Almost always, competition means lower prices. It does not always mean better products
Very true. Product quality depends on either an educated consumer willing to pay comensurately, or a company with market presence choosing to build a quality product. Since the former doesn't exist except as a tiny minority, the only time competition produces quality and low prices is in a dynamic market that has not (yet) stagnated. Generally, that stagnation will occur sooner or later, unless the market has a major player that is A) privately held AND B) run by someone with integrity.
Monopolies per se are not bad. Abuse of monopoly power is bad. Most monopoly problems are a result of the privileges extended to corporations for which they give nothing in return. If more corporations were dissolved and liquidated for abuses of power, those abuses would become a lot less common. They exist because they are profitable. They are profitable because of the limits on liability of employees and officers of corporations for the actions that they take behind the corporate mantle.
Also, many Libertarians are of the belief that, while personal income taxes are a travesty against the natural right to sustain life by one's own hand, corporations have no rights and should take up the slack as payment for the privilege of existing. Currently, corporations make a majority of the money and pay a minority of the taxes. Excise taxes, import/export duties, and corporate taxes are more than enough to pay for legitimate government function and reduce the scope and power of corporate influence.
This economic model also encourages the development of small, local businesses, because these types of businesses are the ones that need and exercise the use of limited liability the least. With the removal of income taxation, there is more incentive to build and maintain an above-board business within your locality.
I see the "tough on crime" stance as a double-edged sword.
Many of those who are capable of living peacefully within society are locked up and have the key thrown away (drug sale and possession) while those who have a history of violent crimes (assault, murder, rape) get to go repeatedly through the revolving door.
In a sense, there is a type of "coddling" as regards many violent criminals, but there is also a very "tough on crime" approach to those who could be rehabilitated (most non-violent criminals). It's bass-ackwards, but then much regarding the US political system is that way. It probably won't change any time soon because, as you say, it's damn fine politics.
There is a whole lot of sympathy for criminal scum, but only certain criminal scum.:)
Probably the most egregious offense against natural rights (regarding crimes and incarceration, that is) aside from the death penalty, and something that nobody talks about in the mainstream, is that felons in most states lose their right to vote. That's right kids, you commit a felony, part of your sentence is a life sentence. You are disenfranchised for THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Have sex with your girlfriend, she 16 and you 21? No more right to vote for you (as an added bonus in this particular case, you get to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life too)! Same goes for firearms. I don't have an issue with those committing a crime involving the USE of a firearm losing that right (to bear arms), but the current application is overly broad. Again, have sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? You can never own or use a firearm again!
Companies today are run in such a manner as to prop stock prices up. That is the bottom line. Well, publicly traded companies that is.
Some of the best companies out there do things off the wall, that add nothing to the bottom line, or that are completely philanthropic. Take The Bose Corporation for example. Privately held, Bose (the man, since the company is held almost entirely by the founder) is interested mainly in research, and does so in many fields not even related to audio processing. When Bose dies, his stock (and control of the company) will go to an educational foundation created by Bose.
There are actually companies out there controlled by people who care. For the most part they aren't public companies though, because people who care and don't have overwhelming control are usually forced out to make room for increasing the bottom line.
Meth isn't really a "bulletproof" drug like PCP, but I can still understand the concern.
Truly though, as far as defending a home nothing beats a shotgun. The runner up would depend on your skill and willingness to use lethal force. A baseball bat is a pretty well-rounded defense item, and doesn't take all that much training to use effectively. Using a knife effectively requires both training and a stomach.
All said though, my first steps would be to install a deadbolt with a long throw and a reinforced front plate (on non-steel doors) at all entries. Make sure windows don't provide easy access, either through security improvements or appropriate use of vegetation to impede entrance. Keeps bushes trimmed (or removed completely) so they don't provide cover for entry. Motion sensor lights at entrances not easily visible to passing traffic/pedestrians, placed so they can't be reached from the ground. Lots of things can be done to make a break-in less likely in the first place, making the chances of a confrontation proportionally smaller.
The ones where it counts, namely those where an intruder isn't going to run when discovered. Read the post by the guy who put a 00 shell through the chest of a violent felon who came after him (while he was pointing the shotgun at said felon, telling him to back off). It happens, and more often than not, the mere presence of an occupant armed with a firearm is enough to send an intruder running. The cases where they're fired are a small minority.
Of course, just like having a fire extinguisher may not be able to save your house depending on the circumstances of the fire, neither will having a firearm necessarily prevent a crime of violence from occuring. However, one is far less likely to be completed to the criminal's satisfaction in a house where the residents are armed and trained to use those arms.
Also, you use the term "safely stored." I would assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that you mean a firearm with a key lockout or in a safe. That's not a safely stored firearm. A firearm is stored for the safety of the occupants, and in a house where all members are trained in the use, care, and operation of firearms, a "safely" stored firearm is one that is both non-obvious and capable of being quickly brought from concealment to firing-capable position.
You can disagree with the previous assessment if you like, but when physical safety is on the line the only thing that counts is hands-on education. Owning a firearm and never having to use it to protect yourself is better than waking up in the middle of the night to discover an armed (or even not armed, depending on the relative size/strength/skill differential of the intruder(s) and occupant(s)) and not having the capability of stopping someone from doing whatever they wish.
Again I'll use the fire extinguisher analogy. You're more likely to be killed or injured without one than with. The exception to that is if you choose to remain ignorant of proper methods of use and care, but then that's just natural selection at work. You wouldn't aim either at your face, take off the safety, and pull the trigger.
Oh, and if you want to use this as a time to bring up "the children," education works there to. All the cases of child shootings I've heard of have been found to be a result of nonexistent firearm education or other parental negligence (as in the case of a child's friend coming into contact with a firearm).
There is no subsitute for education, even if you don't own a firearm (or fire extinguisher). There's also no excuse.
I don't own a gun and am not sure what I would do if confronted by some scum like that in my house. If it comes down to him or me (or my family) - I will do what I can to make it him.
If you don't want a gun, take some classes in a weapon-based martial art (Indonesian/Filipino arts are good for this). Those arts especially are highly adaptable. Knife, stick, rod, empty hand, it's all pretty similar. I don't own a firearm either, but I'm also never unarmed, even when not carrying a weapon.
Burglaries during dinner hours are usually professional. They use multiple parties to scout a house, watch, break directly into the master bedroom, search, take, leave. These are the people who take precious metals, jewelry, gems, etc.
Burglaries during the day are usually the smash-and-grab type. Unprofessional, often times petty criminals or addicts looking for easily pawned items. Electronics, watches, cameras, computers, etc.
Night intruders are a different sort. Sometimes you get the smash-and-grab, but not nearly as often. Usually it's a main-entrace break-in. This is for those who prefer the advantage of darkness to the advantage of a slim possibility of confrontation. Additionally, night intruders much more frequently choose houses knowing that they will have occupants who are unconscious. This makes targets easier because a search is not necessary. All it takes is incapacitating and controlling one person to give you a personal guide to the valuables. Also in this category are a large number of rapists.
All in all, a night intrusion is much more likely to be perpetrated by someone willing and able to start or engage in a potentially violent confrontation. It is also more likely that the perpetrator will come into the house with the previous intent of engaging in a violent endeavor.
There are lots of different types of home invaders (they're not all burglers), and there are lots of different motivations and considerations that each make. There are many tradeoffs based on occupancy and time of day. Not all of them are interested in "getting the hell out of there" if encountered. Also, you've only "caught" a criminal if you can do something about it.
In litigation-happy US society, this is entirely true. Though I don't have the references handy, I've read several accounts of injured intruders bringing civil suit against the persons they wronged and winning.
Personally, I think it's completely asinine to put such value in your personal possessions that you'd want a gun around to protect them.
I think it's completely asinine to promote defenselessness and zero first-response protection. With few exceptions, the police are reactionary. They don't (can't most times, and aren't legally obligated to at any time) prevent crimes in most cases, they clean up after whatever happens before they can get there.
Shit happens, and it happens when you least expect it. A firearm is a tool like any other. Nobody expects a house fire to happen to them, but you keep fire insurance and extinguishers handy (or you bloody well better). House fires are a lot LESS COMMON than violent crimes. There's no stigma about being prepared for a house fire, why is there one related to being prepared to defend your family or property from another?
This attitude completely baffles me. Nobody really wants to shoot you? You need to come out from under your rock. There do exist people out there who are violent for the hell of it. I have a cousin (by marriage a couple times removed, but a cousin nonetheless) who is currently in prison for helping beat a guy to death. They don't necessarily need a gun or a motive to harm you. You want to get a real lesson in people you don't know doing you bodily harm? I've got a neighborhood in NYC I'll drop you off in. We'll see how you do there. Nobody will have a real motive to hurt you, your logic will keep you perfectly safe and secure. Go ahead, bring a cell phone dial 911, it'll be over before the police get there.
I know you weren't talking about location, but you were talking about people, motive, intent, willingness to kill, etc. It all exists out there, and "out there" can occasionally end up in your home, even if you live in the quietest, prettiest neighborhood in the world. "Asinine" is a descriptor of those who decry the concept of protecting themselves.
It always amazes me that people can promote victim disarmament laws in the face of stories like this. Unfortunately, these rarely make mainstream news, and then usually only when a prosecutor has his panties in a twist and wants to fry someone for defending their life with deadly force.
Unfortunately, there will probably always be rabid victim disarmers out there. All of those people out there who say "think of the children" are the same people who are so irresponsible that they would rather leave their children ignorant of something to be hurt by later (like not teaching them about sexual matters) than to educate.
Last I checked, firearms have been a part of American life from the get-go, almost exclusively as a TOOL. There was no such thing as a higher incidence of children shooting themselves or others than for any other age category. Children, up until not too long ago in the scheme of things, were taught how to handle a firearm safely and effectively. Almost all of the new problems we have today stem from a lack of BASIC education. Ignorance of a firearm is no excuse, unless you happen to be of an age where you can't make that decision yourself. Then the fault lies ENTIRELY with your parent/guardian.
The media, those who would like to increase the power of law enforcement, or bolster their political career with empty promises (New York City/Washington D.C./Detroit/Chicago will be much safer after this ban takes effect!) like to paint a different story, but the truth of the matter as that the vast majority of firearm owners act responsibly and the vast majority of firearm uses are defensive. The number of private uses of firearms to prevent crime, without a shot ever being fired, dwarfs the law enforcement and criminal uses.
Fortunately, once the victim disarmers disarm themselves by law, they won't be able to force their views on others anymore. They'll be the ones without firearms.:)
See, I would be violating my ethics by providing support to either.
I'm aware that a Republicrat will win. Both will do nearly the same amount of damage, and it'll even out in the end. The only voting for a Republicrat I'd do is on the end of a.50 Barrett.
Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.
Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.
Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.
Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.
There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).
I'm not sure where I asked for a more extreme example here (this being the exact text of my reply to your examples). Even had I, that still doesn't fit the definition of back-pedaling (to reverse a previous position).
You would be correct in your assumption that this discussion is mostly academic for me. My own personal course is already charted, and I have yet to be given a single decent reason to change it (this isn't aimed at you or this discussion, just a personal point in general).
I wouldn't say Kerry had the opportunity to let or not let Congress approve of the war. I think that's ascribing him too much power. He did vote in favor of the war, however. Every indication shows that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
My problem with the entire action is that Congress never actually declared war, they simply authorized it. The distinction is profound. Without a declaration, there is no authority to invade another country. In consenting, Kerry joined Bush's camp. We're not out of the woods of the era of wars without Congressional declaration.
I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. I'm far past that point. I've gotten to the point where I'm cynical to the extreme involving most political issues.
I would say that the concept of building consensus is a rosy ideal at best. Most often it is those of small mind and narrow vision who desire to impose their view on others stooping to dirty tricks, lies, deception, mudslinging, and a variety of other nasty behaviour who are the scum that rise to the top. As far as a practical endeavour, it is really only a method for a minority to take from a majority for (mostly) their own benefit.
Perhaps the biggest problem with politicians is that they rarely keep their promises more than a year. Only if he REALLY wants to be re-elected will Kerry need to appear to give a rat's ass about the individuals who make up the majority of voters for the Democratic block. The appearance is all that's really necessary. Media campaigns will take care of the rest. Even if he completely blows it, the Democrats will still stand behind him and he won't lose by much in 2008.
I have to say one positive thing about Kerry though: He's nowhere near as ignorant as Shrublet. At least I can stomach the thought of hearing him talk. Bush is just all-around painful to listen to.
Or waste it by voting for someone with whom I completely disagree.
Because of my conscience, I waste my vote if I vote for someone I A) disagree with completel and B) have zero confidence in.
Do you really consider that a viable alternative (I'm not speaking of your standpoint, but mine) to not voting or voting for someone with whom I have a basic agreement with? Would you violate your conscience by supporting someone you think is a horrible pick for the job?
Regarding your last sentence, that's my basic point. I could not bring myself to vote for either major party candidate, knowing that either will take actions that I will have serious moral and ethical problems with. I know full well that the candidate I vote for doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hell of winning, but at least I'm showing my support for someone I believe in, rather than hoping my vote will tip the balance in favor of someone who will take the scenic route to Hell, rather than the freeway...
That's too bad. Everywhere I've been (and I've been a lot of places) I've seen people with technical skills teaching for less than they could get in private industry.
Then again, you're quite correct. By following counterintuitive employment models, public schools screw those with the skill and drive in favor of those who have not necessarily done anything other than sit on their ass for a long time (I know that's pessimistic, but really it's just for worst-case illustration). Since shit rolls down hill, the end-users are the ones who end up buried in it.
I wouldn't paint the school board issue so simply, since the federal government is intertwined even at that local a level, but I understand the sentiment. School boards are as much a part of the problem as anything else, but that part of the problem is much closer to the reach of those affected.
Well, it does matter what people do, as long as they pick their actions carefully. There are lots of cooperatives (and growing fast) for those who don't wish to support the public school system.
Most have proven themselves much more successful at providing a good, well-rounded education and helping individuals to develop good critical thinking and judgement skills than any public school ever hoped for.
If you don't like a system, stop supporting it. If enough support is removed, it'll collapse without anyone needing to go through any extra effort to get rid of it. Of course, the public school system is run on the backs of property owners, so they more than anyone need to work to change it if they use an alternative system of education.
How do you work for change when nobody you vote for (who actually gets elected) does anything to enact positive systematic change?
If I didn't vote for a minor party, I wouldn't vote at all. That means, the Republicrats get the same number of votes, and the non-Republicrats get more votes than otherwise. How is that wasting a vote?
You vote for one Republicrat or the other, and so they get the same number of votes, and the good ol' boys get elected again. The only difference you make is which Republicrat gets to self-aggrandize for the next 4 years.
If you can't see a difference for the most part, what difference does your vote make? After all, one of the Republicrats will be elected in the end, so why bother voting at all? It's that frame of mind that has us stuck in our current situation. You vote for a major party hoping they'll change something. I vote for a minor party knowing the major parties will change nothing except in their favor.
You appear to assume that I am on the right because I say the Nazis were leftist. Actually, I see both left and right as misguided.
Right v left is one-dimensional. I don't fit on that line.
Like all issues, they (Nazis) do have certain characteristics that don't fit a leftist profile, but all issues that aren't one-dimensional don't fit entirely into neat little boxes. They were more left than not. Really, they're more authoritarian than anything, but that's a designation that doesn't fit on the left v right scale either.
Actually, I would love the public schooling system to fail, you're right about that.
I wouldn't say anything that makes them fail, but I'm good with a lot of failure scenarios.
That's all fine and well that you'll put your ability to teach math against any random person with a degree in math. And I'd put the opinion of a local hiring board choosing from an application pool of prospective math teachers with and without degrees over both your and my opinion. Why? Because it's their school, they should be able to run it as they see fit, hiring those whom they feel will do the best job.
Now, if you teach math, I would assume that you have the skills necessary to work the math problems you teach. If not, I'd certainly not consider you fit to teach math. I'd hope no hiring board would either, but that would be a decision best left up to them in any event.
There won't be a lack of teachers in technical areas, because there aren't a lack of people in technical areas who are willing to teach. I have no problem with people who have adequate experience in a field, whether professional or personal, from taking a teaching job. I have a problem with mediocre education caused by teachers who have no experience whatsoever in the field they teach.
And again, I'd love to go back to the voluntary (and highly successful) schooling systems prior to Taxachusetts' Prussian experiment gone haywire.
I stand by my comment about fields of study, but don't take that as the be-all-end-all of my opinion on what can be done to scrap the educational system. If it were that simple, it would exclude as many good teachers as the current system does. The problem with the system is that it has a zero-tolerance policy for (un)common sense.:)
The best thing to do would be to leave it up to the discretion of the schools themselves, and the parents whose children attend the schools. That way, children can actually get a decent education. When local discretion is used, you don't have to have by-the-letter regulations which exclude teachers like your computer teacher. It also means that individuals who don't get teaching degrees, and actually advance in a particular field, can teach as well. This would be provided those hiring the teachers liked the candidate and were satisfied with said candidates abilities. But that would mean local control, and the federal government doesn't like local control.
No, you shouldn't kick him out. However, if he DID have a degree in MIS, CIS, IT, electronics, or whatnot, and not a teaching certificate, you can bet your ass they'd kick him out, even if he produced the highest passing percentage of students taking the appropriate AP tests. That's what you get with non-local regulations.
No Child Left Behind fucks the students in order to further a political agenda. Rural areas are simply screwed. There is nothing they can do to meet some of the requirements. This just seems to be a way to hurt public schools with additional federal regulation. Big government with their hands in everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, make mine a c years warranty. :)
Almost always, competition means lower prices. It does not always mean better products
Very true. Product quality depends on either an educated consumer willing to pay comensurately, or a company with market presence choosing to build a quality product. Since the former doesn't exist except as a tiny minority, the only time competition produces quality and low prices is in a dynamic market that has not (yet) stagnated. Generally, that stagnation will occur sooner or later, unless the market has a major player that is A) privately held AND B) run by someone with integrity.
Umm, it's a joke. :)
Monopolies per se are not bad. Abuse of monopoly power is bad. Most monopoly problems are a result of the privileges extended to corporations for which they give nothing in return. If more corporations were dissolved and liquidated for abuses of power, those abuses would become a lot less common. They exist because they are profitable. They are profitable because of the limits on liability of employees and officers of corporations for the actions that they take behind the corporate mantle.
Also, many Libertarians are of the belief that, while personal income taxes are a travesty against the natural right to sustain life by one's own hand, corporations have no rights and should take up the slack as payment for the privilege of existing. Currently, corporations make a majority of the money and pay a minority of the taxes. Excise taxes, import/export duties, and corporate taxes are more than enough to pay for legitimate government function and reduce the scope and power of corporate influence.
This economic model also encourages the development of small, local businesses, because these types of businesses are the ones that need and exercise the use of limited liability the least. With the removal of income taxation, there is more incentive to build and maintain an above-board business within your locality.
I see the "tough on crime" stance as a double-edged sword.
:)
Many of those who are capable of living peacefully within society are locked up and have the key thrown away (drug sale and possession) while those who have a history of violent crimes (assault, murder, rape) get to go repeatedly through the revolving door.
In a sense, there is a type of "coddling" as regards many violent criminals, but there is also a very "tough on crime" approach to those who could be rehabilitated (most non-violent criminals). It's bass-ackwards, but then much regarding the US political system is that way. It probably won't change any time soon because, as you say, it's damn fine politics.
There is a whole lot of sympathy for criminal scum, but only certain criminal scum.
Probably the most egregious offense against natural rights (regarding crimes and incarceration, that is) aside from the death penalty, and something that nobody talks about in the mainstream, is that felons in most states lose their right to vote. That's right kids, you commit a felony, part of your sentence is a life sentence. You are disenfranchised for THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Have sex with your girlfriend, she 16 and you 21? No more right to vote for you (as an added bonus in this particular case, you get to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life too)! Same goes for firearms. I don't have an issue with those committing a crime involving the USE of a firearm losing that right (to bear arms), but the current application is overly broad. Again, have sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? You can never own or use a firearm again!
Companies today are run in such a manner as to prop stock prices up. That is the bottom line. Well, publicly traded companies that is.
Some of the best companies out there do things off the wall, that add nothing to the bottom line, or that are completely philanthropic. Take The Bose Corporation for example. Privately held, Bose (the man, since the company is held almost entirely by the founder) is interested mainly in research, and does so in many fields not even related to audio processing. When Bose dies, his stock (and control of the company) will go to an educational foundation created by Bose.
There are actually companies out there controlled by people who care. For the most part they aren't public companies though, because people who care and don't have overwhelming control are usually forced out to make room for increasing the bottom line.
Meth isn't really a "bulletproof" drug like PCP, but I can still understand the concern.
Truly though, as far as defending a home nothing beats a shotgun. The runner up would depend on your skill and willingness to use lethal force. A baseball bat is a pretty well-rounded defense item, and doesn't take all that much training to use effectively. Using a knife effectively requires both training and a stomach.
All said though, my first steps would be to install a deadbolt with a long throw and a reinforced front plate (on non-steel doors) at all entries. Make sure windows don't provide easy access, either through security improvements or appropriate use of vegetation to impede entrance. Keeps bushes trimmed (or removed completely) so they don't provide cover for entry. Motion sensor lights at entrances not easily visible to passing traffic/pedestrians, placed so they can't be reached from the ground. Lots of things can be done to make a break-in less likely in the first place, making the chances of a confrontation proportionally smaller.
I would certainly agree with that assessment. A good defense shouldn't be built around one particular method.
The ones where it counts, namely those where an intruder isn't going to run when discovered. Read the post by the guy who put a 00 shell through the chest of a violent felon who came after him (while he was pointing the shotgun at said felon, telling him to back off). It happens, and more often than not, the mere presence of an occupant armed with a firearm is enough to send an intruder running. The cases where they're fired are a small minority.
Of course, just like having a fire extinguisher may not be able to save your house depending on the circumstances of the fire, neither will having a firearm necessarily prevent a crime of violence from occuring. However, one is far less likely to be completed to the criminal's satisfaction in a house where the residents are armed and trained to use those arms.
Also, you use the term "safely stored." I would assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that you mean a firearm with a key lockout or in a safe. That's not a safely stored firearm. A firearm is stored for the safety of the occupants, and in a house where all members are trained in the use, care, and operation of firearms, a "safely" stored firearm is one that is both non-obvious and capable of being quickly brought from concealment to firing-capable position.
You can disagree with the previous assessment if you like, but when physical safety is on the line the only thing that counts is hands-on education. Owning a firearm and never having to use it to protect yourself is better than waking up in the middle of the night to discover an armed (or even not armed, depending on the relative size/strength/skill differential of the intruder(s) and occupant(s)) and not having the capability of stopping someone from doing whatever they wish.
Again I'll use the fire extinguisher analogy. You're more likely to be killed or injured without one than with. The exception to that is if you choose to remain ignorant of proper methods of use and care, but then that's just natural selection at work. You wouldn't aim either at your face, take off the safety, and pull the trigger.
Oh, and if you want to use this as a time to bring up "the children," education works there to. All the cases of child shootings I've heard of have been found to be a result of nonexistent firearm education or other parental negligence (as in the case of a child's friend coming into contact with a firearm).
There is no subsitute for education, even if you don't own a firearm (or fire extinguisher). There's also no excuse.
I don't own a gun and am not sure what I would do if confronted by some scum like that in my house. If it comes down to him or me (or my family) - I will do what I can to make it him.
If you don't want a gun, take some classes in a weapon-based martial art (Indonesian/Filipino arts are good for this). Those arts especially are highly adaptable. Knife, stick, rod, empty hand, it's all pretty similar. I don't own a firearm either, but I'm also never unarmed, even when not carrying a weapon.
A couple categories:
Burglaries during dinner hours are usually professional. They use multiple parties to scout a house, watch, break directly into the master bedroom, search, take, leave. These are the people who take precious metals, jewelry, gems, etc.
Burglaries during the day are usually the smash-and-grab type. Unprofessional, often times petty criminals or addicts looking for easily pawned items. Electronics, watches, cameras, computers, etc.
Night intruders are a different sort. Sometimes you get the smash-and-grab, but not nearly as often. Usually it's a main-entrace break-in. This is for those who prefer the advantage of darkness to the advantage of a slim possibility of confrontation. Additionally, night intruders much more frequently choose houses knowing that they will have occupants who are unconscious. This makes targets easier because a search is not necessary. All it takes is incapacitating and controlling one person to give you a personal guide to the valuables. Also in this category are a large number of rapists.
All in all, a night intrusion is much more likely to be perpetrated by someone willing and able to start or engage in a potentially violent confrontation. It is also more likely that the perpetrator will come into the house with the previous intent of engaging in a violent endeavor.
There are lots of different types of home invaders (they're not all burglers), and there are lots of different motivations and considerations that each make. There are many tradeoffs based on occupancy and time of day. Not all of them are interested in "getting the hell out of there" if encountered. Also, you've only "caught" a criminal if you can do something about it.
In litigation-happy US society, this is entirely true. Though I don't have the references handy, I've read several accounts of injured intruders bringing civil suit against the persons they wronged and winning.
Personally, I think it's completely asinine to put such value in your personal possessions that you'd want a gun around to protect them.
I think it's completely asinine to promote defenselessness and zero first-response protection. With few exceptions, the police are reactionary. They don't (can't most times, and aren't legally obligated to at any time) prevent crimes in most cases, they clean up after whatever happens before they can get there.
Shit happens, and it happens when you least expect it. A firearm is a tool like any other. Nobody expects a house fire to happen to them, but you keep fire insurance and extinguishers handy (or you bloody well better). House fires are a lot LESS COMMON than violent crimes. There's no stigma about being prepared for a house fire, why is there one related to being prepared to defend your family or property from another?
This attitude completely baffles me. Nobody really wants to shoot you? You need to come out from under your rock. There do exist people out there who are violent for the hell of it. I have a cousin (by marriage a couple times removed, but a cousin nonetheless) who is currently in prison for helping beat a guy to death. They don't necessarily need a gun or a motive to harm you. You want to get a real lesson in people you don't know doing you bodily harm? I've got a neighborhood in NYC I'll drop you off in. We'll see how you do there. Nobody will have a real motive to hurt you, your logic will keep you perfectly safe and secure. Go ahead, bring a cell phone dial 911, it'll be over before the police get there.
I know you weren't talking about location, but you were talking about people, motive, intent, willingness to kill, etc. It all exists out there, and "out there" can occasionally end up in your home, even if you live in the quietest, prettiest neighborhood in the world. "Asinine" is a descriptor of those who decry the concept of protecting themselves.
I applaud you.
:)
It always amazes me that people can promote victim disarmament laws in the face of stories like this. Unfortunately, these rarely make mainstream news, and then usually only when a prosecutor has his panties in a twist and wants to fry someone for defending their life with deadly force.
Unfortunately, there will probably always be rabid victim disarmers out there. All of those people out there who say "think of the children" are the same people who are so irresponsible that they would rather leave their children ignorant of something to be hurt by later (like not teaching them about sexual matters) than to educate.
Last I checked, firearms have been a part of American life from the get-go, almost exclusively as a TOOL. There was no such thing as a higher incidence of children shooting themselves or others than for any other age category. Children, up until not too long ago in the scheme of things, were taught how to handle a firearm safely and effectively. Almost all of the new problems we have today stem from a lack of BASIC education. Ignorance of a firearm is no excuse, unless you happen to be of an age where you can't make that decision yourself. Then the fault lies ENTIRELY with your parent/guardian.
The media, those who would like to increase the power of law enforcement, or bolster their political career with empty promises (New York City/Washington D.C./Detroit/Chicago will be much safer after this ban takes effect!) like to paint a different story, but the truth of the matter as that the vast majority of firearm owners act responsibly and the vast majority of firearm uses are defensive. The number of private uses of firearms to prevent crime, without a shot ever being fired, dwarfs the law enforcement and criminal uses.
Fortunately, once the victim disarmers disarm themselves by law, they won't be able to force their views on others anymore. They'll be the ones without firearms.
I will be voting against Bush. It's not I who left him in power, it's the 70% of the US that doesn't give enough of a damn to vote.
Frankly, I don't see the real distinction between them. They'll both do similar amounts of damage, it'll just be slightly different types of damage.
I want Bush to win as much as I want Kerry to win.
See, I would be violating my ethics by providing support to either.
.50 Barrett.
I'm aware that a Republicrat will win. Both will do nearly the same amount of damage, and it'll even out in the end. The only voting for a Republicrat I'd do is on the end of a
Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.
Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.
Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.
Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.
There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).
I'm not sure where I asked for a more extreme example here (this being the exact text of my reply to your examples). Even had I, that still doesn't fit the definition of back-pedaling (to reverse a previous position).
You would be correct in your assumption that this discussion is mostly academic for me. My own personal course is already charted, and I have yet to be given a single decent reason to change it (this isn't aimed at you or this discussion, just a personal point in general).
I wouldn't say Kerry had the opportunity to let or not let Congress approve of the war. I think that's ascribing him too much power. He did vote in favor of the war, however. Every indication shows that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
My problem with the entire action is that Congress never actually declared war, they simply authorized it. The distinction is profound. Without a declaration, there is no authority to invade another country. In consenting, Kerry joined Bush's camp. We're not out of the woods of the era of wars without Congressional declaration.
I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. I'm far past that point. I've gotten to the point where I'm cynical to the extreme involving most political issues.
I would say that the concept of building consensus is a rosy ideal at best. Most often it is those of small mind and narrow vision who desire to impose their view on others stooping to dirty tricks, lies, deception, mudslinging, and a variety of other nasty behaviour who are the scum that rise to the top. As far as a practical endeavour, it is really only a method for a minority to take from a majority for (mostly) their own benefit.
Perhaps the biggest problem with politicians is that they rarely keep their promises more than a year. Only if he REALLY wants to be re-elected will Kerry need to appear to give a rat's ass about the individuals who make up the majority of voters for the Democratic block. The appearance is all that's really necessary. Media campaigns will take care of the rest. Even if he completely blows it, the Democrats will still stand behind him and he won't lose by much in 2008.
I have to say one positive thing about Kerry though: He's nowhere near as ignorant as Shrublet. At least I can stomach the thought of hearing him talk. Bush is just all-around painful to listen to.
Or waste it by voting for someone with whom I completely disagree.
Because of my conscience, I waste my vote if I vote for someone I A) disagree with completel and B) have zero confidence in.
Do you really consider that a viable alternative (I'm not speaking of your standpoint, but mine) to not voting or voting for someone with whom I have a basic agreement with? Would you violate your conscience by supporting someone you think is a horrible pick for the job?
Regarding your last sentence, that's my basic point. I could not bring myself to vote for either major party candidate, knowing that either will take actions that I will have serious moral and ethical problems with. I know full well that the candidate I vote for doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hell of winning, but at least I'm showing my support for someone I believe in, rather than hoping my vote will tip the balance in favor of someone who will take the scenic route to Hell, rather than the freeway...
That's too bad. Everywhere I've been (and I've been a lot of places) I've seen people with technical skills teaching for less than they could get in private industry.
Then again, you're quite correct. By following counterintuitive employment models, public schools screw those with the skill and drive in favor of those who have not necessarily done anything other than sit on their ass for a long time (I know that's pessimistic, but really it's just for worst-case illustration). Since shit rolls down hill, the end-users are the ones who end up buried in it.
I wouldn't paint the school board issue so simply, since the federal government is intertwined even at that local a level, but I understand the sentiment. School boards are as much a part of the problem as anything else, but that part of the problem is much closer to the reach of those affected.
Well, it does matter what people do, as long as they pick their actions carefully. There are lots of cooperatives (and growing fast) for those who don't wish to support the public school system.
Most have proven themselves much more successful at providing a good, well-rounded education and helping individuals to develop good critical thinking and judgement skills than any public school ever hoped for.
If you don't like a system, stop supporting it. If enough support is removed, it'll collapse without anyone needing to go through any extra effort to get rid of it. Of course, the public school system is run on the backs of property owners, so they more than anyone need to work to change it if they use an alternative system of education.
How do you work for change when nobody you vote for (who actually gets elected) does anything to enact positive systematic change?
If I didn't vote for a minor party, I wouldn't vote at all. That means, the Republicrats get the same number of votes, and the non-Republicrats get more votes than otherwise. How is that wasting a vote?
You vote for one Republicrat or the other, and so they get the same number of votes, and the good ol' boys get elected again. The only difference you make is which Republicrat gets to self-aggrandize for the next 4 years.
If you can't see a difference for the most part, what difference does your vote make? After all, one of the Republicrats will be elected in the end, so why bother voting at all? It's that frame of mind that has us stuck in our current situation. You vote for a major party hoping they'll change something. I vote for a minor party knowing the major parties will change nothing except in their favor.
You appear to assume that I am on the right because I say the Nazis were leftist. Actually, I see both left and right as misguided.
Right v left is one-dimensional. I don't fit on that line.
Like all issues, they (Nazis) do have certain characteristics that don't fit a leftist profile, but all issues that aren't one-dimensional don't fit entirely into neat little boxes. They were more left than not. Really, they're more authoritarian than anything, but that's a designation that doesn't fit on the left v right scale either.
Actually, I would love the public schooling system to fail, you're right about that.
I wouldn't say anything that makes them fail, but I'm good with a lot of failure scenarios.
That's all fine and well that you'll put your ability to teach math against any random person with a degree in math. And I'd put the opinion of a local hiring board choosing from an application pool of prospective math teachers with and without degrees over both your and my opinion. Why? Because it's their school, they should be able to run it as they see fit, hiring those whom they feel will do the best job.
Now, if you teach math, I would assume that you have the skills necessary to work the math problems you teach. If not, I'd certainly not consider you fit to teach math. I'd hope no hiring board would either, but that would be a decision best left up to them in any event.
There won't be a lack of teachers in technical areas, because there aren't a lack of people in technical areas who are willing to teach. I have no problem with people who have adequate experience in a field, whether professional or personal, from taking a teaching job. I have a problem with mediocre education caused by teachers who have no experience whatsoever in the field they teach.
And again, I'd love to go back to the voluntary (and highly successful) schooling systems prior to Taxachusetts' Prussian experiment gone haywire.
I stand by my comment about fields of study, but don't take that as the be-all-end-all of my opinion on what can be done to scrap the educational system. If it were that simple, it would exclude as many good teachers as the current system does. The problem with the system is that it has a zero-tolerance policy for (un)common sense. :)
The best thing to do would be to leave it up to the discretion of the schools themselves, and the parents whose children attend the schools. That way, children can actually get a decent education. When local discretion is used, you don't have to have by-the-letter regulations which exclude teachers like your computer teacher. It also means that individuals who don't get teaching degrees, and actually advance in a particular field, can teach as well. This would be provided those hiring the teachers liked the candidate and were satisfied with said candidates abilities. But that would mean local control, and the federal government doesn't like local control.
No, you shouldn't kick him out. However, if he DID have a degree in MIS, CIS, IT, electronics, or whatnot, and not a teaching certificate, you can bet your ass they'd kick him out, even if he produced the highest passing percentage of students taking the appropriate AP tests. That's what you get with non-local regulations.
No Child Left Behind fucks the students in order to further a political agenda. Rural areas are simply screwed. There is nothing they can do to meet some of the requirements. This just seems to be a way to hurt public schools with additional federal regulation. Big government with their hands in everything.
I agree completely.