In the 2010 edition of his (well researched) book "More Guns, Less Crime" , John Lott, Jr analyzes gun and crime statistics, public policy, gun control laws, etc. and draws a very distinct conclusion that (legal) gun ownership has no more of an effect in crime, including homicides, than any other type of weapon. He also asserts that gun ownership is actually a deterrent to violent crime. Asserting that just because 300 million people own 150 million guns (or visa-versa, take your pick) is spurious at best. One has to analyze the actual data as Mr. Lott has done in three separate editions of his book. However, the mass media does little justice to the facts in this case. Thanks to the blindly bias groups like the Brady Campaign, the general public (like is often the case) is sorely misled on the truth.
That's a fairly narrow interpretation of government influence over various social and financial dynamics. It may be correct to some extent that "government laws" actually encouraged segregation but there's a distinction between state/local and federal laws. The Civil War was essentially fought over slavery. And the distinction between being anti-slavery and anti-discrimination are essentially indistinguishable. Some states (in particular Southern states) and even certain federal agencies may have engaged in discriminatory practices and even affirmed certain discriminatory laws and practices, But ALL those acts were contradictory to the philosophical basis and the spirit of the law upon which the Civil War was fought. But ultimately it was (and continues to be) the case that it was in most instances federal laws and agencies that had the capacity to shape social policy and reverse what needed reversing. For the sake of nationwide consistency it is left up to a stable and effectual federal level form of governance to ensure certain laws are enforced for the good of all.
Asserting the Declaration of Independence is higher than the Constitution is equivalent to asserting the bible is our governing document. Which is absurd. Regardless of what religious zealots like to claim, the bible is not a legal document established by the people and for the people. The Constitution is the basis of our common (national) secular laws. The Declaration was nothing more than a "statement of intentions". It did not establish an legal foundations for self governance.
There already is a middle ground. The fact that every state has gun restrictions. The fact that literally all of mass shootings have been perpetrated by the mentally disturbed would've made little difference having stricter gun laws. The mentally ill in nearly every case were not deemed a danger to society. Or at the very least may have been considered borderline. However with no previous criminal history it is difficult to say the least to predetermine if and when someone will loose it. That takes us into the realm of constitutional rights. Can you deny someone certain rights based upon presupposition? Normally the U.S. justice system requires probable cause, evidence of an actual illegal activity, the presumption of innocence, etc. In other words, people are traditionally held accountable for what they HAVE done. Not what they MIGHT do. Until someone breaks the law they have a certain presumption of rights. Unless everyone wants to live in a world of thought crime. Last I knew, there is no law against thinking whatever one wants. It's actions that are punished. As a result, everyone should have the right to be presumed innocent until they demonstrate otherwise.
One might need to qualify the term "improved". Cleaner and more ample fresh water? As opposed to the petroleum industry dumping toxins in our fresh water streams, rivers and lakes? Or using millions of gallons of fresh water to frack carbon resources out of the ground or pollution of nearby fresh water wells? Or how about the still sterile and uninhabitable Chernobyl area? Fly ash dumping and contamination (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fly_ash) one rarely hears about in the news. Contamination of ground water by municipal dump sites? Global smog created by carbon fuel burning such as that which originates from China, India, etc.? Depletion of oceanic coral reefs because of contaminants? Floating Oceanic garbage dumps created by human waste and trash? We all live in an environmental bubble and our technologies provide a false sense of security. We might be living longer because of technologies but we are also sicker overall. So which is better? A clean environment or dirty one in which we expend increasing amount of our capital mitigating the effects our own "advancements"?
What amazes me is the (shall I say) ignorance on the part of citizens who can confuse "duties" or job responsibilities with "purpose". Regardless of what anyone has been told by a government agency or even the media, their duty is ultimately to defend the U.S. Constitution. I used to work for a government agency. Had to pledge to defend the Constitution. There were many times in the course of my job when orders to me or department policies (I felt) conflicted with the Constitution ands I refused to act on those orders. Push come to shove in every instance I was upheld in my convictions. The problem in every instance was the fact that some overzealous ignoramus above me failed to appreciate the difference between duty and the law. And that's exactly the disease that is rotting our government from the inside out. People who don't have the intelligence or guts to stand up for what's right (or lawful).
I wouldn't put anything beyond serious Russian considerations. Mastering the resource of space means more to some countries other than purely costs. The U.S. wasn't overly concerned about cost when the threat of Russian strategy became apparent with Sputnik and the subsequent launching of the first animal (dog) and human into orbit. LEO, LaGrange points and the moon all have strategic value depending upon one's purposes. We should remember that Russia (and China) have languished in the technological shadow if the West for decades and have an axe to grind. The Russians want to recapture their perceived and deserved Russian "glories" that would ultimately demonstrate they are THE superior global power. And with their growing (although corrupt) economy and military strength they would love nothing more than to show the world again they can be a technological (and dominant) power. And what better way than to establish a permanent presence on the moon? China won't be far behind with their financial resources. The irony of a previously (and still) communist country, Russia (China) to take the "leaders of the free world" into orbit is something they relish. Some things are worth more than money. And the Russians (and China) are now in a position to afford such extravagances. Thanks of course to our patriotic free-market (originally) western based enterprises that no longer hold any allegiances to anything but profit.
Please enlighten everyone as to the other solutions. Let's start with the very real premise that the IRS did not make the tax laws, merely charged with carrying them out. Then realize that Congress purposely makes the laws so complicated and full of legalese that few can understand the law. Then consider the fact that Congress made more laws to catch the "cheaters" which requires an enforcement arm of the bureau. Couple that with favoritism and special interest concerns that treat individuals and businesses differently (which adds to the complexity) and you have a Congress that has run amok. Then Congress (conservatives in particular, who favored collecting taxes as much as liberals in the first place) can sit back and point fingers at those nasty bureaucrats for being so draconian. It's a shell game on Congress' part. Create the problem then blame everyone else for the problem. The only fair, understandable and equitable tax structure is a flat tax. Congress has had countless opportunities to address the "problem" but most of them get into office by making promises to small and/or powerful groups without taking everyone's interests into consideration. Blame Congress for the problems, not the agencies they created in the first place.
That's ludicrous of course. On the Rachael Maddow show recently, CNN had an hour long exposé on Iraq and the entire war was a fabrication. Hussein was no more a threat to the US. than the Eskimos. Hussein was militarily and economically in a stranglehold from UN and US sanctions. It may be true he was brutal to the Sunnis and the Iraqis in general but that is no rational reason to invade. If... the US was going to use brutality as an excuse to invade any country weld have to pledge ourselves to invading a third of the global nations (compared to American standards). That is not only imprudent and irrational but economically impossible. The hawkish American belief that we can bring freedom to the global community is a myth. We should be minding our own business unless there is indisputable proof that another country is an actual threat as opposed to an imagined one. Which is exactly what the Bush administration created; a false pretense to extract oil. At the cost to the American public of billions and thousands of maimed and murdered men and women. It was treasonous. And I for one would never knowingly do business with a company who employed any of the top Bush administration officials.
What you assert is a tenable proposition were it not for the fact that the petroleum induced is doing everything within its ability to stymie alternatives to a petroleum economy as evidenced by their anti-solar, geothermal, and other alternative energy ads, publications, etc. Their main concern being short-term profit as opposed to a concerted effort to develop and promote long-term renewable technologies. That's not even taking into consideration the externalities of the carbon based technologies such as the recent study completed indicating that Fracking has had a direct effect on the instability of subterranean geology in Ohio that has generated an unusual number of earthquakes, etc. The American Petroleum Institute ads on TV consistently promote Fracking as "safe". It's only safe if you're not responsible for any damage the technology creates. The industry could (although it's not) take the lead in the development of alternatives. Instead, it's business as usual... short-term profit as opposed to sustainability.
Cost to whom? The Sunnis in Iraq might not agree. And I seem to remember from a fairly recent news article there are many in Iraq that would rather trade the relative "stability" Iraq had under Hussein with the constant chaos they now live under threat of. And who's to say that other methods of dealing with Hussein (rather than war) wouldn't have been more efficient, incurred far lower mortality and property damage and would've been far less costly for the U.S. RICE was one of the war (and anti-First Amendment/surveillance) hawks in the Bush administration. I certainly wouldn't trust her with my civil liberties no matter what her expertise. It's a poor decision for a technology company. It throws their corporate operating principles into question to have such surveillance oriented personnel on their corporate board.
Who needs to "steal" these days? Ignoring the completely superfluous (and ineffectual) industrial/technological export restrictions, "free-market capitalism" is giving everything away. Take China for example. International corporations looking to do business with the Chinese are often required by the communist government to "share" industrial secrets with Chinese companies and/or government. And many corporations are complying because of the profit margins involved. Insidiously, the Chinese, Russians etc. are utilizing that same capitalistic free-market ideology to further their own nationalistic goals at the expense of the American people.
It's important to distinguish between "employee" and "corporate officer". Corporate officers employment "contracts" can under employment law be distinguishable from the those often utilized for "employees" (subordinates). Corporate officers can be removed from office by a board for any reason. They are "at will" employees and have no guarantees of continued employment. If a corporate board determines that a corporate officer has not "acted in the interests of the corporation" they could be terminated for nearly any reason. Conversely, labor law generally requires that a company have "cause" (as defined by labor law) for being fired. Not everyone who works for a corporation operate under the same legal standards.
Stories of god, god's wants, plans, etc. are irrelevant until such time as the existence of a supernatural being is demonstrated as empirical fact. One cannot conclude by one's own experience that something is fact or not because the human mind is notoriously unreliable in and of itself. Speaking with god, hearing god, seeing god is not proof of god.
It's pointless to assert to know what god's plan is until such time as god is proven to be an empirical fact. It's no more convincing than asserting you know the mind of a leprechaun.
Assertions about god are completely irrelevant until such time as god is a demonstrated and empirical fact. One cannot rightly assert knowledge of god's plans, wants, expectations, etc. until such time as such a supernatural being has been proven to exist.
Fascinating... the legions of people who assert themselves to be speaking on behalf of some being that is supposedly fully capable of explaining themselves but refuses to do so thereby encouraging all kinds of confusion about their real intentions.
Beautiful. Let's not forget that biblical references to wisdom and/or knowledge specifically refers to "revealed" wisdom and knowledge. And those revelations come from "on high" not from the scientific method. The scientific method didn't exist in biblical times. And chances are, were we still dependent upon revealed knowledge weld still be herding sheep with sticks and heaving stones at our enemies.
And employees also have the right to express their disappointment or even disgust on their own time. I've heard the same "free-market" ideas in the past. That being that customers have the right to stop doing business with a certain company. As if the customer's free choices would be "punishment" enough to correct business practices to be more consumer oriented. But that argument is utter bullshit in-Toto. Why? For one, markets are global. In other words corporations will always have a pool of dipshits to sell their products to. 2. The average consumer has no "conscience". In other words, people no longer care if a business' practices are poor or bad so long as the consumer can satisfy their immediate wants. 3. With corporate free speech rights, corporations can literally lie and deceive consumers into believing whatever the corporations want. I.e. BP oil spill, GM faulty ignitions, Dow Chemical spill in India, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And consumers are very easily led around by the rings in their noses.
See Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad from the late 19th century. Ever since then, the law of the land has been to grant corporations "personhood" under the U.S. Constitution and ever since then corporations have co-opted power for themselves. Because of "corporate personhood" corporations have the same "protections" that living people have including freedom of speech and even more insidious is the prohibition against "self incrimination". Which means legally they don't have to admit guilt in any criminal act and since they have free speech rights, they can blatantly lie in their corporate statements and commercial advertisements. The same is true if any business or corporation. See also; Kasky vs. Nike
Slashdot Mirror
In the 2010 edition of his (well researched) book "More Guns, Less Crime" , John Lott, Jr analyzes gun and crime statistics, public policy, gun control laws, etc. and draws a very distinct conclusion that (legal) gun ownership has no more of an effect in crime, including homicides, than any other type of weapon. He also asserts that gun ownership is actually a deterrent to violent crime. Asserting that just because 300 million people own 150 million guns (or visa-versa, take your pick) is spurious at best. One has to analyze the actual data as Mr. Lott has done in three separate editions of his book. However, the mass media does little justice to the facts in this case. Thanks to the blindly bias groups like the Brady Campaign, the general public (like is often the case) is sorely misled on the truth.
That's a fairly narrow interpretation of government influence over various social and financial dynamics. It may be correct to some extent that "government laws" actually encouraged segregation but there's a distinction between state/local and federal laws. The Civil War was essentially fought over slavery. And the distinction between being anti-slavery and anti-discrimination are essentially indistinguishable. Some states (in particular Southern states) and even certain federal agencies may have engaged in discriminatory practices and even affirmed certain discriminatory laws and practices, But ALL those acts were contradictory to the philosophical basis and the spirit of the law upon which the Civil War was fought. But ultimately it was (and continues to be) the case that it was in most instances federal laws and agencies that had the capacity to shape social policy and reverse what needed reversing. For the sake of nationwide consistency it is left up to a stable and effectual federal level form of governance to ensure certain laws are enforced for the good of all.
Asserting the Declaration of Independence is higher than the Constitution is equivalent to asserting the bible is our governing document. Which is absurd. Regardless of what religious zealots like to claim, the bible is not a legal document established by the people and for the people. The Constitution is the basis of our common (national) secular laws. The Declaration was nothing more than a "statement of intentions". It did not establish an legal foundations for self governance.
There already is a middle ground. The fact that every state has gun restrictions. The fact that literally all of mass shootings have been perpetrated by the mentally disturbed would've made little difference having stricter gun laws. The mentally ill in nearly every case were not deemed a danger to society. Or at the very least may have been considered borderline. However with no previous criminal history it is difficult to say the least to predetermine if and when someone will loose it. That takes us into the realm of constitutional rights. Can you deny someone certain rights based upon presupposition? Normally the U.S. justice system requires probable cause, evidence of an actual illegal activity, the presumption of innocence, etc. In other words, people are traditionally held accountable for what they HAVE done. Not what they MIGHT do. Until someone breaks the law they have a certain presumption of rights. Unless everyone wants to live in a world of thought crime. Last I knew, there is no law against thinking whatever one wants. It's actions that are punished. As a result, everyone should have the right to be presumed innocent until they demonstrate otherwise.
Let's not forget the bible.
Better than only being able to throw rocks... yes?
One might need to qualify the term "improved". Cleaner and more ample fresh water? As opposed to the petroleum industry dumping toxins in our fresh water streams, rivers and lakes? Or using millions of gallons of fresh water to frack carbon resources out of the ground or pollution of nearby fresh water wells? Or how about the still sterile and uninhabitable Chernobyl area? Fly ash dumping and contamination (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fly_ash) one rarely hears about in the news. Contamination of ground water by municipal dump sites? Global smog created by carbon fuel burning such as that which originates from China, India, etc.? Depletion of oceanic coral reefs because of contaminants? Floating Oceanic garbage dumps created by human waste and trash? We all live in an environmental bubble and our technologies provide a false sense of security. We might be living longer because of technologies but we are also sicker overall. So which is better? A clean environment or dirty one in which we expend increasing amount of our capital mitigating the effects our own "advancements"?
What amazes me is the (shall I say) ignorance on the part of citizens who can confuse "duties" or job responsibilities with "purpose". Regardless of what anyone has been told by a government agency or even the media, their duty is ultimately to defend the U.S. Constitution. I used to work for a government agency. Had to pledge to defend the Constitution. There were many times in the course of my job when orders to me or department policies (I felt) conflicted with the Constitution ands I refused to act on those orders. Push come to shove in every instance I was upheld in my convictions. The problem in every instance was the fact that some overzealous ignoramus above me failed to appreciate the difference between duty and the law. And that's exactly the disease that is rotting our government from the inside out. People who don't have the intelligence or guts to stand up for what's right (or lawful).
Let's not forget which President started us down this path... King George II.
You forgot ... anyone who disagrees with the intelligence agencies including... liberals.
I wouldn't put anything beyond serious Russian considerations. Mastering the resource of space means more to some countries other than purely costs. The U.S. wasn't overly concerned about cost when the threat of Russian strategy became apparent with Sputnik and the subsequent launching of the first animal (dog) and human into orbit. LEO, LaGrange points and the moon all have strategic value depending upon one's purposes. We should remember that Russia (and China) have languished in the technological shadow if the West for decades and have an axe to grind. The Russians want to recapture their perceived and deserved Russian "glories" that would ultimately demonstrate they are THE superior global power. And with their growing (although corrupt) economy and military strength they would love nothing more than to show the world again they can be a technological (and dominant) power. And what better way than to establish a permanent presence on the moon? China won't be far behind with their financial resources. The irony of a previously (and still) communist country, Russia (China) to take the "leaders of the free world" into orbit is something they relish. Some things are worth more than money. And the Russians (and China) are now in a position to afford such extravagances. Thanks of course to our patriotic free-market (originally) western based enterprises that no longer hold any allegiances to anything but profit.
Please enlighten everyone as to the other solutions. Let's start with the very real premise that the IRS did not make the tax laws, merely charged with carrying them out. Then realize that Congress purposely makes the laws so complicated and full of legalese that few can understand the law. Then consider the fact that Congress made more laws to catch the "cheaters" which requires an enforcement arm of the bureau. Couple that with favoritism and special interest concerns that treat individuals and businesses differently (which adds to the complexity) and you have a Congress that has run amok. Then Congress (conservatives in particular, who favored collecting taxes as much as liberals in the first place) can sit back and point fingers at those nasty bureaucrats for being so draconian. It's a shell game on Congress' part. Create the problem then blame everyone else for the problem. The only fair, understandable and equitable tax structure is a flat tax. Congress has had countless opportunities to address the "problem" but most of them get into office by making promises to small and/or powerful groups without taking everyone's interests into consideration. Blame Congress for the problems, not the agencies they created in the first place.
That's ludicrous of course. On the Rachael Maddow show recently, CNN had an hour long exposé on Iraq and the entire war was a fabrication. Hussein was no more a threat to the US. than the Eskimos. Hussein was militarily and economically in a stranglehold from UN and US sanctions. It may be true he was brutal to the Sunnis and the Iraqis in general but that is no rational reason to invade. If... the US was going to use brutality as an excuse to invade any country weld have to pledge ourselves to invading a third of the global nations (compared to American standards). That is not only imprudent and irrational but economically impossible. The hawkish American belief that we can bring freedom to the global community is a myth. We should be minding our own business unless there is indisputable proof that another country is an actual threat as opposed to an imagined one. Which is exactly what the Bush administration created; a false pretense to extract oil. At the cost to the American public of billions and thousands of maimed and murdered men and women. It was treasonous. And I for one would never knowingly do business with a company who employed any of the top Bush administration officials.
What you assert is a tenable proposition were it not for the fact that the petroleum induced is doing everything within its ability to stymie alternatives to a petroleum economy as evidenced by their anti-solar, geothermal, and other alternative energy ads, publications, etc. Their main concern being short-term profit as opposed to a concerted effort to develop and promote long-term renewable technologies. That's not even taking into consideration the externalities of the carbon based technologies such as the recent study completed indicating that Fracking has had a direct effect on the instability of subterranean geology in Ohio that has generated an unusual number of earthquakes, etc. The American Petroleum Institute ads on TV consistently promote Fracking as "safe". It's only safe if you're not responsible for any damage the technology creates. The industry could (although it's not) take the lead in the development of alternatives. Instead, it's business as usual... short-term profit as opposed to sustainability.
Cost to whom? The Sunnis in Iraq might not agree. And I seem to remember from a fairly recent news article there are many in Iraq that would rather trade the relative "stability" Iraq had under Hussein with the constant chaos they now live under threat of. And who's to say that other methods of dealing with Hussein (rather than war) wouldn't have been more efficient, incurred far lower mortality and property damage and would've been far less costly for the U.S. RICE was one of the war (and anti-First Amendment/surveillance) hawks in the Bush administration. I certainly wouldn't trust her with my civil liberties no matter what her expertise. It's a poor decision for a technology company. It throws their corporate operating principles into question to have such surveillance oriented personnel on their corporate board.
Who needs to "steal" these days? Ignoring the completely superfluous (and ineffectual) industrial/technological export restrictions, "free-market capitalism" is giving everything away. Take China for example. International corporations looking to do business with the Chinese are often required by the communist government to "share" industrial secrets with Chinese companies and/or government. And many corporations are complying because of the profit margins involved. Insidiously, the Chinese, Russians etc. are utilizing that same capitalistic free-market ideology to further their own nationalistic goals at the expense of the American people.
It's important to distinguish between "employee" and "corporate officer". Corporate officers employment "contracts" can under employment law be distinguishable from the those often utilized for "employees" (subordinates). Corporate officers can be removed from office by a board for any reason. They are "at will" employees and have no guarantees of continued employment. If a corporate board determines that a corporate officer has not "acted in the interests of the corporation" they could be terminated for nearly any reason. Conversely, labor law generally requires that a company have "cause" (as defined by labor law) for being fired. Not everyone who works for a corporation operate under the same legal standards.
Stories of god, god's wants, plans, etc. are irrelevant until such time as the existence of a supernatural being is demonstrated as empirical fact. One cannot conclude by one's own experience that something is fact or not because the human mind is notoriously unreliable in and of itself. Speaking with god, hearing god, seeing god is not proof of god.
It's pointless to assert to know what god's plan is until such time as god is proven to be an empirical fact. It's no more convincing than asserting you know the mind of a leprechaun.
Assertions about god are completely irrelevant until such time as god is a demonstrated and empirical fact. One cannot rightly assert knowledge of god's plans, wants, expectations, etc. until such time as such a supernatural being has been proven to exist.
Fascinating... the legions of people who assert themselves to be speaking on behalf of some being that is supposedly fully capable of explaining themselves but refuses to do so thereby encouraging all kinds of confusion about their real intentions.
Beautiful. Let's not forget that biblical references to wisdom and/or knowledge specifically refers to "revealed" wisdom and knowledge. And those revelations come from "on high" not from the scientific method. The scientific method didn't exist in biblical times. And chances are, were we still dependent upon revealed knowledge weld still be herding sheep with sticks and heaving stones at our enemies.
Isn't it best to reserve drawing any conclusions, until there exists a substantial library of empirical peer reviewed evidence?
And employees also have the right to express their disappointment or even disgust on their own time. I've heard the same "free-market" ideas in the past. That being that customers have the right to stop doing business with a certain company. As if the customer's free choices would be "punishment" enough to correct business practices to be more consumer oriented. But that argument is utter bullshit in-Toto. Why? For one, markets are global. In other words corporations will always have a pool of dipshits to sell their products to. 2. The average consumer has no "conscience". In other words, people no longer care if a business' practices are poor or bad so long as the consumer can satisfy their immediate wants. 3. With corporate free speech rights, corporations can literally lie and deceive consumers into believing whatever the corporations want. I.e. BP oil spill, GM faulty ignitions, Dow Chemical spill in India, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And consumers are very easily led around by the rings in their noses.
See Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad from the late 19th century. Ever since then, the law of the land has been to grant corporations "personhood" under the U.S. Constitution and ever since then corporations have co-opted power for themselves. Because of "corporate personhood" corporations have the same "protections" that living people have including freedom of speech and even more insidious is the prohibition against "self incrimination". Which means legally they don't have to admit guilt in any criminal act and since they have free speech rights, they can blatantly lie in their corporate statements and commercial advertisements. The same is true if any business or corporation. See also; Kasky vs. Nike