission" run by a group of religious organizations, 
that provide meals and shelter.  My father used to go to the one in 
Knoxville, TN every Thursday, and talk with the (mostly) men while they 
were there.  The Salvation Army is another (very large) group that can 
provide these things.  Also, there are food banks that solicit donations 
(and may also be partly funded by individual charities, or part of a 
charity group such as the United Way) - in fact, my sons and I helped 
sort food at the local food bank this past Sunday.

Of course, state governments (partially funded by federal monies) do 
have programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing.  However, some 
places have waiting lists for subsidized housing, and most states now 
have limits on these programs, as they're intended to be a hand up, not 
a hand-out.

True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, 
only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make someone go hungry.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message 
news:13kdf0855imgu40@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5qnnnvF10lia4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
>> you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
> enjoying
>> the turkey.
>>
>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
>> those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but
> accept
>> that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>>
>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>
>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done
>> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US
>> foreign policy).
>>
>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>
>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
> < http://www.va.gov/ > is the starting point for finding benefits
> available to U.S. veterans.
> < http://www1.va.gov/opa/vadocs/fedben.pdf > is a booklet
> titled, "Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents".
>
> Furthermore, each state has a program to assist veterans. For
> example, benefits provided by the State of Florida may be
> found at < http://www.floridavets.org/ > with a summary of
> benefits given in < http://www.floridavets.org/pdf/fvbg.pdf >.
>
> The United States and the states operate homes for "eligible"
> veterans and "eligible" is a specific limitation.
>
> There are advocacy groups and private initiatives through
> organizations, such as, the American Legion
> < http://www.legion.org/ >, chartered by Congress, and the
> Veterans of Foreign Wars < http://www.vfw.org/ >, a
> not-for-profit organization.
>
> The local franchise of "Golden Corral"
> < http://www.goldencorral.com/ > offers a free steak to
> veterans on or about Veteran's Day (Nov 11). This year it
> was Nov 12.
>
> To the best of my knowledge there are no initiatives, specific
> to veterans, to provide a Thanksgiving meal.
>
>
Thanks Rick.

This is positive and, frankly, what I would expect/hope.

Sometimes the media just seize on the downside and don't mention the good 
work that is being done.

Pete. 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> enjoying the turkey.
>>
>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the
>> lot of those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we
>> can, but accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble"
>> problem.
>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>
>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and
>> done their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs
>> of US foreign policy).
>>
>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>
>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
> program that failed.
>
> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed 
> was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or 
> to society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. 
> The insane asylums were emptied.

Yes, a similar program happened here in NZ and also in England. In our 
population (just over 4 million) it doesn't matter too much, but in a larger 
population it can be disastrous...
>
> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their 
> insults upon the masses.

:-) I wonder how many Democrats went on to learn COBOL...:-)
>
> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they 
> reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health 
> failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence 
> of liberty.

I'm sure this is true for some, I just hope it isn't the case for the 
majority. In either case, there is still a responsibility of care for the 
rest of us... Rick's post mentioned a number of agencies that are in place 
to assist.
>
> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not 
> enough to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political 
> popularity. Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of 
> a felony (in many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long 
> prohibition to voting).

Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...

1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not considered 
fit to be part of society?

Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of 
rehabilitation that much less?

I could go with it for a specific period; maybe while they are in jail (then 
it simply reinforces that doing time is like "time out" where you can 
consider the error of your ways and you will have none of the rights or 
privileges you enjoy when NOT in jail), but "lifetime"? That kind of says: 
"We want no part of you and from now on you  are the "enemy"... ". So, 
people use their time in jail to get trained in further anti-social activity 
and a separate underclass is created that has no chance of ever being 
reabsorbed usefully into mainstream society.

Yes, I know there are some who make this choice early in their lives (for 
whatever reasons) and can never be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean we 
should withdraw all hope, or that we should give up and stop trying.

I guess, in a smaller society, we value our citizens more. I know there are 
bad Kiwis and I've met some... We have people who commit horrendous crimes, 
just like everywhere else on Earth. But we also identify with each other. 
When a Kiwi behaves badly, I feel it. (So do most of the people I know). 
Just as we exult when other Kiwis excel. It's a bit like being sad when a 
member of your family screws up; you don't approve and you wonder how they 
came to that, but you don't exclude them for life with no hope of living 
down what they did.

(Of course, for the very worst crimes (especially against children) there is 
a case for saying: "you are SO far  beyond the pale, we think the world 
would be a better place without you. Goodbye."  They won't have a referendum 
here on capital punishment because they know it would be a landslide in 
favour... As that would be a "retrograde step" for the Justice system, it is 
better to just not address it...)

Crime and punishment are probably the most complex issues we ever have to 
deal with, in any society.

My own view is that if there is the slightest chance of salvaging people, we 
should do so. And if there isn't, then let's not prolong the agony or impose 
a further burden on the taxpayer...


>
> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
>
> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are 
> doing pretty well.

It came from the TV news... I have no idea how accurate it is.

>
> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
>

I think this is "tongue-in-cheek", right :-)

Rick's post indicates that some things are being done.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:Y%F1j.359$so3.273@newsfe18.lga...
>
> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> > They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> > celebrate Thanksgiving.
>> >
>> > Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> > and you spend a happy time with families.
>> >
>> > They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> > enjoying the turkey.
>> >
> <snip>
> Assuming you, Heybub, are a US citizen:
>
> Americans at their best are wonderful, generous people who'll do anything 
> to
> help their friends, and to a certain extent even their enemies.  But the
> average American is ingorant, agressive, and parochial.  At their worst,
> they are capable of most intense bigotry.  You, sir, are not an example of
> the best of Americans.

Well, Peter, at least he has a sense of humour... :-)

(There is hope for any society in which that is demonstrated...)
>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal
>> program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed
> was
>> challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to
>> society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. 
>> The
>> insane asylums were emptied.
>>
>> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their
>> insults upon the masses.
>>
>
> We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or 
> manic-depressives?

I think it was a joke... (hope so :-)). Anyway, it made me smile...

>
>> The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That they
>> reached this choice - and through it drug addiction, malnutrition, health
>> failure - through impaired mental processes is an unfortunate consequence
> of
>> liberty.
>>
>
> I wonder if you have the guts and intellectual honesty to take up a 
> homeless
> lifestyle yourself?  Or even to go out and talk to a few dozen of them? 
> If
> you take to the streets with only the clothing on your back and attempt to
> survive you'll know whereof you speak, instead of making ridiculous
> generalizations.
>
>> Unfortunately, the influx of the insane in the 60's and 70's was not
> enough
>> to provide the liberals with sufficient, long-term, political popularity.
>> Their current strategy is to re-infranchise those convicted of a felony
> (in
>> many jurisdictions, a felony conviction is a life-long prohibition to
>> voting).
>>
>> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
>
> No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
>
>>
>> If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach programs are
>> doing pretty well.
>>
>> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>>
>>
>
> I am appalled that a supposedly well-educated man, citizen of a country 
> and
> society that looks upon itself as a beacon of hope to the world, can spew
> forth such venom. "Send them, the tempest-tossed, to me ...  I lift my 
> lamp
> beside the golden door".  Still, that's one of the benefits of living in a
> liberal society, that you're allowed to do so.

Whatever else HeyBub may be, he has demonstrated through long time posts 
here that he is not venomous. In fact, some of his posts are the most 
entertaining  I find here.

I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.

(A proud Texan with a background in Law Enforcement and a wicked sense of 
humour is a very good combination. If you were going to be arrested, you 
might hope it would be someone like HeyBub who was the arresting officer. 
:-))

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


>
> PL
>
>
>
> 

"Louis Krupp" <lkrupp@pssw.nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:13kejtef9cq6geb@corp.supernews.com...
> HeyBub wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> "We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or 
>> manic-depressives?"
>>
>> I said "paranoics, manic-depressives, AND Democrats..." It was a JOKE, 
>> son.
>
> <snip>
>
>> As for interacting with the homeless, I've worked with and talked to 
>> possibly thousands more than you - I spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.
>
> <snip>
>
> In no particular order:
>
> I suspect that a lot of homeless people don't have frequent contact with 
> law enforcement;  you *may* have been dealing with a small and not 
> necessarily representative sample.
>
> As to your comment about paranoiacs, manic-depressives, and Democrats, I 
> am a registered Democrat.  I have worked with Democrats, lived with 
> Democrats, and, in more interesting times, slept with Democrats.  There 
> have been occasions when I would say that in lumping Democrats with the 
> clinically insane, you do the insane a disservice.
>
> Louis

LOL!

(Doncha' just love politics.... ?)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
news:v6udk3l399oupmv3fcihlpkc7sn9nk9m6s@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" 
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>>celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>>Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and
>>you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>>They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be 
>>enjoying
>>the turkey.
>>
>>That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of
>>those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but 
>>accept
>>that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>>
>>The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>>Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>
> Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the 
> general
> population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans 
> and 1% are active
> duty military.
>
> Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 
> versus 30,875.
>
> Women are only 12% of the US military and less than 20% of homeless.
>
> 800K homeless is only 2/10 of 1 percent of the population.
>
> African-Americans are disproportionately homeless. They constitute 50% of 
> the homeless,
> 12% of the US population.
>
> 66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or 
> mental illness. It
> is unknown how many of the rest are former Cobol programmers.

Or even current ones... :-)?

>
> http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S2101&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_
> http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/homeless.shtml
>

Thanks for the interesting statistics, Robert.

I think the important thing here is knowing that help IS available if people 
choose to avail themselves of it.

No society could ever be considered "Great" if it shows no responsibility to 
its citizens, or is prepared to discard a certain sector of them.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make 
> someone go hungry.

A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys, IIRC)
was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the starving people
in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
location.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:qYSdndidOJ_SxtranZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to 
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for and 
>> you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be 
>> enjoying the turkey.
>
> That's because we have a Republican administration.  By reading the 
> reports from our media, between 1993-2001, we didn't have any.  :)  (It 
> sounds cynical, but it's the truth.  They didn't go away, they just 
> weren't reported.)
>
>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot of 
>> those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but 
>> accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.  HeyBub 
> addressed (humorously, at times, but accurately) some of the reasons the 
> US homeless find themselves without a home.
>
>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War 
>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>
>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being 
>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but 
>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done 
>> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US 
>> foreign policy).
>
> I don't know of any organized "turkeys for vets" program.  However, that 
> being said, there are lots of private charity programs to help those who 
> need it.  The trick is, you can't just go out on the streets and force 
> them to come in and eat.  For those who don't ask for the help, there's 
> not much that can be done.
>
>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>
>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
> By far, the biggest charities in this country are private.  Nearly every 
> city has a "rescue mission" run by a group of religious organizations, 
> that provide meals and shelter.  My father used to go to the one in 
> Knoxville, TN every Thursday, and talk with the (mostly) men while they 
> were there.  The Salvation Army is another (very large) group that can 
> provide these things.  Also, there are food banks that solicit donations 
> (and may also be partly funded by individual charities, or part of a 
> charity group such as the United Way) - in fact, my sons and I helped sort 
> food at the local food bank this past Sunday.
>
> Of course, state governments (partially funded by federal monies) do have 
> programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing.  However, some places 
> have waiting lists for subsidized housing, and most states now have limits 
> on these programs, as they're intended to be a hand up, not a hand-out.
>
> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, 
> only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make someone go hungry.
>

Thanks Daniel.

I think the posts in this thread have demonstrated that there is help 
available. As you noted, sometimes people are too proud (or too screwed up 
as a result of their experiences) to ask for help.

It isn't just about having Agencies in place; it is also about whether 
people care or not.

It seems that at least the posters in CLC certainly DO care :-)

It doesn't do any of us any harm to stop a moment and reflect on the less 
fortunate, as we enjoy the fruits of our labour.

As Christmas approaches here, I'm glad that all the kids I know will have a 
good time, but I'm also conscious there are kids I don't know, who won't... 
Fortunately, there are actions I can (and will) take to do something about 
this, even if in a small way.

Is it conscience? Should we feel guilty because we are doing well?

I'd like to think we shouldn't, provided opportunity is more or less equal 
for all.

And I don't think the spectre of "the Beggar at the Gate" should spoil our 
enjoyment of happy times.

But we shouldn't scorn the Beggar, either.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make 
>> someone go hungry.
> 
> A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys, IIRC)
> was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the starving people
> in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
> the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
> The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
> the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
> unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
> circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
> etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
> in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
> to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
> a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
> location.

The cover for this month's Limbaugh Letter (supported by the lead 
article) summed it up rather succinctly, I think...

"Every American Is a Have"

(as opposed to a have-not)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> It doesn't do any of us any harm to stop a moment and reflect on the less 
> fortunate, as we enjoy the fruits of our labour.
> 
> As Christmas approaches here, I'm glad that all the kids I know will have a 
> good time, but I'm also conscious there are kids I don't know, who won't... 
> Fortunately, there are actions I can (and will) take to do something about 
> this, even if in a small way.

Everyone's small actions add up - it's when people think "Oh, *my* 
insignificant contribution doesn't matter" and stop contributing that 
there's a problem.  :)

> Is it conscience? Should we feel guilty because we are doing well?

Heck no.  :)

> I'd like to think we shouldn't, provided opportunity is more or less equal 
> for all.

True.  I've seen many people who've said "I can't" before they tried 
actually find out that they could.  It takes courage, sometimes, and it 
certainly takes motivation.  Sometimes it takes some swallowing of the 
pride as well.  Some people would rather go without than do menial work. 
  (This goes a long way to explaining our entire illegal immigrant 
situation over here ("doing 'the jobs American's won't do'"), but that's 
a different topic for a different newsgroup, for people who have more 
time than I do.)

> And I don't think the spectre of "the Beggar at the Gate" should spoil our 
> enjoyment of happy times.
> 
> But we shouldn't scorn the Beggar, either.

True.  Occasionally, I'll offer food to one who claims he's hungry.  In 
the past few years, *without exception* they've declined.  It's not food 
they're after, it's money; usually blown on alcohol.  But then, we're 
back to the whole "choices put them there" thing.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:09:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>
>I think the important thing here is knowing that help IS available if people 
>choose to avail themselves of it.
>
>No society could ever be considered "Great" if it shows no responsibility to 
>its citizens, or is prepared to discard a certain sector of them.

Last week I talked to a young black man about the difference between American cities. He
said he judges people by how well they treat their homeless. It was obvious he was
speaking from personal experience. He said the people of Houston TX were the best. Every
Sunday they set up banquets in the parks. Having lived in Houston three months ago, and in
Texas most of my life, I commented that Houston is not a very Texan city, Houstonians act
and talk like they're from Louisiana.  He asked what a Texan is like. I answered arrogant
and redneck, offered Dallas as an example. 

We agreed that Houston has three 'downtown' districts of high rise buildings -- the old
downtown, the medical district and the Galleria district, where I  lived. I said it was so
materialistic and yuppie oriented that you could navigate to the Galleria based on the
density of Starbucks.  When you are across the street from it on Westheimer, there is a
Starbucks every half block. 

My memory of Houston is that it's the best 'foodie' city in the US. Supermarkets in the
Galleria district are first rate, and there are many world-class restaurants. I couldn't
get over the large number of Middle Eastern cafeterias patronized by ordinary Americans.
My favorites were Vietnamese restaurants out by the west loop and coffee shops selling
beignets (French/New Orleans style donuts). 

If you doubt your own judgement, there's an easy way to assess food quality. Go by the
number of beautiful women. They seem to have an instinctive affinity for good food. The
H.E.B. supermarket on Westheimer has the highest concentration of beautiful women shoppers
I've ever seen. 

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> True.  Occasionally, I'll offer food to one who claims he's hungry.  In the past few years, *without exception* they've declined. 
> It's not food they're after, it's money; usually blown on alcohol.  But then, we're back to the whole "choices put them there" 
> thing.

My experience is similar. When approached by a street person who asks
for money, saying they're hungry, I have never had one person accept
a meal when offered. In fact, if your purpose was to get them to leave
you alone as quickly as possible, that would be a good strategy.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>
>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>> enjoying the turkey.

[snip]

>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>
>Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
>program that failed.
>
>In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed was 
>challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves or to 
>society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised facilities. The 
>insane asylums were emptied.

The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public record 
and easily researched.  

To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to 
themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed 'traceable to 
a failed liberal program' is the result of some rather... curious 
thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know What's Best For You' sort, 
and most likely ignorant of certain Truths which are held Self-Evident.

DD

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...
>
> 1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
> 2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not
> considered fit to be part of society?
>
> Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of
> rehabilitation that much less?

Sure. But there's the bigger view.

There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:

1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)

A condemmed man once plead to the Mayor of London as they stood together on 
the gallows: "Whatcha hangin' me for, gov'nor? Hangin' me won't bring back 
Louie?" To which the mayor responded: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you 
killed Louie, we're hanging you so that others won't kill."

Anyway, it is felt that a life-long penalty operates to discourage others 
from rascally behavior. The following sanctions are but a small example of 
things a formerly convicted felon cannot do once released from confinement 
(varies by jurisdiction):

1. Vote
2. Be an accountant, medical doctor, dentist, architect, nurse, licensed 
engineer, commercial airline pilot, public school teacher or school bus 
driver, notary pubic, lawyer, or hold elective office.
3. Be a master of a ship.
4. Own an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages.
5. Obtain a license to transport hazardous chemicals.
6. Own an pest-control company, beauty parlor, or nursery (either child or 
plant).
7. Purchase or possess a firearm.
8. Become a securities dealer, stock broker, real-estate broker, or obtain a 
financial bond.
9. Serve (in most cases) in the military.
10. Become a peace officer, prison guard, fire-fighter, forest ranger, court 
baliff, or court stenographer.
11. Involved, in any way, in a gambling establishment.

These are SOME of the activities prohibited by law.

As a practical matter, private employment in banks, nuclear power plants, 
commercial transportation, pharmacies, and thousands of other fields is 
gainsayed simply because the private employer would open himself to 
substantial real and legal risks.


> Crime and punishment are probably the most complex issues we ever
> have to deal with, in any society.
>
> My own view is that if there is the slightest chance of salvaging
> people, we should do so. And if there isn't, then let's not prolong
> the agony or impose a further burden on the taxpayer...

The current (unstated) view is by keeping them locked up during the 
testosterone-abundant (and reproductive) years, the crime problem will 
diminish.

With 2.25 million people incarcerated in the U.S., we have ample experience 
with the problem.
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

>> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes
>> generations. If your 800,000 no-turkey number is correct, then outreach 
>> programs
>> are doing pretty well.
>
> It came from the TV news... I have no idea how accurate it is.
>
>> As to your last question, "Can/is anything be/ing done?" well, no.
>
> I think this is "tongue-in-cheek", right :-)

Well, lots has been/is being done. As for results, well, no. But the effort 
does make the benefactor feel good, so I guess that's worth something.

All manner of government-sponsored programs have been tried. Over and over 
again. Homes, counseling, physical check-ups, jobs, training, education, and 
so on. Virtually every single effort for thirty years has reported miniscule 
success. For example, the success rate at federal drug-treatment facilities 
(success = drug-free for one year after release) has never exceeded six 
percent.

>
> Rick's post indicates that some things are being done.

So was mine. With 9-12 million homeless, having only 800,000 without turkey 
shows various outreach programs are successful. As long as success is 
measured in turkey units...

Things CAN change. Hurricane Katrina forced large-scale relocations into 
areas that did not have a generational tradition of handouts and failure. I 
imagine any number of Black men from the ghettos of New Orleans now faced 
with a job in Salt Lake City: "You mean all I has to do is stand behind the 
counter and make Slurpees? And get PAID for it? Damn, man, that's cool!" 
Very many of the former residents of New Orleans, some tenth-generation 
welfare recipients, are now productive members of their new communities.

I had one Houston police officer tell me that all of the Katrina evacuees 
he's arrested for walking down the sidewalk with a Malt Liquor in one hand, 
a joint in the other, and a pistol in the belt, are astonished that they've 
hit an arrestable offense! In N.O., they got a citation or a "Go forth and 
sin no more" lecture. 

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>> liberal program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally
>> disturbed was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard
>> to themselves or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in
>> supervised facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>
> The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public
> record and easily researched.
>
> To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to
> themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed
> 'traceable to a failed liberal program' is the result of some
> rather... curious thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know
> What's Best For You' sort, and most likely ignorant of certain Truths
> which are held Self-Evident.

No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental institution 
becase one is a danger to himself or the community is still valid.

What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be the ONLY 
condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous loons in the name of 
liberty was the failed program to which I referred.

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most
>> cases, only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make
>> someone go hungry.
>
> A few presidential elections ago one of the candidates (Alan Keys,
> IIRC) was challenged by a liberal and asked "What about all the
> starving people in the U.S.?" Keys responded "Okay, how many people
> starved to death in the U.S. so far this year? How about last year?
> How about the last decade?" The liberal was speachless, and didn't
> have a response. Keys knew, unlike the liberals in the U.S., that
> starvation in this country is virtually unknown. In the extremely
> rare cases, it's always because of special circumstances, like severe
> child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness, etc. It's never
> because there is no food available to those who are hungry in this
> society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program to
> help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is
> almost a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a
> single location.

There has never been a famine in a democracy. 

In article <13kgg2vco49ttb6@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>>> liberal program that failed.
>>>
>>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally
>>> disturbed was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard
>>> to themselves or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in
>>> supervised facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>>
>> The defunding of mental health institututions is a matter of public
>> record and easily researched.
>>
>> To call the requirement that a person be shown to be a danger to
>> themselves or others in order to be involuntarily committed
>> 'traceable to a failed liberal program' is the result of some
>> rather... curious thinking, probably of a freedom-hating 'We Know
>> What's Best For You' sort, and most likely ignorant of certain Truths
>> which are held Self-Evident.
>
>No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental institution 
>becase one is a danger to himself or the community is still valid.

How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.

>
>What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be the ONLY 
>condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous loons in the name of 
>liberty was the failed program to which I referred.

Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to be 
determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much tricker is it 
to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere 'loon'?  What you seem to 
be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you saw that hurtful, hate-filled 
jab I made as an insult?  It was a *joke*, you know... what's the matter, 
Sensitive Folks are now complaining about 'jokes'?') is that it would be 
of benefit for a society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty 
based on, say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political 
system... you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.

'Those sound like sentiments from Liberals... everyone knows that 
disagreeing with My Party's Line is a surefire indication of criminal or 
lunatic tendencies so let's lock 'em up, boys!'

DD

In article <13kgfmra48gpuaf@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> Hmmmm.... let me see if I have this right...
>>
>> 1. Someone commits an anti-social act. (felony)
>> 2. The society then disenfranchises him/her because they are not
>> considered fit to be part of society?
>>
>> Doesn't that simply alienate them further and make the chance of
>> rehabilitation that much less?
>
>Sure. But there's the bigger view.
>
>There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:
>
>1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
>2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
>3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
>(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)

Most interesting... you might want to go through Kai Ericksson's book 
'Wayward Puritans' for another view on how the waya society deals with 
behaviors is done for at least one other reason than these... and it may 
be, perhaps, the most widely-affecting of all.

>
>A condemmed man once plead to the Mayor of London as they stood together on 
>the gallows: "Whatcha hangin' me for, gov'nor? Hangin' me won't bring back 
>Louie?" To which the mayor responded: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you 
>killed Louie, we're hanging you so that others won't kill."

.... and ever since then folks haven't been killin'... and I am the King of 
England.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental
>> institution becase one is a danger to himself or the community is
>> still valid.
>
> How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.

I just report the facts, but I appreciate the sentiment.

>
>>
>> What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be
>> the ONLY condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous
>> loons in the name of liberty was the failed program to which I
>> referred.
>
> Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to
> be determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much
> tricker is it to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere
> 'loon'?

Yeah, I agree. Loonishness is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

> What you seem to be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you
> saw that hurtful, hate-filled jab I made as an insult?  It was a
> *joke*, you know... what's the matter, Sensitive Folks are now
> complaining about 'jokes'?')

Well, yeah. And other things that offend them. Just the other day a Kansas 
city Boy Scout was suspended from school for ten days for using the word 
"noose."

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4982891&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with a 
skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um, 
institutionalized is considered an outrage.

> is that it would be of benefit for a
> society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty based on,
> say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political system...
> you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.

It's not what they THINK that's the issue, it's what they DO. Used to be: 
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, 
to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It's probably still against the law to steal bread. In some jurisdictions.

In article <13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I didn't make myself clear. Being committed to a mental
>>> institution becase one is a danger to himself or the community is
>>> still valid.
>>
>> How very gracious of you to allow for such a possibility.
>
>I just report the facts, but I appreciate the sentiment.

What facts one deems worthy of reporting might, perhaps, say more about 
one'sself than about anything else.

>>> What the ACLU wanted - and got - was the requirement that danger be
>>> the ONLY condition for incarceration. Loosing the non-dangerous
>>> loons in the name of liberty was the failed program to which I
>>> referred.
>>
>> Given that it is difficulty enough to determine how individuals ar to
>> be determined 'dangers to themselves or to others'... how much
>> tricker is it to deprive a citizen of Liberty for being a mere
>> 'loon'?
>
>Yeah, I agree. Loonishness is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

What a coincidence... so do e'er-so-many other folks.  For what reasons 
might your self-confessed knowledge be more worthy of action than theirs?

>
>> What you seem to be advocating - in your 'jokes' ('Oh, you
>> saw that hurtful, hate-filled jab I made as an insult?  It was a
>> *joke*, you know... what's the matter, Sensitive Folks are now
>> complaining about 'jokes'?')
>
>Well, yeah. And other things that offend them. Just the other day a Kansas 
>city Boy Scout was suspended from school for ten days for using the word 
>"noose."
>
>http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4982891&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels! - used 
to say, 'Mail Gets Delivered, Garbage Picked Up, Trains Run On Time... 
these aren't headlines, at least not usually.'

Decades on back I was consulting in Manhattan and one of my co-consultants 
(a emigre from the Ukraine) accosted me on my arrival, saying 'Did you see 
that?  Right there, in the headlines, on the front page, two Jewish boys 
got beat up by a bunch of drunken Irish students on a college campus!'

I replied 'New York City, I believe, has been said to contain several 
million Jews... two get beat up and it makes the headlines?  Life must be 
very, very good.'

>
>Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with a 
>skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um, 
>institutionalized is considered an outrage.

When such a thing happens to you I think you might be able to test that 
assertion... until then, consider it relegated to the appropriate file.

>
>> is that it would be of benefit for a
>> society to be able to derprive citizens of their liberty based on,
>> say... oh, I dunno, disagreement with a certain political system...
>> you know, the way they used to do it in the USSR.
>
>It's not what they THINK that's the issue, it's what they DO.

'Disagreement' is a doing, last I looked... and lumping folks who 
disagreed with the Politically Correct Line was, in the USSR, at times a 
ticket to the asylum.

I will do my best, in all manner, to make sure that this is not in *my* 
United States of America, thanks much.  You don't like it, take it to 
Cuba.

DD

Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5qp7loF11bh8qU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:Y%F1j.359$so3.273@newsfe18.lga...
> >
> > HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Pete Dashwood wrote:
****> Well, Peter, at least he has a sense of humour... :-)
> >>
> >> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work
their
> >> insults upon the masses.
> >>
> >
> > We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
> > manic-depressives?
>
***> I think it was a joke... (hope so :-)). Anyway, it made me smile...
>
> >> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes generations.
> >
> > No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
> >
>
> Whatever else HeyBub may be, he has demonstrated through long time posts
> here that he is not venomous. In fact, some of his posts are the most
> entertaining  I find here.
>
> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
>

Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by P.
Dashwood:

I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
joking.  If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so, too,
but he wasn't.  If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find a
single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.

There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny if
they are directed at someone else.  Turn the remarks against them and their
best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke.  Such persons
find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
that they don't like.

I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of someone
else.  Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic example.

Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and other
joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and which
are meant to be factual.

I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.  We
shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console ourselves with the
thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.

PL

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:5qp9sqF119au0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:qYSdndidOJ_SxtranZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to 
>>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>>
>>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for 
>>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>>
>>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be 
>>> enjoying the turkey.
>>
>> That's because we have a Republican administration.  By reading the 
>> reports from our media, between 1993-2001, we didn't have any.  :)  (It 
>> sounds cynical, but it's the truth.  They didn't go away, they just 
>> weren't reported.)
>>
>>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the lot 
>>> of those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we can, but 
>>> accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble" problem.
>>
>> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.  HeyBub 
>> addressed (humorously, at times, but accurately) some of the reasons the 
>> US homeless find themselves without a home.
>>
>>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War 
>>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>>
>>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being 
>>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but 
>>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done 
>>> their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US 
>>> foreign policy).
>>
>> I don't know of any organized "turkeys for vets" program.  However, that 
>> being said, there are lots of private charity programs to help those who 
>> need it.  The trick is, you can't just go out on the streets and force 
>> them to come in and eat.  For those who don't ask for the help, there's 
>> not much that can be done.
>>
>>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>>
>>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>>
>> By far, the biggest charities in this country are private.  Nearly every 
>> city has a "rescue mission" run by a group of religious organizations, 
>> that provide meals and shelter.  My father used to go to the one in 
>> Knoxville, TN every Thursday, and talk with the (mostly) men while they 
>> were there.  The Salvation Army is another (very large) group that can 
>> provide these things.  Also, there are food banks that solicit donations 
>> (and may also be partly funded by individual charities, or part of a 
>> charity group such as the United Way) - in fact, my sons and I helped 
>> sort food at the local food bank this past Sunday.
>>
>> Of course, state governments (partially funded by federal monies) do have 
>> programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing.  However, some 
>> places have waiting lists for subsidized housing, and most states now 
>> have limits on these programs, as they're intended to be a hand up, not a 
>> hand-out.
>>
>> True, not everyone has "a turkey" on Thanksgiving - but in most cases, 
>> only stubborn pride or other personal choice would make someone go 
>> hungry.
>>
>
> Thanks Daniel.
>
> I think the posts in this thread have demonstrated that there is help 
> available. As you noted, sometimes people are too proud (or too screwed up 
> as a result of their experiences) to ask for help.
>
> It isn't just about having Agencies in place; it is also about whether 
> people care or not.
>
> It seems that at least the posters in CLC certainly DO care :-)
>
> It doesn't do any of us any harm to stop a moment and reflect on the less 
> fortunate, as we enjoy the fruits of our labour.
>
> As Christmas approaches here, I'm glad that all the kids I know will have 
> a good time, but I'm also conscious there are kids I don't know, who 
> won't... Fortunately, there are actions I can (and will) take to do 
> something about this, even if in a small way.
>
> Is it conscience? Should we feel guilty because we are doing well?
>
> I'd like to think we shouldn't, provided opportunity is more or less equal 
> for all.
>
> And I don't think the spectre of "the Beggar at the Gate" should spoil our 
> enjoyment of happy times.
>
> But we shouldn't scorn the Beggar, either.
>
> Pete.
> -- 
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>

Somtimes I do feel guilty about doing so well.  It was quite a shock to hear 
just how many homeless vets there are.  This was in the news here recently, 
so maybe it is just now finding its way to New Zealand or you just came 
across it.  I don't know of specific programs for helping vets on 
Thanksgiving but there are many places in this area where any poor person 
can get a free Thanksgiving meal.  The rest of the year besides Thanksgiving 
and Christmas are probably harder.

Of course I am well aware  that there are many homeless people.  When I 
worked downtown in Washington DC there were plenty of them begging, sleeping 
on steam vents and elsewhere, and doing other things best left undescribed. 
There are homless shelters but many will not go there even on the coldest 
nights.  They do go around giving them blankets and encouraging them to go 
to shelters.  Recently I saw some camping out in tents and lawn chairs in 
the median strip of the Southwest Freeway.  Many of them are alcoholic and 
want money for booze. Some even have babies and small children with them 
when soliciting money.  They say they are hungry but they want money for 
booze.  One lady made sandwichs and offered them but they were refused. 
This last summer on my many trips to and from he hospital on guy was honest 
enough to say on his sign that he wanted a beer. (Ok this is a 
generalization and is not true in all cases).  Once  I had a part time job 
at the Drug Enforcement Agency at night in a fairly run down area with 
prostitutes etc.   I used to go out to a liquor store to get diet soda. 
There was a very dirty and smelly guy in front of me who bought a lot of 
liquor.  He pulled out a large roll of cash to pay for it. This happened on 
a regular basis. Apaprently begging can be quite lucrative.

So what's my point?  I don't feel that I have the expertise to deal directly 
with these people, although I have given some of them some small amounts of 
cash a very few times. Later I always wonderd if I did more harm than good. 
I do give to the Salvation Army via the Combined Federal Campaign as I think 
they are much better prepared than I am to deal with these homeless persons. 
Do I give enough? How much is enough? Some passages in the Bible indicate a 
tithe of 10%.  I doubt if I am giving that much although I don't actually 
try to keep track. I tend to put myself and my family first as I have been 
saving and investing earnestly for 15 to 20 years in order to supplement my 
retirement, part of which will come from social security, which future 
solvancy is in doubt. I do know that if asked to part with  all my "great 
wealth" like the story of the rich young ruler I would find it impossible to 
do so.  The flowers of the field are cared for but they are mighty cold in 
winter.  I guess I personally feel a lot of angst about all of this. I did 
up my contributions for next year partly because of the homeless vets news 
but it is hard to know how much is enough since even giving everthing will 
not likely solve the problem. I think a lot of effort is being made but the 
problem seems to be growing. 

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:5qp6v0F118t5lU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> They just ran a news item here mentioning that the US is preparing to
>>> celebrate Thanksgiving.
>>>
>>> Greetings to all concerned. Hope you all have much to be thankful for
>>> and you spend a happy time with families.
>>>
>>> They also noted in passing that 800,000 American homeless won't be
>>> enjoying the turkey.
>>>
>>> That is a sad thought, but we have all become pretty inured to the
>>> lot of those less fortunate. We feel sorry, do what we can where we
>>> can, but accept that poverty is part of  life and an "insoluble"
>>> problem.
>>> The thing that astonished me was that 25% of these homeless are War
>>> Veterans. (Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan and the Gulf)
>>>
>>> Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being
>>> thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but
>>> especially not those who have rendered service to their country and
>>> done their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs
>>> of US foreign policy).
>>>
>>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>>
>>> Can/is anything be/ing done?
>>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
>> program that failed.
>>
>> In the case at hand, the institutionalization of the mentally disturbed 
>> was challenged on the grounds that many were not a hazard to themselves 
>> or to society and, therefore, should not be placed in supervised 
>> facilities. The insane asylums were emptied.
>
> Yes, a similar program happened here in NZ and also in England. In our 
> population (just over 4 million) it doesn't matter too much, but in a 
> larger population it can be disastrous...
>>
>> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work their 
>> insults upon the masses.
>
<snip>

I thought it was the lawyers and the ACLU that got them set free. 

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>Can/is anything be/ing done?

Retraining is available to Cobol programmers. Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed. 

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:Bq52j.4725$ip1.1415@newsfe21.lga...
>
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5qp7loF11bh8qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
>> news:Y%F1j.359$so3.273@newsfe18.lga...
>> >
>> > HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:13kdm6jfaq3t0e0@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> ****> Well, Peter, at least he has a sense of humour... :-)
>> >>
>> >> Paranoics, Manic-Depressives, and democrats were sent forth to work
> their
>> >> insults upon the masses.
>> >>
>> >
>> > We take it, then, that Democrats are all paranoics and/or
>> > manic-depressives?
>>
> ***> I think it was a joke... (hope so :-)). Anyway, it made me smile...
>>
>> >> Republicans have to rely on the Roe Effect, but that takes 
>> >> generations.
>> >
>> > No Republican woman ever has had or ever will have an abortion?
>> >
>>
>> Whatever else HeyBub may be, he has demonstrated through long time posts
>> here that he is not venomous. In fact, some of his posts are the most
>> entertaining  I find here.
>>
>> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
>>
>
> Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by 
> P.
> Dashwood:
>
> I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
> joking.  If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so, too,
> but he wasn't.  If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find a
> single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.

That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.

He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.

His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were. Venomous it 
wasn't.

Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
It is the juxtaposition of these ideas which makes it amusing.

>
> There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny if
> they are directed at someone else.

Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily 
offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.

>Turn the remarks against them and their
> best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke.  Such persons
> find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
> that they don't like.
>
> I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of 
> someone
> else.

Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)

I don't recall the "panning" you refer to but I'd agree that SOME humour can 
consist of making fun of people and situations. In general, this is not the 
best source of humour and most posters here would avoid it. (That's probably 
why there was general disagreement with your point.) Most of us give and 
take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not "meant 
to wound".

>Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic example.
>

The key point here is "if intended"...

> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and other
> joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and which
> are meant to be factual.

Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point; for the 
most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.


> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.  We
> shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console ourselves with the
> thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.

And you don't think that's offensive?

Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are 
lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is meant 
to wound. See the difference?

I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic by 
nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you wouldn't 
normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't rise 
to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.

It was not meant to wound, Peter.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>
> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar with 
> a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that he be, um, 
> institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>
ROFL!

Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his grave.... 
laughing...:-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

tlmfru wrote:
> I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
> someone else.  Heybub's remarks, if intended that way, make a classic
> example.
>
> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and
> other joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny
> and which are meant to be factual.

It's called "gallows humor."

>
> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.
> We shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console ourselves
> with the thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.

While many Americans view Canada as "America's attic," the place we keep our 
crazy aunts. 

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>
> ROFL!
>
> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
> grave.... laughing...:-)

Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street. 

Charles Hottel wrote:
>
> Somtimes I do feel guilty about doing so well.

Don't be. The poor can't give to charity. In the 13th century, Maimonides 
postulated the (I think) twelve degrees of charity. The highest on the list 
was to loan someone funds so that he could start his own business. 'Course 
the Rambam was Jewish...


> It was quite a shock
> to hear just how many homeless vets there are.  This was in the news
> here recently, so maybe it is just now finding its way to New Zealand
> or you just came across it.  I don't know of specific programs for
> helping vets on Thanksgiving but there are many places in this area
> where any poor person can get a free Thanksgiving meal.  The rest of
> the year besides Thanksgiving and Christmas are probably harder.
>
> So what's my point?  I don't feel that I have the expertise to deal
> directly with these people, although I have given some of them some
> small amounts of cash a very few times. Later I always wonderd if I
> did more harm than good. I do give to the Salvation Army via the
> Combined Federal Campaign as I think they are much better prepared
> than I am to deal with these homeless persons. Do I give enough? How
> much is enough? Some passages in the Bible indicate a tithe of 10%. I 
> doubt if I am giving that much although I don't actually try to
> keep track. I tend to put myself and my family first as I have been
> saving and investing earnestly for 15 to 20 years in order to
> supplement my retirement, part of which will come from social
> security, which future solvancy is in doubt.

If you have a job,  it is almost impossible NOT to contribute more than 10% 
of your earnings to "charity." They call it "taxation."

In article <13kk130bmimcoe9@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
>> grave.... laughing...:-)
>
>Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street. 

Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private 
hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of 
trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fie681$j6f$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <13kk130bmimcoe9@corp.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>>>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>>>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>>>
>>> ROFL!
>>>
>>> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
>>> grave.... laughing...:-)
>>
>>Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>
> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
> hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>

Would that be the Kublai Khan Korporation that bought it?  :-)

It is many years since I was in New York (around about 1994, I think). I 
remember being warned at the hotel not to go strolling down there at night, 
so, of course, I did. I don't recall seeing anything untoward, and my stroll 
was uneventful.

I wasn't game to try Central Park at night, but it was certainly pleasant in 
the daytime :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>
> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into
> private hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might
> have a bit of trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>

No, I haven't been to NY since Rudy cleaned it up. I prefer a challenge. 
Perhaps I should have said:

"... walk any street that has the '42nd Street Regulars' "

I do remember having dinner with my son at the Howard Johnson's on Times 
Square. The waiter asked if we wanted a booth next to a window so we could 
enjoy the floor show. 

In article <5qvqq5F11lra1U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fie681$j6f$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <13kk130bmimcoe9@corp.supernews.com>,
>> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
>>>>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
>>>>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>>>>>
>>>> ROFL!
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
>>>> grave.... laughing...:-)
>>>
>>>Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>>
>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
>> hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
>> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>>
>
>Would that be the Kublai Khan Korporation that bought it?  :-)

I'd doubt it, Mr Dashwood... in the United States of America folks tend to 
be a bit wary of naming organisations with words that can be reduced to 
'KKK', see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_klux_klan .

>It is many years since I was in New York (around about 1994, I think). I 
>remember being warned at the hotel not to go strolling down there at night, 
>so, of course, I did. I don't recall seeing anything untoward, and my stroll 
>was uneventful.

I've spent a fair amount of time in a variety of different decades in 
that area and my experiences are likewise, Mr Dashwood... but my 
experiences might not be those of everyone else.

DD

In article <13klgujge1a7leb@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>>
>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into
>> private hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might
>> have a bit of trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>>
>
>No, I haven't been to NY since Rudy cleaned it up.

Places change over time... perhaps one might revisit a decades-old 
prejudice and apply to it the changes the intervening years have wrought.

>I prefer a challenge. 

Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their opposition 
with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated, as well.

DD

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Surely there must be programs to prevent servicepeople from just being 
>thrown on the scrapheap? We wouildn't want to do that with ANYONE, but 
>especially not those who have rendered service to their country and done 
>their duty as it was called (leaving aside the rights and wrongs of US 
>foreign policy).

There's always a conflict here.   We fight it when the truly needy
compete with us, offering to work for lower wages so that they can
survive.

Even when the alternative is chopping down the rainforest or over
fishing the oceans - which we will end up paying for - we don't want
our salaries cut.

(And that's not even considering how many millionaires we see who are
getting richer and more numerous).

So we like to limit our giving to those who don't threaten our
lifestyles more than an occasional gift.

I don't know what to do about this other than try to not be so upset
when I loose my job opportunities to foreign competition.  

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:42:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream liberal 
>program that failed.

The world is full of variety - so I ask you:

Which conservative alternatives have worked better?

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:10:29 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are, classically, three reasons for punishment:
>
>1. To protect society from further depradations by the miscreant,
>2. To rehabilitate the offender, and
>3. To serve as a deterrent to others similiarily inclined.
>(note "retribution" is not on the "approved" list)

Maybe not - but it seems to be the most popular reason.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:44:37 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
>population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
>duty military. 
>
>Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.

Doesn't the military require everybody to be high school graduates?   

Excluding everybody in the general population who don't qualify for
the military makes these statistics misleading.   (although possibly
not your point).

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:17:50 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

> Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
>the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
>The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
>the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
>unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
>circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
>etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
>in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
>to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
>a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
>location.

Karen Carpenter...

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>Retraining is available to Cobol programmers. 

Retraining is available to people.

>Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
>Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed. 

Cite?

In article <a0qlk3lgu41cr2pg3hs8s9m2epbgetsv25@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:17:50 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>> Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
>>the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
>>The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
>>the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
>>unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
>>circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
>>etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
>>in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
>>to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
>>a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
>>location.
>
>Karen Carpenter...

I would think mental illness qualifies as one of the "special circumstances" 
referred to above; certainly, the cause of Karen Carpenter's death was *not* 
unavailability of food.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> Keys responded "Okay, how many people starved to death in
>>the U.S. so far this year? How about last year? How about the last decade?"
>>The liberal was speachless, and didn't have a response. Keys knew, unlike
>>the liberals in the U.S., that starvation in this country is virtually
>>unknown. In the extremely rare cases, it's always because of special
>>circumstances, like severe child abuse, getting stranded in the wilderness,
>>etc. It's never because there is no food available to those who are hungry
>>in this society. Every church I have ever attended has an ongoing program
>>to help the poor, and in this part of the country at least, there is almost
>>a church on every corner, sometimes several are visible from a single
>>location.
>
> Karen Carpenter...

Sad, but self inflicted.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Places change over time... perhaps one might revisit a decades-old
> prejudice and apply to it the changes the intervening years have
> wrought.
>
>> I prefer a challenge.
>
> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
> opposition with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
> as well.

The more things change, the more they stay the same:

"...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and 400 in 
2005 alone..."

http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591 

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:35:17 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:44:37 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the general
>>population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% are active
>>duty military. 
>>
>>Average income of veteran males is higher than nonveteran males -- 35,088 versus 30,875.
>
>Doesn't the military require everybody to be high school graduates?   

Generally they do, although I believe the Marine Corps still accepts some low precentage
of non-graduates. 

>Excluding everybody in the general population who don't qualify for
>the military makes these statistics misleading.   (although possibly
>not your point).

I think the explanation is age. There aren't any 18 year old veterans. Also, the military
excludes physically and mentally disabled from entering. It creates some on the exit side.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:39:09 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>Retraining is available to Cobol programmers. 
>
>Retraining is available to people.
>
>>Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
>>Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed. 
>
>Cite?

It was a joke.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:42:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most systemic problems in America can be traced to an up-stream
>> liberal program that failed.
>
> The world is full of variety - so I ask you:
>
> Which conservative alternatives have worked better?

Gosh, let me think...

1. Welfare reform, one must have a job to get welfare, such as EIC.
2. Modification of the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to 
allow fathers to be in the home.
3. Concealed handgun licenses in 38 states reducing crime.
4. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" to keep criminals off the street.
5. Tax cuts - this is an omnibus solution. To most conservatives sufficient 
tax cuts can restore lost hair, grow bigger chickens, and cure cancer.
6. No Child Left Behind. This hasn't directly improved government schools, 
but it has shined a light on incompetent institutions, teachers, and 
administrators.
7. Free Trade agreements.

Now that you mention it, though, perhaps not much. Of course another choice 
is to do nothing about a perceived 'problem,' inasmuch as tinkering with it 
may make it worse. The 'perfect' is often the enemy of the merely 'good.' 

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> Retraining is available to Cobol programmers.
>
> Retraining is available to people.
>

Well, that's TWO groups. Any others? 

In article <13km3s332ja7g37@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> Places change over time... perhaps one might revisit a decades-old
>> prejudice and apply to it the changes the intervening years have
>> wrought.
>>
>>> I prefer a challenge.
>>
>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>> opposition with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>> as well.
>
>The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>
>"...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and 400 in 
>2005 alone..."
>
>http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591 

Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun and 
cite government press-releases.

DD

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:34:18 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Which conservative alternatives have worked better?
>
>Gosh, let me think...
>
>1. Welfare reform, one must have a job to get welfare, such as EIC.

Where have they helped?   What was the result of this reform?   If it
resulted in poor moving to adjacent states, then I don't see that
anybody was helped, other than taxpayers in one state.    

If the Liberal programs contributed to "systemic problems", I suppose
it is necessary to quantify them to decide whether Conservative
programs did better.  

All sorts of "reform" happen all the time in democratic countries -
with very little measurable results.  

This isn't limited to welfare - but tax laws are constantly reformed
as the tax code gets bigger and bigger.


>2. Modification of the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to 
>allow fathers to be in the home.

Do you have figures showing that this caused a decline in "systemic
problems"?    Was this a change that the Conservatives fought for and
the Liberals fought against?    How many fathers moved home with this
(good) change?

>3. Concealed handgun licenses in 38 states reducing crime.

There are so many places that stats are used to prove the opposite
that I don't have the resources to determine who is correct here. But
if criminals go to the neighboring city to commit crime - we aren't
better off.

>4. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" to keep criminals off the street.

So "systemic problems" doesn't include our tremendous tax burden.
There are effective alternatives that cost less.  

>5. Tax cuts - this is an omnibus solution. To most conservatives sufficient 
>tax cuts can restore lost hair, grow bigger chickens, and cure cancer.

The deficit budget is a huge tax.   Fiscal conservativeness is all
fine and good for the party who doesn't get to spend the money.

>6. No Child Left Behind. This hasn't directly improved government schools, 
>but it has shined a light on incompetent institutions, teachers, and 
>administrators.

If it doesn't improve the education of the people, then it hasn't
helped what matters.

>7. Free Trade agreements.

You mean like the ones the Liberals passed and which lots of the
Conservative voters are fighting against?

>Now that you mention it, though, perhaps not much. Of course another choice 
>is to do nothing about a perceived 'problem,' inasmuch as tinkering with it 
>may make it worse. The 'perfect' is often the enemy of the merely 'good.' 

Most of these issues would be better off if we forgot whether they are
"conservative" or "liberal".    Labels don't matter.   (And how does
Big Business fit in with the same voters as the Religious Right?).
Blaming the other party for "systemic problems" is not solving
anything - when they are still there when the party in power gets
kicked out.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:29:18 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>>>Most of them stubbornly refuse to learn OO.
>>>Apparently, they prefer to be unemployed. 
>>
>>Cite?
>
>It was a joke.

I'm not very good at telling when you are joking.   Some of the more
obtuse of us could use a smiley with some of your posts.

Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5qu3apF11a14mU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
> >>
> >
> > Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by
> > P.
> > Dashwood:
> >
> > I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
> > joking.  If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so,
too,
> > but he wasn't.  If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find
a
> > single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.
>
> That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.

As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or a
<grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words like "liberal" and
"Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the fashion
he did, the humour escapes me.  I might add that I have seen & heard similar
sentiments expressed that were meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one
souce: that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.

>
> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>

He could have said so to begin with ...

> His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were. Venomous
it
> wasn't.
>
> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?

Wouldn't put it past him.

> > There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny
if
> > they are directed at someone else.
>
> Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
> offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.

And sometimes it's just as I say.

>
> >Turn the remarks against them and their
> > best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke.  Such
persons
> > find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
> > that they don't like.
> >
> > I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
> > newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
> > someone
> > else.
>
> Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)

I feel vindicated, not stung.  So far as I'm concerned, his post proved my
point.  I like to say "told you so".

>Most of us give and
> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
"meant
> to wound".

You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is a very
fine line between ribbing and insults.  If one has any concern for others'
feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes.  And one will also be
aware of the exact limitations of "politically correct" thought.

>
> > Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and
other
> > joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and
which
> > are meant to be factual.
>
> Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point; for
the
> most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.

Didn't ask you to explain, just to identify.

>
>
> > I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle.  We
> > shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console ourselves with
the
> > thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
>
> And you don't think that's offensive?

No more so than his comment.

>
> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
> lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is
meant
> to wound. See the difference?

I do and you're wrong.  As the post didn't affect me personally I was not
stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such statements
amusing.

>
> I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic
by
> nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you
wouldn't
> normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't
rise
> to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.
>

A lot of your posts may come across to some people as patronizing ...

PL

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>>> opposition with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>>> as well.
>>
>> The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>>
>> "...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and
>> 400 in 2005 alone..."
>>
>> http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
>
> Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun
> and cite government press-releases.

Heh! A "Tommy Gun" IS an assault weapon, although outdated. As for citing 
government press-releases, would you prefer a newspaper's regurgitation of a 
government press-release? If so, I can easily arrange that.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070110/ai_n17110729
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040907/ai_n12557723
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/03/assault_weapons.html
http://www.emergency.com/strtgang.htm

I can likewise find tons of statements from "think tanks" and lobbying 
groups (from the Brady Bunch to the NRA)


There is a difference between the '30's reputation and today. During Al 
Capone's reign, bootlegging was the issue; today it's drugs. Same tactics, 
different goals.

As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and an 
UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in Chicago 
are). But I'm willing to cut them some slack; Chicago is the second-most 
restrictive city regarding guns* and is officially a "Nuclear Free Zone" 
even though we know what happened under the bleachers at the University of 
Chicago.

--------
* That may change next March when the Supreme Court hears arguments in 
Heller vs D.C. 

tlmfru wrote:

Inasmuch as I'm the (partial) object of this dialogue, I hope you won't mind 
if I intersperce some observations:

>
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words
> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me.  I might
> add that I have seen & heard similar sentiments expressed that were
> meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one souce: that smug Ms.
> Coulter in particular.

I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for 
inarticulate fuckers.

>> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>>
>
> He could have said so to begin with ...

A joke is only effective when the "punch line" is totally unexpected.

>
>> His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were.
>> Venomous it wasn't.
>>
>> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
>
> Wouldn't put it past him.

I don't think all Democrats are insane. Their political mental competence 
runs the gamut.

>
> I feel vindicated, not stung.  So far as I'm concerned, his post
> proved my point.  I like to say "told you so".
>
>> Most of us give and
>> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
>> "meant to wound".
>
> You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is
> a very fine line between ribbing and insults.  If one has any concern
> for others' feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes.  And
> one will also be aware of the exact limitations of "politically
> correct" thought.

Ah, that is a good point. I, myself, am totally indifferent to whether 
someone is insulted, offended, miffed, piqued, or emotionally wounded.

>
>>
>>> Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me
>>> and other joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be
>>> funny and which are meant to be factual.
>>
>> Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point;
>> for the most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.
>
> Didn't ask you to explain, just to identify.

I don't think it would have mattered to some.

>
>>
>>
>>> I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older
>>> uncle.  We shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console
>>> ourselves with the thought that said leadership reflects its
>>> contituents.
>>
>> And you don't think that's offensive?
>
> No more so than his comment.

Hmm. Our current president has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. Our 
former president had a law degree (currently, however, he is disbarred). The 
basic rule is that the truely bright become entrepreneurs, the pretty-smart 
become politicians, and the average intelligent become industrial drones.

>
>>
>> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you
>> are lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your
>> statement is meant to wound. See the difference?
>
> I do and you're wrong.  As the post didn't affect me personally I was
> not stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such
> statements amusing.

Man up; quit being a victim.

Kill a terrorist or, failing that, a member of his family. You'll feel 
better.

In article <13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>>>> opposition with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>>>
>>> "...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and
>>> 400 in 2005 alone..."
>>>
>>>
>http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
>>
>> Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun
>> and cite government press-releases.
>
>Heh! A "Tommy Gun" IS an assault weapon, although outdated.

A Tommy-gun is a 'Chicago piano', there is no other... if you want to rely 
on outdated stereotypes then go right ahead; some folks find that easier 
than doing what is commonly called 'thinking for themselves'.

>As for citing 
>government press-releases, would you prefer a newspaper's regurgitation of a 
>government press-release?

See above about 'thinking for one'sself'... take your time, feel free to 
use both sides of the posting.  Responses containing hackneyed cliches 
from an echo-chamber of any political stripe may be treated... as were the 
preceding responses containing hackneyed cliches from an echo-chamber of 
any political stripe.

DD

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:xpH2j.3877$_%4.1885@newsfe15.lga...
>
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5qu3apF11a14mU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> >> I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved 
>> > by
>> > P.
>> > Dashwood:
>> >
>> > I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
>> > joking.  If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so,
> too,
>> > but he wasn't.  If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't 
>> > find
> a
>> > single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.
>>
>> That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.
>
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or 
> a
> <grin> to figure out the difference.

Yes, that is a very valid point. I know sometimes I forget to do that 
because it seems so obvious to me that I'm not being serious. I have also 
been accused of hiding vitriol behind a smiley (which I would never do...)

> When I see words like "liberal" and
> "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the 
> fashion
> he did, the humour escapes me.  I might add that I have seen & heard 
> similar
> sentiments expressed that were meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one
> souce: that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
LOL! We get Fox here very late at night and I sometimes watch it...I have to 
agree with you. In fact, I found most of the programming an insult to the 
intelligence of anyone aged more than 11... :-) BBC World, on the other hand 
has much better and balanced content.

>>
>> Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?
>
> Wouldn't put it past him.
:-)

>
>> > There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny
> if
>> > they are directed at someone else.
>>
>> Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
>> offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.
>
> And sometimes it's just as I say.

Yes, I can't rule it out... :-)

>
>>
>> >Turn the remarks against them and their
>> > best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke.  Such
> persons
>> > find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or 
>> > groups
>> > that they don't like.
>> >
>> > I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
>> > newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
>> > someone
>> > else.
>>
>> Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)
>
> I feel vindicated, not stung.  So far as I'm concerned, his post proved my
> point.  I like to say "told you so".

Really? Nah, you're pulling my leg, right? :-)
>
>>Most of us give and
>> take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
> "meant
>> to wound".
>
> You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is a 
> very
> fine line between ribbing and insults.  If one has any concern for others'
> feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes.  And one will also be
> aware of the exact limitations of "politically correct" thought.
>
I can agree it is a fine line and if in doubt, best avoided.
>>

>>
>> > I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle. 
>> > We
>> > shudder at the ignorance of its leadership.  We console ourselves with
> the
>> > thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.
>>
>> And you don't think that's offensive?
>
> No more so than his comment.

I see. :-)
>
>>
>> Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
>> lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is
> meant
>> to wound. See the difference?
>
> I do and you're wrong.  As the post didn't affect me personally I was not
> stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such 
> statements
> amusing.
>
>>
>> I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic
> by
>> nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you
> wouldn't
>> normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't
> rise
>> to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.
>>
>
> A lot of your posts may come across to some people as patronizing ...

Probably. The only defence I can offer is the purity of my intentions. I 
honestly don't see others as lesser, I see CLC as a small community where 
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Discord and vitriol simply 
undermine all of us. There's nothing wrong with arguing, there's nothing 
wrong with being intense or passionate about things, there are even times 
when an atagonistic exchange can be fun, as long as it doesn't get serious 
and personal.

I have learned this from posting here over many years. There have been times 
when I have been extremely angry over responses from individuals. But you 
grow... It serves no purpose to get unwrapped, and nowadays, I refuse to 
allow CLC to upset me... (I still get irritated by it sometimes, but that is 
probably good for me :-))

You did include me in your response and tarred me with the same brush you 
tarred Jerry, so I claim the right to defend myself... :-)

I didn't post to patronize you (or anybody else).

Pete.

-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>> Like the streets of Chicago, where bootleggers mow down their
>>>> opposition with Tommy-guns?  Oh, wait, that stereotype is outdated,
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The more things change, the more they stay the same:
>>>
>>> "...the Chicago Police Department has seized 519 assault weapons and
>>> 400 in 2005 alone..."
>>>
>>> http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=4591
>>
>> Leave it to a Texan to confuse an 'assault weapon' with a Tommy-gun
>> and cite government press-releases.
>
> Heh! A "Tommy Gun" IS an assault weapon, although outdated. As for citing 
> government press-releases, would you prefer a newspaper's regurgitation of 
> a government press-release? If so, I can easily arrange that.
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070110/ai_n17110729
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040907/ai_n12557723
> http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/03/assault_weapons.html
> http://www.emergency.com/strtgang.htm
>
> I can likewise find tons of statements from "think tanks" and lobbying 
> groups (from the Brady Bunch to the NRA)
>
>
> There is a difference between the '30's reputation and today. During Al 
> Capone's reign, bootlegging was the issue; today it's drugs. Same tactics, 
> different goals.
>
> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and 
> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in 
> Chicago are). But I'm willing to cut them some slack; Chicago is the 
> second-most restrictive city regarding guns* and is officially a "Nuclear 
> Free Zone" even though we know what happened under the bleachers at the 
> University of Chicago.
>
> --------
> * That may change next March when the Supreme Court hears arguments in 
> Heller vs D.C.
> 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and 
> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in 
> Chicago are).

Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:52:29 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>
>
>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and 
>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in 
>> Chicago are).
>
>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?

Not as tough as North Carolina squirrels. When I was in the Marine Corps, two of our guys
on weekend liberty were caught by a game warden while squirrel hunting. They were spraying
treetops with full auto .45 cal fired from M3A1 submachine guns (which replaced Thomsons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun

 Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing down the area to make
people take cover long enough to make your getaway.  They can't hit a target more than 50
meters away except by good luck.

In article <5r1m4eF11ja4tU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and 
>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in 
>> Chicago are).
>
>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?

Please have a care with your quoting, Mr Dashwood; what you've 
posted, above, might readily cause someone to believe that I made the 
assertions regarding my state-citizenship and firearms-ownership.

DD

HeyBub wrote:
> tlmfru wrote:
> 
> Inasmuch as I'm the (partial) object of this dialogue, I hope you won't mind 
> if I intersperce some observations:
> 
>> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
>> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words
>> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
>> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me.  I might
>> add that I have seen & heard similar sentiments expressed that were
>> meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one souce: that smug Ms.
>> Coulter in particular.
> 
> I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for 
> inarticulate fuckers.
> 
>>> He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.
>>>
>> He could have said so to begin with ...
> 
> A joke is only effective when the "punch line" is totally unexpected.
> 

So is a sucker punch.

Donald

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:16:20 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have never used an emoticon. "Smiley faces" and the like are for 
>inarticulate fuckers.

Then expect to be misunderstood.

It doesn't matter how articulate you are - any conversation you have
will involve others.   And we have various levels of ability to
recognize your wisdom.

I suppose you can feel smug that you are superior to the realities of
communication - it's our fault we're inferior.   But if your post is
supposed to communicate - consider the audience.

Robert wrote:
>
> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
> getaway.  They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
> good luck.

I generally agree.

In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to 
quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.

All are armed with AK47s.

Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full 
automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The 
boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an occassional 
shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.

Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in 
the air, wins." 

In article <13kog9nq45dtg16@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>>
>> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
>> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
>> getaway.  They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
>> good luck.
>
>I generally agree.
>
>In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to 
>quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.

[snip]

>Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in 
>the air, wins." 

Ummmmmm... you *do* realise that you're making a statement about 'reality' 
based on 'one scene' from a movie, right?

DD

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to 
>quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
>
>All are armed with AK47s.
>
>Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full 
>automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The 
>boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an occassional 
>shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
>
>Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in 
>the air, wins." 

That is an interesting choice to illustrate "reality".

On 26 Nov, 10:13, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <13kk130bmimc...@corp.supernews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >> "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:13khgrei2suiuc3@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> docdw...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >>> Yet when some sailor with a long grey beard runs up, grabs my collar
> >>> with a skinny hand, and screams "There was a ship!" to suggest that
> >>> he be, um, institutionalized is considered an outrage.
>
> >> ROFL!
>
> >> Just wanted to let you know that S. T. Coleridge is rolling in his
> >> grave.... laughing...:-)
>
> >Let's take him for a spin: walk down 42nd Street.
>
> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
> hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>
> DD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No problem there. Opiates, and the derivatives thereof, are easily
come by this side of the pond. The price dropped after the bumper
harvests recently experienced in Afghanistan.

On 27 Nov, 16:59, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <13kog9nq45dt...@corp.supernews.com>,
>
> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Robert wrote:
>
> >> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
> >> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
> >> getaway.  They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
> >> good luck.
>
> >I generally agree.
>
> >In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to
> >quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in
> >the air, wins."
>
> Ummmmmm... you *do* realise that you're making a statement about 'reality'
> based on 'one scene' from a movie, right?
>
> DD

What are you saying - the movies aren't real?

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
news:0iank3psbc27p4gpc6duopurui6ljajlhq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:52:29 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" 
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and
>>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in
>>> Chicago are).
>>
>>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?
>
> Not as tough as North Carolina squirrels. When I was in the Marine Corps, 
> two of our guys
> on weekend liberty were caught by a game warden while squirrel hunting. 
> They were spraying
> treetops with full auto .45 cal fired from M3A1 submachine guns (which 
> replaced Thomsons).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun
>
> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing down the 
> area to make
> people take cover long enough to make your getaway.  They can't hit a 
> target more than 50
> meters away except by good luck.

Hmmmm... next time I'm 51 meters away and get hit by such a weapon, I'll 
reflect on how lucky I was...:-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

In article <15989f38-3065-4303-93ef-9b4e36dd20f1@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair  <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27 Nov, 16:59, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>> In article <13kog9nq45dt...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>
>> HeyBub <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Robert wrote:
>>
>> >> Full auto weapons like that are only good for defense i.e. hosing
>> >> down the area to make people take cover long enough to make your
>> >> getaway.  They can't hit a target more than 50 meters away except by
>> >> good luck.
>>
>> >I generally agree.
>>
>> >In the movie "Blood Diamond," there's one scene where DiCaprio is trying to
>> >quickly maneuver in an area full of goblins.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most metal in
>> >the air, wins."
>>
>> Ummmmmm... you *do* realise that you're making a statement about 'reality'
>> based on 'one scene' from a movie, right?
>
>What are you saying - the movies aren't real?

Answering a question with a question, Mr Maclean, is no answer at all... 
and if movies weren't real then everyone sitting in a cinema might be 
suffering from a sort of mass hallucination.

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:figr9f$9lq$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <5r1m4eF11ja4tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:13kmjbb2n3gtp16@corp.supernews.com...
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> As for Texans being confused, some are, I'm sure. I own both an AK47 and
>>> an UZI - I'm not confused (although I readily admit the authorities in
>>> Chicago are).
>>
>>Guess those Texan quail are really tough, huh, Jerry?
>
> Please have a care with your quoting, Mr Dashwood; what you've
> posted, above, might readily cause someone to believe that I made the
> assertions regarding my state-citizenship and firearms-ownership.
>
> DD
>
Sorry, careless snipping. Point taken.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

In article <6a21ebf3-ab2b-4162-918f-939bd3e0da83@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair  <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Nov, 10:13, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:

[snip]

>> Have you been down that particular lane since it was 'sold into private
>> hands'?  Things have changed a bit there and Coleridge might have a bit of
>> trouble finding derivatives of his favorite opiates now.
>
>No problem there. Opiates, and the derivatives thereof, are easily
>come by this side of the pond.

That side of the pond, Mr Maclean, is a long, wet walk from that avenue 
they're takin' ya to, Fawty-Second Street.

DD

Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full
>> automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The
>> boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an
>> occassional shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
>>
>> Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most
>> metal in the air, wins."
>
> That is an interesting choice to illustrate "reality".

Sigh. Okay, here's another. In "Pulp Fiction," a dude runs out of an 
apartment's toilet screaming obscenities and empties a six-shooter in the 
general direction of Winnfield and Vega, standing not ten feet away. Every 
shot misses. Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vega (John Travolta) take 
careful aim and waste his ass.

There you are.

This episode becomes a religious experience for Winnfield, but that's 
another story. 

tlmfru wrote:
> 
> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or a
> <grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words like "liberal" and
> "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the fashion
> he did, the humour escapes me.

Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780

> that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.

she's HAWT!  :)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

In article <13kpjeqgij64r17@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>
>>> Every one of the squints is firing in the "spray and pray" mode, full
>>> automatic. DiCaprio's character is firing in "single shot" mode. The
>>> boom-boom guys manage to hit a lot of dirt, tin cans, and an
>>> occassional shack. DiCaprio kills just about all of them.
>>>
>>> Reality sometimes tends to negate the axiom: "He who puts the most
>>> metal in the air, wins."
>>
>> That is an interesting choice to illustrate "reality".
>
>Sigh. Okay, here's another. In "Pulp Fiction," a dude runs out of an 
>apartment's toilet screaming obscenities and empties a six-shooter in the 
>general direction of Winnfield and Vega, standing not ten feet away. Every 
>shot misses. Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vega (John Travolta) take 
>careful aim and waste his ass.
>
>There you are.

There one is, indeed.  You know, I once saw a film in which the 
protagonist was a strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth 
with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, who could change 
the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands...

.... and I recalled thinking 'my, some of those behaviors sure do seem to 
violate the Laws of Physics which appear to hold sway outside of the 
confines of this cinema... maybe it is best that I don't draw too many 
conclusions from this about how I believe folks should behave once the 
credits finish rolling.'

DD

LX-i wrote:
> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a
>> smiley or a <grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words
>> like "liberal" and "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in
>> the US, used in the fashion he did, the humour escapes me.
>
> Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780

It's grown. We now have the "Vernelli Effect"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1128parkernov28,1,1966429.column

>
>> that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
> she's HAWT!  :)

I want to have her babies! No, wait... 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:48:35 -0700, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780

Interesting.

I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
 By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner

It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
Wade.

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
> interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
> By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
>
> It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
> Wade.

Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.

I see the makings of a scientific paper here... 

Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs. Wade"
decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will have
more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats will
slowly decline.

LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Qd2dnR0dGcO-btHanZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
> >
> > As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley
or a
> > <grin> to figure out the difference.  When I see words like "liberal"
and
> > "Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the
fashion
> > he did, the humour escapes me.
>
> Do you know what the "Roe effect" is?
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
>
> > that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>
> she's HAWT!  :)

Hawt??!!  She's scrawny and shrill.

PL
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
> ~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
> ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
> ~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
> ~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
> ~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
> V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
>
> "Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
> or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs. Wade"
>decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will have
>more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats will
>slowly decline.

But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
most lip service to their side of this issue.

In article <13krke3kfvhcs3c@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> I've read a different (not so associated with political trends)
>> interpretation of Roe vs Wade in the book
>> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
>> By Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
>>
>> It found the best correlation between law and crime drops - was Roe vs
>> Wade.
>
>Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.

Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to 
associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of 
society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of 
their liberty against their will.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <13krke3kfvhcs3c@corp.supernews.com>,
>>
>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>
> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
> their liberty against their will.

You seem to assume facts not in evidence. I see the makings of a scientific 
paper here... 

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>
> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
> most lip service to their side of this issue.

Well, yes it does fit the demographics.

Abortion should be generally available:
Conservative Repub - 17%
Liberal Dem - 60%
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150

It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 (45,000 
by liberal dems and  12750 by conservative repubs, if the above percentages 
apply - a difference of 32,250).

Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote in 
2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died, 
some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.

If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president. 

In article <13krtned6pikj5e@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <13krke3kfvhcs3c@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>
>>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>>
>> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
>> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
>> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
>> their liberty against their will.
>
>You seem to assume facts not in evidence.

The facts in evidence are that in one recent posting you associated 
Democrats (those who associate with a political party with which you 
disagree) with the institutionalised insane (members of society whom you 
seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against their will) 
and when this was pointed you labelled it 'a joke'... in what was quoted 
above you associated Democrats (with whom you disagree) with criminals 
(whom you seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against 
their will).

DD

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:31:38 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>In article <13krtned6pikj5e@corp.supernews.com>,
>HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> In article <13krke3kfvhcs3c@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>>>
>>> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
>>> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
>>> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
>>> their liberty against their will.
>>
>>You seem to assume facts not in evidence.
>
>The facts in evidence are that in one recent posting you associated 
>Democrats (those who associate with a political party with which you 
>disagree) with the institutionalised insane (members of society whom you 
>seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against their will) 
>and when this was pointed you labelled it 'a joke'... in what was quoted 
>above you associated Democrats (with whom you disagree) with criminals 
>(whom you seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against 
>their will).

Many Democratic voters in Chicago are neither insane nor criminal, they're dead.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>
>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>
>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>
>Abortion should be generally available:
>Conservative Repub - 17%
>Liberal Dem - 60%
>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>
>It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 (45,000 
>by liberal dems and  12750 by conservative repubs, if the above percentages 
>apply - a difference of 32,250).

There are three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who can do arithmetic.
2. Those who can't.

>Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote in 
>2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died, 
>some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.
>
>If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president. 

Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and half, Democrats. The
outcome would have been the same. But if say 1,000 more had become Democrats (because they
were black and hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 101,000 instead of
100,000. 

--- quotation ---

Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the governorship and the
secretary of state's office, now under Harris, the felon purge has accelerated. In May
2000, using a list provided by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000
Florida voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the group were
charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake caught but never fully reversed.
ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437
voters who indeed had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error, since a
Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing their time. In this case
there was no attempt at all to correct the error.

The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap. The secretary of
state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the removal of 714 names of Illinois
felons and 990 from Ohio--states that permit the vote even to those on probation or
parole. According to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for the scrub nearly
3,000 felons who came from at least eight states that automatically restore voting rights
and who therefore arrived in Florida with full citizenship.

A ChoicePoint DBT spokesman said, and the Florida Department of Elections confirms, that
Harris's office approved the selection of states from which to obtain records for the
felon scrub. As to why the department included states that restore voting rights, Janet
Modrow, Florida's liaison to ChoicePoint DBT, bounced the question to Harris's legal
staff. That office has not returned repeated calls. 
......
Beverly Hill, the elections supervisor of Alachua County, where Johnson attempted to
register, said that she used to allow ex-felons like Johnson to vote. Under Governor Bush,
that changed. "Recently, the [Governor's Office of Executive] Clemency people told us
something different," she said. "They told us that they essentially can't vote."

Both Alachua's refusal to allow Johnson to vote and the governor's directive underlying
that refusal are notable for their timing--coming after two court rulings that ordered the
secretary of state and governor to recognize the civil rights of felons arriving from
other states. In the first of these decisions, Schlenther v. Florida Department of State,
issued in June 1998, Florida's Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that Florida could not
require a man convicted in Connecticut twenty-five years earlier "to ask [Florida] to
restore his civil rights. They were never lost here." Connecticut, like most states,
automatically restores felons' civil rights at the end of their sentences, and therefore
"he arrived as any other citizen, with full rights of citizenship."

The Schlenther decision was much the talk at a summer 1998 meeting of county elections
officials in Orlando. So it was all the more surprising to Chuck Smith, systems
administrator with Hillsborough County, that Harris's elections division chiefs exhorted
local officials at the Orlando meeting to purge all out-of-state felons identified by DBT.
Hillsborough was so concerned about this order, which appeared to fly in the face of the
court edict, that the county's elections office demanded that the state put that position
in writing--a request duly granted.

The Nation has obtained the text of the response to Hillsborough. The letter, from the
Governor's Office of Executive Clemency, dated September 18, 2000, arrived only seven
weeks before the presidential election. It orders the county to tell ex-felons trying to
register that even if they entered Florida with civil rights restored by another state's
law, they will still be "required to make application for restoration of civil rights in
the state of Florida," that is, ask Governor Bush for clemency--exactly the requirement
banned by the courts. The state's directive was all the more surprising in light of a
second ruling, issued in December 1999 by another Florida court, in which a Florida
district court judge expressed his ill-disguised exasperation with the governor's
administration for ignoring the prior edict in Schlenther.

Voting rights attorneys who reviewed the cases for The Nation explained that the courts
relied on both Florida statute and the "full faith and credit" clause of the US
Constitution, which requires every state to accept the legal rulings of other states. "The
court has been pretty clear on what the governor can't do," says Bruce Gear, assistant
general counsel for the NAACP. And what Governor Bush can't do is demand that a citizen
arriving in Florida ask him for clemency to restore a right to vote that the citizen
already has.

Strangely enough, the governor's office does not disagree. While Harris, Bush and a
half-dozen of their political appointees have not returned our calls, Tawanna Hayes, who
processes the requests for clemency in the governor's office, states unequivocally that
"we do not have the right to suspend or restore rights where those rights have been
restored in another state." Hayes even keeps a copy of the two court decisions near her
desk and quotes from them at length. Then why have the governor and secretary of state
ordered these people purged from the rolls or barred from registering? Hayes directed us
to Greg Munson, Governor Bush's assistant general counsel and clemency aide. Munson has
not responded to our detailed request for an explanation.

A letter dated August 10, 2000, from Harris's office to Bush's office, obtained under
Florida's freedom-of-information act, indicates that the chief of the Florida State
Association of Supervisors of Elections also questioned Harris's office about the purge of
ex-cons whose rights had been restored automatically by other states. The supervisors'
group received the same response as Hillsborough: Strike them from the voter rolls, and if
they complain, make them ask Bush for clemency.

While almost all county supervisors buckled, Carol Griffen did not. Griffen, Washington
County's elections chief, concluded that running legal voters through Jeb Bush's clemency
maze would violate a 1993 federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, which was
designed to remove impediments to the exercise of civil rights. The law, known as "Motor
Voter," is credited with helping register 7 million new voters. Griffen quotes from the
Florida section of the new, NVRA-certified registration form, which says, "I affirm I am
not a convicted felon, or if I am, my rights relating to voting have been restored."
"That's the law," says the adamant Griffen, "and I have no right stopping anyone
registering who truthfully signs that statement. Once you check that box there's no
discussion." Griffen's county refused to implement the scrub, and the state appears
reluctant to challenge its action.

But when Pastor Johnson attempted to register in Alachua County, clerks refused and
instead handed him a fifteen-page clemency request form. The outraged minister found the
offer a demeaning Catch-22. "How can I ask the governor for a right I already have?" he
says, echoing, albeit unknowingly, the words of the Florida courts.

Had Johnson relented and chosen to seek clemency, he would have faced a procedure that is,
admits the clemency office's Hayes, "sometimes worse than breaking a leg." For New Yorkers
like Johnson, she says, "I'm telling you it's a bear." She says officials in New York,
which restores civil rights automatically, are perplexed by requests from Florida for
nonexistent papers declaring the individual's rights restored. Without the phantom
clemency orders, the applicant must hunt up old court records and begin a complex process
lasting from four months to two years, sometimes involving quasi-judicial hearings, the
outcome of which depends on Jeb Bush's disposition.

Little wonder that out of tens of thousands of out-of-state felons, only a hardy couple of
hundred attempted to run this bureaucratic obstacle course before the election. (Bush can
be compassionate: He granted clemency to Charles Colson for his crimes as a Watergate
conspirator, giving Florida resident Colson the right to vote in the presidential
election.) 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast

In article <f65sk3p8hpi5djidcrqpi7t1osig4h63lq@4ax.com>,
Robert  <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:31:38 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <13krtned6pikj5e@corp.supernews.com>,
>>HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>> In article <13krke3kfvhcs3c@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Democrats drop due to Roe v Wade; crime drops due to Roe v Wade.
>>>>
>>>> Another joke, of course... another bit of levity that just happens to
>>>> associate a political party with which you disagree with a segment of
>>>> society the members of which you seem to believe should be deprived of
>>>> their liberty against their will.
>>>
>>>You seem to assume facts not in evidence.
>>
>>The facts in evidence are that in one recent posting you associated 
>>Democrats (those who associate with a political party with which you 
>>disagree) with the institutionalised insane (members of society whom you 
>>seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against their will) 
>>and when this was pointed you labelled it 'a joke'... in what was quoted 
>>above you associated Democrats (with whom you disagree) with criminals 
>>(whom you seem to believe should be deprived of their liberty against 
>>their will).
>
>Many Democratic voters in Chicago are neither insane nor criminal, they're dead.

There might be need for fewer voters, live or dead, if more voting-machine 
executives committed to delivering electoral votes.

DD

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
news:846sk3lb90lqamjaijfh71c60g9hn214eg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>>
>>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
>>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>>
>>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>>
>>Abortion should be generally available:
>>Conservative Repub - 17%
>>Liberal Dem - 60%
>>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>>
>>It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 
>>(45,000
>>by liberal dems and  12750 by conservative repubs, if the above 
>>percentages
>>apply - a difference of 32,250).
>
> There are three kinds of people in the world:
>
> 1. Those who can do arithmetic.
> 2. Those who can't.
>
:-) I liked that... not seen it before...

>>Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to vote 
>>in
>>2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some would have died,
>>some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But some would have voted.
>>
>>If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been president.
>
Incredible that nation of over 300,000,000 could hang on such a knife 
edge...

> Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and half, 
> Democrats. The
> outcome would have been the same. But if say 1,000 more had become 
> Democrats (because they
> were black and hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 
> 101,000 instead of
> 100,000.
>
> --- quotation ---
>
> Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the 
> governorship and the
> secretary of state's office, now under Harris, the felon purge has 
> accelerated. In May
> 2000, using a list provided by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to 
> purge 8,000
> Florida voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the 
> group were
> charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake caught but never 
> fully reversed.
> ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent out "corrected" lists, including the 
> names of 437
> voters who indeed had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was 
> in error, since a
> Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing their time. 
> In this case
> there was no attempt at all to correct the error.
>
> The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap. The 
> secretary of
> state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the removal of 714 names 
> of Illinois
> felons and 990 from Ohio--states that permit the vote even to those on 
> probation or
> parole. According to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in 
> the state from
> Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for the 
> scrub nearly
> 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states that automatically 
> restore voting rights
> and who therefore arrived in Florida with full citizenship.
>
> A ChoicePoint DBT spokesman said, and the Florida Department of Elections 
> confirms, that
> Harris's office approved the selection of states from which to obtain 
> records for the
> felon scrub. As to why the department included states that restore voting 
> rights, Janet
> Modrow, Florida's liaison to ChoicePoint DBT, bounced the question to 
> Harris's legal
> staff. That office has not returned repeated calls.
> .....
> Beverly Hill, the elections supervisor of Alachua County, where Johnson 
> attempted to
> register, said that she used to allow ex-felons like Johnson to vote. 
> Under Governor Bush,
> that changed. "Recently, the [Governor's Office of Executive] Clemency 
> people told us
> something different," she said. "They told us that they essentially can't 
> vote."
>
> Both Alachua's refusal to allow Johnson to vote and the governor's 
> directive underlying
> that refusal are notable for their timing--coming after two court rulings 
> that ordered the
> secretary of state and governor to recognize the civil rights of felons 
> arriving from
> other states. In the first of these decisions, Schlenther v. Florida 
> Department of State,
> issued in June 1998, Florida's Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that 
> Florida could not
> require a man convicted in Connecticut twenty-five years earlier "to ask 
> [Florida] to
> restore his civil rights. They were never lost here." Connecticut, like 
> most states,
> automatically restores felons' civil rights at the end of their sentences, 
> and therefore
> "he arrived as any other citizen, with full rights of citizenship."
>
> The Schlenther decision was much the talk at a summer 1998 meeting of 
> county elections
> officials in Orlando. So it was all the more surprising to Chuck Smith, 
> systems
> administrator with Hillsborough County, that Harris's elections division 
> chiefs exhorted
> local officials at the Orlando meeting to purge all out-of-state felons 
> identified by DBT.
> Hillsborough was so concerned about this order, which appeared to fly in 
> the face of the
> court edict, that the county's elections office demanded that the state 
> put that position
> in writing--a request duly granted.
>
> The Nation has obtained the text of the response to Hillsborough. The 
> letter, from the
> Governor's Office of Executive Clemency, dated September 18, 2000, arrived 
> only seven
> weeks before the presidential election. It orders the county to tell 
> ex-felons trying to
> register that even if they entered Florida with civil rights restored by 
> another state's
> law, they will still be "required to make application for restoration of 
> civil rights in
> the state of Florida," that is, ask Governor Bush for clemency--exactly 
> the requirement
> banned by the courts. The state's directive was all the more surprising in 
> light of a
> second ruling, issued in December 1999 by another Florida court, in which 
> a Florida
> district court judge expressed his ill-disguised exasperation with the 
> governor's
> administration for ignoring the prior edict in Schlenther.
>
> Voting rights attorneys who reviewed the cases for The Nation explained 
> that the courts
> relied on both Florida statute and the "full faith and credit" clause of 
> the US
> Constitution, which requires every state to accept the legal rulings of 
> other states. "The
> court has been pretty clear on what the governor can't do," says Bruce 
> Gear, assistant
> general counsel for the NAACP. And what Governor Bush can't do is demand 
> that a citizen
> arriving in Florida ask him for clemency to restore a right to vote that 
> the citizen
> already has.
>
> Strangely enough, the governor's office does not disagree. While Harris, 
> Bush and a
> half-dozen of their political appointees have not returned our calls, 
> Tawanna Hayes, who
> processes the requests for clemency in the governor's office, states 
> unequivocally that
> "we do not have the right to suspend or restore rights where those rights 
> have been
> restored in another state." Hayes even keeps a copy of the two court 
> decisions near her
> desk and quotes from them at length. Then why have the governor and 
> secretary of state
> ordered these people purged from the rolls or barred from registering? 
> Hayes directed us
> to Greg Munson, Governor Bush's assistant general counsel and clemency 
> aide. Munson has
> not responded to our detailed request for an explanation.
>
> A letter dated August 10, 2000, from Harris's office to Bush's office, 
> obtained under
> Florida's freedom-of-information act, indicates that the chief of the 
> Florida State
> Association of Supervisors of Elections also questioned Harris's office 
> about the purge of
> ex-cons whose rights had been restored automatically by other states. The 
> supervisors'
> group received the same response as Hillsborough: Strike them from the 
> voter rolls, and if
> they complain, make them ask Bush for clemency.
>
> While almost all county supervisors buckled, Carol Griffen did not. 
> Griffen, Washington
> County's elections chief, concluded that running legal voters through Jeb 
> Bush's clemency
> maze would violate a 1993 federal law, the National Voter Registration 
> Act, which was
> designed to remove impediments to the exercise of civil rights. The law, 
> known as "Motor
> Voter," is credited with helping register 7 million new voters. Griffen 
> quotes from the
> Florida section of the new, NVRA-certified registration form, which says, 
> "I affirm I am
> not a convicted felon, or if I am, my rights relating to voting have been 
> restored."
> "That's the law," says the adamant Griffen, "and I have no right stopping 
> anyone
> registering who truthfully signs that statement. Once you check that box 
> there's no
> discussion." Griffen's county refused to implement the scrub, and the 
> state appears
> reluctant to challenge its action.
>
> But when Pastor Johnson attempted to register in Alachua County, clerks 
> refused and
> instead handed him a fifteen-page clemency request form. The outraged 
> minister found the
> offer a demeaning Catch-22. "How can I ask the governor for a right I 
> already have?" he
> says, echoing, albeit unknowingly, the words of the Florida courts.
>
> Had Johnson relented and chosen to seek clemency, he would have faced a 
> procedure that is,
> admits the clemency office's Hayes, "sometimes worse than breaking a leg." 
> For New Yorkers
> like Johnson, she says, "I'm telling you it's a bear." She says officials 
> in New York,
> which restores civil rights automatically, are perplexed by requests from 
> Florida for
> nonexistent papers declaring the individual's rights restored. Without the 
> phantom
> clemency orders, the applicant must hunt up old court records and begin a 
> complex process
> lasting from four months to two years, sometimes involving quasi-judicial 
> hearings, the
> outcome of which depends on Jeb Bush's disposition.
>
> Little wonder that out of tens of thousands of out-of-state felons, only a 
> hardy couple of
> hundred attempted to run this bureaucratic obstacle course before the 
> election. (Bush can
> be compassionate: He granted clemency to Charles Colson for his crimes as 
> a Watergate
> conspirator, giving Florida resident Colson the right to vote in the 
> presidential
> election.)
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast

I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed 
to interpret who can and cannot vote?

How could anyone interpret this mess?

There should be one clear law for the Union:  "Everyone not in jail has the 
right to vote."

Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.

By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so... for all 
the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to society, they 
shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the rest of their life.

I was watching one of those cop video documentaries on free-to-air TV here 
tonight and I thought some of the police treatment was apalling. It was all 
from the USA. I realise miscreants are likely to carry guns and police need 
protection, but some of what went on was definitely excessive...

As someone who upholds the rule of Law and supports the Police (recognising 
that in any society they have a very difficult line to walk) I couldn't 
believe watching fugitives being shot for no good reason except that the cop 
concerned simply wasn't up to dealing with the situation. "I thought he had 
a gun..."  Looking at a blurry video from 50 yards away I could see the 
person concerned did NOT have a gun, yet an officer sworn to protect and 
serve the public  and only half that distance away, put three rounds in him. 
(The guy survived but got ten years in jail... they obviously didn't knock a 
few years off for nearly shooting him to death...)

BTW, this was not an anti-police video. The commentary commended all police 
actions and excused the excesses.

A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler didn't 
call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the dog seriously 
maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of surrender, then rewarded the 
dog with "Good Boy...". I found it sickening and an abuse of power.

I am not a bleeding heart Liberal who would scream "police brutality" if 
someone genuinely resisted arrest, but neither do I think that when someone 
has surrendered they should be shot or savaged by a dog.

There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are not) 
and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public opinion. After 
watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing tasers (I was in 
favour, but I realise that if you give someone a toy, they can't wait to use 
it...there have already been misuses of pepper spray by police here...)

I guess the bottom line on what I'm saying here is that if you view 
criminals as a sub-human, sub-culture, treat them brutally, and remove any 
hope of them ever being being able to lead a normal life, you shouldn't be 
too surprised at what you get.

If you see them as fellow human beings, citizens of your country, who have 
screwed up, accord them the same respect you would any other person, you 
might get a different type of criminal. At the very least you could be proud 
of your Police Force and your Society.

The only way to lower the crime rate is to change people's minds about 
wanting to commit crime, and changing social conditions so that nobody NEEDS 
to commit crime to survive. There will always be greed, there will always be 
anti-social screw-ups (who were created by the same society they rebel 
against), there will always be crimes of passion, and crimes caused by all 
the human frailty that flesh is heir to, but we should recognise it for what 
it is and seek to repair the damage done. Beating them into submission is 
stupid and pointless; creating a criminal under-class simply sets Society up 
for a war it can never win.

I hope I never see a war like that here.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Robert wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>>
>>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
>>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives
>>> the most lip service to their side of this issue.
>>
>> Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>>
>> Abortion should be generally available:
>> Conservative Repub - 17%
>> Liberal Dem - 60%
>> http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>>
>> It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982
>> (45,000 by liberal dems and  12750 by conservative repubs, if the
>> above percentages apply - a difference of 32,250).
>
> There are three kinds of people in the world:
>
> 1. Those who can do arithmetic.
> 2. Those who can't.
>
>> Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to
>> vote in 2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some
>> would have died, some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But
>> some would have voted.
>>
>> If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been
>> president.
>
> Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and
> half, Democrats. The outcome would have been the same. But if say
> 1,000 more had become Democrats (because they were black and
> hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 101,000 instead
> of 100,000.

Bush had no control over the process. The Secretary of State (an elected 
office) is solely responsible for the conduct of elections. The governor is 
not in the loop.

"Most likely?" Hardly. Study after study shows that a) children follow the 
political leanings of their parents by an eight-to-one margin; b) Youth (the 
18-year-olds in the above example) are typically more liberal than their 
elders.

Secondly, the disenfranchisement to which you refer would have to take place 
before the election. There have been few (if any) votes discarded AFTER an 
election. (I can, however, think of several spectacular cases where votes 
were ADDED after the polls closed - Consider Duvall County, Texas that 
helped Lyndon Johnson carry his 1948 race by 87 votes, earning him the 
moniker of "Landslide Lyndon" and the "found" ballots in Palm Beach county 
in the 2000 election).


>
> --- quotation ---
>
> Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the
> governorship and the secretary of state's office, now under Harris,
> the felon purge has accelerated. In May 2000, using a list provided
> by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000 Florida
> voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the
> group were charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake
> caught but never fully reversed. ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent
> out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437 voters who indeed
> had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error,
> since a Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing
> their time. In this case there was no attempt at all to correct the
> error.

Whether Texas allowed felons to vote has no bearing on whether Florida 
should allow felons to vote. In fact, a felon could be pardoned in Texas but 
still ineligible to vote in Florida. No state allows another state to define 
its sufferage requirements.

>
> The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap.
> The secretary of state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the
> removal of 714 names of Illinois felons and 990 from Ohio--states
> that permit the vote even to those on probation or parole. According
> to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
> Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for
> the scrub nearly 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states
> that automatically restore voting rights and who therefore arrived in
> Florida with full citizenship.

Again, if these recent arrivals wanted to vote, they should repair to their 
home state. No state is obliged to follow the voting requirements of 
another. If, for example, someone commits an act that's a felony in Ohio, 
but is only a misdemeanor in Florida, Florida may not let that person vote. 
Conversely, if the offense in Ohio is only a minor offense, but a felony in 
Florida, the conviction would not be a bar to voting in Florida.

Now this report you quote, from The Nation magazine (arguably the country's 
most liberal publication next to the Daily Worker) is obviously taking issue 
with the way things ARE, and that's okay. But the magazine attempts to 
confuse the issue, blaming political chicanery what was really long-standing 
law. In politics the rule is: do not attribute to malice that which can be 
explained by incompetence.

In my view, this silliness could have been prevented by having competent 
programmers in Florida, especially the Secretary of State's office.

All of this kerfluffle, however, has been mooted in that Florida recently 
changed the law and the state now allows felons to vote.

This single change dramatically increased the Democratic voter base.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives the
>> most lip service to their side of this issue.
>
>Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>
>Abortion should be generally available:
....

What you left out was the demographics of the poor minorities who have
big families and tend to vote Democrat.    So maybe abortion decreases
their rate of increase - but it won't be sufficient to cause (quoting
from the message I replied to) "the number of Democrats will slowly
decline."

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed to interpret who can and cannot vote?
>
> How could anyone interpret this mess?
>
> There should be one clear law for the Union:  "Everyone not in jail has the right to vote."
>
> Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.

The historical reason for the varying rules between states has to do with how the election process is defined in the Constitution. 
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that states have a large degree of autonomy, and that the Federal government be relatively 
weak. Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like the idea of a powerful central government here.

(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the 
tentative excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the southern states submitted a bill to free the 
slaves peacefully over a few years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just to abolish slavery, that 
would have been the time to do it, and avoid war. Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have destroyed the 
economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea, because the slaves would have been starving along with everyone else in 
the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or secession.)

The Constitution decreed that, in presidential elections, the states would send electoral delegates to Washington to evaluate and 
vote for the candidate they believed would make the best president. The number of electoral votes a state has are actually the 
number of electoral delegates, based on population. The primary reason for a national census every 10 years in the U.S. is to 
determine this, and the number of representatives each state elects to the U.S. House of Representatives. This made sense in the 
18th century, well before modern communications and computers. Because the states select and send the electoral delegates, they 
decide how the delegates are to be selected, including who can vote for them. In modern times, political parties nominate delegates 
who are sworn to vote for a particular candidate. In times past, the ballots only had the names of the delegate candidate, not the 
person running for office. Eventually the candidate's names were added along with the delegates. IIRC, in Alabama, the delegate's 
name may no longer appear.

Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular 
vote. Senate and House elections would probably still be determined by the states, similarly to now. The problem with a 
Constitutional amendment is that, once you open the long and complex process, you open the door for every wacky amendment out there, 
and the people would only get to vote the whole thing up or down. We could be stuck with a stupid amendment very few people want, or 
wasting the whole process by voting it down to avoid that.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
>the idea of a powerful central government here.
>
>(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
>free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the 
>tentative excuse, but not the reason.

Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of 
them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech 
he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.

From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

--begin quoted text:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, 
allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new 
constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions 
relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists 
amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. 
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

[snip]

The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jeferson - ed) and most of 
the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old 
constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of 
the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and 
politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the 
general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the 
order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

[snip]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its 
foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that 
the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to 
the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new 
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this 
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

--end quoted text

Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present 
revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth 
tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination 
to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'. 

So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate 
States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the 
Civil War, anyhow?

DD

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
news:f65sk3p8hpi5djidcrqpi7t1osig4h63lq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:31:38 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
<snip>
> Many Democratic voters in Chicago are neither insane nor criminal, they're 
> dead.
>
As opposed to Republican voters in Florida that are so important that they count 
as 1.1 voter.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com 

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
news:v6udk3l399oupmv3fcihlpkc7sn9nk9m6s@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" 
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
<snip>
> Percentage of homeless who are veterans is close to the percentage of the 
> general
> population who are veterans. 21% of American males over 18 are veterans and 1% 
> are active
> duty military.
>
I don't know how relevant this is or is not, but there was LOTS of news recently 
about how much higher the percentage of veterans committing suicide is that 
their percentage in the general publication.  See for example,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml


-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:A1I3j.149464$LL1.7446@fe04.news.easynews.com...
[snip]
> I don't know how relevant this is or is not, but there was LOTS of news
recently
> about how much higher the percentage of veterans committing suicide is
that
> their percentage in the general publication.  See for example,
>
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

The Department of Veterans Affairs response is at:
< http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1421 >

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is
>> allowed to interpret who can and cannot vote? How could anyone interpret 
>> this mess?
>>
>> There should be one clear law for the Union:  "Everyone not in jail
>> has the right to vote." Anything less creates schisms and classes in the 
>> society.
>
> The historical reason for the varying rules between states has to do
> with how the election process is defined in the Constitution. It was
> the intent of the Founding Fathers that states have a large degree of
> autonomy, and that the Federal government be relatively weak. Most
> early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like the idea
> of a powerful central government here.
> (The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not
> to free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
> tentative excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the
> Civil War, the southern states submitted a bill to free the slaves
> peacefully over a few years, but the northern states voted it down.
> If the intent had been just to abolish slavery, that would have been
> the time to do it, and avoid war. Forcing the southern states to give
> up slavery overnight would have destroyed the economy. Only an idiot
> would have thought that a good idea, because the slaves would have
> been starving along with everyone else in the South. Yet that was
> what the southern states were presented with, or secession.)

Exactly. "Freeing the slaves" was not the cause of the Second War of 
Independence, at least not directly. More pressing reasons had to do with 
the admission of new states and whether they would be "Slave," plus the 
encroachment of the slave states by the federal government.

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is 
>> allowed to interpret who can and cannot vote?
>>
>> How could anyone interpret this mess?
>>
>> There should be one clear law for the Union:  "Everyone not in jail has 
>> the right to vote."
>>
>> Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.
>
> The historical reason for the varying rules between states has to do with 
> how the election process is defined in the Constitution. It was the intent 
> of the Founding Fathers that states have a large degree of autonomy, and 
> that the Federal government be relatively weak. Most early Americans fled 
> oppression in Europe, and did not like the idea of a powerful central 
> government here.
>
> (The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to 
> free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the tentative 
> excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the 
> southern states submitted a bill to free the slaves peacefully over a few 
> years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just 
> to abolish slavery, that would have been the time to do it, and avoid war. 
> Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have 
> destroyed the economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea, 
> because the slaves would have been starving along with everyone else in 
> the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or 
> secession.)

I've never come across this view before and find it interesting. My 
knowledge of American history is the "received" one that we learn in school.

<Anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>
(Learning History in New Zealand is a pretty major task: (depending to some 
extent on which schools you attend, although the basic curriculum is set 
Nationally) we study Europe from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 until 1939, 
taking in the unification of Italy (Garibaldi), the unification of Germany 
including the Franco-Prussian War, The Austro-Hungarian Empire, Metternich 
and Bismarck, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Crimea and Balkans, the 
history of France. Then we do  Ancient history (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron 
Age, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome), Australia, New Zealand, (both, 
thankfully pretty short :-)), Great Britain from 1066 to 1815 (after which 
it is included in "Europe 1815 - 1939"), and, USA (The Revolution, the War 
of 1812, the Civil War, specific figures like Washington, Lincoln, Patrick 
Henry, John Paul Jones, and even Benedict Arnold... :-) We don't cover, 
except at the most superficial level, the system of government, although, of 
course, the Constitution and the Declaration of independence are covered in 
detail. Average Kiwis who have reached University Entrance level have a good 
and wide knowledge of the World around them. We spend a lot of time 
acquiring it. You can imagine how mortifying it was for me the first time I 
visited the US (30 years ago) and met people who thought NZ was part of 
Australia (another State; that may well happen in 50 years but definitely 
not yet...), "The Sydney Harbour bridge runs from Sydney to Auckland" - it's 
1400 miles... (based on the very dubious logic that the Bay Bridge runs from 
San Francisco to Oakland, and "Oakland" sounds like "Auckland".... :-))... 
now I have become resigned to it and understand that Americans have no 
reason to find out about much outside America... The best example of this 
was the following:

I stopped for gas at a service station on Ventura Boulevarde.

The attendant was courteous (as I find most Americans to be, definitely more 
so than in Europe) and was intrigued by my accent.

Attendant: "So, where you from?"

Me: "New Zealand".

Attendant (face lights up): "Aw, Man, I'd love to go there...".

Me (joking): "You guys don't need to go anywhere. You have it all, right 
here on Ventura...".

Attendant (looks around, then quite serious...): "Yeah, you're right..."

That little gem has stayed with me for some time. Maybe the attendant went 
on to become a movie star and achieve the American dream (I really hope 
so...), maybe he flies to NZ in his own private jet, but I think it is 
unlikely. Either way, I'm no longer offended when people of any nationality 
show ignorance about my country. The worry is that if they start to find out 
and start coming here, we might not be able to enjoy it as we currently do 
:-) Seriously, we welcome visitors and Tourism is now in the top five growth 
industries for NZ.

Just finally on that, in passing, David Beckham and the LA Galaxy arrived 
here yesterday. After watching the powhiri (traditionally Maori "welcome" 
which is pretty intimidating for people not familiar with it), and the 
subsequent press conference, I can tell you they are excellent Ambassadors 
for America. They seem to be genuinely enjoying their visit and NZ is loving 
to have them.

</Anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>

If what you say is true (and I'm not saying it isn't, Judson; just that I 
honestly don't know...) then surely, the history texts should reflect this 
important point? If such a terrible and bloody conflict could have been 
avoided, isn't there a responsibility for future generations to be aware of 
that?

>
> The Constitution decreed that, in presidential elections, the states would 
> send electoral delegates to Washington to evaluate and vote for the 
> candidate they believed would make the best president. The number of 
> electoral votes a state has are actually the number of electoral 
> delegates, based on population. The primary reason for a national census 
> every 10 years in the U.S. is to determine this, and the number of 
> representatives each state elects to the U.S. House of Representatives. 
> This made sense in the 18th century, well before modern communications and 
> computers.

In principle, it makes sense today. The problem is if States are allowed to 
juggle who is elegible. If that happens you get the empowered ruling class 
simply making sure that only "one of us" can represent them. (It happened in 
Great Britain right up until the 20th Century). That means that everyone 
else is then disenfranchised and the whole idea of a Democratic "level 
playing field" goes out the window.


>Because the states select and send the electoral delegates, they decide how 
>the delegates are to be selected, including who can vote for them.

That was my original point. They shouldn't be allowed to. One simple rule: 
"Everyone not in Jail gets to vote". (OK, you can exclude the mentally 
ill...but only if it is certified by three doctors... :-))

(Being the first country in the world to give women the vote (may have been 
a mistake, but we've learned to live with it :-)), we are pretty passionate 
about Democracy... here's a quote from "The right to Vote": 
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/right-to-vote.html

"In 1893, after a long and dramatic struggle, the right to vote was granted 
to all adult women. By that time it was widely accepted that the franchise 
was a right of citizenship, and that therefore all adult citizens should be 
able to take part in elections (with some exceptions, such as prison inmates 
and the mentally ill). "

By the time British women achieved the right to vote, NZers had had it for 
20 years; by the time American women got it (1920), nearly 30 years.)

Forgive my lack of in-depth understanding, but don't Federal Laws override 
State Laws PRECISELY so that individual States (who might be tempted to pass 
local legislation to discriminate against certain sectors) cannot do so?

If a State passes legislation which is seen to be against the spirit of the 
Union or violates the Constitution, doesn't that get overridden at Federal 
level?

What's the point of a Union if it's principles and the values for which it 
stands can be eroded by individual members of it?

>In modern times, political parties nominate delegates who are sworn to vote 
>for a particular candidate. In times past, the ballots only had the names 
>of the delegate candidate, not the person running for office. Eventually 
>the candidate's names were added along with the delegates. IIRC, in 
>Alabama, the delegate's name may no longer appear.

I don't understand this at all. Sorry.

It's too complex. There should be names on a paper. Everybody who is not in 
jail should privately mark the paper against the name they want to vote for. 
Everybody gets one vote (it can be easily controlled to ensure they do).
>
> Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better if 
> amended so presidential elections are by straight popular vote.

We call that "First past the Post" (FPP) It was the basis of our elections 
up until 1996. In 1993 we had a referendum and decided that Proportional 
Representation would be a fairer way to ensure that everybody (including 
minorities) was represented in Paliament. Pure PR was not suitable for us, 
so we adopted a system called Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) based on a 
system developed and shown to work well in Germany. In effect, it means that 
people vote for specific candidates (as in FPP) and also for the Parties 
they favour. Any party receiving 5% of the vote will be allocated seats in 
Parliament (even though none of their specific candidates may have won their 
local area (electorate)).  In the 1996 elections MMP proved to be a winner 
and we have been using it ever since. (We have Natonal Elections every 3 
years. It used to be 5 years but we found that, once elected, parties tended 
to "coast"  and were not driven to perform during the latter part of their 
mandate. Three years keeps everyone on their toes and ensures performance is 
maintained.)

I'd agree that for the office of President, it should be FPP across the 
nation, without regard to the size, wealth, or population of States.


>Senate and House elections would probably still be determined by the 
>states, similarly to now. The problem with a Constitutional amendment is 
>that, once you open the long and complex process, you open the door for 
>every wacky amendment out there, and the people would only get to vote the 
>whole thing up or down. We could be stuck with a stupid amendment very few 
>people want, or wasting the whole process by voting it down to avoid that.

Ah, an unwieldy Bureaucracy will always undermine even the most well defined 
Democracy. It's almost as if we overwhelm ourselves with paper and process 
and lose sight of what is really important.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
>>the idea of a powerful central government here.
>>
>>(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
>>free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
>>tentative excuse, but not the reason.
>
> Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
> them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
> he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
>
> From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
> allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
> constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
> relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
> amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
> This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
>
> [snip]
>
> The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jeferson - ed) and most of
> the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
> constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of
> the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
> politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
> general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
> order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
>
> [snip]
>
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
> foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that
> the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to
> the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
> government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
> great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>
> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> Civil War, anyhow?

Thanks for that, Doc.

Like Judson's piece,   I read it with great interest.

I was quite surprised by the revulsion that the last quoted paragraph evoked 
as I read it. Obviously, the world in 1861 was quite different from the 
world in 2007, and I don't doubt that Mr. Stevens was sincere in his belief. 
He was probably a thorough Southern Gentleman in every way, gracious to 
ladies, God fearing, and honourable in battle. We are complex creatures...

Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely 
believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like 
cattle, as God requires us to take care of them. (Southern Baptist... 
although I'm sure (hopeful) not ALL Southern Baptists can believe this...). 
These are not wicked, evil people. (In fact some of them were kind, decent, 
and generous.) They are a product of their environment and we should just be 
thankful that environment is being eroded by education.

(In my opinion, it still has a way to go, but I am encouraged by the legal 
dismissal of "Intelligent Design" and such cases... I have no problem with 
people believing whatever they want to, until they get commands from God to 
suppress the search for knowledge and understanding and to believe that the 
"unchosen" are inferior and should be treated as such...)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13ktj1nf63hjo0e@corp.supernews.com...
> Robert wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
>>>>> Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
>>>>> assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
>>>>> the number of Democrats will slowly decline.
>>>>
>>>> But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics.    But
>>>> there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
>>>> that their political preferences move towards the party that gives
>>>> the most lip service to their side of this issue.
>>>
>>> Well, yes it does fit the demographics.
>>>
>>> Abortion should be generally available:
>>> Conservative Repub - 17%
>>> Liberal Dem - 60%
>>> http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
>>>
>>> It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982
>>> (45,000 by liberal dems and  12750 by conservative repubs, if the
>>> above percentages apply - a difference of 32,250).
>>
>> There are three kinds of people in the world:
>>
>> 1. Those who can do arithmetic.
>> 2. Those who can't.
>>
>>> Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to
>>> vote in 2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some
>>> would have died, some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But
>>> some would have voted.
>>>
>>> If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been
>>> president.
>>
>> Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and
>> half, Democrats. The outcome would have been the same. But if say
>> 1,000 more had become Democrats (because they were black and
>> hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 101,000 instead
>> of 100,000.
>
> Bush had no control over the process. The Secretary of State (an elected 
> office) is solely responsible for the conduct of elections. The governor 
> is not in the loop.
>
> "Most likely?" Hardly. Study after study shows that a) children follow the 
> political leanings of their parents by an eight-to-one margin; b) Youth 
> (the 18-year-olds in the above example) are typically more liberal than 
> their elders.
>
> Secondly, the disenfranchisement to which you refer would have to take 
> place before the election. There have been few (if any) votes discarded 
> AFTER an election. (I can, however, think of several spectacular cases 
> where votes were ADDED after the polls closed - Consider Duvall County, 
> Texas that helped Lyndon Johnson carry his 1948 race by 87 votes, earning 
> him the moniker of "Landslide Lyndon" and the "found" ballots in Palm 
> Beach county in the 2000 election).
>
>
>>
>> --- quotation ---
>>
>> Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the
>> governorship and the secretary of state's office, now under Harris,
>> the felon purge has accelerated. In May 2000, using a list provided
>> by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000 Florida
>> voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the
>> group were charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake
>> caught but never fully reversed. ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent
>> out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437 voters who indeed
>> had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error,
>> since a Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing
>> their time. In this case there was no attempt at all to correct the
>> error.
>
> Whether Texas allowed felons to vote has no bearing on whether Florida 
> should allow felons to vote. In fact, a felon could be pardoned in Texas 
> but still ineligible to vote in Florida. No state allows another state to 
> define its sufferage requirements.
>
That amazes me, as noted elsewhere. I reckon this should be defined at 
Federal level and it should be simple and to the point. (Texas already has 
it right, apparently, but it is so fundmental, there should be no 
exceptions). All of the machinations, flim-flam, and jiggery-pokery being 
described or hinted at in this thread, could be eliminated with a single 
Federal Law requiring that any citizen not in jail (and not certifiably 
mentally ill) has the right to vote. End of story.


> The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap.
>> The secretary of state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the
>> removal of 714 names of Illinois felons and 990 from Ohio--states
>> that permit the vote even to those on probation or parole. According
>> to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
>> Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for
>> the scrub nearly 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states
>> that automatically restore voting rights and who therefore arrived in
>> Florida with full citizenship.
>
> Again, if these recent arrivals wanted to vote, they should repair to 
> their home state. No state is obliged to follow the voting requirements of 
> another. If, for example, someone commits an act that's a felony in Ohio, 
> but is only a misdemeanor in Florida, Florida may not let that person 
> vote. Conversely, if the offense in Ohio is only a minor offense, but a 
> felony in Florida, the conviction would not be a bar to voting in Florida.
>
> Now this report you quote, from The Nation magazine (arguably the 
> country's most liberal publication next to the Daily Worker) is obviously 
> taking issue with the way things ARE, and that's okay. But the magazine 
> attempts to confuse the issue, blaming political chicanery what was really 
> long-standing law. In politics the rule is: do not attribute to malice 
> that which can be explained by incompetence.
>
:-) A very good rule that seems to hold world wide...

> In my view, this silliness could have been prevented by having competent 
> programmers in Florida, especially the Secretary of State's office.
>
> All of this kerfluffle, however, has been mooted in that Florida recently 
> changed the law and the state now allows felons to vote.
>
> This single change dramatically increased the Democratic voter base.
>

Them's the breaks... :-)

The important thing is to get the process right.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
> >the idea of a powerful central government here.
> >
> >(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
> >free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
> >tentative excuse, but not the reason.
>
> Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
> them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
> he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
>
> From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
> allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
> constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
> relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
> amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
> This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
>
> [snip]
>
> The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jeferson - ed) and most of
> the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
> constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of
> the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
> politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
> general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
> order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
>
> [snip]
>
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
> foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that
> the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to
> the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
> government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
> great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>
> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> Civil War, anyhow?

The Civil War did not begin until April 12, 1861, about three
weeks after Mr Stephen's speech. This suggests he may have
been referring to something other than the Civil War.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so...
> for all the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to
> society, they shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the
> rest of their life.

They were second-class citizens to begin with. They chose their life, they 
picked their actions knowing the consequence.

>
> I was watching one of those cop video documentaries on free-to-air TV
> here tonight and I thought some of the police treatment was apalling.
> It was all from the USA. I realise miscreants are likely to carry
> guns and police need protection, but some of what went on was
> definitely excessive...

You should understand that in most jurisdictions, the police chief is a 
political appointment and does NOT represent the attitudes or priorities of 
the officers of the department. Below we have an example, from just 
yesterday, of a political police chief firing a long-time officer for 
obviously political reasons.

Money quote:
 "I paused and hesitated, especially because he was facedown and on the 
ground, before making the decision to shoot several more rounds to ensure I 
ended the threat."
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129olsen.html

Note in this case - as in so many others - the goblin was a person of color 
and the officer was a person of pallor. There are canned phrases among the, 
um, enlightened. You never, NEVER, "shoot to kill" or "shoot to wound" or 
"shoot to warn." You always, ALWAYS "shoot to end the threat." An officer 
has drummed into him that he must use that phrase to the exclusion of all 
others.

You see, there's cop-speak and citizen-speak. I remember a TV show where a 
cop was being interrogated after he killed a squint. The investigating 
officer finally summed up the two-hour interview with: "Okay, you say you 
identified yourself as an officer and the suspect ran to the bedroom and 
opened a dresser drawer. From the drawer he drew a large-caliber firearm and 
pointed it in your direction. You, being in fear for your life, discharged 
your service weapon. Is that your statement?"

"Yeah. Like I told you, he went for his piece and I smoked him."

Anyway, I spoke to one Austin officer (via email) today and he says the 
entire department is steamed about the raw deal the chief handed the 
sergeant, just for killing a goblin.


> A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler
> didn't call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the
> dog seriously maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of
> surrender, then rewarded the dog with "Good Boy...". I found it
> sickening and an abuse of power.

The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have guns. They 
willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them their freedom to 
choose?

>
> I am not a bleeding heart Liberal who would scream "police brutality"
> if someone genuinely resisted arrest, but neither do I think that
> when someone has surrendered they should be shot or savaged by a dog.

Surrender? There is no surrender in police work.

>
> There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are
> not) and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public
> opinion. After watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing
> tasers (I was in favour, but I realise that if you give someone a
> toy, they can't wait to use it...there have already been misuses of
> pepper spray by police here...)

Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out. Rawhide!"). Many 
cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane person likes to touch that 
stuff with their hands.

>
> I guess the bottom line on what I'm saying here is that if you view
> criminals as a sub-human, sub-culture, treat them brutally, and
> remove any hope of them ever being being able to lead a normal life,
> you shouldn't be too surprised at what you get.

Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they demonstrate that 
they ARE sub-human. They are not catagorized as being part of a degenerate 
sub-culture until they act like they are part of a degerate sub-culture. 
They have not been leading a normal life when they came into contact with 
the rest of society in the first place. And, speaking as an ex-cop, we are 
not surprised at the depravity to which some can descend. And that descent 
was NOT of society's making.

>
> If you see them as fellow human beings, citizens of your country, who
> have screwed up, accord them the same respect you would any other
> person, you might get a different type of criminal. At the very least
> you could be proud of your Police Force and your Society.

Treat them as any other person?  Respect them? See them as fellow human 
beings? "Well, yes, you chopped up a small child, but that's behind you now. 
Would like some tea and biscuits?" No, they have lost - or never had - those 
qualities that make them a human being. It's insanity to hold otherwise.

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13kv2bbb5tvulb4@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so...
>> for all the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to
>> society, they shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the
>> rest of their life.
>
> They were second-class citizens to begin with. They chose their life, they 
> picked their actions knowing the consequence.
>

That's not necessarily true.

>>
>> I was watching one of those cop video documentaries on free-to-air TV
>> here tonight and I thought some of the police treatment was apalling.
>> It was all from the USA. I realise miscreants are likely to carry
>> guns and police need protection, but some of what went on was
>> definitely excessive...
>
> You should understand that in most jurisdictions, the police chief is a 
> political appointment and does NOT represent the attitudes or priorities 
> of the officers of the department. Below we have an example, from just 
> yesterday, of a political police chief firing a long-time officer for 
> obviously political reasons.
>
> Money quote:
> "I paused and hesitated, especially because he was facedown and on the 
> ground, before making the decision to shoot several more rounds to ensure 
> I ended the threat."
> http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129olsen.html
>

I read this report. It is a tragedy for everyone concerned.

> Note in this case - as in so many others - the goblin was a person of 
> color and the officer was a person of pallor. There are canned phrases 
> among the, um, enlightened. You never, NEVER, "shoot to kill" or "shoot to 
> wound" or "shoot to warn." You always, ALWAYS "shoot to end the threat." 
> An officer has drummed into him that he must use that phrase to the 
> exclusion of all others.
>
> You see, there's cop-speak and citizen-speak.

I reckon the Chief was right. It was murder and there is no excuse for it.

Maybe years of being in the frontline de-humanizes people. Perhaps we 
shouldn't let Cops put their lives on the line for more than a certain time 
period (We rotate soldiers out of battle zones...).  I don't know what went 
through that Officers mind when he shot that guy,  but I wouldn't mind 
betting he didn't see someone's son, father, brother, or husband... Just 
taking out the trash.

Both that cop and his victim are products of a system.

The system needs urgent review.

>I remember a TV show where a cop was being interrogated after he killed a 
>squint. The investigating officer finally summed up the two-hour interview 
>with: "Okay, you say you identified yourself as an officer and the suspect 
>ran to the bedroom and opened a dresser drawer. From the drawer he drew a 
>large-caliber firearm and pointed it in your direction. You, being in fear 
>for your life, discharged your service weapon. Is that your statement?"
>
> "Yeah. Like I told you, he went for his piece and I smoked him."

I have no problem with that at all. Regrettable, but necessary.  Police here 
are allowed to use "necessary force". Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, 
they go too far, but they don't generally kill people. And definitely not 
people who are no longer a threat.

>
> Anyway, I spoke to one Austin officer (via email) today and he says the 
> entire department is steamed about the raw deal the chief handed the 
> sergeant, just for killing a goblin.
>

Then the entire department needs to think about what they are doing in that 
job.

Perhaps they might think about themselves as Human Beings and as men, while 
they are at it. The Chief is right because a cowardly act by one Officer 
brings the whole group into disrepute.

And yet Olsen's Attorney accuses the Chief of cowardice and the rank and 
file say he isn't supporting them like he promised. How could they 
reasonably expect him to support "unpolicemanlike" behaviour?


>
>> A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler
>> didn't call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the
>> dog seriously maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of
>> surrender, then rewarded the dog with "Good Boy...". I found it
>> sickening and an abuse of power.
>
> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have guns. They 
> willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them their freedom to 
> choose?
>

The guy had given up, Jerry. He wasn't a threat. OK, he made a bad choice 
(to burglarize someone else's property), but when he realized it was a fair 
cop he offered absolutely no resistance at all. The Officer decided to 
administer some "punishment" on his own "initiative". Last time I looked it 
is not the function of enforcement officers to be judge, jury, and 
executioner. We have Courts for that.

>>
>> I am not a bleeding heart Liberal who would scream "police brutality"
>> if someone genuinely resisted arrest, but neither do I think that
>> when someone has surrendered they should be shot or savaged by a dog.
>
> Surrender? There is no surrender in police work.

Yes there is. There are times when Officers are under genuine threat and 
fully entitled to use whatever powers and means we, as a society, have 
empowerd them to have. But we trust them not to misuse those powers. When an 
Officer is not under threat, there is no requirement for excessive force.

The population as a whole have to know they can trust the Police.
>
>>
>> There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are
>> not) and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public
>> opinion. After watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing
>> tasers (I was in favour, but I realise that if you give someone a
>> toy, they can't wait to use it...there have already been misuses of
>> pepper spray by police here...)
>
> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out. Rawhide!"). Many 
> cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane person likes to touch that 
> stuff with their hands.
>
I don't quite understand this response. Not sure what you're referring to... 
I've never been pepper sprayed or maced, but I have been tear-gassed. (It 
was when I was in the miltary and we volunteered for it.) I can honestly 
recommend that it is "best avoided". I'm sure the sprays are just as 
effective. We see statistics which show several hundred people have died 
from being tasered (there was one fairly recently in Canada).

While I don't expect Cops to stand on the wall without the best possible 
defences, my concern is that if they have these devices they'll be looking 
for an excuse to use them. If Cops can't be trusted to know when "enough is 
enough" then they can't be trusted to have potentially deadly weapons issued 
to them.

>>
>> I guess the bottom line on what I'm saying here is that if you view
>> criminals as a sub-human, sub-culture, treat them brutally, and
>> remove any hope of them ever being being able to lead a normal life,
>> you shouldn't be too surprised at what you get.
>
> Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they demonstrate 
> that they ARE sub-human.

But they are still human beings. Even good people can behave badly. (Just as 
the very worst people are capable of nobility sometimes. We are complex 
creatures.)

> They are not catagorized as being part of a degenerate sub-culture until 
> they act like they are part of a degerate sub-culture.

So, given that we then treat them as part of a degenerate sub-culture, how 
exactly is that likely to undermine such sub-culture, or change it, or 
destroy it? It simply reinforces that there is a degenerate sub-culture and 
people get sentenced to it. We recognize it, so it must exist. It is a 
self-defeating circle. Treat people with respect and decency and it might be 
the first time they have ever encountered respect and decency in their 
lives. Being aware that everyone DOESN'T behave the way they have come to 
expect, may give pause. At least it offers an option...

Here's a quote from your article:

"Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People, said Acevedo's decision Wednesday 
"sends a powerful message to the entire city that all human life is 
important and that if you use deadly force, you should be sure it is 
absolutely necessary." "

If black people in Austin don't believe they get fair treatment from the 
Law, is it any wonder there is a "sub-culture"?

Chief Acevedo is obviously doing the best he can to show that the Law 
applies to all. That can only be a good thing.

> They have not been leading a normal life when they came into contact with 
> the rest of society in the first place. And, speaking as an ex-cop, we are 
> not surprised at the depravity to which some can descend. And that descent 
> was NOT of society's making.

As I do not believe people are inherently evil, we have to diverge 
completely at this point.  If it was "...NOT of society's making" from 
whence did it arise? A new-born baby is neither sinful nor evil. If, 20 
years later, that person has gone into the descent you describe, why did 
they? It can only be because of experiences and events they were exposed to. 
Watching Cops murder people probably doesn't help to form a positive image 
of Law and Order...

That's my whole point: If WE (each individual one of us, comprising 
"society")behave badly, how can we ever expect anyone else to not behave 
badly? That's why Cops need to be shining examples of honour, decency, and 
justice, not uniformed thugs with a licence to kill.

I can honestly say that on the several occasions I have had incidents 
involving police officers in the US, for the most part, they were courteous, 
efficient, and inspired confidence. (I can't say the same about the British 
Police, but that's another story... :-)) I don't believe that most cops in 
the US love to use excessive force, but, as the Chief in your story 
realised, you only need one or two to ruin it for everyone.
>
>>
>> If you see them as fellow human beings, citizens of your country, who
>> have screwed up, accord them the same respect you would any other
>> person, you might get a different type of criminal. At the very least
>> you could be proud of your Police Force and your Society.
>
> Treat them as any other person?  Respect them? See them as fellow human 
> beings? "Well, yes, you chopped up a small child, but that's behind you 
> now. Would like some tea and biscuits?"

It is not your place to judge them. But I'd certainly spit in the tea... :-)

>No, they have lost - or never had - those qualities that make them a human 
>being.

I disagree. Those qualities are there; they are just submerged under 
aberration, bad judgement, and (in extreme cases) mental illness.

>It's insanity to hold otherwise.
>

I don't mind being called "crazy"... Mine is a fine madness :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

In article <5r9b19F13a7pvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
>>>the idea of a powerful central government here.
>>>
>>>(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
>>>free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
>>>tentative excuse, but not the reason.
>>
>> Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
>> them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
>> he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
>>
>> From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
>>
>> --begin quoted text:

[snip]

>> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
>> foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that
>> the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to
>> the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
>> government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
>> great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
>>
>> --end quoted text
>>
>> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
>> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
>> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
>> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>>
>> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
>> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
>> Civil War, anyhow?
>
>Thanks for that, Doc.
>
>Like Judson's piece,   I read it with great interest.
>
>I was quite surprised by the revulsion that the last quoted paragraph evoked 
>as I read it.

I am no longer surprised, Mr Dashwood, by the ignorance people have - or 
pretend to have - regarding this speech and many, many pronouncements 
similar to it.

[snip]

>Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely 
>believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like 
>cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.

I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a 
few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.

[snip]

>(In my opinion, it still has a way to go, but I am encouraged by the legal 
>dismissal of "Intelligent Design" and such cases... I have no problem with 
>people believing whatever they want to, until they get commands from God to 
>suppress the search for knowledge and understanding and to believe that the 
>"unchosen" are inferior and should be treated as such...)

I have no problem with beliefs, period... actions concern me more.  Oh...  
and keep worship or advertising of your gods out of my public schools, 
while you're at it.

DD

In article <13kuv5hdahco9bc@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
>> >the idea of a powerful central government here.
>> >
>> >(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
>> >free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
>> >tentative excuse, but not the reason.
>>
>> Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
>> them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
>> he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
>>
>> From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
>>
>> --begin quoted text:
>>
>> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
>> allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
>> constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
>> relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
>> amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
>> This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

[snip]

>> --end quoted text
>>
>> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
>> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
>> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
>> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>>
>> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
>> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
>> Civil War, anyhow?
>
>The Civil War did not begin until April 12, 1861, about three
>weeks after Mr Stephen's speech. This suggests he may have
>been referring to something other than the Civil War.

Mr Smith, Vice President Stephens begins his speech with 'I was remarking 
that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals 
of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an 
old government and formed a new.'

Secession from the Union began on 24 Dec 1860 (South Carolina) and by 9 
Feb 1861 six other states joined and formed the Confederate States of 
America.  I do not believe that there were too many other 'latest 
ruptures' which Mr Stephens might have been addressing; if you have 
evidence that might support that view it could be interesting to see.

DD

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> (The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was 
>> the tentative excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the southern states submitted a bill to free 
>> the slaves peacefully over a few years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just to abolish slavery, 
>> that would have been the time to do it, and avoid war. Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have 
>> destroyed the economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea, because the slaves would have been starving along with 
>> everyone else in the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or secession.)
>
> I've never come across this view before and find it interesting. My knowledge of American history is the "received" one that we 
> learn in school.

Whoever said that history is always written by the victors was dead on.
The best way to abolish slavery would have been to pass legislation that
combined financial incentives for freeing slaves with penalties for keeping
them, that would be applied progressively over a period of several years,
ending with manumission of all slaves. I believe this is pretty much what
the southern states proposed circa 1860. The fact that it was voted down by
the northern block states says more than anyone's opinion or comments about
the actual intent at the time.

Even if nothing at all had been done to free the slaves, the Industrial
Revolution was making slavery uneconomical. Combined with the pressure from
those who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons, slavery would have
been abolished within a fairly short period of time anyway, as evidenced by
the proposed legislation above. Then some 750,000 Americans wouldn't have
died. Killing 750,000 to free 4,000,000, and laying waste to a big chunk of
North America. Even if the reason had been purely to free the slaves, what
a terrible way to do it, under the circumstances. Nothing to brag about,
any way you slice it.

What bothers me is that liberals never seem to learn from their mistakes.
In the late 1970's a huge hydroelectric dam project in north Georgia was
stopped because it was said to endanger a "rare" small fish called the
Snail Darter. Hundreds of families incomes was trashed and many millions of
dollars was wasted, and the dam wasn't built. In the 1990's a serious DNA
study of the fishes in North American rivers proved that the Snail Darter
is a very common fish, only differing slightly in color from many other
varieties of the same species. Anyone think we could use more environment
friendly hydroelectric power these days?

In the 1970's the EPA decided that, since exposure to asbestos can be a
health risk, that all asbestos in existing building must be removed post
haste at all costs. Billions of dollars was spent in a futile attempt, and
even the EPA admits the effort was a disaster, exposing many thousands of
people to asbestos dust caused by the asbestor removal process, saying it
would have been much better to just leave the asbestos where it was, and
deal with it as necessary. Nice to know that ... now.

It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
heads, and become blind to everything else.

Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
"benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
"pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
is "real" and definitely caused by humans. Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever, and
www.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/apr06reg.pdf), "Forest fires are
always bad, prevent them at all costs" (it's now known that small forest
fires every few decades are beneficial for the forest, because they keep
underbrush down, otherwise the uncontrolled underbrush permits a huge
devastating uncontrollable fire that destroys the forest in a hundred
years or so {e.g. Yellowstone Park}, and they "renew" the living habitat
for many forest animals) and "Coming New Ice Age" from just 20 years ago
(Google "coming new ice age 1980's"), to name but a few.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <13kv2bbb5tvulb4@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so...
>> for all the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to
>> society, they shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the
>> rest of their life.
>
>They were second-class citizens to begin with.

'To begin with'?  So much for that 'all men are created equal' rhetoric, 
looks like there's a return to the Scottish 'you can know a criminal by 
the face in the crib'.

[snip]

>Note in this case - as in so many others - the goblin was a person of color 
>and the officer was a person of pallor.

'The goblin'... not 'the accused', not 'the perpertrator', not 'a human 
being'... 'the goblin'.

[snip]

>I remember a TV show where a 
>cop was being interrogated after he killed a squint.

'A squint'... not 'an accused', not 'a suspect', etc... 'a squint'.

[snip]

>Anyway, I spoke to one Austin officer (via email) today and he says the 
>entire department is steamed about the raw deal the chief handed the 
>sergeant, just for killing a goblin.

There it is again... this dehumanisation, this turning of human beings 
into 'The Other', perhaps in order to make a failure of protecting and 
serving easier to deal with.

[snip]

>Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they demonstrate that 
>they ARE sub-human.

Again a dehumanisation... and an apparent glossing-over of the fact that a 
judge and a jury determine who is a criminal, not the arresting officer.

[snip]

>See them as fellow human 
>beings? "Well, yes, you chopped up a small child, but that's behind you now. 
>Would like some tea and biscuits?" No, they have lost - or never had - those 
>qualities that make them a human being. It's insanity to hold otherwise.

It might not be seen as sanity to treat every possible infraction of the 
law as child murder and dismemberment... but that sort of reductionism 
might make it easier to put on the badge every night and go out looking 
for 'goblins' and 'squints', sure.

(Decades on back, when people I knew began making 'career decisions', I 
noticed that policefolk would often wind up arresting people they had 
known from childhood... neighbors, relatives and the like, people from the 
same socioeconomic stratum.  I mused over how it might be better that if 
there are, in fact, a group of people who, every night, enjoy putting on a 
uniform that makes them a target, strapping on a gun and a club, roaming 
the streets and looking for trouble, running up stairs and knocking down 
doors - possibly facing hostile fire while doing so - then... well, such 
folks exist and it would be best for me, as a tax-paying citizen, to have 
them on *my* payroll.)

DD

In article <tCT3j.12379$rc2.1247@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>The best way to abolish slavery would have been to pass legislation that
>combined financial incentives for freeing slaves with penalties for keeping
>them, that would be applied progressively over a period of several years,
>ending with manumission of all slaves. I believe this is pretty much what
>the southern states proposed circa 1860. The fact that it was voted down by
>the northern block states says more than anyone's opinion or comments about
>the actual intent at the time.

Mr McClendon, this is the second time you've referred to this incident.  
Never mind that financial incentives and penalties can be imposed at the 
State level... I have cited, explicitly, the Cornerstone Speech as an 
opposing argument.  Where might more be found out about this... situation 
that 'the souther states proposed circa 1860'?

DD

On 29 Nov, 15:20, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

> (The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
> tentative excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the southern states submitted a bill to free the
> slaves peacefully over a few years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just to abolish slavery, that
> would have been the time to do it, and avoid war. Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have destroyed the
> economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea, because the slaves would have been starving along with everyone else in
> the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or secession.)

This caused me to spend all of at least 5 minutes on Wikipedia looking
for the reason why the war happened. Certainly amendments were
proposed and rejected but which one do you refer to when yoiu say "the
southern states submitted a bill to free the slaves peacefully over a
few years, but the northern states voted it down".
I only ask because the last proposal, the "Crittenden Compromise",
does not appear to be a proposition to abolish slavery in a phased
manner but rather an attempt to perpetuate it.

On 29 Nov, 15:41, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>
> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> Civil War, anyhow?
>

Doesn't it make you wonder why they did not institutionalise
enslavement of their womenfolk? Oh, they did, it's called marriage.

On 30 Nov, 02:14, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> <Anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>
> The attendant was courteous (as I find most Americans to be, definitely more
> so than in Europe) and was intrigued by my accent.

Presumably the jibe is aimed at discourteous Europeans? My 2
pennyworth (4 cents to the Americans) is this: I have never met an
American, a European or an Antipodean that I did not like. I have,
however, met many Brits that I did not like.

Or were you aiming at Americans in Europe?

> Any party receiving 5% of the vote will be allocated seats in
> Parliament (even though none of their specific candidates may have won their
> local area (electorate)).  

That 5% rule would allow a permanent fascist presence in the British
parliament.     8-(

> In the 1996 elections MMP proved to be a winner
> and we have been using it ever since. (We have Natonal Elections every 3
> years. It used to be 5 years but we found that, once elected, parties tended
> to "coast"  and were not driven to perform during the latter part of their
> mandate. Three years keeps everyone on their toes and ensures performance is
> maintained.)
>

3 years sounds like a good idea but for one tiny thing: an increase in
electioneering of 50% in any time frame. Elections are boring and off-
putting enough over here without having to go through 50% more of the
same.

On 30 Nov, 02:32, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> <docdw...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> > In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
> >>the idea of a powerful central government here.
>
> >>(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
> >>free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
> >>tentative excuse, but not the reason.
>
> > Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one of
> > them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a speech
> > he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
>
> > Fromhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
>
> > --begin quoted text:
>
> > But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
> > allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
> > constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
> > relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
> > amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
> > This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jeferson - ed) and most of
> > the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
> > constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of
> > the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
> > politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
> > general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
> > order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
> > foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that
> > the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to
> > the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
> > government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
> > great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
>
> > --end quoted text
>
> > Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> > revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
> > tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
> > to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>
> > So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
> > States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> > Civil War, anyhow?
>
> Thanks for that, Doc.
>
> Like Judson's piece,   I read it with great interest.
>
> I was quite surprised by the revulsion that the last quoted paragraph evoked
> as I read it. Obviously, the world in 1861 was quite different from the
> world in 2007, and I don't doubt that Mr. Stevens was sincere in his belief.
> He was probably a thorough Southern Gentleman in every way, gracious to
> ladies, God fearing, and honourable in battle. We are complex creatures...
>
> Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely
> believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
> cattle, as God requires us to take care of them. (Southern Baptist...
> although I'm sure (hopeful) not ALL Southern Baptists can believe this...).
> These are not wicked, evil people. (In fact some of them were kind, decent,
> and generous.) They are a product of their environment and we should just be
> thankful that environment is being eroded by education.
>
> (In my opinion, it still has a way to go, but I am encouraged by the legal
> dismissal of "Intelligent Design" and such cases... I have no problem with
> people believing whatever they want to, until they get commands from God to
> suppress the search for knowledge and understanding and to believe that the
> "unchosen" are inferior and should be treated as such...)
>

Doesn't the US President talk with God? And Tony Blair has come out as
a religious man by saying that he was afraid to mention God in case
people thought that he was a religious nutter.

I feel that the language that you have used in this item requires
explanation:

Goblin. This is the second item in which you have used this term (that
I have so far been bothered to read). I presume that this means
perpetrator.

Squint. I presume that you mean some one of an ethnic asian origin.
This term is racially offensive.

Other comments inserted below.

On 30 Nov, 03:54, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > By all means punish felons (you guys seem Hell-bent on doing so...
> > for all the good it does...), but once someone pays their debt to
> > society, they shouldn't be marked as a second-class citizen for the
> > rest of their life.
>
> They were second-class citizens to begin with. They chose their life, they
> picked their actions knowing the consequence.

Did they choose their life or was it forced upon them by unsympathetic
white folks economically exploiting (as per neo-fascist capitalist
principles) them? It may do you well to remember that a country is
defined by its population and that the majority of your country may be
Goblins and Squints (your terms) and Hispanics. If they collectively
feel that the white folks have disenfranchised them then you may see
more rioting and a third revolution on the streets.

>
>
>
> > I was watching one of those cop video documentaries on free-to-air TV
> > here tonight and I thought some of the police treatment was apalling.
> > It was all from the USA. I realise miscreants are likely to carry
> > guns and police need protection, but some of what went on was
> > definitely excessive...
>
> You should understand that in most jurisdictions, the police chief is a
> political appointment and does NOT represent the attitudes or priorities of
> the officers of the department.

In the UK the police chiefs are appointed by politicos too. We don't
go around shooting our undesirables. I realise that an in-bred gun
culture makes policing difficult but it does not excuse inhumane
treatment of suspects or offenders.

>
>
> > A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler
> > didn't call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the
> > dog seriously maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of
> > surrender, then rewarded the dog with "Good Boy...". I found it
> > sickening and an abuse of power.
>
> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have guns. They
> willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them their freedom to
> choose?

Knowing the means of enforcement likely to be used does not justify
the behaviour that PD mentioned nor does it excuse your 'so what'
attitude.

>
>
>
> > I am not a bleeding heart Liberal who would scream "police brutality"
> > if someone genuinely resisted arrest, but neither do I think that
> > when someone has surrendered they should be shot or savaged by a dog.
>
> Surrender? There is no surrender in police work.
>

Why don't you just round them all up and shoot them now? It would save
on an awful lot of policing and paper work.

>
>
> > There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are
> > not) and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public
> > opinion. After watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing
> > tasers (I was in favour, but I realise that if you give someone a
> > toy, they can't wait to use it...there have already been misuses of
> > pepper spray by police here...)
>
> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out. Rawhide!"). Many
> cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane person likes to touch that
> stuff with their hands.

As an individual with a heart murmur I am at greater risk of dying if
a Taser is used on me. Any cop attempting to deploy such a device on
me is more likely to be met with an increase in violence rather than a
reduction in it. Further, IIRC, approximately one fifth of US Police
Officers who are shot in the line of duty are shot by their own
handguns. Would deploying Tasers make their life easier and safer or
merely give them a 'non-lethal' option which they would more readily
deploy because they percieve it as being a safe option?

>
>
>
> > I guess the bottom line on what I'm saying here is that if you view
> > criminals as a sub-human, sub-culture, treat them brutally, and
> > remove any hope of them ever being being able to lead a normal life,
> > you shouldn't be too surprised at what you get.
>
> Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they demonstrate that
> they ARE sub-human.

So what was the justification for sicking the dog upon the perp? Are
all criminals sub-human?

> They are not catagorized as being part of a degenerate
> sub-culture until they act like they are part of a degerate sub-culture.
> They have not been leading a normal life when they came into contact with
> the rest of society in the first place.

Criminal behaviour is not normal but is common. Laws make criminals
(we had that out in another thread) and society makes the laws.

> And, speaking as an ex-cop, we are
> not surprised at the depravity to which some can descend. And that descent
> was NOT of society's making.
>

So it must have been genetic in origin? After all:

   PHENOTYPE = GENOTYPE x ENVIRONMENT

(criminality is the product of genetic pre-disposition within
society).

Perhaps you should try for office on a ticket of rounding up all
undesirables (goblins, squints, hispanics, HELL let's just say anyone
who isn't white middle-class and married) and using the ultimate
solution upon them.

>
>
> > If you see them as fellow human beings, citizens of your country, who
> > have screwed up, accord them the same respect you would any other
> > person, you might get a different type of criminal. At the very least
> > you could be proud of your Police Force and your Society.
>
> Treat them as any other person?  Respect them? See them as fellow human
> beings? "Well, yes, you chopped up a small child, but that's behind you now.
> Would like some tea and biscuits?" No, they have lost - or never had - those
> qualities that make them a human being. It's insanity to hold otherwise.

The tone of your article implies that all criminals should be treated
with the same contempt. Not all criminals are baby-choppers.


To the group: I apologise for the repeated use of terms that I
consider racially offensive.

On 30 Nov, 10:23, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
> >Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely
> >believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
> >cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.
>
> I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a
> few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.
>

I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
white man was burdened with the task himself. It might have helped a
bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
the white man expected and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
on to overseas possessions after WW2.

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I was quite surprised by the revulsion that the last quoted paragraph evoked as I read it. Obviously, the world in 1861 was quite 
> different from the world in 2007, and I don't doubt that Mr. Stevens was sincere in his belief. He was probably a thorough 
> Southern Gentleman in every way, gracious to ladies, God fearing, and honourable in battle. We are complex creatures...
>
> Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should 
> be tended like cattle, as God requires us to take care of them. (Southern Baptist... although I'm sure (hopeful) not ALL Southern 
> Baptists can believe this...). These are not wicked, evil people. (In fact some of them were kind, decent, and generous.) They are 
> a product of their environment and we should just be thankful that environment is being eroded by education.

Well written Pete, and I share your feelings. There are some people here who
feel that way. As much as I disagree with some of the provisions in the equal
rights legislation here (e.g. reverse discrimination), recently I have been
reflecting quite a bit on the improved race relations in the intervening years,
particularly among the "middle class", realizing it came largely through those
laws. I can remember as a boy seeing water fountains and theater entrances
marked "colored" or "negro", and found it disturbing even then. Today, it is
typical to see blacks and whites working together (again, middle class
situations) with no apparent issues. And mixed couples are fairly common now,
though extremely rare 40 years ago. This pleases me immensely.

I remember the day my high school was "integrated". We were all awed by the
obvious Big Events that were going down, wondering what was going to happen. I
don't remember any violence or other problems. Four blacks were in my class of
approximately 220, two boys and two girls. I had classes with both boys, and
liked both of them. Thinking back, I can only imagine the courage it must have
taken for those black students. We had our 40 year class reunion last year,
and I helped build and maintain a website for it. I received a very interesting
email from one of the black guys, Dr. Robert Manzy, talking about his experience
in going to school there. I don't feel free to share his email, though I'm sure
many of you would enjoy reading it. But I will include this one sentence: "I
thought I'd take a moment to let my classmates know how deeply appreciative I
am of how smoothly 'that year' went for all of us, for we were, indeed, making
history."

There are still a lot of problems, but it isn't all bad. I believe most of the
racial hatred and bias these days is in lower income/less educated groups.
Street gangs are a serious problem in most big cities, and they are highly
racial. Hispanics are now a larger percentage of the population than blacks,
and the tension between those two groups seems more intense than with whites.

But as I've said before, a type of law being passed these days I view to be
highly dangerous: the so called "hate crime laws". They are tantamount to
making how you feel about something become illegal, and that is a Very Bad
Thing. Two seminal events are associated with increased support for this type
of law here in the U.S., and it shows unclear thinking. One was when a male
homosexual was tied to a fence, tortured and srarved to death, and the other
was when a black man was tied by a chain to the back of a pickup truck and
drug to death. How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry? I think
not. And the potential bad consequences of such laws is staggering. Remember
the Japanese "Thought Police"? Same thing. A crime should be what you do, not
what you think, or how you feel. Will it become a crime to be in a bad mood,
or just obnoxious? The potential is there, and history has serious precedent,
even in current memory. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e6308756ed@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair  <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 30 Nov, 10:23, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>>
>> >Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely
>> >believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
>> >cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.
>>
>> I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a
>> few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.
>>
>
>I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
>non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
>that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
>white man was burdened with the task himself.

With all due respect, Mr Maclean... burdened by whom?

DD

On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:


> Even if nothing at all had been done to free the slaves, the Industrial
> Revolution was making slavery uneconomical. Combined with the pressure from
> those who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons, slavery would have
> been abolished within a fairly short period of time anyway, as evidenced by
> the proposed legislation above. Then some 750,000 Americans wouldn't have
> died. Killing 750,000 to free 4,000,000, and laying waste to a big chunk of
> North America. Even if the reason had been purely to free the slaves, what
> a terrible way to do it, under the circumstances. Nothing to brag about,
> any way you slice it.

OK, when the Jihadists come knocking on your door at 3 am then don't
expect me to stand up for your right to free speech and free
association.

>
> What bothers me is that liberals never seem to learn from their mistakes.

No-one does. Witness your attempt, below, to re-kindle the global
warming debate (what a pun!).

> In the late 1970's a huge hydroelectric dam project in north Georgia was
> stopped because it was said to endanger a "rare" small fish called the
> Snail Darter. Hundreds of families incomes was trashed and many millions of
> dollars was wasted, and the dam wasn't built. In the 1990's a serious DNA
> study of the fishes in North American rivers proved that the Snail Darter
> is a very common fish, only differing slightly in color from many other
> varieties of the same species. Anyone think we could use more environment
> friendly hydroelectric power these days?

One must remember that we are not just interested in preserving the
specific DNA but also in preserving the various 'colour sports' ( ie
types). Consider it to be akin to allowing obscure religious sects to
persist rather than allowing the Roman Catholic church to wipe them
out.

>
> In the 1970's the EPA decided that, since exposure to asbestos can be a
> health risk, that all asbestos in existing building must be removed post
> haste at all costs. Billions of dollars was spent in a futile attempt, and
> even the EPA admits the effort was a disaster, exposing many thousands of
> people to asbestos dust caused by the asbestor removal process, saying it
> would have been much better to just leave the asbestos where it was, and
> deal with it as necessary. Nice to know that ... now.
>

If the asbestos had been left in place then there would have been long-
term exposure risks and of course the risk of free enterprise ripping
and dumping asbestos in unlicensed tips. Potentially a more serious
problem.

> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
> heads, and become blind to everything else.

I agree with you. It is so much easier to know that you are right when
you have God on your side.

>
> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.

We have already been down this road more than once and you still have
not learned your lesson. Perhaps you will get the message when the
rest of the world bans American products from their stores because of
the excessive carbon footprints?


> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,

Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
or can you just turn your back on the truth?

For the record: salmon are fish that are largely marine in behaviour,
entering rivers to spawn (and in at least one species dying
immediately after spawning). The salmon in the Alaskan waters and
rivers would have spent very little of their time in Alaskan rivers
(which were not affected by the pollution of Prince William Sound) and
Alaskan coastal regions. So they would not have been affected by the
pollution. Nice try Judson, but if you really understood what you are
talking about then you would not have used that as an example. You
have only succeeded in proving your ignorance and close-mindedness.

Finally - the effects of oil pollution have been well documented since
the days of the Torrey Canyon disaster (although it was the washing of
the coast with fresh water which caused the most serious damage
there). BTW, my first year tutor at university was a world expert on
oil pollution.

> andwww.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/apr06reg.pdf), "Forest fires are
> always bad, prevent them at all costs" (it's now known that small forest
> fires every few decades are beneficial for the forest, because they keep
> underbrush down, otherwise the uncontrolled underbrush permits a huge
> devastating uncontrollable fire that destroys the forest in a hundred
> years or so {e.g. Yellowstone Park}, and they "renew" the living habitat
> for many forest animals)

That is the beauty of science: it learns and overturns the truths of
previous generations by a coninuous process of observation,
experimentation, review. Unlike Christianity, which is frozen in time
to an era approx 1600 years ago.

> and "Coming New Ice Age" from just 20 years ago
> (Google "coming new ice age 1980's"), to name but a few.

If it were not for global warming then we would be heading for an ice
age. One in a long series of ice ages (as elucidated by scientific
discoveries which you poo-poo).

> --
> Judson McClendon      ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems    http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

God clearly does not love the world enough if he allows ignorance to
persist.

In article <kbV3j.20542$K27.2236@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry?

Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration 
under Anglo-Saxon law.

Person A puts a bullet through the brain of Person B.  

Now... consider the circumstances of self-defense, unintentional 
manslaughter, crime of passion and premeditated murder.  Each of those 
circumstances can present a different 'why' for the same act and each of 
those circumstances creates a different attitude towards the act and 
social response to the act.

DD

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:32:07 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>I was quite surprised by the revulsion that the last quoted paragraph evoked 
>as I read it. Obviously, the world in 1861 was quite different from the 
>world in 2007, and I don't doubt that Mr. Stevens was sincere in his belief. 
>He was probably a thorough Southern Gentleman in every way, gracious to 
>ladies, God fearing, and honourable in battle. We are complex creatures...
>
>Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely 
>believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like 
>cattle, as God requires us to take care of them. 

Nowadays we're enlightened - the inferior species have the wrong
religion instead of skin color.   Or they're fat.   Or smoke.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:23:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>I have no problem with beliefs, period... actions concern me more.  Oh...  
>and keep worship or advertising of your gods out of my public schools, 
>while you're at it.

I wish we could eliminate proselytizing - but still teach the major
world's religions.   Not understanding Islam, for instance is
significant in world studies.   Not being aware of at least a
"children's picture book of the bible" means one misses much that is
in literature.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:17:21 -0800 (PST), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
>non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
>that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
>white man was burdened with the task himself. It might have helped a
>bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
>populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
>the white man expected and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
>on to overseas possessions after WW2.

Rulers still think they have this burden to rule us.    They are
addicted to this power, so maybe it is a burden similar to that of
those addicted towards other substances.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> Even if nothing at all had been done to free the slaves, the Industrial
>> Revolution was making slavery uneconomical. Combined with the pressure from
>> those who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons, slavery would have
>> been abolished within a fairly short period of time anyway, as evidenced by
>> the proposed legislation above. Then some 750,000 Americans wouldn't have
>> died. Killing 750,000 to free 4,000,000, and laying waste to a big chunk of
>> North America. Even if the reason had been purely to free the slaves, what
>> a terrible way to do it, under the circumstances. Nothing to brag about,
>> any way you slice it.
>
> OK, when the Jihadists come knocking on your door at 3 am then don't
> expect me to stand up for your right to free speech and free
> association.

Didn't say nothing should have been done, only that the "cure" used was worse
than the disease.

>> In the 1970's the EPA decided that, since exposure to asbestos can be a
>> health risk, that all asbestos in existing building must be removed post
>> haste at all costs. Billions of dollars was spent in a futile attempt, and
>> even the EPA admits the effort was a disaster, exposing many thousands of
>> people to asbestos dust caused by the asbestor removal process, saying it
>> would have been much better to just leave the asbestos where it was, and
>> deal with it as necessary. Nice to know that ... now.
>
> If the asbestos had been left in place then there would have been long-
> term exposure risks and of course the risk of free enterprise ripping
> and dumping asbestos in unlicensed tips. Potentially a more serious
> problem.

A lesser problem, according to the EPA, who certainly had nothing to gain
by maximizing the disaster of their mistake.

>> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
>> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
>> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
>> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
>> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>
> I agree with you. It is so much easier to know that you are right when
> you have God on your side.

Wow, Alistair, you have a real knee-jerk reaction about God, even when I
said nothing about God. In physical science, you know you are right when
you can *experimentally verify*,not before.

>> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>
> We have already been down this road more than once and you still have
> not learned your lesson. Perhaps you will get the message when the
> rest of the world bans American products from their stores because of
> the excessive carbon footprints?

I get the message that the rest of the world is following the nonsense.
Nothing surprising in that. How many times has the U.S. been dragged,
kicking and screaming, into a war in Europe or elsewhere, caused by
the rest of the world living in la-la land, doing what they thought wise,
instead of seeing reality for what it was? WWI, WWII, Vietnam and
Bosnia, to name a few. Yeah, slam it to us, we deserve it, not blindly
following the rest of the world, who are so wise and clever. :-)

>> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>
> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?

Sure. Extensive damage, unquestionally. Permanent destruction, no. Not
saying Exxon Valdez was a good thing or unimportant. But it wasn't
the unmitigated sky falling disaster environmentalists claimed. That is my
point.

> For the record: salmon are fish that are largely marine in behaviour,
> entering rivers to spawn (and in at least one species dying
> immediately after spawning). The salmon in the Alaskan waters and
> rivers would have spent very little of their time in Alaskan rivers
> (which were not affected by the pollution of Prince William Sound) and
> Alaskan coastal regions. So they would not have been affected by the
> pollution. Nice try Judson, but if you really understood what you are
> talking about then you would not have used that as an example. You
> have only succeeded in proving your ignorance and close-mindedness.

Only when one ignores the fact that Salmon was an issue used again and
again to bash Exxon Valdez.

> Finally - the effects of oil pollution have been well documented since
> the days of the Torrey Canyon disaster (although it was the washing of
> the coast with fresh water which caused the most serious damage
> there). BTW, my first year tutor at university was a world expert on
> oil pollution.

It is the ecology's astounding ability to recover from such damage that is
continually underestimated by environmentalists. Real science would put
out both sides of the issue without bias.

>> andwww.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/apr06reg.pdf), "Forest fires are
>> always bad, prevent them at all costs" (it's now known that small forest
>> fires every few decades are beneficial for the forest, because they keep
>> underbrush down, otherwise the uncontrolled underbrush permits a huge
>> devastating uncontrollable fire that destroys the forest in a hundred
>> years or so {e.g. Yellowstone Park}, and they "renew" the living habitat
>> for many forest animals)
>
> That is the beauty of science: it learns and overturns the truths of
> previous generations by a coninuous process of observation,
> experimentation, review.

Yes, but is is the blind unwillingness to realize it is going to happen to
what liberals think *now* which is the problem.

> Unlike Christianity, which is frozen in time
> to an era approx 1600 years ago.

Is that an attempt at diversion, or are you intentionally trying to annoy me
by slamming Christianity, when I haven't even mentioned God or religion,
except for "God protect us", which was simply an expression, unrelated
to the discussion? :-)

>> and "Coming New Ice Age" from just 20 years ago
>> (Google "coming new ice age 1980's"), to name but a few.
>
> If it were not for global warming then we would be heading for an ice
> age. One in a long series of ice ages (as elucidated by scientific
> discoveries which you poo-poo).

And did humanity cause those other warming/cooling cycles? :-)

The point is that many of the same people who were touting New Ice
Age 20 years ago are now touting global warming, yet you accept it
just as blindly, and will be surprised again in 10 or 20 years when the
global warming myth is obviously wrong. See? There's the "don't learn
from your mistakes". When people cry "Wolf! Wolf!" again and again
and there's no wolf, you stop taking everything thay say at face value.
That's learning from your mistakes. :-)

> God clearly does not love the world enough if he allows ignorance to
> persist.

Not a valid argument. It is an inevitable consequence of free will that some
will choose ignorance, some will chose learning, and so forth. Would you
let your own children have free will, even knowing they would probably do
stupid and destructive things, as most children do, or would you have
them to be robots, perfectly toeing the P.C. line? :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e6308756ed@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
>non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved 

Phooey. Of course it was exactly that.

>but, rather,
>that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves 

I.e. "inferior" ...

>the
>white man was burdened with the task himself. 

... and "needed to be ruled."

>It might have helped a
>bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
>populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
>the white man expected 

And why should they do that? What's wrong with ruling themselves to 
_their_own_ standards?

>and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
>on to overseas possessions after WW2.

Or had learned any lessons from a painful and embarrassing experience 
attempting to do so in the late 18th century...

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>>I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
>>non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
>>that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
>>white man was burdened with the task himself.
>
>With all due respect, Mr Maclean... burdened by whom?

Such burdens tend to be self-inflicted.

In article <d015e273-f1c9-4148-8fb5-ad2d8e0f5868@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29 Nov, 15:41, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>>
>> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
>> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
>> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
>> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>>
>> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
>> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
>> Civil War, anyhow?
>>
>
>Doesn't it make you wonder why they did not institutionalise
>enslavement of their womenfolk? Oh, they did, it's called marriage.

This view of marriage is peculiar, to say the least. I very much doubt that 
*my* wife feels in the least enslaved; if yours does, that says much more 
about you than it says about the institution of marriage.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:32:37 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>But as I've said before, a type of law being passed these days I view to be
>highly dangerous: the so called "hate crime laws". They are tantamount to
>making how you feel about something become illegal, and that is a Very Bad
>Thing. Two seminal events are associated with increased support for this type
>of law here in the U.S., and it shows unclear thinking. One was when a male
>homosexual was tied to a fence, tortured and srarved to death, and the other
>was when a black man was tied by a chain to the back of a pickup truck and
>drug to death. How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry? I think
>not. And the potential bad consequences of such laws is staggering. Remember
>the Japanese "Thought Police"? Same thing. A crime should be what you do, not
>what you think, or how you feel. Will it become a crime to be in a bad mood,
>or just obnoxious? The potential is there, and history has serious precedent,
>even in current memory. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

I couldn't agree more.   Along with this thought-police trend, we have
a trend to define everybody and everything as protected - but not
because we are people - but because we each belong to one minority or
another.      Someone who has road rage (or some other insanity) and
starts shooting up passersby isn't guilty of hate crimes - but his
victims are just as dead.     Stop trying people on how they think -
try them on what they do.

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry?
>
> Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration
> under Anglo-Saxon law.
>
> Person A puts a bullet through the brain of Person B.
>
> Now... consider the circumstances of self-defense, unintentional
> manslaughter, crime of passion and premeditated murder.  Each of those
> circumstances can present a different 'why' for the same act and each of
> those circumstances creates a different attitude towards the act and
> social response to the act.

But these laws are making the intent the crime, which is not what you refer
to. When you tie someone to a fence or a pickup truck and torture them to
death, there is unquestionable premeditation, because it is a deliberate act
requiring time, thought and preparation. You do not accidentally do it, or
do it with other intent. This is my point, that these crimes are not reasons
to institute hate crime laws. Extant laws are more than sufficient to deal
with such situations, or lawmakers are incredibly inept.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:56:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration 
>under Anglo-Saxon law.

Yep.   How long it has been law doesn't mean we shouldn't reexamine
it.

In 1980 I was listening to the radio - a Catholic theologian was
discussing something interesting to me.    He said that American
Catholic girls wouldn't use birth control because that was a planned
sin.   Instead, they got abortions as a "backed into a corner" sin. He
lamented that trend.   We are more concerned about intent than whether
the sin was venial or mortal.

(This isn't entirely true - law-abiding citizens still break speed
limits).

In article <n5X3j.12495$rc2.3269@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>>>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>>>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>>>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry?
>>
>> Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration
>> under Anglo-Saxon law.
>>
>> Person A puts a bullet through the brain of Person B.
>>
>> Now... consider the circumstances of self-defense, unintentional
>> manslaughter, crime of passion and premeditated murder.  Each of those
>> circumstances can present a different 'why' for the same act and each of
>> those circumstances creates a different attitude towards the act and
>> social response to the act.
>
>But these laws are making the intent the crime, which is not what you refer
>to.

Do you have a cite for that, Mr McClendon.  Hate-crime laws do not, to the 
best of my understanding, make 'the intent the crime'; they change the 
legal consequences of an action as the result of intent... just as was 
pointed out in the examples above.

DD

In article <mff0l3t5h6l9hshn87k8370828vs27aq77@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:56:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration 
>>under Anglo-Saxon law.
>
>Yep.   How long it has been law doesn't mean we shouldn't reexamine
>it.

My apologies for obscurity, Mr Brazee; my intention was to show that 'the 
intention behind an act has long been a consideration under Anglo-Saxon 
law', not to state that 'we've always done it that way so we can never 
think about doing it any other way'.

DD

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:44:16 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>>>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>>>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>>>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry?
>>
>> Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration
>> under Anglo-Saxon law.
>>
>> Person A puts a bullet through the brain of Person B.
>>
>> Now... consider the circumstances of self-defense, unintentional
>> manslaughter, crime of passion and premeditated murder.  Each of those
>> circumstances can present a different 'why' for the same act and each of
>> those circumstances creates a different attitude towards the act and
>> social response to the act.
>
>But these laws are making the intent the crime, which is not what you refer
>to. When you tie someone to a fence or a pickup truck and torture them to
>death, there is unquestionable premeditation, because it is a deliberate act
>requiring time, thought and preparation. You do not accidentally do it, or
>do it with other intent. This is my point, that these crimes are not reasons
>to institute hate crime laws. Extant laws are more than sufficient to deal
>with such situations, or lawmakers are incredibly inept.

I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"From there to here, from here to there, 
funny things are everywhere. 
If you never did, you should. 
These things are fun and fun is good." 
--- Dr. Seuss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:36:28 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>And why should they do that? What's wrong with ruling themselves to 
>_their_own_ standards?

Since when have powerful people - nor most people in general, been
satisfied with other people living life their way instead of the way
we know is Right?

>>and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
>>on to overseas possessions after WW2.
>
>Or had learned any lessons from a painful and embarrassing experience 
>attempting to do so in the late 18th century...

Those empires created tremendous amounts of wealth and power for those
who ran them.

The reason we don't have significant slavery in the industrialized
countries today is because we have cheaper and safer ways of creating
wealth/power.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:44:16 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>But these laws are making the intent the crime, which is not what you refer
>to. When you tie someone to a fence or a pickup truck and torture them to
>death, there is unquestionable premeditation, because it is a deliberate act
>requiring time, thought and preparation. You do not accidentally do it, or
>do it with other intent. This is my point, that these crimes are not reasons
>to institute hate crime laws. Extant laws are more than sufficient to deal
>with such situations, or lawmakers are incredibly inept.

Hate laws are designed to deal with voters.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:44:06 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>>Doesn't it make you wonder why they did not institutionalise
>>enslavement of their womenfolk? Oh, they did, it's called marriage.
>
>This view of marriage is peculiar, to say the least. I very much doubt that 
>*my* wife feels in the least enslaved; if yours does, that says much more 
>about you than it says about the institution of marriage.

Our generation didn't institutionalize marriage, and institutions
change over time, often so that they are difficult to recognize from
the people who created the institutions.

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fioorv$eis$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <13kuv5hdahco9bc@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fimmjs$r0q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> In article <ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> >> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >Most early Americans fled oppression in Europe, and did not like
> >> >the idea of a powerful central government here.
> >> >
> >> >(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
> >> >free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the
> >> >tentative excuse, but not the reason.
> >>
> >> Mr McClendon, several people have disagreed with this assertion... one
of
> >> them was Alexander H. Stephens, who addressed this very matter in a
speech
> >> he gave on 21 March 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
> >>
> >> From
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
> >>
> >> --begin quoted text:
> >>
> >> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the
better,
> >> allow me to allude to one other - though last, not least. The new
> >> constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
> >> relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists
> >> amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization.
> >> This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
revolution.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> --end quoted text
> >>
> >> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> >> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great
truth
> >> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -
subordination
> >> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
> >>
> >> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the
Confederate
> >> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> >> Civil War, anyhow?
> >
> >The Civil War did not begin until April 12, 1861, about three
> >weeks after Mr Stephen's speech. This suggests he may have
> >been referring to something other than the Civil War.
>
> Mr Smith, Vice President Stephens begins his speech with 'I was remarking
> that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals
> of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an
> old government and formed a new.'
>
> Secession from the Union began on 24 Dec 1860 (South Carolina) and by 9
> Feb 1861 six other states joined and formed the Confederate States of
> America.  I do not believe that there were too many other 'latest
> ruptures' which Mr Stephens might have been addressing; if you have
> evidence that might support that view it could be interesting to see.

Then to answer your question: What would *he* know about
the reasoning behind the Civil War, anyhow?

Nothing, at that time; but he might have known about the
reasoning behind the secessionist movement.

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:tCT3j.12379$rc2.1247@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
> heads, and become blind to everything else.

Do stop generalizing, Judson.  Neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" have
any monopoly on stupidity or even misplaced enthusiasm.

>
> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.

Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
warming??

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:17:52 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

>I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
>Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
>African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
>was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
>is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
>state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
>possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
>hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.

And if her ex-boyfriend killed him, it wouldn't have hurt nearly as
much...

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e6308756ed@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Nov, 10:23, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> >
> > >Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who
genuinely
> > >believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
> > >cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.
> >
> > I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a
> > few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.
> >
>
> I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
> non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
> that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
> white man was burdened with the task himself. It might have helped a
> bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
> populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
> the white man expected and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
> on to overseas possessions after WW2.

Mahatma Gandhi is supposed to have said that he never would have dared mount
his passive revolution if the country had been occupied by anyone but the
Brits.

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>>>>and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>>>>difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>>>>"less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry?
>>>
>>> Mr McClendon, the intention behind an act has long been a consideration
>>> under Anglo-Saxon law.
>>>
>>> Person A puts a bullet through the brain of Person B.
>>>
>>> Now... consider the circumstances of self-defense, unintentional
>>> manslaughter, crime of passion and premeditated murder.  Each of those
>>> circumstances can present a different 'why' for the same act and each of
>>> those circumstances creates a different attitude towards the act and
>>> social response to the act.
>>
>>But these laws are making the intent the crime, which is not what you refer
>>to. When you tie someone to a fence or a pickup truck and torture them to
>>death, there is unquestionable premeditation, because it is a deliberate act
>>requiring time, thought and preparation. You do not accidentally do it, or
>>do it with other intent. This is my point, that these crimes are not reasons
>>to institute hate crime laws. Extant laws are more than sufficient to deal
>>with such situations, or lawmakers are incredibly inept.
>
> I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
> Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
> African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
> was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
> is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
> state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
> possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
> hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.

Then the problem is with the (non hate crime) laws being too lenient. I
don't see the difference between shooting a person because they're a
different race or shooting a person because they're with a woman I don't
want to see them with (e.g. an 'ex girlfriend). The point of having less
than 1st degree murder should be mitigating causes, not exacerbating ones.
If you don't have a good reason (e.g. self defense), or no intent (e.g.
accident), it doesn't matter the reason. You can't make murder worse, you
can only mitigate it. Hate crime laws do the reverse, they try to make a
crime worse because of your beliefs and feelings. If someone stole a
newspaper because they had intense hatred for the person they stole it
from, should they be punished more? It doesn't make sense, because the
offense, the damage, is the same. Taking a newspaper you thought was yours
might make a difference.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
>> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
>> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
>> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
>> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>
> Do stop generalizing, Judson.  Neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" have
> any monopoly on stupidity or even misplaced enthusiasm.

Monopoly, no. Predilection, yes. :-)

>> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>
> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
> floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
> warming??

The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
responsible, and couldn't do anything to help or hurt, even if it's happening
now, which is anything but certain. A really, really dumb time to be passing
draconian laws to control human activity and spend vast sums of money. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <IZZ3j.5899$N67.1797@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> As and example, a white member of the Klu
>> Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
>> African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
>> was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
>> is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
>> state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
>> possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
>> hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.
>
>Then the problem is with the (non hate crime) laws being too lenient. I
>don't see the difference between shooting a person because they're a
>different race or shooting a person because they're with a woman I don't
>want to see them with (e.g. an 'ex girlfriend).

The difference is one of intent, Mr McClendon.  For one there is an 
intention to kill a man because he is with a certain woman, for the other 
there is the intent to kill a man because he was born with the wrong 
amount of melanin.

>The point of having less
>than 1st degree murder should be mitigating causes, not exacerbating ones.

The point of having various degrees of murder is the recognition that the 
same act should be treated differently depending upon the intention with 
which it was committed.

>If you don't have a good reason (e.g. self defense), or no intent (e.g.
>accident), it doesn't matter the reason. You can't make murder worse, you
>can only mitigate it.

Murder is, by definition, a matter of law.  There are conditions under 
which the killing of a person is murder and conditions under which the 
killing of a person earns the killer a medal.  The differences involve 
situation, intention and law.

>Hate crime laws do the reverse, they try to make a
>crime worse because of your beliefs and feelings.

The action is still the action, Mr McClendon; what hate crime laws do is 
change the judicial response based on intent... just as happens with the 
varying degrees of murder.

>If someone stole a
>newspaper because they had intense hatred for the person they stole it
>from, should they be punished more?

Generally - and that is a *very* broad 'generally' - the judicial system 
treats a theft of necessity differently than it does a theft of greed.  A 
woman who steals bread to feed her children is, at times, treated 
differently than a woman who steals bread for other reasons.

DD

tlmfru wrote:
> Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs. Wade"
> decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will have
> more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats will
> slowly decline.

Why without looking?  I thought the explanation there was somewhat 
non-partisan.  James Taranto (the author) is moderately pro-choice, yet 
finds huge holes with the "pro-choice" crowd's logic.

>>> that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.
>> she's HAWT!  :)
> 
> Hawt??!!  She's scrawny and shrill.

I've heard her sound shrill, and I've also heard her not so much.  The 
last time I saw her on Fox, she sounded like she had a cold.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is allowed 
> to interpret who can and cannot vote?

It's the United STATES of America.  It's not a democracy, it's a 
representative republic, where the representatives are democratically 
elected.  Each candidate for President campaigns for electors from each 
state, NOT popular votes.  You can win one state by 1M votes, and lose 
another by 13 votes, and you get the electors from the state you won, 
and your opponent gets the electors from the state they won.  (A few 
states split them, but they're insignificant.)

> How could anyone interpret this mess?

Just like I did above.  :)

> There should be one clear law for the Union:  "Everyone not in jail has the 
> right to vote."
> 
> Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.

In this country, we have a registration requirement for voting, with the 
goal of helping ensure one person=one vote.  Given certain political 
party's actions in recent elections, I am whole-heartedly in favor of 
keeping that requirement, and strengthening it by requiring 
identification of voters before they can vote.  (The latter is usually 
met with howls form the same aforementioned party, who, as Robert 
pointed out, would lose the "dead" vote in Chicago.)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon wrote:
> Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular 
> vote.

Have you thought that through?  It surprises me to see you write 
something like that.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> In principle, it makes sense today. The problem is if States are
> allowed to juggle who is elegible. If that happens you get the
> empowered ruling class simply making sure that only "one of us" can
> represent them. (It happened in Great Britain right up until the 20th
> Century). That means that everyone else is then disenfranchised and
> the whole idea of a Democratic "level playing field" goes out the
> window.

There are requirements for voting. Some of the prohibitions are (varies by 
state):
1. Felon
2. Age
3. Mental competency
4. Residency
5. Time between registration and voting (i.e., 30 days before election)
6. Incarceration for misdemeanors
7. Citizenship

And others

>
> Forgive my lack of in-depth understanding, but don't Federal Laws
> override State Laws PRECISELY so that individual States (who might be
> tempted to pass local legislation to discriminate against certain
> sectors) cannot do so?

No. Federal law is not usually binding on a state. For example, a state law 
enforcement officer cannot actually arrest a spy, nor can the FBI arrest an 
ordinary burglar. Federal officers (FBI, Forest Rangers, Customs, 
Immigration, Secret Service,  BATF, Postal Inspectors, etc.) can only 
enforce federal laws. Officers of a state (Rangers, police, Parks and 
Wildlife, Alcoholic Beverage agents, Sheriffs, Constables, Marshalls, 
Transit Police, Court baliffs, University and school police, etc.) can only 
enfore local laws.

I live in Houston. Back when I was a deputy sheriff, somebody counted. We 
had 63 different law enforcement agencies in our county - NOT counting the 
federal ones! Plus, most judges are classed as "conservators of the peace," 
and have limited law enforcement powers. Whew!

Here's something that'll cause you to drop your donut: When President 
Kennedy was assasinated, there was no federal law against killing the 
president! The case was being handled by the Dallas County District 
Attorney. Lee Harvey Oswald violated TEXAS law, not a national statute.

>
> If a State passes legislation which is seen to be against the spirit
> of the Union or violates the Constitution, doesn't that get
> overridden at Federal level?

Spirit, no. Constitution, maybe.  Here's an example: The state of California 
decriminalized the posession of small amounts of Marijuana and, in fact, 
allowed it to be prescribed for certain ailments. There is a federal law (as 
required by the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics) against posession of 
(untaxed) Marijuana. The result is that state cops cannot arrest for weed, 
but the feds can.

>
> What's the point of a Union if it's principles and the values for
> which it stands can be eroded by individual members of it?

That's a strength, not a weakness. My state doesn't need laws regulating 
manatees and New York doesn't need regulations on alfalfa dryers. Folks in 
Florida love their manatees and citizens of Nebraska are intimately familiar 
with alfalfa. The federal legislators in Washington have zero knowledge of 
either.

Not long ago, there was a short-lived television series ("Commander in 
Chief") starring Gina Davis as the President of the United States. In one 
episode, as I recall, a man in Texas was scheduled to be executed and the 
plot revolved around whether the president should intervene.

The last scene of the show had President calling the governor of Texas and 
telling the governor a presidential order of commutation was on the way.

The episode ended before the anybody heard the governor's response. I 
suspect it went something like: "Madam President, with all due respect, piss 
off. Your 'order of commutation' has no legal authority here."


>
>> In modern times, political parties nominate delegates who are sworn
>> to vote for a particular candidate. In times past, the ballots only
>> had the names of the delegate candidate, not the person running for
>> office. Eventually the candidate's names were added along with the
>> delegates. IIRC, in Alabama, the delegate's name may no longer
>> appear.
>
> I don't understand this at all. Sorry.

Simple. In theory, the people within a state vote for a party; the party 
then votes for the president. This is pretty much the same as in countries 
where parliment is elected by "list." In practice, the prevailing party in 
each state gets to cast the state's weighted votes in a thing called the 
"Electoral College" (California gets more votes than Hawaii). In practice, 
the state's "electors" (those that will cast the actual vote in the 
Electoral College) almost always vote for the party's candidate. Those who 
don't are called "faithless electors" and are shunned by civilized people 
for the rest of their lives. There have been only a handfull of faithless 
electors in our history.

Now as to popular vote: Almost always the electoral vote tracks the 
nationwide popular vote. No more than a quarter of presidents have been 
elected without obtaining a majority popular vote.

>
> It's too complex. There should be names on a paper. Everybody who is
> not in jail should privately mark the paper against the name they
> want to vote for. Everybody gets one vote (it can be easily
> controlled to ensure they do).

Okay, I'll play: Who in the Commonwealth gets to vote directly for their 
country's Prime Minister?  The only country I know that elects its prime 
minister by popular vote is Israel.

LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cJmdnfs4aM1mVs3anZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
> > Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs. Wade"
> > decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's assumed) will
have
> > more abortions than Republican women therefore the number of Democrats
will
> > slowly decline.
>
> Why without looking?  I thought the explanation there was somewhat
> non-partisan.  James Taranto (the author) is moderately pro-choice, yet
> finds huge holes with the "pro-choice" crowd's logic.
>

I presumed you wanted to know what I thought, site or no site.  I did look
into it after I posted my message.  I have it more or less right.  I find it
hilarious, though.

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message news:V4_3j.5902>
> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice
fields
> > floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
> > warming??
>
> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
> responsible, and couldn't do anything to help or hurt, even if it's
happening
> now, which is anything but certain. A really, really dumb time to be
passing
> draconian laws to control human activity and spend vast sums of money. :-)
> --


I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming happening at
all.

And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus
which cause natural growths to run away, into the environment - have had
nothing to do with it.

What's really, really dumb is to pretend that carbon/emission credit trading
is going to do anything to solve the problem.  (You haven't said this, so
you needn't respond if you don't want to).  Book-keeping, which is what this
is, won't do anything.  As it is done now, emission credits are just a
license to pollute.  If there was true political courage anywhere in the
world, polluters would be fined so heavily that they couldn't afford NOT to
clean up.  Especially if they couldn't pass it along to their customers.

PL

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:26:19 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:44:06 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>>Doesn't it make you wonder why they did not institutionalise
>>>enslavement of their womenfolk? Oh, they did, it's called marriage.
>>
>>This view of marriage is peculiar, to say the least. I very much doubt that 
>>*my* wife feels in the least enslaved; if yours does, that says much more 
>>about you than it says about the institution of marriage.
>
>Our generation didn't institutionalize marriage, and institutions
>change over time, often so that they are difficult to recognize from
>the people who created the institutions.

Fact: more than half US families are "living in sin", i.e. cohabiting without benefit of
formal marriage. 

http://www.ur.umich.edu/9900/Feb14_00/6.htm

It's quite a shock to the middle class, who think marriage is the norm. 

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better
>> if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular vote.
>
> Have you thought that through?  It surprises me to see you write something like that.

It's not something I've spent enormous time thinking about, no. And I'm
not absolutely fixed in my view. But it seems to me that it isn't a Good
Thing to elect a president who receives less votes than the opposition,
potentially even a lot less votes. This actually happened in 1876 when
Rutherford B. Hayes won, though Samuel J. Tilden received nearly 250
thousand more votes. Theoretically, a candidate who won in enough states
by very narrow margins, and lost in states by very large margins, could
win in electoral votes to an opponent who received an enormous majority
of the popular vote. Also, if we had been using popular vote in the 2004
presidential election, there would have been no question who won, because
Bush received some 3 million more votes than Gore. Close, but a clear
winner. Considering the brouhaha the Democrats caused then, imagine what
could happen if a candidate won with *several million less* votes than
the opposition? There might be riots in the streets over such a scenario.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming happening at
> all.
>
> And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus
> which cause natural growths to run away, into the environment - have had
> nothing to do with it.

Considering that the amounts of so called "green house gasses" put into
the atmosphere by humans is insignificant compared to what's put there by
volcanos and a host of other natural sources, common sense should tell us
that we have little or nothing to do with it, even if it is happening,
which is in serious dispute among scientists. That scientists en masse
accept global warming as a fact is a complete fabrication, told by dimwits
like Al Gore. And even among the scientists who believe there is global
warming, there is much disagreement whether humans have anything to do
with it. But global warming alarmists aren't looking or listening to that.

Remember "Humans are unquestionably destroying the ozone layer and we're
all going to be fried!" a short while back? Maybe that's why it is
regenerating on its own? This kind of thing has been reiterated until it's
nauseating. How many times do people have to be made to look stupid before
they start thinking?

But this discussion is pointless. Lemmings are going to do their thing,
regardless. Just don't expect me to jump with them. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:Due4j.5717$Mu4.2260@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>> Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better
>>> if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular vote.
>>
>> Have you thought that through?  It surprises me to see you write 
>> something like that.
>
> It's not something I've spent enormous time thinking about, no. And I'm
> not absolutely fixed in my view. But it seems to me that it isn't a Good
> Thing to elect a president who receives less votes than the opposition,
> potentially even a lot less votes.

But I don't like the idea that the fourteen big states which together have 
the majority of votes could (in theory anyway) dictate those of us who 
reside in one of the other thirty-six states. (Wisconsin= 8 popular votes of 
435, 10 electoral votes of 535).

I for one have more than enough "Washington" messing with my life and 
livelihood. Sure, from time to time we get a bunch of clowns in Madison, but 
they are OUR clowns - and we know where they live.

MCM

On 30 Nov, 14:48, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e630875...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alistair  <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 30 Nov, 10:23, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
> >> >Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely
> >> >believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
> >> >cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.
>
> >> I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a
> >> few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.
>
> >I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
> >non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
> >that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
> >white man was burdened with the task himself.
>
> With all due respect, Mr Maclean... burdened by whom?
>
> DD

I think you are hinting at the idea that the non-whites were not up to
the mark. With proper education and training they would certainly have
been able to replace the whites, if that was what the whites had
wanted to do. Unfortunately, racist views prevented the whites from
relieving themselves of their self-imposed burden.

Alistair wrote:
> 
> Squint. I presume that you mean some one of an ethnic asian origin.
> This term is racially offensive.

Might want to look it up before you get offended over your presumptions. 
  It's also a technique people use when aiming their firearm.

>>> A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler
>>> didn't call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the
>>> dog seriously maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of
>>> surrender, then rewarded the dog with "Good Boy...". I found it
>>> sickening and an abuse of power.
>> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have guns. They
>> willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them their freedom to
>> choose?
> 
> Knowing the means of enforcement likely to be used does not justify
> the behaviour that PD mentioned nor does it excuse your 'so what'
> attitude.

Sure, there are abuses, as there are with anything.  It *should* give 
the perp something to think about.  Knowing that police have these 
weapons at their disposal *and* there are a few rogue officers who may 
abuse them, to a reasonable person, would be an effective deterrent.  To 
the unreasonable - well, see above.

>>> There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are
>>> not) and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public
>>> opinion. After watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing
>>> tasers (I was in favour, but I realise that if you give someone a
>>> toy, they can't wait to use it...there have already been misuses of
>>> pepper spray by police here...)
>> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out. Rawhide!"). Many
>> cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane person likes to touch that
>> stuff with their hands.
> 
> As an individual with a heart murmur I am at greater risk of dying if
> a Taser is used on me.

There you go - another liberal program where the solution is worse than 
the original problem.  I'm guessing a chunk of lead in your leg is not 
nearly as lethal as an electric shock.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Alistair wrote:
> On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
> 
> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
> or can you just turn your back on the truth?

*IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more 
concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.

Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her 
credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think 
that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.

Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we 
wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

SkippyPB wrote:
> 
> I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
> Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
> African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
> was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
> is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
> state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
> possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
> hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.

So, because a person holds views that you consider distasteful, their 
punishment for the same crime should be higher?  How is that anything 
*but* criminalizing thought?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

tlmfru wrote:
> 
> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,

The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of 
this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as 
much contempt as people treat me.

> Can we come up with a reason other than global
> warming??

Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?  The 
freaking sun?

There's three...

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>> Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better
>>> if amended so presidential elections are by straight popular vote.
>> Have you thought that through?  It surprises me to see you write something like that.
> 
> It's not something I've spent enormous time thinking about, no. And I'm
> not absolutely fixed in my view. But it seems to me that it isn't a Good
> Thing to elect a president who receives less votes than the opposition,
> potentially even a lot less votes. This actually happened in 1876 when
> Rutherford B. Hayes won, though Samuel J. Tilden received nearly 250
> thousand more votes. Theoretically, a candidate who won in enough states
> by very narrow margins, and lost in states by very large margins, could
> win in electoral votes to an opponent who received an enormous majority
> of the popular vote. Also, if we had been using popular vote in the 2004
> presidential election, there would have been no question who won, because
> Bush received some 3 million more votes than Gore. Close, but a clear
> winner.

You got those switch - Gore beat Bush in the popular vote.  :)

> Considering the brouhaha the Democrats caused then, imagine what
> could happen if a candidate won with *several million less* votes than
> the opposition? There might be riots in the streets over such a scenario.

I'm heading out on vacation, but I'll keep this around and give you my 
thinking on it when I get back.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On 30 Nov, 16:28, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >> Even if nothing at all had been done to free the slaves, the Industrial
> >> Revolution was making slavery uneconomical. Combined with the pressure from
> >> those who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons, slavery would have
> >> been abolished within a fairly short period of time anyway, as evidenced by
> >> the proposed legislation above. Then some 750,000 Americans wouldn't have
> >> died. Killing 750,000 to free 4,000,000, and laying waste to a big chunk of
> >> North America. Even if the reason had been purely to free the slaves, what
> >> a terrible way to do it, under the circumstances. Nothing to brag about,
> >> any way you slice it.
>
> > OK, when the Jihadists come knocking on your door at 3 am then don't
> > expect me to stand up for your right to free speech and free
> > association.
>
> Didn't say nothing should have been done, only that the "cure" used was worse
> than the disease.

So, if the cure is worse than the disease are you against the cure?
There is a problem in health areas to do with Clostridium difficile
infections. A cure exists which is pretty disgusting - ingesting
faeces from another person. It restores the balance of bacteria in the
gut.

>
> >> In the 1970's the EPA decided that, since exposure to asbestos can be a
> >> health risk, that all asbestos in existing building must be removed post
> >> haste at all costs. Billions of dollars was spent in a futile attempt, and
> >> even the EPA admits the effort was a disaster, exposing many thousands of
> >> people to asbestos dust caused by the asbestor removal process, saying it
> >> would have been much better to just leave the asbestos where it was, and
> >> deal with it as necessary. Nice to know that ... now.
>
> > If the asbestos had been left in place then there would have been long-
> > term exposure risks and of course the risk of free enterprise ripping
> > and dumping asbestos in unlicensed tips. Potentially a more serious
> > problem.
>
> A lesser problem, according to the EPA, who certainly had nothing to gain
> by maximizing the disaster of their mistake.

Unproven. By your own standards, of selectively ignoring proven
sciences, how can you accept an unproven supposition in a report
unless it is supported by significant scientific experimentation.

>
> >> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
> >> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
> >> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
> >> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
> >> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>
> > I agree with you. It is so much easier to know that you are right when
> > you have God on your side.
>
> Wow, Alistair, you have a real knee-jerk reaction about God, even when I
> said nothing about God. In physical science, you know you are right when
> you can *experimentally verify*,not before.
>

So we should allow ourselves to gas ourselves with CO2 unto death just
to prove that I am right in my belief that global warming is happening
just so that you can then start doing something about it?

> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>
> > We have already been down this road more than once and you still have
> > not learned your lesson. Perhaps you will get the message when the
> > rest of the world bans American products from their stores because of
> > the excessive carbon footprints?
>
> I get the message that the rest of the world is following the nonsense.
> Nothing surprising in that. How many times has the U.S. been dragged,
> kicking and screaming, into a war in Europe or elsewhere, caused by
> the rest of the world living in la-la land, doing what they thought wise,
> instead of seeing reality for what it was? WWI,

You were late for that one.

> WWII,

You were late for that one too.

> Vietnam

Watch Platoon sometime.

> and
> Bosnia,

Everyone was late for that one. Maybe because it involved Muslims
getting slaughtered by God-fearing Christians.

> to name a few. Yeah, slam it to us, we deserve it, not blindly
> following the rest of the world, who are so wise and clever. :-)
>

No, you just sat there in SPLENDID ISOLATION for two of them and tried
to shoot your way out of another.

> >> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
> >> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
> >> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>
> > Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
> > of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>
> Sure. Extensive damage, unquestionally. Permanent destruction, no.

You could incinerate every life form on the beaches and rocky shores
and the area would not be permanently damaged. Nature would repopulate
the shoreline and coastal regions.

> Not
> saying Exxon Valdez was a good thing or unimportant. But it wasn't
> the unmitigated sky falling disaster environmentalists claimed.

Perhaps it wasn't such a disaster because environmentalists got up and
did something about it. Even if they had done nothing at all the area
would have recovered eventually but it would have taken much longer
before the wildlife had recovered.

Seeing as the environment is of no concern to you (I presume you have
an insurance policy with God) perhaps we should sit back and allow oil
producers to pollute with impunity. Hell, let us allow China and the
US to pollute our atmosphere, let us allow Russia (and the USA) create
a few more Chernobyls/3 Mile Island disasters while we are at it. And
can I come round and dump asbestos waste in your back yard?

> That is my
> point.
>
> > For the record: salmon are fish that are largely marine in behaviour,
> > entering rivers to spawn (and in at least one species dying
> > immediately after spawning). The salmon in the Alaskan waters and
> > rivers would have spent very little of their time in Alaskan rivers
> > (which were not affected by the pollution of Prince William Sound) and
> > Alaskan coastal regions. So they would not have been affected by the
> > pollution. Nice try Judson, but if you really understood what you are
> > talking about then you would not have used that as an example. You
> > have only succeeded in proving your ignorance and close-mindedness.
>
> Only when one ignores the fact that Salmon was an issue used again and
> again to bash Exxon Valdez.

Exxon deserved to be bashed and so too do all others who needlessly
pollute.

>
> > Finally - the effects of oil pollution have been well documented since
> > the days of the Torrey Canyon disaster (although it was the washing of
> > the coast with fresh water which caused the most serious damage
> > there). BTW, my first year tutor at university was a world expert on
> > oil pollution.
>
> It is the ecology's astounding ability to recover from such damage that is
> continually underestimated by environmentalists. Real science would put
> out both sides of the issue without bias.

My tutor pointed out that it was not the first incident, or the
csecond or third incidents of oil pollution that do the damage but the
fourth incident. If we keep knocking the environment then there will
come a time when it is no longer able to recover from our actions.

>
> >> andwww.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/apr06reg.pdf), "Forest fires are
> >> always bad, prevent them at all costs" (it's now known that small forest
> >> fires every few decades are beneficial for the forest, because they keep
> >> underbrush down, otherwise the uncontrolled underbrush permits a huge
> >> devastating uncontrollable fire that destroys the forest in a hundred
> >> years or so {e.g. Yellowstone Park}, and they "renew" the living habitat
> >> for many forest animals)
>
> > That is the beauty of science: it learns and overturns the truths of
> > previous generations by a coninuous process of observation,
> > experimentation, review.
>
> Yes, but is is the blind unwillingness to realize it is going to happen to
> what liberals think *now* which is the problem.

No. The problem is that group of people who ignore science because
they know better (when they don't) or because they couldn't care less
or even because they think that their Gods will save them.

>
> > Unlike Christianity, which is frozen in time
> > to an era approx 1600 years ago.
>
> Is that an attempt at diversion, or are you intentionally trying to annoy me
> by slamming Christianity, when I haven't even mentioned God or religion,
> except for "God protect us", which was simply an expression, unrelated
> to the discussion? :-)

Intentional slamming I must admit. However, I do wonder exactly how
many of the God-fearing  believe that everything will be alright
because their prayers will be heard rather than because they are out
there doing something to improve the world.

>
> >> and "Coming New Ice Age" from just 20 years ago
> >> (Google "coming new ice age 1980's"), to name but a few.
>
> > If it were not for global warming then we would be heading for an ice
> > age. One in a long series of ice ages (as elucidated by scientific
> > discoveries which you poo-poo).
>
> And did humanity cause those other warming/cooling cycles? :-)

Since humans have existed in one form or another for 7.5 million years
the cheeky answer (since you can not prove me wrong on this) is QUITE
PROBABLY.

However, to be fair (and I do not know why I am doing this) much of
the climate fluctuations were as the result of earth axis wobbles and
other causes, not human activity. The extent of global warming due to
natural causes (fires, wobbles, volcanic activity, methane releases,
etc.) can be tracked and calculated. The difference between the
observed and calculated warming can only be due to human activity
(unless you want to throw Satan into the equation).

>
> The point is that many of the same people who were touting New Ice
> Age 20 years ago are now touting global warming, yet you accept it
> just as blindly, and will be surprised again in 10 or 20 years when the
> global warming myth is obviously wrong. See? There's the "don't learn
> from your mistakes". When people cry "Wolf! Wolf!" again and again
> and there's no wolf, you stop taking everything thay say at face value.
> That's learning from your mistakes. :-)

So you are quite happy to burn fossil fuels until Armageddon comes? or
are you prepared to hedge your bets and do something about global
warming now?

>
> > God clearly does not love the world enough if he allows ignorance to
> > persist.
>
> Not a valid argument. It is an inevitable consequence of free will that some
> will choose ignorance, some will chose learning, and so forth. Would you
> let your own children have free will, even knowing they would probably do
> stupid and destructive things, as most children do, or would you have
> them to be robots, perfectly toeing the P.C. line? :-)

In a universe where the creator knows all, past, present and future,
there can be no free will. Children have a habit of circumventing
authority and doing what they want to do anyway.

On 30 Nov, 16:36, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e630875...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
> >non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved
>
> Phooey. Of course it was exactly that.

This all depends upon how you view what is inherently a racist
position. One way is as total racism and the other way is as some kind
of condescension. I think that the latter is how it was viewed at the
time. We may choose to view it as racism now.

>
> >but, rather,
> >that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves
>
> I.e. "inferior" ...
>

No. Just not educated, trained or experienced to do the job.

> >the
> >white man was burdened with the task himself.
>
> .. and "needed to be ruled."
>

Condescension by the whites.

> >It might have helped a
> >bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
> >populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
> >the white man expected
>
> And why should they do that? What's wrong with ruling themselves to
> _their_own_ standards?

I don't think that would have been viewed as acceptable to the white
man. The native societies in some countries would have not provided
resources or a market place to the colonial power and as that was the
point of it all (apart from spreading the word of God) the natural
order of conquered societies was unacceptable. That doesn't account
for the greedy grab for India where the existing native rulers were
quite capable of ruling their subjects.

>
> >and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
> >on to overseas possessions after WW2.
>
> Or had learned any lessons from a painful and embarrassing experience
> attempting to do so in the late 18th century...
>

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Which I think
also goes on to say that those who do study history are doomed to
repeat it endlessly.

On 30 Nov, 16:38, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC), docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> >>I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
> >>non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
> >>that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
> >>white man was burdened with the task himself.
>
> >With all due respect, Mr Maclean... burdened by whom?
>
> Such burdens tend to be self-inflicted.

Thanks Howard. That was a much more succinct response than my cack-
handed reply earlier.

On 30 Nov, 16:44, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <d015e273-f1c9-4148-8fb5-ad2d8e0f5...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 29 Nov, 15:41, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
> >> Slavery was 'the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
> >> revolution' and the corner-stone of the Confederacy was 'the great truth
> >> tha the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination
> >> to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition'.
>
> >> So asserted Mr Stephens... who was the Vice President of the Confederate
> >> States of America.  What would *he* know about the reasoning behind the
> >> Civil War, anyhow?
>
> >Doesn't it make you wonder why they did not institutionalise
> >enslavement of their womenfolk? Oh, they did, it's called marriage.
>
> This view of marriage is peculiar, to say the least. I very much doubt that
> *my* wife feels in the least enslaved; if yours does, that says much more
> about you than it says about the institution of marriage.
>

I believe that my likening marriage to slavery, in those times, is an
accurate reflection on Victorian treatment of women as belonging to
their husbands. Certainly, denying them the vote makes them second
class citizens at best.

On 30 Nov, 18:48, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e6308756ed@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Nov, 10:23, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
> > > >Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who
> genuinely
> > > >believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
> > > >cattle, as God requires us to take care of them.
>
> > > I believe Auld Blighty had a tradition of 'The White Man's Burden' for a
> > > few years, as well... some folks cling to Oldene Stylees.
>
> > I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
> > non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved but, rather,
> > that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves the
> > white man was burdened with the task himself. It might have helped a
> > bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
> > populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
> > the white man expected and if we had not so desperately tried to hold
> > on to overseas possessions after WW2.
>
> Mahatma Gandhi is supposed to have said that he never would have dared mount
> his passive revolution if the country had been occupied by anyone but the
> Brits

Certainly, it would have been a different story if the French had
colonialized India. That was a kind comment by Mr Gandhi.

On 30 Nov, 20:08, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> > Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>
> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
> > floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
> > warming??
>
> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
> responsible,

Only PROBABLY, Judson. Do I detect an element of doubt in your
writing?

> and couldn't do anything to help or hurt,

But we can do something about it. That is the point.

> even if it's happening
> now, which is anything but certain. A really, really dumb time to be passing
> draconian laws to control human activity and spend vast sums of money. :-)

As good a time as any. Except when it is too late.

In article <08d54b12-9a49-410e-8554-a011f32441d9@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 30 Nov, 16:36, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <e9abee75-b9ba-4d48-8871-01e630875...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Alistair
> <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I think that the white man's burden was not a racial statement that
>> >non-whites were inferior and needed to be ruled/enslaved
>>
>> Phooey. Of course it was exactly that.
>
>This all depends upon how you view what is inherently a racist
>position. One way is as total racism and the other way is as some kind
>of condescension.

And that's not racism??

> I think that the latter is how it was viewed at the
>time. We may choose to view it as racism now.

"Choose to view it as"?? 
>
>>
>> >but, rather,
>> >that because the non-whites were incapable of ruling themselves
>>
>> I.e. "inferior" ...
>>
>
>No. Just not educated, trained or experienced to do the job.

In other words... "inferior". No matter how you spin it, it's still a racist 
attitude.
>
>> >the
>> >white man was burdened with the task himself.
>>
>> .. and "needed to be ruled."
>>
>
>Condescension by the whites.

And that's different from racism how?
>
>> >It might have helped a
>> >bit if the Brits had done more to educate and empower the local
>> >populations such that they could rule themselves to the standard that
>> >the white man expected
>>
>> And why should they do that? What's wrong with ruling themselves to
>> _their_own_ standards?
>
>I don't think that would have been viewed as acceptable to the white
>man. 

Which of course is exactly my point: it's not up to the white man to decide 
whether a non-white people's method of self-governance is acceptable or not.

>The native societies in some countries would have not provided
>resources or a market place to the colonial power and as that was the
>point of it all (apart from spreading the word of God) the natural
>order of conquered societies was unacceptable. That doesn't account
>for the greedy grab for India where the existing native rulers were
>quite capable of ruling their subjects.

Or the greedy grabs of other colonies, where the existing rulers were equally 
capable of ruling their *nations*. Your choice of words is quite revealing.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 1 Dec, 15:12, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
> > I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming happening at
> > all.
>
> > And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> > stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> > dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus
> > which cause natural growths to run away, into the environment - have had
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> Considering that the amounts of so called "green house gasses" put into
> the atmosphere by humans is insignificant compared to what's put there by
> volcanos

Where is the science to support your statement (I know you can't
produce it and that you don't believe it anyway)?



> and a host of other natural sources, common sense should tell us
> that we have little or nothing to do with it, even if it is happening,
> which is in serious dispute among scientists.

It is not in serious doubt amongst scientists at all. It is an
accepted fact by the majority of scientists and only seriously doubted
by those such as yourself who doubt science and distrust scientists
(because the scientists hidden agenda is not your hidden agenda).

> That scientists en masse
> accept global warming as a fact is a complete fabrication, told by dimwits
> like Al Gore. And even among the scientists who believe there is global
> warming, there is much disagreement whether humans have anything to do
> with it.

Again a falsehood spread by yourself. It is a fact that humans are
causing global warming. You only have to look at the Hockey Stick
Curve or the Keeling Curve to see that.

> But global warming alarmists aren't looking or listening to that.
>

We don't look to God for the truth either.

> Remember "Humans are unquestionably destroying the ozone layer and we're
> all going to be fried!" a short while back? Maybe that's why it is
> regenerating on its own?

The ozone layer is continually depleting and regenerating by natural
processes. We were destroying it by the use of CFCs and chlorine,
among other chemicals.

> This kind of thing has been reiterated until it's
> nauseating. How many times do people have to be made to look stupid before
> they start thinking?

You clearly have adopted a position of blind ignorance and no amount
of evidence will persuade you to change your views.

>
> But this discussion is pointless. Lemmings are going to do their thing,
> regardless. Just don't expect me to jump with them. :-)

That is the best argument for exterminating Christians that I have
ever heard.

On 1 Dec, 17:03, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
> > Squint. I presume that you mean some one of an ethnic asian origin.
> > This term is racially offensive.
>
> Might want to look it up before you get offended over your presumptions.
>   It's also a technique people use when aiming their firearm.

I don't squint when firing guns, nor do I shut my eyes.

>
> >>> A burglar had a police dog set on him. Fair enough. But the handler
> >>> didn't call the dog off once the guy had given up. Instead he let the
> >>> dog seriously maul the guy, ignored the victim's screams of
> >>> surrender, then rewarded the dog with "Good Boy...". I found it
> >>> sickening and an abuse of power.
> >> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have guns. They
> >> willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them their freedom to
> >> choose?
>
> > Knowing the means of enforcement likely to be used does not justify
> > the behaviour that PD mentioned nor does it excuse your 'so what'
> > attitude.
>
> Sure, there are abuses, as there are with anything.  It *should* give
> the perp something to think about.  Knowing that police have these
> weapons at their disposal *and* there are a few rogue officers who may
> abuse them, to a reasonable person, would be an effective deterrent.  To
> the unreasonable - well, see above.

A friend of mine (with criminal tendencies) would not be deterred by
mace, tasers or guns. The consequence of his actions does not seem to
enter in to his mind so there is no deterrent effect from carrying
such weapons. In one conversation he said that his response to being
maced was to pile in to the police officer concerned and give him a
good hiding. So non-lethal solutions may aggravate the situation.

>
> >>> There are calls for the police here to be armed (currently, they are
> >>> not) and they are currently trialing tasers, amidst divided public
> >>> opinion. After watching this program, I've changed my mind on issuing
> >>> tasers (I was in favour, but I realise that if you give someone a
> >>> toy, they can't wait to use it...there have already been misuses of
> >>> pepper spray by police here...)
> >> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out. Rawhide!"). Many
> >> cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane person likes to touch that
> >> stuff with their hands.
>
> > As an individual with a heart murmur I am at greater risk of dying if
> > a Taser is used on me.
>
> There you go - another liberal program where the solution is worse than
> the original problem.  I'm guessing a chunk of lead in your leg is not
> nearly as lethal as an electric shock.

My view is affected by the fact that only 10% of cops this side of the
pond carry firearms. If I were faced with a taser or a gun I would
certainly be deterred. However, non-lethal solutions to quelling
unrest appear to be too readily grasped by police here when they
should be talking a perp down rather than winding them up.


>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
> ~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
> ~ Business Website ~http://www.djs-consulting.com               ~
> ~ Tech Blog        ~http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog    ~
> ~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
> ~ Personal Blog    ~http://daniel.summershome.org               ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
> V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
>
> "Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
> or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On 1 Dec, 17:09, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
> > On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
> >> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
> >> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>
> > Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
> > of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
> > or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>
> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>
> Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her
> credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think
> that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.
>
> Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we
> wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.
>

IIRC, you are the guy who doesn't use emoticons when joking?

On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> tlmfru wrote:
>
> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>
> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
> much contempt as people treat me.
>
> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
> > warming??
>
> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?  

That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
no bears).

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>> > Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>>
>> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
>> > floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> > warming??
>>
>> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
>> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
>> responsible,
>
> Only PROBABLY, Judson. Do I detect an element of doubt in your
> writing?

I have maintained from the beginning that we *don't know for certain* if global
warming is happening, and even if we did, we *don't know for certain* that
humanity is causing it. I never said that either one was absolutely not happening.
It is the global warming proponents who have no doubts, which in and of itself
is alarming, considering the uncertainty of the evidence. It is this absolute,
unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it that distresses me
most. Such attitudes are the antithesis of what the scientific attitude should be.

And please don't rate on about belief in God. The situations are completely
different. If I believe in God and there is no God, then I am no worse off;
I will die and never know it. If you don't believe in God, and He does exist,
you are in trouble that makes global warming look like a picnic, for eternity.

The situation with global warming is different. If you global warming advocates
are wrong, a vast amount of money will have been wasted and a lot of draconian
laws will have been passed, damaging personal freedom (a vastly important thing)
for no reason and no benefit. A total waste. But if global warming is happening,
we will know for certain at some point and will deal with it then. If global
tempratures have increased only one degree in a century, we aren't going to be
fried in another 50 years, or even 100 years, if it takes that to know. And it
would be expected that by then we would have better technology to deal with it
if necessary. If we blow ourselves up in a war in the meantime, it becomes moot.

> As good a time as any. Except when it is too late.

The same could be said of imprisoning a person who you think is "probably guilty"
of serious crimes. You take drastic, vastly expensive action only when you know,
not when there is doubt.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>>
>> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
>> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
>> much contempt as people treat me.
>>
>> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> > warming??
>>
>> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>
> That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
> no bears).

Penguins. ;-) 

In article <3c487264-e5e4-4e5d-a5a8-0bc3e080eb4c@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Again a falsehood spread by yourself. It is a fact that humans are
>causing global warming. You only have to look at the Hockey Stick
>Curve or the Keeling Curve to see that.

If humans are causing global warming, perhaps you'd care to explain how it is 
that the bulk of the (very slight) increase in temperature in the last century 
or so took place *before* 1940? Certainly the human activity that is alleged 
to be the cause of global warming has occurred at a much greater pace *after* 
1940 than before; yet the global warming true believers such as yourself would 
have us think that the effect preceded the cause by sixty years. 

Riiiiiiiiiight.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Alistair,

I'm disappointed in you :-)

You were making a very good case and I had the rounds marked about even 
between you and Judson, with you possibly even a shade ahead on points...

Then you allow your own prejudices to destroy your argument.

Simply attacking Judson on Religious grounds does not help your argument. In 
every point below, you have attempted to deflect the argument into Religion, 
even after Judson refused to rise to it previously (and picked up points 
from me by not doing so :-))

My card shows you as "unable to continue". Judson wins this one. (A pity, 
because my personal sympahies are with the case for Global warming and the 
Environment, but I agree it is arguable.)

Get back into training, focus on staying focused, and seek a rematch when 
you are less pissed off with God...:-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

PS Can you cite for the age of humanity as being 7.5 million years? I 
believe "Lucy" from Olduvai gorge was measured as being around 3 million.

TOP POST - Nothing new below...

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:dd5f1c48-034b-4c12-bcca-c63440be23cd@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Nov, 16:28, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> >> Even if nothing at all had been done to free the slaves, the 
>> >> Industrial
>> >> Revolution was making slavery uneconomical. Combined with the pressure 
>> >> from
>> >> those who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons, slavery would 
>> >> have
>> >> been abolished within a fairly short period of time anyway, as 
>> >> evidenced by
>> >> the proposed legislation above. Then some 750,000 Americans wouldn't 
>> >> have
>> >> died. Killing 750,000 to free 4,000,000, and laying waste to a big 
>> >> chunk of
>> >> North America. Even if the reason had been purely to free the slaves, 
>> >> what
>> >> a terrible way to do it, under the circumstances. Nothing to brag 
>> >> about,
>> >> any way you slice it.
>>
>> > OK, when the Jihadists come knocking on your door at 3 am then don't
>> > expect me to stand up for your right to free speech and free
>> > association.
>>
>> Didn't say nothing should have been done, only that the "cure" used was 
>> worse
>> than the disease.
>
> So, if the cure is worse than the disease are you against the cure?
> There is a problem in health areas to do with Clostridium difficile
> infections. A cure exists which is pretty disgusting - ingesting
> faeces from another person. It restores the balance of bacteria in the
> gut.
>
>>
>> >> In the 1970's the EPA decided that, since exposure to asbestos can be 
>> >> a
>> >> health risk, that all asbestos in existing building must be removed 
>> >> post
>> >> haste at all costs. Billions of dollars was spent in a futile attempt, 
>> >> and
>> >> even the EPA admits the effort was a disaster, exposing many thousands 
>> >> of
>> >> people to asbestos dust caused by the asbestor removal process, saying 
>> >> it
>> >> would have been much better to just leave the asbestos where it was, 
>> >> and
>> >> deal with it as necessary. Nice to know that ... now.
>>
>> > If the asbestos had been left in place then there would have been long-
>> > term exposure risks and of course the risk of free enterprise ripping
>> > and dumping asbestos in unlicensed tips. Potentially a more serious
>> > problem.
>>
>> A lesser problem, according to the EPA, who certainly had nothing to gain
>> by maximizing the disaster of their mistake.
>
> Unproven. By your own standards, of selectively ignoring proven
> sciences, how can you accept an unproven supposition in a report
> unless it is supported by significant scientific experimentation.
>
>>
>> >> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that 
>> >> they
>> >> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
>> >> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
>> >> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
>> >> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>>
>> > I agree with you. It is so much easier to know that you are right when
>> > you have God on your side.
>>
>> Wow, Alistair, you have a real knee-jerk reaction about God, even when I
>> said nothing about God. In physical science, you know you are right when
>> you can *experimentally verify*,not before.
>>
>
> So we should allow ourselves to gas ourselves with CO2 unto death just
> to prove that I am right in my belief that global warming is happening
> just so that you can then start doing something about it?
>
>> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial 
>> >> science,
>> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>>
>> > We have already been down this road more than once and you still have
>> > not learned your lesson. Perhaps you will get the message when the
>> > rest of the world bans American products from their stores because of
>> > the excessive carbon footprints?
>>
>> I get the message that the rest of the world is following the nonsense.
>> Nothing surprising in that. How many times has the U.S. been dragged,
>> kicking and screaming, into a war in Europe or elsewhere, caused by
>> the rest of the world living in la-la land, doing what they thought wise,
>> instead of seeing reality for what it was? WWI,
>
> You were late for that one.
>
>> WWII,
>
> You were late for that one too.
>
>> Vietnam
>
> Watch Platoon sometime.
>
>> and
>> Bosnia,
>
> Everyone was late for that one. Maybe because it involved Muslims
> getting slaughtered by God-fearing Christians.
>
>> to name a few. Yeah, slam it to us, we deserve it, not blindly
>> following the rest of the world, who are so wise and clever. :-)
>>
>
> No, you just sat there in SPLENDID ISOLATION for two of them and tried
> to shoot your way out of another.
>
>> >> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>> >> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>> >> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>>
>> > Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>> > of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>>
>> Sure. Extensive damage, unquestionally. Permanent destruction, no.
>
> You could incinerate every life form on the beaches and rocky shores
> and the area would not be permanently damaged. Nature would repopulate
> the shoreline and coastal regions.
>
>> Not
>> saying Exxon Valdez was a good thing or unimportant. But it wasn't
>> the unmitigated sky falling disaster environmentalists claimed.
>
> Perhaps it wasn't such a disaster because environmentalists got up and
> did something about it. Even if they had done nothing at all the area
> would have recovered eventually but it would have taken much longer
> before the wildlife had recovered.
>
> Seeing as the environment is of no concern to you (I presume you have
> an insurance policy with God) perhaps we should sit back and allow oil
> producers to pollute with impunity. Hell, let us allow China and the
> US to pollute our atmosphere, let us allow Russia (and the USA) create
> a few more Chernobyls/3 Mile Island disasters while we are at it. And
> can I come round and dump asbestos waste in your back yard?
>
>> That is my
>> point.
>>
>> > For the record: salmon are fish that are largely marine in behaviour,
>> > entering rivers to spawn (and in at least one species dying
>> > immediately after spawning). The salmon in the Alaskan waters and
>> > rivers would have spent very little of their time in Alaskan rivers
>> > (which were not affected by the pollution of Prince William Sound) and
>> > Alaskan coastal regions. So they would not have been affected by the
>> > pollution. Nice try Judson, but if you really understood what you are
>> > talking about then you would not have used that as an example. You
>> > have only succeeded in proving your ignorance and close-mindedness.
>>
>> Only when one ignores the fact that Salmon was an issue used again and
>> again to bash Exxon Valdez.
>
> Exxon deserved to be bashed and so too do all others who needlessly
> pollute.
>
>>
>> > Finally - the effects of oil pollution have been well documented since
>> > the days of the Torrey Canyon disaster (although it was the washing of
>> > the coast with fresh water which caused the most serious damage
>> > there). BTW, my first year tutor at university was a world expert on
>> > oil pollution.
>>
>> It is the ecology's astounding ability to recover from such damage that 
>> is
>> continually underestimated by environmentalists. Real science would put
>> out both sides of the issue without bias.
>
> My tutor pointed out that it was not the first incident, or the
> csecond or third incidents of oil pollution that do the damage but the
> fourth incident. If we keep knocking the environment then there will
> come a time when it is no longer able to recover from our actions.
>
>>
>> >> andwww.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/apr06reg.pdf), "Forest fires 
>> >> are
>> >> always bad, prevent them at all costs" (it's now known that small 
>> >> forest
>> >> fires every few decades are beneficial for the forest, because they 
>> >> keep
>> >> underbrush down, otherwise the uncontrolled underbrush permits a huge
>> >> devastating uncontrollable fire that destroys the forest in a hundred
>> >> years or so {e.g. Yellowstone Park}, and they "renew" the living 
>> >> habitat
>> >> for many forest animals)
>>
>> > That is the beauty of science: it learns and overturns the truths of
>> > previous generations by a coninuous process of observation,
>> > experimentation, review.
>>
>> Yes, but is is the blind unwillingness to realize it is going to happen 
>> to
>> what liberals think *now* which is the problem.
>
> No. The problem is that group of people who ignore science because
> they know better (when they don't) or because they couldn't care less
> or even because they think that their Gods will save them.
>
>>
>> > Unlike Christianity, which is frozen in time
>> > to an era approx 1600 years ago.
>>
>> Is that an attempt at diversion, or are you intentionally trying to annoy 
>> me
>> by slamming Christianity, when I haven't even mentioned God or religion,
>> except for "God protect us", which was simply an expression, unrelated
>> to the discussion? :-)
>
> Intentional slamming I must admit. However, I do wonder exactly how
> many of the God-fearing  believe that everything will be alright
> because their prayers will be heard rather than because they are out
> there doing something to improve the world.
>
>>
>> >> and "Coming New Ice Age" from just 20 years ago
>> >> (Google "coming new ice age 1980's"), to name but a few.
>>
>> > If it were not for global warming then we would be heading for an ice
>> > age. One in a long series of ice ages (as elucidated by scientific
>> > discoveries which you poo-poo).
>>
>> And did humanity cause those other warming/cooling cycles? :-)
>
> Since humans have existed in one form or another for 7.5 million years
> the cheeky answer (since you can not prove me wrong on this) is QUITE
> PROBABLY.
>
> However, to be fair (and I do not know why I am doing this) much of
> the climate fluctuations were as the result of earth axis wobbles and
> other causes, not human activity. The extent of global warming due to
> natural causes (fires, wobbles, volcanic activity, methane releases,
> etc.) can be tracked and calculated. The difference between the
> observed and calculated warming can only be due to human activity
> (unless you want to throw Satan into the equation).
>
>>
>> The point is that many of the same people who were touting New Ice
>> Age 20 years ago are now touting global warming, yet you accept it
>> just as blindly, and will be surprised again in 10 or 20 years when the
>> global warming myth is obviously wrong. See? There's the "don't learn
>> from your mistakes". When people cry "Wolf! Wolf!" again and again
>> and there's no wolf, you stop taking everything thay say at face value.
>> That's learning from your mistakes. :-)
>
> So you are quite happy to burn fossil fuels until Armageddon comes? or
> are you prepared to hedge your bets and do something about global
> warming now?
>
>>
>> > God clearly does not love the world enough if he allows ignorance to
>> > persist.
>>
>> Not a valid argument. It is an inevitable consequence of free will that 
>> some
>> will choose ignorance, some will chose learning, and so forth. Would you
>> let your own children have free will, even knowing they would probably do
>> stupid and destructive things, as most children do, or would you have
>> them to be robots, perfectly toeing the P.C. line? :-)
>
> In a universe where the creator knows all, past, present and future,
> there can be no free will. Children have a habit of circumventing
> authority and doing what they want to do anyway. 

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:cbe5da03-8661-40dc-9109-b04ff08fde70@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Dec, 17:09, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Alistair wrote:
>> > On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>> >> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>> >> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>>
>> > Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>> > of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>> > or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>>
>> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
>> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>>
>> Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her
>> credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think
>> that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.
>>
>> Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we
>> wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.
>>
>
> IIRC, you are the guy who doesn't use emoticons when joking?

No, he isn't. That was HeyBub.

Do try and keep up... :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:ZZh4j.6677$k27.3423@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>>> > Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from 
>>> >> such
>>> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>>> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial 
>>> >> science,
>>> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>>> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global 
>>> >> Warming
>>> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>>>
>>> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>>> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice 
>>> > fields
>>> > floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
>>> > warming??
>>>
>>> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
>>> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
>>> responsible,
>>
>> Only PROBABLY, Judson. Do I detect an element of doubt in your
>> writing?
>
> I have maintained from the beginning that we *don't know for certain* if 
> global
> warming is happening, and even if we did, we *don't know for certain* that
> humanity is causing it. I never said that either one was absolutely not 
> happening.
> It is the global warming proponents who have no doubts, which in and of 
> itself
> is alarming, considering the uncertainty of the evidence. It is this 
> absolute,
> unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it that 
> distresses me
> most. Such attitudes are the antithesis of what the scientific attitude 
> should be.
>
> And please don't rate on about belief in God. The situations are 
> completely
> different. If I believe in God and there is no God, then I am no worse 
> off;
> I will die and never know it. If you don't believe in God, and He does 
> exist,
> you are in trouble that makes global warming look like a picnic, for 
> eternity.
>
> The situation with global warming is different. If you global warming 
> advocates
> are wrong, a vast amount of money will have been wasted and a lot of 
> draconian
> laws will have been passed, damaging personal freedom (a vastly important 
> thing)
> for no reason and no benefit. A total waste. But if global warming is 
> happening,
> we will know for certain at some point and will deal with it then. If 
> global
> tempratures have increased only one degree in a century, we aren't going 
> to be
> fried in another 50 years, or even 100 years, if it takes that to know. 
> And it
> would be expected that by then we would have better technology to deal 
> with it
> if necessary. If we blow ourselves up in a war in the meantime, it becomes 
> moot.
>
>> As good a time as any. Except when it is too late.
>
> The same could be said of imprisoning a person who you think is "probably 
> guilty"
> of serious crimes. You take drastic, vastly expensive action only when you 
> know,
> not when there is doubt.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

....And the winner is... NOT the Global warming lobby!

The above is a persuader as far as I'm concerned. I accept that the case for 
Global warming is definitely not made.

Yes, I saw "An inconvenient truth", yes, I live in a place that is extremely 
sensitive about the environment, yes, I have many friends who are strong 
advocates of the case for Global Warming, but in this instance at least, I 
think Judson makes a valid case.

Nevertheless, whether the GWists are right or wrong, we should consider the 
possibility that there might be something in their argument and seek further 
evidence. While that evidence is being obtained, it wouldn't hurt for all of 
us to be aware of our actions, environmentally. Plant trees, recycle 
garbage, don't litter, don't rape the environment. If you enjoy fishing and 
hunting, observe quotas, and don't take more than you and your friends and 
neighbours can eat. (point being: if the quota says 50 and you can only use 
40... take 40.)

It is fair to say that an alarm has been rung.

We should not ignore it, but neither should we panic...

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:4f033eb0-2777-4561-8d47-bc6f2c169be3@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>>
>> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
>> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
>> much contempt as people treat me.
>>
>> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> > warming??
>>
>> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>
> That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
> no bears).

Penguin piss is also warm... :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

In article <nuudnV_rkI_yC8zanZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>SkippyPB wrote:
>> 
>> I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
>> Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
>> African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
>> was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
>> is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
>> state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
>> possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
>> hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.
>
>So, because a person holds views that you consider distasteful, their 
>punishment for the same crime should be higher?

If premedititation is a 'view' then yes, that is correct.

>How is that anything 
>*but* criminalizing thought?

You *do* know, Mr Summers, that the thinking, in and of it'sself, is not 
criminal... it is the *doing* that is criminal and the intention behind 
the doing which might be considered when sentence is levied.

DD

In article <nuudnVzrkI-yCMzanZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Alistair wrote:
>> On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>>> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>>> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>> 
>> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>> or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>
>*IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more 
>concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

.... Mr Summers, do you have something against those who follow the 
instructions found in Ex.XX:4?

DD

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>>>> > Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>>>> >> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>>>> >> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>>>> >> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>>>> >> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>>>> >> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>>>> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
>>>> > floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
>>>> > warming??
>>>>
>>>> The fact that such things have been going on without our help for a long
>>>> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
>>>> responsible,
>>>
>>> Only PROBABLY, Judson. Do I detect an element of doubt in your
>>> writing?
>>
>> I have maintained from the beginning that we *don't know for certain* if global
>> warming is happening, and even if we did, we *don't know for certain* that
>> humanity is causing it. I never said that either one was absolutely not happening.
>> It is the global warming proponents who have no doubts, which in and of itself
>> is alarming, considering the uncertainty of the evidence. It is this absolute,
>> unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it that distresses me
>> most. Such attitudes are the antithesis of what the scientific attitude should be.
>>
>> And please don't rate on about belief in God. The situations are completely
>> different. If I believe in God and there is no God, then I am no worse off;
>> I will die and never know it. If you don't believe in God, and He does exist,
>> you are in trouble that makes global warming look like a picnic, for eternity.
>>
>> The situation with global warming is different. If you global warming advocates
>> are wrong, a vast amount of money will have been wasted and a lot of draconian
>> laws will have been passed, damaging personal freedom (a vastly important thing)
>> for no reason and no benefit. A total waste. But if global warming is happening,
>> we will know for certain at some point and will deal with it then. If global
>> tempratures have increased only one degree in a century, we aren't going to be
>> fried in another 50 years, or even 100 years, if it takes that to know. And it
>> would be expected that by then we would have better technology to deal with it
>> if necessary. If we blow ourselves up in a war in the meantime, it becomes moot.
>>
>>> As good a time as any. Except when it is too late.
>>
>> The same could be said of imprisoning a person who you think is "probably guilty"
>> of serious crimes. You take drastic, vastly expensive action only when you know,
>> not when there is doubt.
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding!
>
> ...And the winner is... NOT the Global warming lobby!
>
> The above is a persuader as far as I'm concerned. I accept that the case for Global warming is definitely not made.
>
> Yes, I saw "An inconvenient truth", yes, I live in a place that is extremely sensitive about the environment, yes, I have many 
> friends who are strong advocates of the case for Global Warming, but in this instance at least, I think Judson makes a valid case.
>
> Nevertheless, whether the GWists are right or wrong, we should consider the possibility that there might be something in their 
> argument and seek further evidence. While that evidence is being obtained, it wouldn't hurt for all of us to be aware of our 
> actions, environmentally. Plant trees, recycle garbage, don't litter, don't rape the environment. If you enjoy fishing and 
> hunting, observe quotas, and don't take more than you and your friends and neighbours can eat. (point being: if the quota says 50 
> and you can only use 40... take 40.)
>
> It is fair to say that an alarm has been rung.
>
> We should not ignore it, but neither should we panic...

Thanks, Pete. I was beginning to think this whole debate was pointless;
that no one was going to be swayed. :-)

I agree with your assessment of what we should be doing. It is only the
drastic steps which may not be warranted, that I oppose.

I live in an area that was second (in the U.S.) only to Pittsburg, PA in
steel production for a long time, and there used to be a lot of strip
mining here for the raw materials. Such vast devastation of the environment
was unconscionably stupid and reckless. The EPA has done a lot of good, and
I applaud that. But in it's zeal has also done a lot of harm. To my mind,
the danger on both sides is when you become too zealous and unrestrained in
your thinking; absolutely certain and *have no doubt that you know exactly*
what should be done, when our knowledge is *always* incomplete. Stop. Think.
Realize our limitations. Use reason and common sense, commodities all too
lacking in today's world. But above all, act with humility, not hubris, when
contemplating things with vast cost and sweeping consequences that could be
wasted, damaging or even devastating. I see none of these attributes being
displayed by the global warming alarmists.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

On 1 Dec, 18:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I have maintained from the beginning that we *don't know for certain* if global
> warming is happening,

Therefore, YOU can not be certain that it is not happening.

> and even if we did, we *don't know for certain* that
> humanity is causing it.

All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
temperature has occured with increasing human population and
particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.

> I never said that either one was absolutely not happening.
> It is the global warming proponents who have no doubts, which in and of itself
> is alarming, considering the uncertainty of the evidence.

There is no uncertainty to the evidence nor to the conclusions that
the scientists have drawn from the evidence. Any uncertainty exists in
your mind. I rant on about your religious beliefs because I view that
those beliefs are significant contributing factors in your ostrich-
like approach to this issue.

> It is this absolute,
> unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it that distresses me
> most.

Ditto re your religious beliefs and your posture on global warming.

> Such attitudes are the antithesis of what the scientific attitude should be.
>
> And please don't rate on about belief in God. The situations are completely
> different.

Quite right. One is based on evidence and the drawing of conclusions
from said evidence and the other is based on blind ignorance in the
absence of any evidence.

> If I believe in God and there is no God, then I am no worse off;
> I will die and never know it. If you don't believe in God, and He does exist,
> you are in trouble that makes global warming look like a picnic, for eternity.

No trouble - THERE IS NO GOD.

>
> The situation with global warming is different. If you global warming advocates
> are wrong, a vast amount of money will have been wasted and a lot of draconian
> laws will have been passed, damaging personal freedom (a vastly important thing)
> for no reason and no benefit. A total waste. But if global warming is happening,
> we will know for certain at some point

We know for certain NOW!

> and will deal with it then.

How much evidence do you need before you will change your views? Do
you need the Simpson-esque hand of God to come down from the skys and
order you to change?

> If global
> tempratures have increased only one degree in a century, we aren't going to be
> fried in another 50 years, or even 100 years,

The current standpoint has it that if we do not start doing something
now then in 20 (and most certainly 50) years time it will be too late
to reverse the trends and prevent the forthcoming environmental
catastrophe. I believe that those who see global warming as a gentle
increase in temperatures over time are deluding themselves. I foresee
a tipping point which will have icecaps melted and temperatures
increased non-linearly; a viewpoint which is not ruled out from the
range of possibilities for the future.

As an aside, I presume you are happy to have the massive influx of
immigrants that will come to the Americas looking for land to live on
after their countries are turned into deserts?


> if it takes that to know.

And still the nay-sayers will cry "Falsehood!" We still have people
alive who believe the earth is flat, despite the evidence to the
contrary.

> d it
> would be expected that by then we would have better technology to deal with it
> if necessary.

The Republican viewpoint: "We don't need to do anything now because in
50 years we will have technology save us".

>If we blow ourselves up in a war in the meantime, it becomes moot.

Unlikely to happen.

>
> > As good a time as any. Except when it is too late.
>
> The same could be said of imprisoning a person who you think is "probably guilty"
> of serious crimes. You take drastic, vastly expensive action only when you know,
> not when there is doubt.
> --
> Judson McClendon      ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems    http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 1 Dec, 18:49, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> tlmfru wrote:
>
> >> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> >> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>
> >> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
> >> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
> >> much contempt as people treat me.
>
> >> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
> >> > warming??
>
> >> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>
> > That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
> > no bears).
>
> Penguins. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Penguins do not urinate. No bird, to my knowledge urinates. Their
'kidneys' open into their digestive tract and water is re-absorbed.
The white faecal matter that birds produce would aid in global cooling
(by reflecting sunlight) and not contribute to global warming.

On 1 Dec, 20:25, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <3c487264-e5e4-4e5d-a5a8-0bc3e080e...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Again a falsehood spread by yourself. It is a fact that humans are
> >causing global warming. You only have to look at the Hockey Stick
> >Curve or the Keeling Curve to see that.
>
> If humans are causing global warming, perhaps you'd care to explain how it is
> that the bulk of the (very slight) increase in temperature in the last century
> or so took place *before* 1940? Certainly the human activity that is alleged
> to be the cause of global warming has occurred at a much greater pace *after*
> 1940 than before; yet the global warming true believers such as yourself would
> have us think that the effect preceded the cause by sixty years.
>

How about the increase in air travel (which contributes a cooling
effect by sulphate aerosols)?

Declining contributions from the Sun: (from Wikipedia) "estimated that
the Sun may have contributed about 45-50% of the increase in the
average global surface temperature over the period 1900-2000, and
about 25-35% between 1980 and 2000."

Increased volcanic dust emissions.

Reductions in cosmic rays (cosmic rays contribute to cloud formation).

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and read it for
yourself.

On 2 Dec, 01:04, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> Alistair,
>
> I'm disappointed in you :-)

Sorry

>
> You were making a very good case and I had the rounds marked about even
> between you and Judson, with you possibly even a shade ahead on points...
>
> Then you allow your own prejudices to destroy your argument.
>
> Simply attacking Judson on Religious grounds does not help your argument.

It is my belief that Judson's position is in part influenced by his
religion. Therefore, any attack on religion is valid. You may note
that introducing data or conclusions derived therefrom in the
scientific arena is always ignored by Judson in favour of his personal
views (unsupported by reality as they are).

I always used to think that you can lead a horse to water and teach it
to drink but that doesn't hold true when the horse can not be lead.

On 2 Dec, 01:06, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:cbe5da03-8661-40dc-9109-b04ff08fde70@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec, 17:09, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Alistair wrote:
> >> > On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
> >> >> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
> >> >> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>
> >> > Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
> >> > of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
> >> > or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>
> >> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
> >> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>
> >> Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her
> >> credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think
> >> that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.
>
> >> Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we
> >> wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.
>
> > IIRC, you are the guy who doesn't use emoticons when joking?
>
> No, he isn't. That was HeyBub.
>
> Do try and keep up... :-)
>

I'm running as fast as my little legs allow. Sorry to LX-i

On 2 Dec, 01:31, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> The above is a persuader as far as I'm concerned. I accept that the case for
> Global warming is definitely not made.
>
> Yes, I saw "An inconvenient truth",

With, inconveniently, six untruths/partial truths in it. In the UK the
film has to be shown with a rider pointing out the falsely drawn
conclusions.

> yes, I live in a place that is extremely
> sensitive about the environment, yes, I have many friends who are strong
> advocates of the case for Global Warming, but in this instance at least, I
> think Judson makes a valid case.
>
> Nevertheless, whether the GWists are right or wrong, we should consider the
> possibility that there might be something in their argument and seek further
> evidence. While that evidence is being obtained, it wouldn't hurt for all of
> us to be aware of our actions, environmentally. Plant trees, recycle
> garbage, don't litter, don't rape the environment. If you enjoy fishing and
> hunting, observe quotas, and don't take more than you and your friends and
> neighbours can eat. (point being: if the quota says 50 and you can only use
> 40... take 40.)
>
> It is fair to say that an alarm has been rung.
>
> We should not ignore it, but neither should we panic...

Fairly said.

On 2 Dec, 01:32, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4f033eb0-2777-4561-8d47-bc6f2c169be3@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> tlmfru wrote:
>
> >> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> >> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>
> >> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
> >> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
> >> much contempt as people treat me.
>
> >> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
> >> > warming??
>
> >> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>
> > That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
> > no bears).
>
> Penguin piss is also warm... :-)
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

See my non-humourous reply to Judsons humourous suggestion. Seeing as
the penguins eat our fish and breath our air (contributing to GW)
perhaps we should shoot all of the penguins? And seals.

On 2 Dec, 10:51, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

> I agree with your assessment of what we should be doing. It is only the
> drastic steps which may not be warranted, that I oppose.
>
> I live in an area that was second (in the U.S.) only to Pittsburg, PA in
> steel production for a long time, and there used to be a lot of strip
> mining here for the raw materials. Such vast devastation of the environment
> was unconscionably stupid and reckless. The EPA has done a lot of good, and
> I applaud that. But in it's zeal has also done a lot of harm. To my mind,
> the danger on both sides is when you become too zealous and unrestrained in
> your thinking; absolutely certain and *have no doubt that you know exactly*
> what should be done, when our knowledge is *always* incomplete. Stop. Think.

And that way you will never get anything done because your knowledge
will never be complete.

In article <bcc8fb64-062e-47bf-81d3-af367483df82@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
>temperature has occured with increasing human population and
>particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.

Of course it's not a coincidence -- because it's not true.

There are NO reliable records of GLOBAL temperatures prior to the late 19th 
century, for three reasons: first, early thermometers were not accurate enough 
to allow valid comparisons with modern data; second, record-keeping was spotty 
and inconsistent; and third, temperature measurements were neither made nor 
recorded *globally*.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with your assessment of what we should be doing. It is only the
>> drastic steps which may not be warranted, that I oppose.
>>
>> I live in an area that was second (in the U.S.) only to Pittsburg, PA in
>> steel production for a long time, and there used to be a lot of strip
>> mining here for the raw materials. Such vast devastation of the environment
>> was unconscionably stupid and reckless. The EPA has done a lot of good, and
>> I applaud that. But in it's zeal has also done a lot of harm. To my mind,
>> the danger on both sides is when you become too zealous and unrestrained in
>> your thinking; absolutely certain and *have no doubt that you know exactly*
>> what should be done, when our knowledge is *always* incomplete. Stop. Think.
>
> And that way you will never get anything done because your knowledge
> will never be complete.

And yours is, of course, qualifying you to drastically change millions of
other people's lives and spend trillions of dollars of other people's money. ;-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:14:26 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>SkippyPB wrote:
>> 
>> I would disagree with that.  As and example, a white member of the Klu
>> Klux Klan sees an Afircan-American with a white woman and shoots the
>> African-American to death.  Why?  Simply because the African-American
>> was consorting with a white woman and the Klu Klux Klan believe that
>> is worthy of death.  Without a change in the law and depending on the
>> state, the KKK person could be convicted of 2nd degree murder and
>> possibly do only 10 years of prison time.  With the addition of the
>> hate crime legislation, he'd most likely do life.
>
>So, because a person holds views that you consider distasteful, their 
>punishment for the same crime should be higher?  How is that anything 
>*but* criminalizing thought?

Has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.  It is called mitigating
circumstances.  

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"From there to here, from here to there, 
funny things are everywhere. 
If you never did, you should. 
These things are fun and fun is good." 
--- Dr. Seuss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:32:37 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
> <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> 
>> But as I've said before, a type of law being passed these days I view to be
>> highly dangerous: the so called "hate crime laws". They are tantamount to
>> making how you feel about something become illegal, and that is a Very Bad
>> Thing. Two seminal events are associated with increased support for this type
>> of law here in the U.S., and it shows unclear thinking. One was when a male
>> homosexual was tied to a fence, tortured and srarved to death, and the other
>> was when a black man was tied by a chain to the back of a pickup truck and
>> drug to death. How anyone could commit such unthinkable crimes is beyond me,
>> and either crime warrants capital punishment, if anything does. But, what
>> difference does it make *why* someone did such a thing? Would it be somehow
>> "less bad" if it was done for money or jealousy, rather than bigotry? I think
>> not. And the potential bad consequences of such laws is staggering. Remember
>> the Japanese "Thought Police"? Same thing. A crime should be what you do, not
>> what you think, or how you feel. Will it become a crime to be in a bad mood,
>> or just obnoxious? The potential is there, and history has serious precedent,
>> even in current memory. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
> 
> I couldn't agree more.   Along with this thought-police trend, we have
> a trend to define everybody and everything as protected - but not
> because we are people - but because we each belong to one minority or
> another.      Someone who has road rage (or some other insanity) and
> starts shooting up passersby isn't guilty of hate crimes - but his
> victims are just as dead.     Stop trying people on how they think -
> try them on what they do.

I disagree completely, and think the above a wild distortion of fact. 
Hate laws do not apply, and have never applied, to people that simply 
*think* hatefull thoughts.

To be convicted on a hate crime, you have to actually *act* on the 
hatred.  That is, at the very least, you have to preach hatred, and 
attempt to convince others to profess the same sentiments. Normally, it 
takes even more than that ... one has to go out and do actual harm to an 
individual. Then the hate laws cut in in terms of intent.

Your assertion seems to imply it is quite OK to persecute people all 
that you want, as long as you do not shoot them and stick to things like 
liable, it is fine.

Donald

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> That was my original point. They shouldn't be allowed to. One simple rule: 
> "Everyone not in Jail gets to vote". (OK, you can exclude the mentally 
> ill...but only if it is certified by three doctors... :-))
> 

Why?  If we exclude the mentally unbalanced, then we would have nobody 
to vote for.

Besides, even if a jurisdiction has so many people labeled as insane 
that it actually affects the vote, then the likely-hood is that the 
insane *should* affect the result.

Donald

LX-i wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>> On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>>> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>>> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>>
>> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>> or can you just turn your back on the truth?
> 
> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more 
> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
> 
> Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her 
> credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think 
> that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.
> 
> Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we 
> wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.
> 

The real problem is not that nature cannot recover, the real problem is 
that we might not like how nature does it.  The most obvious way is to 
allow mankind to make itself extinct.

Personally, I'd wish that we survive as a species, even if not doing so 
resulted in pristine beaches, but then I'll admit I'm not terribly 
altruistic.

Donald

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
>>> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
>>> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
>>> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
>>> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>> Do stop generalizing, Judson.  Neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" have
>> any monopoly on stupidity or even misplaced enthusiasm.
> 
> Monopoly, no. Predilection, yes. :-)
> 
>>> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>>> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>>> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>>> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>>> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>>> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>> melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
>> floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> warming??
> 
> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
> responsible, and couldn't do anything to help or hurt, even if it's happening
> now, which is anything but certain. A really, really dumb time to be passing
> draconian laws to control human activity and spend vast sums of money. :-)

But they have not. Been going on for a long time, that is ... on the 
scale that is happening now, they have been going on for a *very* short 
period of time.

If you lived at the time of Noah, you would still be claiming it was a 
seasonal variation when the water reached your chin.

Donald

"donald tees" <donaldtees@execulink.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>> It isn't that the liberals necessarily choose bad goals, it is that they
>>>> are blind to the widespread and sometimes disasterous repurcussions of
>>>> implementing their "solutions", and do not accept the limitations of
>>>> their current knowledge and understanding. They get an idea in their
>>>> heads, and become blind to everything else.
>>> Do stop generalizing, Judson.  Neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" have
>>> any monopoly on stupidity or even misplaced enthusiasm.
>>
>> Monopoly, no. Predilection, yes. :-)
>>
>>>> Can we spell "G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G?" May God protect us from such
>>>> "benefactors". Yes, I know, I'm about to be bombarded with tons of
>>>> "pseudo evidence" (long chains of "reasoning" based on partial science,
>>>> the sum of which can't be directly experimentally verified, and which
>>>> everyone will know is wrong in 10 or 20 years) to prove Global Warming
>>>> is "real" and definitely caused by humans.
>>> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
>>> melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice fields
>>> floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other than global
>>> warming??
>>
>> The face that such things have been going on without our help for a long
>> time suggests we aren't needed for it to happen, and probably are not
>> responsible, and couldn't do anything to help or hurt, even if it's happening
>> now, which is anything but certain. A really, really dumb time to be passing
>> draconian laws to control human activity and spend vast sums of money. :-)
>
> But they have not. Been going on for a long time, that is ... on the scale that is happening now, they have been going on for a 
> *very* short period of time.
>
> If you lived at the time of Noah, you would still be claiming it was a seasonal variation when the water reached your chin.

Since the warning came from God, not man, I hope I would have been
doing everything I could to help Noah build the boat. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> 
> I have maintained from the beginning that we *don't know for certain* if global
> warming is happening, and even if we did, we *don't know for certain* that
> humanity is causing it. I never said that either one was absolutely not happening.
> It is the global warming proponents who have no doubts, which in and of itself
> is alarming, considering the uncertainty of the evidence. It is this absolute,
> unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it that distresses me
> most. Such attitudes are the antithesis of what the scientific attitude should be.
> 

It fact, the opposite occurred.  One or two people started sounding 
alarm bells, and were dismissed as kooks.  Over a long period of time, 
more and more evidence appeared, until most unprejudiced students became 
proponents, largely going uphill the entire way. At the end, are left 
those with:

 >"absolute,
 > unshakable, blind belief, when the evidence doesn't warrant it"

which you claim abhorent, yet resort to when you wish to claim a moral 
stance. It seems contradictory to me.

Why should we suffer for your obstinacy? You are the one claiming no 
harm done.  It is up to you to prove it. The world goes on.

Donald

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>>> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>>> or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>>
>> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
>> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... Mr Summers, do you have something against those who follow the
> instructions found in Ex.XX:4?

There is no penalty in the Decalogue for making false images. Reality, 
however, does impose consequences. 

tlmfru wrote:
>
> Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years, the Antartic ice
> fields floating away to sea"?  Can we come up with a reason other
> than global warming??

Heh! Some glaciers are melting/shrinking. Others are expanding.

Some hold the world would be better off if the planet DID warm up a few 
degrees. Canada could get three crops of grain per year instead of two, most 
of the world's growing seasons would increase, thereby providing more food.

There would be an increase in deaths associated with warmer temperatures*, 
but these would be offset by a decline in deaths attributed to cold weather. 
Currently, there are about five times more cold-related deaths than 
heat-related ones.

-------
* Principally due to malaria. But, of course, malaria deaths are another 
example of an upstream liberal program gone awry. Using DDT, malaria was 
eliminated in the US by 1951. Malaria was almost copntrolled in Africa by 
the early '70s. Then the environmentalists succeeded in banning all uses of 
DDT. Today, there are about 1,000,000 deaths per year (mostly children) to 
the disease - except in (I think) Ivory Coast where there are virtually 
none. Ivory Coast never did sign on to the ban-DDT scheme.

Recently, several African countries - South Africa in the lead - have 
re-introduced DDT and their malaria rates have plummeted.

tlmfru wrote:
> I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming
> happening at all.
>
> And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and
> phosphorus which cause natural growths to run away, into the
> environment - have had nothing to do with it.

Yes, but natural growths soak up the CO2, giving off Oxygen. It averages 
out.

>
> What's really, really dumb is to pretend that carbon/emission credit
> trading is going to do anything to solve the problem.  (You haven't
> said this, so you needn't respond if you don't want to).
> Book-keeping, which is what this is, won't do anything.  As it is
> done now, emission credits are just a license to pollute.  If there
> was true political courage anywhere in the world, polluters would be
> fined so heavily that they couldn't afford NOT to clean up.
> Especially if they couldn't pass it along to their customers.
>

The biggest gain in fighting pollution is improved technology, not draconian 
laws, shell-games involving carbon, or changes in lifestyle. We have the 
cleanest air (in the U.S.) we've ever had and we got it through increased 
technology, not through trying to power our society from sunbeams or eating 
free-range chickens.

People just don't apply one of the "quality control thinking" processes, 
such as "what then." For example, it we get rid of automobiles, and go back 
to a simpler time, what will we do with all the horse shit? 

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Maybe years of being in the frontline de-humanizes people. Perhaps we
> shouldn't let Cops put their lives on the line for more than a
> certain time period (We rotate soldiers out of battle zones...).  I
> don't know what went through that Officers mind when he shot that
> guy,  but I wouldn't mind betting he didn't see someone's son,
> father, brother, or husband... Just taking out the trash.

Slight correction: Cops don't put their lives on the line. Being a police 
officer is an amazingly safe profession. In almost every case where a cop 
gets hurt, it's because he flagrantly violated some basic tenet of his 
training. In most cities, the public servant that has the highest on-job 
injury rate is... wait for it now.... trash collector.

Point is, it's not the stress of possibly being killed or injured that, um, 
turns cops into cynics; it's the reality of their jobs.

>
> Both that cop and his victim are products of a system.
>
> The system needs urgent review.
>

>
> Then the entire department needs to think about what they are doing
> in that job.
>
> Perhaps they might think about themselves as Human Beings and as men,
> while they are at it. The Chief is right because a cowardly act by
> one Officer brings the whole group into disrepute.
>
> And yet Olsen's Attorney accuses the Chief of cowardice and the rank
> and file say he isn't supporting them like he promised. How could they
> reasonably expect him to support "unpolicemanlike" behaviour?

From hundreds of years of experience, in every corner of the globe, cops 
have it proven to them that "It's us against them."

>
>>
>> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have
>> guns. They willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them
>> their freedom to choose?
>>
>
> The guy had given up, Jerry. He wasn't a threat. OK, he made a bad
> choice (to burglarize someone else's property), but when he realized
> it was a fair cop he offered absolutely no resistance at all. The
> Officer decided to administer some "punishment" on his own
> "initiative". Last time I looked it is not the function of
> enforcement officers to be judge, jury, and executioner. We have
> Courts for that.

Sure, the guy gave up. Point is, he knew or should have known that his act 
could lead to dog-gnawing. What if every burglar thought: "Hey, the worst 
that can happen is some doggie'll go 'bark-bark.'? "

I wrote a paper on that very subject. Cops ARE judge, jury, and executioner 
in a microcosm of the criminal justice system. In all cases:
1. Cops investigate a scene.
2. They determine probable guilt. (judge/jury function)
3. If the cop determines the perp did the deed, the perp is arrested. 
(applies sanction)

Admittedly, an arrest is not the same sanction as a gas chamber, but it's 
not trivial by a long-shot.



>>
>> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out.
>> Rawhide!"). Many cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane
>> person likes to touch that stuff with their hands.
>>
> I don't quite understand this response. Not sure what you're
> referring to... I've never been pepper sprayed or maced, but I have
> been tear-gassed. (It was when I was in the miltary and we
> volunteered for it.) I can honestly recommend that it is "best
> avoided". I'm sure the sprays are just as effective. We see
> statistics which show several hundred people have died from being
> tasered (there was one fairly recently in Canada).

Cops are discovering that they need not get into a struggle with some 
meth-head over whether he's going to wear the bracelets. Why risk infection, 
bites, kicks, or a dirty uniform when a simple "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz" will 
do the job?

Tasering has NEVER been determined to have been the cause of death 
(according to Taser, Inc.).

>> Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they
>> demonstrate that they ARE sub-human.
>
> But they are still human beings. Even good people can behave badly.
> (Just as the very worst people are capable of nobility sometimes. We
> are complex creatures.)

When good people behave badly, we call it a 'social faux paux.' When bad 
people behave badly we call it sub-human.

>
>> They are not catagorized as being part of a degenerate sub-culture
>> until they act like they are part of a degerate sub-culture.
>
> So, given that we then treat them as part of a degenerate
> sub-culture, how exactly is that likely to undermine such
> sub-culture, or change it, or destroy it? It simply reinforces that
> there is a degenerate sub-culture and people get sentenced to it. We
> recognize it, so it must exist. It is a self-defeating circle.


> Treat
> people with respect and decency and it might be the first time they
> have ever encountered respect and decency in their lives. Being aware
> that everyone DOESN'T behave the way they have come to expect, may
> give pause. At least it offers an option...

Don't you think that's been tried? Over countess centuries? In thousands of 
different ways? Heck, it's still being attempted. Dignity, respect, empathy, 
education, training, religion, understanding. They make the giver feel good, 
but empirically have almost no influence on the boogiemen.


>
> As I do not believe people are inherently evil, we have to diverge
> completely at this point.  If it was "...NOT of society's making" from
> whence did it arise? A new-born baby is neither sinful nor evil. If,
> 20 years later, that person has gone into the descent you describe,
> why did they? It can only be because of experiences and events they
> were exposed to. Watching Cops murder people probably doesn't help to
> form a positive image of Law and Order...

Sounds good.

>
> That's my whole point: If WE (each individual one of us, comprising
> "society")behave badly, how can we ever expect anyone else to not
> behave badly? That's why Cops need to be shining examples of honour,
> decency, and justice, not uniformed thugs with a licence to kill.

Sounds good.

>
> I can honestly say that on the several occasions I have had incidents
> involving police officers in the US, for the most part, they were
> courteous, efficient, and inspired confidence. (I can't say the same
> about the British Police, but that's another story... :-)) I don't
> believe that most cops in the US love to use excessive force, but, as
> the Chief in your story realised, you only need one or two to ruin it
> for everyone.

I don't know about 'everyone,' but that cop sure ruined the suspects whole 
evening.

In article <13l6bsfg9cvmu38@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>>>> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>>>> or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>>>
>>> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
>>> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>>
>> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>>
>> ... Mr Summers, do you have something against those who follow the
>> instructions found in Ex.XX:4?
>
>There is no penalty in the Decalogue for making false images.

There are no panalties in the Bill of Rights for violating any of those, 
either... different texts have different contents; he Decalogue is a set 
of commandments, not a set of consequences.  

Consequences for disobeying commandments are found in various other 
portions of the text.

DD

In article <13l6e6iden87h8d@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>We have the 
>cleanest air (in the U.S.) we've ever had and we got it through increased 
>technology, not through trying to power our society from sunbeams or eating 
>free-range chickens.

Ummmm... it just might, possibly, have been that the technology that made 
this cleaner air possible was spurred by the Air Pollution Control Act of 
1955 (authorising research), the Clean Air Act of 1963 (authorised a 
Federal program and more research), the Air Quality Act of 1967 
(authorised enforcement), the Clean Air Act of 1970 (established 
standards), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and the Clean Air Act 
Amdnements of 1990... see http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/module7/caa/caa.htm

Then there were the CAFE standards of 1975 (enacted by Congress as part of 
the Energy Policy Conservation Act) and their associated penalties, see 
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm .

But... that cleaner air is only a technological coincidence, right?

DD

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> 
> The situation with global warming is different. If you global warming advocates
> are wrong, a vast amount of money will have been wasted and a lot of draconian
> laws will have been passed, damaging personal freedom (a vastly important thing)
> for no reason and no benefit. A total waste. But if global warming is happening,
> we will know for certain at some point and will deal with it then. If global
> tempratures have increased only one degree in a century, we aren't going to be
> fried in another 50 years, or even 100 years, if it takes that to know. And it
> would be expected that by then we would have better technology to deal with it
> if necessary. If we blow ourselves up in a war in the meantime, it becomes moot.
> 

Racial survival is not a good enough reason?

The ability of our grandchildren to survive is of no benefit?

Spending money is like Tom Sawyer painting the fence. Once we accept 
there will be a huge price, we can start to build.  We need to replace 
our highway systems with a rail system, for example.  That is minor 
compared to moving cities inland. We've already started that with New 
Orleans, we'll get use to Coastal Cities failing and moving. Make sure 
your land assets are at least 10 feet above sea-level. Floods will be 
more common ... this is the *best* scenario, and the longer we wait, the 
worse it gets.

I'd not worry about getting fried. Maybe a little scorched, but we'll be 
shy of oil for scorching.  BTW, "for certain at some point" looks like 
it translates to "way past the point of no return" to me.  "Then" has to 
mean "a fifty year period" in practical terms.  You cannot make climate 
adjustments for a year, and expect to see a change.

Donald

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13l6e6iden87h8d@corp.supernews.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
>> I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming
>> happening at all.
>>
>> And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
>> stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
>> dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and
>> phosphorus which cause natural growths to run away, into the
>> environment - have had nothing to do with it.
>
> Yes, but natural growths soak up the CO2, giving off Oxygen. It averages 
> out.
>
>>
>> What's really, really dumb is to pretend that carbon/emission credit
>> trading is going to do anything to solve the problem.  (You haven't
>> said this, so you needn't respond if you don't want to).
>> Book-keeping, which is what this is, won't do anything.  As it is
>> done now, emission credits are just a license to pollute.  If there
>> was true political courage anywhere in the world, polluters would be
>> fined so heavily that they couldn't afford NOT to clean up.
>> Especially if they couldn't pass it along to their customers.
>>
>
> The biggest gain in fighting pollution is improved technology, not 
> draconian laws, shell-games involving carbon, or changes in lifestyle. We 
> have the cleanest air (in the U.S.) we've ever had and we got it through 
> increased technology, not through trying to power our society from 
> sunbeams or eating free-range chickens.
>
> People just don't apply one of the "quality control thinking" processes, 
> such as "what then." For example, it we get rid of automobiles, and go 
> back to a simpler time, what will we do with all the horse shit?

It could be absorbed into this forum and no-one would even notice :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
> 

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:a2acc165-4521-4d42-a904-388da5fdf8f5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Dec, 18:49, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> >> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice 
>> >> > cap
>> >> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>>
>> >> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick 
>> >> of
>> >> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with 
>> >> as
>> >> much contempt as people treat me.
>>
>> >> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> >> > warming??
>>
>> >> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>>
>> > That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
>> > no bears).
>>
>> Penguins. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Penguins do not urinate. No bird, to my knowledge urinates. Their
> 'kidneys' open into their digestive tract and water is re-absorbed.

Thanks Alistair. I didn't know that, although it makes sense when you point 
it out.

> The white faecal matter that birds produce would aid in global cooling
> (by reflecting sunlight) and not contribute to global warming.

Unlikely :-)

Pete. 

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:11e704ed-f92d-4624-aa03-5a546aa4e0a8@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Dec, 01:32, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4f033eb0-2777-4561-8d47-bc6f2c169be3@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> tlmfru wrote:
>>
>> >> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice 
>> >> > cap
>> >> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>>
>> >> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick 
>> >> of
>> >> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with 
>> >> as
>> >> much contempt as people treat me.
>>
>> >> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
>> >> > warming??
>>
>> >> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>>
>> > That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
>> > no bears).
>>
>> Penguin piss is also warm... :-)
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> See my non-humourous reply to Judsons humourous suggestion.

I did. Good job!


>Seeing as
> the penguins eat our fish and breath our air (contributing to GW)
> perhaps we should shoot all of the penguins? And seals.

OUR fish?  OUR air?   Good Lord, Man, haven't you seen "Happy Feet"?!

I'm getting worried here Alistair. This smacks of the "God gave man dominion 
over all the beasts of the field, the fishes in the sea, and the birds in 
the air."

I thought you had eschewed all that nonsense... :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."




Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

"donald tees" <donaldtees@execulink.com> wrote in message 
news:95udndrttsD8ac_anZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@golden.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> That was my original point. They shouldn't be allowed to. One simple 
>> rule: "Everyone not in Jail gets to vote". (OK, you can exclude the 
>> mentally ill...but only if it is certified by three doctors... :-))
>>
>
> Why?  If we exclude the mentally unbalanced, then we would have nobody to 
> vote for.
>
> Besides, even if a jurisdiction has so many people labeled as insane that 
> it actually affects the vote, then the likely-hood is that the insane 
> *should* affect the result.
>
> Donald

Fair points, Donald... :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

Well, I did it.  I looked up "icefield expansion twentieth century".  There
were about 11,700 hits.  I looked up "icefield shrinking twentieth century".
This only gave me 722 hits but when I used other words like decline,
reduction, melting, I got between 11,500 and 15,900 hits.  I don't have time
to read all those.  But just for the heck of it, at the bottom of this post,
I copied one of the hits from the EXPANSION search.

Over to you, LX-i.

PL

______________________________________


LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:nuudnV7rkI9qC8zanZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> tlmfru wrote:
> >
> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice cap
> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>
> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick of
> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with as
> much contempt as people treat me.
>
> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
> > warming??
>
> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?  The
> freaking sun?
>
> There's three...
>
_________________________________________________

*******This from the United Nations Environment Program - Maps and graphics.
Remember my search phrase was "... expansion ..."

 Previous  1  2  3  4    Next

Shrinking of Fedchenko Glacier in the Pamirs of Tajikistan
Significant loss of glaciers in Central Asia began around the 1930s, and
become more dramatic in the second half of the 20th century and continue
into the 21st century. Glacier area was reduced in the [..]

Overview on glacier changes since the end of the Little Ice Age
Glaciers and ice caps reached their Holocene (the past 10 000 years) maximum
extent in most mountain ranges throughout the world towards the end of the
Little Ice Age, between the 17th and mid-19th [..]
Glaciers monitored through the World Glacier Monitoring Service
Worldwide collection of information about ongoing glacier changes was
initiated in 1894 with the foundation of the International Glacier
Commission at the 6th International Geological Congress in [..]

Glacier shrinking on Cumberland Peninsula, Baffin Island, Canadian Arctic
A new glacier inventory based on satellite data shows that the glacier cover
reduced by about 22 per cent between the Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum extent
and 2000. Changes in glacier area and volume [..]

Overview of world glaciers and ice caps
By far the largest area of glaciers and ice fields are found in Canada
(about 201 000 km2), followed by Alaska (about 75 000 km2) with about 700
km2 in the rest of the USA. Glaciers and ice fields [..]

Rapid retreat of glaciers in the Cordillera Blanca, Peru
There is now ample evidence of a major retreat of most mountain glaciers
during the last 100 years in response to widespread increases in
temperature. In recent decades, the rate of glacial recession [..]

Jakobshavn Isbrae and ice fjord, showing locations of the calving ice front
in years from 1851 to 2006, together with flow velocity observations
The glacier extends through the Illulisat Icefjord, surrounded by mountains.
Icebergs calve off from the main glacier, pile up and block the fjord before
being released into Qeqertarsuup Tunua (Disko) [..]

Formation of lakes and glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs) by Medvezhi
Glacier, Pamirs
The increasing number of glacial and moraine lakes in Central Asian
mountains is a matter of great concern. One of the surging glaciers that
poses a potential threat is the 15 km long Medvezhi (Bear) [..]

Estimated contributions to sea-level rise (1993-2003)
The two main reasons for sea-level rise are thermal expansion of ocean
waters as they warm, and increase in the ocean mass, principally from
land-based sources of ice (glaciers and ice caps, and the [..]
Water towers of Asia - glaciers, water and population in the greater
Himalayas-Hindu Kush-Tien Shan-Tibet region
The Himalayas-Hindu Kush, Kunlun Shan, Pamir and Tien Shan mountain ranges
function as water towers, providing water to people through much of Asia.
The glacier-fed rivers originating from the [..]

Glacier front variations in the European Alps
Large Alpine glaciers have retreated continuously since the mid- 19th
century, whereas steep mid-sized glaciers reacted with readvances in the
1890s, 1920s and between the 1970s and 1980s due to the [..]

Ice sheets, schematic illustration for Greenland and Antarctica
The ice cover in Greenland and Antarctica has two components - thick,
grounded, inland ice that rests on a more or less solid bed, and thinner
floating ice shelves and glacier tongues. An ice sheet is [..]
The Cryosphere, world map
Snow and the various forms of ice - the cryosphere - play different roles
within the climate system. The two continental ice sheets of Antarctica and
Greenland actively influence the global climate [..]
Caucasus ice-rock avalanche in Russian Republic of North Ossetia
An ice-rock avalanche in the Kazbek region sheared off almost the entire
Kolka Glacier and devastated the Genaldon valley. The satellite images show
the region before (July 22, 2001) and after [..]
South America, southern ice fields
In Southern South America there are primarily three ice fields with major
glaciers - the Northern and Southern Patagonian Icefield in the Andes, and
then Cordillera Darwin in the very south. All of [..]

 Previous  1  2  3  4    Next


To refine your search you can combine your search strings with AND, OR, NOT
and NEAR and phrases can be quoted:
water OR waste searches for either of these words
oceans AND biodiversity searches for blocks with both words
pollution NEAR water searches for blocks with either of these words, with
them being closer ranks higher
"climate change" searches for this phrase

Learn more
about UNEP/GRID-Arendal  � 2006 UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Disclaimer, copyright and usage conditions
Accessed: 03-Dec-07 3:20:38 AM GMT+01:00  Questions, feedback or
comments about this website?
XHTML 1.1 / CSS

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13l6g63hrv7kidd@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> Maybe years of being in the frontline de-humanizes people. Perhaps we
>> shouldn't let Cops put their lives on the line for more than a
>> certain time period (We rotate soldiers out of battle zones...).  I
>> don't know what went through that Officers mind when he shot that
>> guy,  but I wouldn't mind betting he didn't see someone's son,
>> father, brother, or husband... Just taking out the trash.
>
> Slight correction: Cops don't put their lives on the line. Being a police 
> officer is an amazingly safe profession. In almost every case where a cop 
> gets hurt, it's because he flagrantly violated some basic tenet of his 
> training. In most cities, the public servant that has the highest on-job 
> injury rate is... wait for it now.... trash collector.
>
> Point is, it's not the stress of possibly being killed or injured that, 
> um, turns cops into cynics; it's the reality of their jobs.
>

So why aren't ALL cops cynics? I have one or two friends who are cops and 
they are positive about their role.

I see from some internet research that things are particularly bad in 
Austin. The relations between the police and the black community are 
"strained". Instead of hunkering down for a war, why aren't both sides 
looking for peace? Chief Acevedo's action, even if unpopular with the rank 
and file, is a good one and a move in the right direction. I'm sorry for 
Officer Olsen. Overall, he's probably a very good cop (although he has one 
or two blots on his career according to the record), but he threw it all 
away when he let anger, frustration, and probably, racial bigotry, pull his 
trigger and unload rounds into a man who was face down on the ground and no 
threat.

I've never been a cop, so I don't claim to understand that job, but I have 
been a soldier, and it taught me the difference between killing to defend 
yourself and others, and plain murder. If you are not under threat, you 
don't need to kill. The only exception to this would be where a strategic 
advantage was obtained by a first strike (within the rules of Engagement 
where a state of War existed).

Obviously, at least one APD Officer felt he was in a war and advantage could 
be gained.

Today it's "killing a goblin", but what about when the goblins are 
indistinguishable from the humans? What about when some officer decides ANY 
black person is a goblin?

That is the attitude that needs to be addressed.

It is NOT the function of a Police Officer to decide who is a goblin and who 
isn't. We have Courts for that.

>>
>> Both that cop and his victim are products of a system.
>>
>> The system needs urgent review.
>>
>
>>
>> Then the entire department needs to think about what they are doing
>> in that job.
>>
>> Perhaps they might think about themselves as Human Beings and as men,
>> while they are at it. The Chief is right because a cowardly act by
>> one Officer brings the whole group into disrepute.
>>
>> And yet Olsen's Attorney accuses the Chief of cowardice and the rank
>> and file say he isn't supporting them like he promised. How could they
>> reasonably expect him to support "unpolicemanlike" behaviour?
>
> From hundreds of years of experience, in every corner of the globe, cops 
> have it proven to them that "It's us against them."
>

Not all cops, and not all corners.

Yes there is crime wherever there are collections of humans. Humans are 
imperfect, complex creatures. It doesn't make it OK to be criminal, but most 
of us are not so short-sighted that we can't realise that by the whims of 
outrageous fortune we may one day find ourselves on the wrong side of the 
fence. ANY of us, even the ones who are currently cops. (Even innocent 
people are often accused of crimes.)

How we treat the people on the wrong side of the fence reflects on what kind 
of people live on the right side of the fence.

>>
>>>
>>> The perps know the cops have dogs. The perps know the cops have
>>> guns. They willingly take their chances. Who are we to deny them
>>> their freedom to choose?
>>>
>>
>> The guy had given up, Jerry. He wasn't a threat. OK, he made a bad
>> choice (to burglarize someone else's property), but when he realized
>> it was a fair cop he offered absolutely no resistance at all. The
>> Officer decided to administer some "punishment" on his own
>> "initiative". Last time I looked it is not the function of
>> enforcement officers to be judge, jury, and executioner. We have
>> Courts for that.
>
> Sure, the guy gave up. Point is, he knew or should have known that his act 
> could lead to dog-gnawing. What if every burglar thought: "Hey, the worst 
> that can happen is some doggie'll go 'bark-bark.'? "

If you really believe that, why not just abolish the Legal System and let 
cops be judge, jury, and executioner?  Maybe we should issue them with 
trained tigers instead of dogs?

When a perp surrenders, he is surrendering to the LAW, not the Officer, who 
is merely a representation of the Law. In the same way that soldiers salute 
an officer's insignia, not the man. For a cop to be worthy of the badge he 
wears he must represent the Law fairly and properly; the badge is not a 
licence to indulge his own aberrations. Someone surrendering to the Law is 
entitled to the protection of the Law, not to be at the mercy of the 
personal prejudices and predilections of the arresting Officer.

Apart from being simply cowardly and despicable, allowing a dog to maul 
someone after they have surrendered, is illegal. If soldiers had it done to 
them after surrendering, it would be a war crime and those responsible would 
be tried and punished.

So, even from your position that cops are fighting a war, this is just plain 
wrong.

>
> I wrote a paper on that very subject.

I'd be glad to review and contest your paper if you needed an independent 
review... :-)


>Cops ARE judge, jury, and executioner in a microcosm of the criminal 
>justice system. In all cases:
> 1. Cops investigate a scene.
> 2. They determine probable guilt. (judge/jury function)
> 3. If the cop determines the perp did the deed, the perp is arrested. 
> (applies sanction)
>
> Admittedly, an arrest is not the same sanction as a gas chamber, but it's 
> not trivial by a long-shot.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the "Twitch Patrol" ("Light 'em up. Move 'em out.
>>> Rawhide!"). Many cops embrace the use of Tasers because no sane
>>> person likes to touch that stuff with their hands.
>>>
>> I don't quite understand this response. Not sure what you're
>> referring to... I've never been pepper sprayed or maced, but I have
>> been tear-gassed. (It was when I was in the miltary and we
>> volunteered for it.) I can honestly recommend that it is "best
>> avoided". I'm sure the sprays are just as effective. We see
>> statistics which show several hundred people have died from being
>> tasered (there was one fairly recently in Canada).
>
> Cops are discovering that they need not get into a struggle with some 
> meth-head over whether he's going to wear the bracelets. Why risk 
> infection, bites, kicks, or a dirty uniform when a simple "Plop, plop, 
> fizz, fizz" will do the job?
>
OK, thanks for the clarification.
>
> Tasering has NEVER been determined to have been the cause of death 
> (according to Taser, Inc.).
>

I honestly haven't researched it myself, but that is not what we are being 
told here. (Maybe it's a bit like the cigarette/cancer debate going on 
elsewhere in the forum; we can see a correlation between smoking and lung 
cancer even without details of how it actually comes about.)

>>> Hold on. Criminals are not treated as sub-human until they
>>> demonstrate that they ARE sub-human.
>>
>> But they are still human beings. Even good people can behave badly.
>> (Just as the very worst people are capable of nobility sometimes. We
>> are complex creatures.)
>
> When good people behave badly, we call it a 'social faux paux.' When bad 
> people behave badly we call it sub-human.

Who decides when a faux-pas is sub-human behaviour? Is it determined by the 
skin colour of the faux-parer :-)?

>
>>
>>> They are not catagorized as being part of a degenerate sub-culture
>>> until they act like they are part of a degerate sub-culture.
>>
>> So, given that we then treat them as part of a degenerate
>> sub-culture, how exactly is that likely to undermine such
>> sub-culture, or change it, or destroy it? It simply reinforces that
>> there is a degenerate sub-culture and people get sentenced to it. We
>> recognize it, so it must exist. It is a self-defeating circle.
>
>
>> Treat
>> people with respect and decency and it might be the first time they
>> have ever encountered respect and decency in their lives. Being aware
>> that everyone DOESN'T behave the way they have come to expect, may
>> give pause. At least it offers an option...
>
> Don't you think that's been tried? Over countess centuries? In thousands 
> of different ways? Heck, it's still being attempted. Dignity, respect, 
> empathy, education, training, religion, understanding. They make the giver 
> feel good, but empirically have almost no influence on the boogiemen.

It isn't about it "being tried". It isn't an experiment; it is a reflection 
of how WE (the society -all of us, as a group, have decided we want the Laws 
which govern us to work). If you behave brutally, expect brutality. What you 
outflow, so you inflow. What goes around, comes around. As ye sow, so shall 
ye reap. It's fundamental to all the world's great teachings, but apparently 
not yet picked up by the APD at some levels.

>
>
>>
>> As I do not believe people are inherently evil, we have to diverge
>> completely at this point.  If it was "...NOT of society's making" from
>> whence did it arise? A new-born baby is neither sinful nor evil. If,
>> 20 years later, that person has gone into the descent you describe,
>> why did they? It can only be because of experiences and events they
>> were exposed to. Watching Cops murder people probably doesn't help to
>> form a positive image of Law and Order...
>
> Sounds good.
>
>>
>> That's my whole point: If WE (each individual one of us, comprising
>> "society")behave badly, how can we ever expect anyone else to not
>> behave badly? That's why Cops need to be shining examples of honour,
>> decency, and justice, not uniformed thugs with a licence to kill.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>>
>> I can honestly say that on the several occasions I have had incidents
>> involving police officers in the US, for the most part, they were
>> courteous, efficient, and inspired confidence. (I can't say the same
>> about the British Police, but that's another story... :-)) I don't
>> believe that most cops in the US love to use excessive force, but, as
>> the Chief in your story realised, you only need one or two to ruin it
>> for everyone.
>
> I don't know about 'everyone,' but that cop sure ruined the suspects whole 
> evening.
>
And his family's evening, and his community's evening, and life for every 
other uniformed cop in Austin who has to operate in that community.

And what was the outcome for the Officer concerned?

Jerry, show me where any good for anybody came out of this action.

Can your answer only be "One less goblin."?

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:37:03 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>>Our generation didn't institutionalize marriage, and institutions
>>change over time, often so that they are difficult to recognize from
>>the people who created the institutions.
>
>Fact: more than half US families are "living in sin", i.e. cohabiting without benefit of
>formal marriage. 
>
>http://www.ur.umich.edu/9900/Feb14_00/6.htm
>
>It's quite a shock to the middle class, who think marriage is the norm. 

For most people in history - "living together" was marriage.

And even for most of Christian history - marriage was not a secular
institution, it was a sacrament that was the responsibility of the
church, not the state.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
news:ed98l3hri5djdsnpqdmf3i4id0q4bjdq84@4ax.com...
> And even for most of Christian history - marriage was not a secular
> institution, it was a sacrament that was the responsibility of the
> church, not the state.

Maybe we should return to that. Five bucks says if there were no secular 
benefits associated with "marriage" all the acrimony regarding "committed 
partner" benefits would be moot.

Why did the state have to create this institution we call "marriage," 
anyway?  This is an honest question: since most states DO have such an 
institution, I assume there must be a reason for it; but damned if I can 
figure out just what that reason might be.

MCM

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Hate laws are designed to deal with voters.

In a recent election, the NAACP ran a pretty effective ad against Bush, 
pointing out that Bush, as governor, vetoed a "hate crime" punishment 
enhancement. The narration was done by a black woman whose father was killed 
by racists. Very compelling advertisement.

The Bush camp tried to point out that the bill he vetoed was superfluous 
inasmuch as the three (white) men involved got the maximum penalty anyway 
(one got the death penalty, the other two life without parole).

Michael Mattias wrote:
>
> Why did the state have to create this institution we call "marriage,"
> anyway?  This is an honest question: since most states DO have such an
> institution, I assume there must be a reason for it; but damned if I
> can figure out just what that reason might be.
>

In the minds of the majority, society would be better off. It was thought 
that marriage would lead to stability and responsibility - that society 
would benefit as a whole from marriage. It's not a new concept - marriage 
has been promoted - and codified into law - for at least 3,000 years.

This concept can be seen in other contemporary areas, compulsory education, 
tax deductions for owning your own home, vaccinations, etc. 

Alistair wrote:
>
> All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
> temperature has occured with increasing human population and
> particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.

Absolutely not. The earth has been much hotter in the past - before the 
industrial revolution. Earth's temperature currently is not even as high as 
it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and WAY below the Holocene Maximum 
(6,000 years ago). Since that is unequivocally true, any rise in temperature 
coincident with the industrial revolution has to be coincidental, not 
causative.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> And what was the outcome for the Officer concerned?

Satisfaction of a job well done?

>
> Jerry, show me where any good for anybody came out of this action.
>
> Can your answer only be "One less goblin."?
>

Possibly hundreds less. Depending on whether the gobline was a breeder (had 
lots of 'bling' or whatever attracts the females in his community). 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13l8igotjc9cq18@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> And what was the outcome for the Officer concerned?
>
> Satisfaction of a job well done?

Doing a job well does not usually result in getting fired.

If Olsen feels "job satisfaction" from murdering a surrendered man, then he 
really is better off in some other line of work... although I can't suggest 
an alternative occupation without being offensive to people already doing 
that job.

In this country he wouldn't just lose his job, he'd be tried for 
manslaughter and possibly even murder.

Think we don't support our cops?

No, we just don't want thugs and bullies representing us. (There have been 
some recent trials of senior police officers here and the public was 
outraged at what came out. It didn't involve shooting people but there was 
other unpleasantness and corruption. Some of it went back 20 years. It 
wasn't their actions (although nobody approved of that) so much as their 
attitudes which caused the public outrage. The idea that being instruments 
of the Law makes them above it, and they can do whatever they feel like 
doing. They can't, the message has been sent, none of them are on the Force 
any more.)

Really it isn't about cops and robbers; it is about attitudes. I believe you 
when you say you are at war, but you don't end a war by committing more 
crimes.

Austin needs to see positive movement by the Police Force and the coloured 
community (in particular, but the community as a whole...) towards stopping 
the violence on both sides. (Weapons amnesty on unregistered guns, cops in 
black school programmes, tighter gun control, sports interaction between 
cops and the poorer communities, and some "re-education" of some of the APD 
rank and file to remind them what carrying a badge is really about.)

If entrenched attitudes on both sides make that impossible, then it isn't a 
place where I'd want to live, let alone raise children...

>
>>
>> Jerry, show me where any good for anybody came out of this action.
>>
>> Can your answer only be "One less goblin."?
>>
>
> Possibly hundreds less. Depending on whether the gobline was a breeder 
> (had lots of 'bling' or whatever attracts the females in his community).

So, you believe that criminals beget criminals and it is an endless cycle 
that no-one can break?  While that is often true, it doesn't have to be. I 
can think immediately of two people I know who had one or both criminal 
parents, yet went on to live normal Law-abiding lives. (To be fair, neither 
of them lives in the USA or NZ.)

I don't believe I'll persuade you in support of Chief Acevedo, and you 
certainly won't persuade me that Olsen was justified in what he did, so I 
guess there isn't much point us pursuing this :-)

I'll be very happy if this exchange has caused you to stop for a moment and 
think about things, and you can rest assured, I know you are not one of the 
bad guys... (I can't see you doing what Olsen did, because, apart from 
anything else, you are a man and have pride; there's no honour in killing 
someone who's surrendered.)

I haven't changed my opinion that if I have to be arrested in the USA, I'd 
rather it was you, or one like you, who arrested me :-)

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
> And his family's evening, and his community's evening, and life for
> every other uniformed cop in Austin who has to operate in that
> community.

Well, here's one example of a flagrant traffic offense caught on tape where 
the perp continually raises the "race" issue while claiming some of his best 
friends are Austin cops.

http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1 

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13l9c6i48v6bt16@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>
>> And his family's evening, and his community's evening, and life for
>> every other uniformed cop in Austin who has to operate in that
>> community.
>
> Well, here's one example of a flagrant traffic offense caught on tape 
> where the perp continually raises the "race" issue while claiming some of 
> his best friends are Austin cops.

(If I was that driver I'd sue through Civil Courts. Ask yourself: "Who 
started yelling first? Did it improve the situation?". No excuse for 
tasering, no excuse for yelling and screaming. Are these guys not trained or 
just not capable? Calling for backup for a speeding offence, when not under 
even verbal attack? How capable is that? That cop CREATED a situation where 
there was none.)

Just sad.

It's no wonder there are problems in Austin.

That cop should never have got unwrapped. He should have let the guy produce 
the documents and if he didn't, warn him (without raising his voice) and, 
if they still weren't forthcoming, have him out of the car and arrest him.

The whole thing reminded me of nothing more than the gun crazy robot in 
RoboCop.... "You have 15 seconds to comply...".

This is not Community Policing by any stretch of the imagination. This is 
simple bullying.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 

On 2 Dec, 15:43, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <bcc8fb64-062e-47bf-81d3-af367483d...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
> >temperature has occured with increasing human population and
> >particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.
>
> Of course it's not a coincidence -- because it's not true.
>
> There are NO reliable records of GLOBAL temperatures prior to the late 19th
> century, for three reasons: first, early thermometers were not accurate enough
> to allow valid comparisons with modern data; second, record-keeping was spotty
> and inconsistent; and third, temperature measurements were neither made nor
> recorded *globally*.
>

Who said anything about thermometers? Calibrate tree rings against
modern thermometers and you can go back millennia. Ditto for oxygen
isotopes in marine snail shells.

On 2 Dec, 15:49, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree with your assessment of what we should be doing. It is only the
> >> drastic steps which may not be warranted, that I oppose.
>
> >> I live in an area that was second (in the U.S.) only to Pittsburg, PA in
> >> steel production for a long time, and there used to be a lot of strip
> >> mining here for the raw materials. Such vast devastation of the environment
> >> was unconscionably stupid and reckless. The EPA has done a lot of good, and
> >> I applaud that. But in it's zeal has also done a lot of harm. To my mind,
> >> the danger on both sides is when you become too zealous and unrestrained in
> >> your thinking; absolutely certain and *have no doubt that you know exactly*
> >> what should be done, when our knowledge is *always* incomplete. Stop. Think.
>
> > And that way you will never get anything done because your knowledge
> > will never be complete.
>
> And yours is, of course, qualifying you to drastically change millions of
> other people's lives and spend trillions of dollars of other people's money. ;-)

I see nothing wrong with that. Your approach is like buying a new pc.
There will always be a better speced machine coming soon so why commit
to buying this years' model when it will be out of date so soon.

On 2 Dec, 18:26, donald tees <donaldt...@execulink.com> wrote:

>
> If you lived at the time of Noah, you would still be claiming it was a
> seasonal variation when the water reached your chin.
>
> Donald- Hide quoted text -
>

You might like the following humour:

In the year 2007 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in
England and said,  "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-
populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark
and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying, "You have 6 months to build the
Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his
yard- but no Ark. "Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain!
Where is the Ark ?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed
Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire
Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claim
that I should have obtained  planning permission for building the Ark
in my garden because it is development of the site, even though in my
view it is a temporary structure.   We had to then go to appeal to the
Secretary of State for a decision.

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the
future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to
clear the passage for the Ark 's move to the sea. I told them that the
sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree
Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special
Scientific Interest set up in order to protect the spotted owl. I
tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save
the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. They insisted
that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the
accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to
put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers
Authority ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted
an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I'm still trying
to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission on how
many disabled carpenters I'm supposed to hire for my building team.
The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire
only accredited workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets,
claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered
species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for
me to finish this Ark. "

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow
stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to
destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The British government beat me to it."

On 2 Dec, 22:59, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tlmfru wrote:
> > I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming
> > happening at all.
>
> > And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> > stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> > dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and
> > phosphorus which cause natural growths to run away, into the
> > environment - have had nothing to do with it.
>
> Yes, but natural growths soak up the CO2, giving off Oxygen. It averages
> out.

Natural growths, as you put it, lead to eutrophication and algal
blooms. Neither is any good for the environment.

On 3 Dec, 01:45, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:a2acc165-4521-4d42-a904-388da5fdf8f5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec, 18:49, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > On 1 Dec, 17:16, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> tlmfru wrote:
>
> >> >> > Can we spell "glaciers melting all over the world, the Arctic ice
> >> >> > cap
> >> >> > melting so quickly that it may be gone in 20 years,
>
> >> >> The freaking ice is expanding, not melting.  Google it.  I'm so sick
> >> >> of
> >> >> this religion of glo-bull warming, and have decided to treat it with
> >> >> as
> >> >> much contempt as people treat me.
>
> >> >> > Can we come up with a reason other than global
> >> >> > warming??
>
> >> >> Natural cycles?  Too many bears peeing on the ice and melting it?
>
> >> > That would account for the N Pole but not the S Pole (where there are
> >> > no bears).
>
> >> Penguins. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Penguins do not urinate. No bird, to my knowledge urinates. Their
> > 'kidneys' open into their digestive tract and water is re-absorbed.
>
> Thanks Alistair. I didn't know that, although it makes sense when you point
> it out.
>
> > The white faecal matter that birds produce would aid in global cooling
> > (by reflecting sunlight) and not contribute to global warming.
>
> Unlikely :-)
>

....especially as it goes black when it oxidises.   :-)

On 3 Dec, 01:49, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> >Seeing as
> > the penguins eat our fish and breath our air (contributing to GW)
> > perhaps we should shoot all of the penguins? And seals.
>
> OUR fish?  OUR air?   Good Lord, Man, haven't you seen "Happy Feet"?!

No. I like penguins that don't speak.

>
> I'm getting worried here Alistair. This smacks of the "God gave man dominion
> over all the beasts of the field, the fishes in the sea, and the birds in
> the air."
>
> I thought you had eschewed all that nonsense... :-)
>

Err, yes but I do knee-jerk from time to time and shooting the
penguins has to be the ultimate reactionary solution.

On 3 Dec, 18:20, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
> > All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
> > temperature has occured with increasing human population and
> > particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.
>
> Absolutely not. The earth has been much hotter in the past - before the
> industrial revolution. Earth's temperature currently is not even as high as
> it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and WAY below the Holocene Maximum
> (6,000 years ago). Since that is unequivocally true, any rise in temperature
> coincident with the industrial revolution has to be coincidental, not
> causative.

You are making a mistake in assuming that previous higher temperatures
rules out the possibility of human causes.

In article <edc2bf5a-c795-4202-92d0-2a4f46705c58@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2 Dec, 15:43, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <bcc8fb64-062e-47bf-81d3-af367483d...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Alistair
> <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
>> >temperature has occured with increasing human population and
>> >particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.
>>
>> Of course it's not a coincidence -- because it's not true.
>>
>> There are NO reliable records of GLOBAL temperatures prior to the late 19th
>> century, for three reasons: first, early thermometers were not accurate
> enough
>> to allow valid comparisons with modern data; second, record-keeping was
> spotty
>> and inconsistent; and third, temperature measurements were neither made nor
>> recorded *globally*.
>>
>
>Who said anything about thermometers? Calibrate tree rings against
>modern thermometers and you can go back millennia. Ditto for oxygen
>isotopes in marine snail shells.

You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it. And 
the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in every 
facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual 
measurements, thank you very much.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree with your assessment of what we should be doing. It is only the
>> >> drastic steps which may not be warranted, that I oppose.
>>
>> >> I live in an area that was second (in the U.S.) only to Pittsburg, PA in
>> >> steel production for a long time, and there used to be a lot of strip
>> >> mining here for the raw materials. Such vast devastation of the environment
>> >> was unconscionably stupid and reckless. The EPA has done a lot of good, and
>> >> I applaud that. But in it's zeal has also done a lot of harm. To my mind,
>> >> the danger on both sides is when you become too zealous and unrestrained in
>> >> your thinking; absolutely certain and *have no doubt that you know exactly*
>> >> what should be done, when our knowledge is *always* incomplete. Stop. Think.
>>
>> > And that way you will never get anything done because your knowledge
>> > will never be complete.
>>
>> And yours is, of course, qualifying you to drastically change millions of
>> other people's lives and spend trillions of dollars of other people's money. ;-)
>
> I see nothing wrong with that. Your approach is like buying a new pc.
> There will always be a better speced machine coming soon so why commit
> to buying this years' model when it will be out of date so soon.

I know you see nothing wrong with that, which is the problem. You see
analogy where there isn't. The global warming scenario isn't analogous to
selecting a PC when you're going to buy one. It's more like rushing to buy
a terribly expensive one you probably won't need or want at all, when you
can know for sure if you will need it, or a much less expensive one, by just
waiting a bit.
-- 
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote:
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
>>> >temperature has occured with increasing human population and
>>> >particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.
>>>
>>> Of course it's not a coincidence -- because it's not true.
>>>
>>> There are NO reliable records of GLOBAL temperatures prior to the late 19th
>>> century, for three reasons: first, early thermometers were not accurate
>> enough
>>> to allow valid comparisons with modern data; second, record-keeping was
>> spotty
>>> and inconsistent; and third, temperature measurements were neither made nor
>>> recorded *globally*.
>>>
>>
>>Who said anything about thermometers? Calibrate tree rings against
>>modern thermometers and you can go back millennia. Ditto for oxygen
>>isotopes in marine snail shells.
>
> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it. And
> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in every
> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
> measurements, thank you very much.

The crux of the issue, precisely.
-- 
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <3948ce2e-169a-4542-ab56-8262cbccaebf@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Dec, 18:20, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alistair wrote:
>>
>> > All data shows that the most significant increase in global CO2 and
>> > temperature has occured with increasing human population and
>> > particularly the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Coincidence? I think not.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The earth has been much hotter in the past - before the
>> industrial revolution. Earth's temperature currently is not even as high as
>> it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and WAY below the Holocene Maximum
>> (6,000 years ago). Since that is unequivocally true, any rise in temperature
>> coincident with the industrial revolution has to be coincidental, not
>> causative.
>
>You are making a mistake in assuming that previous higher temperatures
>rules out the possibility of human causes.

I can't wait to hear your explanation of that.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > The white faecal matter that birds produce would aid in global cooling
>> > (by reflecting sunlight) and not contribute to global warming.
>>
>> Unlikely :-)
>
> ...especially as it goes black when it oxidises.   :-)

I don't know about birds in general, especially penguins, but I do know
about chickens, because I grew up on a farm. Never saw an all-white
chicken poop, and I've seen my share of chicken poop, fresh and stale.
Bird poop you see in the woods isn't all-white, either. In fact, I don't
recall ever seeing any all-white poop of any kind, though my knowledge
of poop is not encyclopedic. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:732d5fb5-61f8-43f9-b407-b98049d9a954@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Dec, 22:59, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > tlmfru wrote:
> > > I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming
> > > happening at all.
> >
> > > And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> > > stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> > > dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and
> > > phosphorus which cause natural growths to run away, into the
> > > environment - have had nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Yes, but natural growths soak up the CO2, giving off Oxygen. It averages
> > out.
>
> Natural growths, as you put it, lead to eutrophication and algal
> blooms. Neither is any good for the environment.

Seems to me - feel free to correct me - that while photosynthesis does use
CO2, plants do in fact use oxygen part from that.  The obvious experiment
would be to try to raise plants in a pure CO2 atmosphere.

On 6 Dec, 21:57, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > The white faecal matter that birds produce would aid in global cooling
> >> > (by reflecting sunlight) and not contribute to global warming.
>
> >> Unlikely :-)
>
> > ...especially as it goes black when it oxidises.   :-)
>
> I don't know about birds in general, especially penguins, but I do know
> about chickens, because I grew up on a farm. Never saw an all-white
> chicken poop, and I've seen my share of chicken poop, fresh and stale.
> Bird poop you see in the woods isn't all-white, either. In fact, I don't
> recall ever seeing any all-white poop of any kind, though my knowledge
> of poop is not encyclopedic. :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon       ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems    http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Take it from me that bird poo can be discoloured by the foodstuffs
upon which the bird has fed. Local to me the poo is predominantly
white but does discolour with Mountain Ash berries and other berries.

On 7 Dec, 02:43, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:732d5fb5-61f8-43f9-b407-b98049d9a954@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Dec, 22:59, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > tlmfru wrote:
> > > > I interpreted your post as casting doubt upon global warming
> > > > happening at all.
>
> > > > And while it certainly can happen without our help, you're just being
> > > > stubborn if you contend that - two centuries of spilling heat, carbon
> > > > dioxide, pollutants of all sorts, chemicals such as nitrogen and
> > > > phosphorus which cause natural growths to run away, into the
> > > > environment - have had nothing to do with it.
>
> > > Yes, but natural growths soak up the CO2, giving off Oxygen. It averages
> > > out.
>
> > Natural growths, as you put it, lead to eutrophication and algal
> > blooms. Neither is any good for the environment.
>
> Seems to me - feel free to correct me - that while photosynthesis does use
> CO2, plants do in fact use oxygen part from that.  The obvious experiment
> would be to try to raise plants in a pure CO2 atmosphere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Plants do produce more oxygen than they consume (and they produce
methane as well) but eutrophication chokes rivers; algal blooms are
frequently toxic (all algae produce chemicals which leech into the
environment).

Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message news:L4_5j.5690> >
> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it.
And
> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in
every
> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
> measurements, thank you very much.
>
> --
> Regards,
>         Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's very often the case that people who use name-calling as part of their
argument aren't very sure of themselves.

PL

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote:
>> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it. And
>> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in every
>> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
>> measurements, thank you very much.
>
> It's very often the case that people who use name-calling as part of their
> argument aren't very sure of themselves.

Thanks. I was wondering why Alistair has been bombarding me with such
inflammatory name-calling, and now I know. I only suspected before. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 

In article <UGL6j.950$m6.866@newsfe18.lga>, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message news:L4_5j.5690> >
>> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it.
>And
>> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in
>every
>> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
>> measurements, thank you very much.
>
>It's very often the case that people who use name-calling as part of their
>argument aren't very sure of themselves.

OK, fine -- I retract "Chicken Little" and substitute "advocate". Doesn't 
change the point in the least: the advocates would have us make massive 
changes in every facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have 
actual measurements.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Alistair wrote:
>
> Plants do produce more oxygen than they consume (and they produce
> methane as well) but eutrophication chokes rivers; algal blooms are
> frequently toxic (all algae produce chemicals which leech into the
> environment).

A larger point you're making is that the consequence may be more damaging 
that the original problem.

Suppose we take all the cars off the road - that would certainly address the 
CO2 "problem."

But:
1. Where are we going to get enough horses? and
2. What will we do with all the horse shit?

There are no proposed solutions to "global warming" that are more benign 
than doing nothing. 

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:07:57 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message 
>news:f65sk3p8hpi5djidcrqpi7t1osig4h63lq@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:31:38 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> Many Democratic voters in Chicago are neither insane nor criminal, they're 
>> dead.
>>
>As opposed to Republican voters in Florida that are so important that they count 
>as 1.1 voter.
Corruption, vote stealing, election fraud and other fun and games are
noticeably bi-partisan.  In Florida, both parties may have the various
frauds well in hand.  

Alistair wrote:
>
>> and a host of other natural sources, common sense should tell us
>> that we have little or nothing to do with it, even if it is
>> happening, which is in serious dispute among scientists.
>
> It is not in serious doubt amongst scientists at all. It is an
> accepted fact by the majority of scientists and only seriously doubted
> by those such as yourself who doubt science and distrust scientists
> (because the scientists hidden agenda is not your hidden agenda).

Majority vote in determining truth is the venue of the liberal arts 
(English, History, Cello), not science. It is totally irrelevant how many 
scientist support or deny a claim.


>
> Again a falsehood spread by yourself. It is a fact that humans are
> causing global warming. You only have to look at the Hockey Stick
> Curve or the Keeling Curve to see that.

An investigation of the "Hockey Stick" hypothesis shows that Mann 'cooked 
the books' (pun intended) and that his conclusions are considerably more 
equivocal than he originally claimed (i.e., he lied).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy


>
> We don't look to God for the truth either.

Perhaps you should:

"[His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI] ... suggested that fears over man-made 
emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters 
were nothing more than scare-mongering.

"The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was 
vital that the international community based its policies on science rather 
than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

Boy, you folks took this thread and ran with it while I was out - whew! 
  :)  I'm sure I'll catch up at some point...

Alistair wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 17:03, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Sure, there are abuses, as there are with anything.  It *should* give
>> the perp something to think about.  Knowing that police have these
>> weapons at their disposal *and* there are a few rogue officers who may
>> abuse them, to a reasonable person, would be an effective deterrent.  To
>> the unreasonable - well, see above.
> 
> A friend of mine (with criminal tendencies) would not be deterred by
> mace, tasers or guns. The consequence of his actions does not seem to
> enter in to his mind so there is no deterrent effect from carrying
> such weapons. In one conversation he said that his response to being
> maced was to pile in to the police officer concerned and give him a
> good hiding. So non-lethal solutions may aggravate the situation.

This is true.  "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" is the safest 
option for those doing the killing.  As we *try* to be humane, our 
officers have tried to come up with many non-lethal methods of subduing 
criminals.

> My view is affected by the fact that only 10% of cops this side of the
> pond carry firearms.

And that is the difference.  :)  Ours, for the most part, still do - in 
fact, here in Albuquerque (certainly not a conservative city), the 
officers assigned to the Albuquerque Public Schools recently threatened 
to quit if APS enforced it's "no gun" policy on them.  The cops won.

In this case, were your friend to charge the officer who had sprayed 
him, he would most likely find the lead content of his body rising. 
Depending on his actions, and the angle of the other policeman, he may 
be given a non-lethal dose in the leg or arm - or, he might not be so lucky.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Alistair wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 17:09, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Alistair wrote:
>>> On 30 Nov, 12:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I've seen the phenomenon
>>>> before. The Snail Darter, mandantory asbestos removal, "Exxon Valdez
>>>> destroys environment" (two years after, biggest salmon catch ever,
>>> Don't you recall the images of oil all over the beaches? Do hundreds
>>> of thousands of dead gulls, seals, fish, otters mean nothing to you?
>>> or can you just turn your back on the truth?
>> *IMAGES!*  That's the ENTIRE problem with liberalism - it's more
>> concerned with IMAGE over REALITY.
>>
>> Judson's point was that nature is much stronger than liberals give her
>> credit for.  In fact, it's the ultimate in humanistic pride to think
>> that *we* can do *anything* to change the weather.
>>
>> Besides, if we could just DRILL in Alaska and pipe the oil down, we
>> wouldn't have to put it on ships to begin with.
>>
> 
> IIRC, you are the guy who doesn't use emoticons when joking?

Nope - that's HeyBub.  I wasn't joking, but I was also in a pretty bad 
mood, and took that out here to some extent.  My apologies for that.

But, still, do you find anything in the above with which you disagree?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On 9 Dec, 14:38, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> > Doug Miller <spamb...@milmac.com> wrote:
> >> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it. And
> >> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in every
> >> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
> >> measurements, thank you very much.
>
> > It's very often the case that people who use name-calling as part of their
> > argument aren't very sure of themselves.
>
> Thanks. I was wondering why Alistair has been bombarding me with such
> inflammatory name-calling, and now I know. I only suspected before. :-)
> --

I am sure of myself and , when TIMFRU invents a time machine, he can
go back in time to take the measurements for himself and prove the GW
brigade wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Judson, I realise that my belief in GW is as strong as your scepticism
but is founded in observable fact and not in ignorance or scepticism.
I do not think it is too late to save the world but I do think that,
without support from the entire population of the world, I will be
able to sunbath outside my flat in 2050 on christmas day with the
waves lapping around my feet on the beach (currently 200 feet above
sea level).

As for name calling? Calling you a worshipper of a minor Midianite
storm god is an accurate observation. Look up where Yahweh came from
on Wikipedia for yourself and you will see what I am getting at. By
the way, It was a novel by James Branch Cabell that appraised me of
that one.

On 9 Dec, 22:20, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <UGL6j.950$m6....@newsfe18.lga>, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
> >Doug Miller <spamb...@milmac.com> wrote in message news:L4_5j.5690> >
> >> You can *infer* temperature from those things, but you can't *measure* it.
> >And
> >> the global-warming Chicken Littles would have us make massive changes in
> >every
> >> facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have actual
> >> measurements, thank you very much.
>
> >It's very often the case that people who use name-calling as part of their
> >argument aren't very sure of themselves.
>
> OK, fine -- I retract "Chicken Little" and substitute "advocate". Doesn't
> change the point in the least: the advocates would have us make massive
> changes in every facet of life on the basis of an inference. I'd rather have
> actual measurements.
>

The time will come when the advocates stop US trade on GW grounds and
then start imprisoning sceptics who refuse to moderate their behaviour.

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8678e98e-8dc2-46ac-bea2-c80c8ea71d56@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks. I was wondering why Alistair has been bombarding me with such
> > inflammatory name-calling, and now I know. I only suspected before. :-)
> > --
>
> I am sure of myself and , when TIMFRU invents a time machine, he can
> go back in time to take the measurements for himself and prove the GW
> brigade wrong. I won't hold my breath.
>


TLMFRU feels that GW is as firmly established as a phenomenon can be that
isn't subject to controlled experiments.  I simply can't understand the
thinking of people who demand precise measurements of temperatures over the
last x number of years before they can start to think about the possibility
of considering making up their minds, in the face of photos of the Artic ice
cap vanishing and the Antarctic ice fields breaking off the continent and
floating away, hundreds of square miles at a time.

I am still waiting for a list of glaciers that are increasing, not
withdrawing!

PL (TLMFRU) ( I will explain off-list if anybody's interested -
lacey@mts.net)

Alistair wrote:
>
> Judson, I realise that my belief in GW is as strong as your scepticism
> but is founded in observable fact and not in ignorance or scepticism.
> I do not think it is too late to save the world but I do think that,
> without support from the entire population of the world, I will be
> able to sunbath outside my flat in 2050 on christmas day with the
> waves lapping around my feet on the beach (currently 200 feet above
> sea level).

You're railing against the tide. You can't get the world to cooperate, so 
you might as well accept the inevitable (whatever it is).

As for global warming, there are no observable, unequivocal, facts. There 
are, however, unequivocal computer models (which don't really agree with 
each other). Here are some points you may have overlooked:

* The 2007