tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post6355510965583357076..comments2024-03-18T02:14:06.798-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: Prince and Sri Chinmoy?Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-40278540186918342422008-06-08T15:48:00.000-07:002008-06-08T15:48:00.000-07:00Ethiopian Infidel: I don't think the governor's de...Ethiopian Infidel: I don't think the governor's decision to commute every death penalty case attests to the widespread use of coercion by the police. From the articles I read the the commutations were more motivated by the 13 cases of innocent people being convicted. That being said I would not be at all surprised if coercion short of torture was more widespread. However, I would also be curious about to learn more about the cases of the 13 innocent people. In particular I wonder how many were actually proved innocent versus how many had their convictions thrown out and were declared innocent on th basis of legal technicalities.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Marty SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-33069572967669278092008-06-08T14:49:00.000-07:002008-06-08T14:49:00.000-07:00Marty,It was doubtless hyperboly to torture was "s...Marty,<BR/><BR/>It was doubtless hyperboly to torture was "standard practice" during Illinois interrogations, since the phrase suggests across-the-board usage and de jure status. However, we can accurately say that physical coercion to force confession was used with enough frequency among indigent and Black defendants to constitute standard police practice when attempting to establish guilt and motive. Certainly the enormous numbers of commutations (the entirety of Illinois Death Row!) and exonerations Ryan issued attests to the pervasiveness and enormity of the problem!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-38048514276022622462008-06-08T05:47:00.000-07:002008-06-08T05:47:00.000-07:00Ethiopian Infidel: I'm interested in some links th...Ethiopian Infidel: I'm interested in some links that actually say anything, and can backup that in Illinois "torture was standard practice". Your link didn't give any such indication and googling the subject all I could find with respect evidence of torture was that one police detective, John Budge, who was fired may have used torture in some cases.<BR/><BR/>Marty SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-46075165813995889372008-06-07T17:13:00.000-07:002008-06-07T17:13:00.000-07:00Ethiopian Infidel, I'm sorry-- I should have phras...Ethiopian Infidel, I'm sorry-- I should have phrased it better. I do understand that the treatment of enemy combatants wasn't some side effect of the shock of 9/11. America has had a wide pro-torture streak for a long time.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-17053918253994431902008-06-07T14:02:00.001-07:002008-06-07T14:02:00.001-07:00"Obama got an Illinois law passed requiring video-..."Obama got an Illinois law passed requiring video-taping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases, and he's solidly anti-torture."<BR/><BR/>Until recently, torture was essentially standard practice during Illinois interrogations, and was routinely used to force confessions from Blacks and, in some cases, Whites. So pervasive was the use of torture-extracted confessions to construct capital cases that former Governor George Ryan commuted all death sentences to prison terms and granted pardons where physical coercion was proven to be the impetus coercing confession. <BR/><BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2649125.stm<BR/><BR/>Obama presumably attempted to redress this horrid situation through his above-mentioned legal efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-49145522918011511012008-06-07T14:02:00.000-07:002008-06-07T14:02:00.000-07:00NancyOr to put it in a less inflammatory way, why ...Nancy<BR/><BR/><I>Or to put it in a less inflammatory way, why use such dismissive language for people wanting to do things they like in peace?</I><BR/><BR/>I guess I think think I was being dismissive. I, generally speaking, couldn't care less how or with whom people have sex with.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-11938677172465989752008-06-07T09:47:00.000-07:002008-06-07T09:47:00.000-07:00Steve: It doesn't matter whether Obama said "talk"...Steve: It doesn't matter whether Obama said "talk" or whether he said "meet with" or what he actually meant when he made the statement. For many if not most of those who heard the statement it translated into his being willing to negotiate. On the world stage perception is as important or more important than truth. The closest we have come to nuclear war was the Cuban missile crisis. If that occurred because of the perception Khrushchev had of Kennedy as weak then we see the value of being perceived as strong. For another example look at the Iranian hostage crisis. Peace loving Nobel Peace prize winning Jimmy Carter could do nothing to get our hostages released. But just the entrance of warmongering tough talking Reagan into the presidency was enough to get them home.<BR/>When I say that I fear an Obama presidency, because of foreign policy a major part of that is what other counties may do based upon their evaluation of him. I could see a nuclear war between Israel and Iran as result of Iranian aggression promoted by Obama's perceived unwillingness to use the full power of the U.S. to back Israel.<BR/><BR/>Marty SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-72214656232411186842008-06-07T09:28:00.000-07:002008-06-07T09:28:00.000-07:00Frank,So if you mean that "sexual freedom" is the ...Frank,<BR/><BR/><I>So if you mean that "sexual freedom" is the freedom to screw whoever you want, </I><BR/><BR/>In the same sense that freedom of the press means the right to spew whatever you want, yes.<BR/><BR/>Or to put it in a less inflammatory way, why use such dismissive language for people wanting to do things they like in peace?Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-65794730265713145362008-06-07T08:31:00.000-07:002008-06-07T08:31:00.000-07:00Steve--Your Kennedy quote qent IMMEDIATELY to "neg...Steve--<BR/>Your Kennedy quote qent IMMEDIATELY to "negotiate" while all Obama proposed was "talking." Everyone seems to make that mistake, and I find it fascinating.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-77980612150346724162008-06-07T07:14:00.000-07:002008-06-07T07:14:00.000-07:00Dan Moran▪ Glock Instructor School▪ Glock Transiti...Dan Moran<BR/><BR/><I>▪ Glock Instructor School<BR/>▪ Glock Transition School</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, and BTW, I don't like Glocks.<BR/><BR/>I've selected the Smith and Wesson M&P Compact in .40 SW for my regular carry gun and the Ruger SR9, 9 mm parabellum for my backup.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-64723374012841922202008-06-07T07:02:00.000-07:002008-06-07T07:02:00.000-07:00NancyFrank, I'm very glad I asked you what you mea...Nancy<BR/><BR/><I>Frank, I'm very glad I asked you what you meant by sexual freedom. Now I'm wondering where you got the impression it only means abortion on demand.</I><BR/><BR/>Because generally when I hear people use this in context they are talking about female reproductive rights: Abortion and birth control.<BR/><BR/>So if you mean that "sexual freedom" is the freedom to screw whoever you want, it seems China fulfills your requirement there as well. At least according to Wikipedia<BR/><BR/><I>Since the policy of Reform and Opening Up in 1979, the Communist Party has been loosening its control over this kind of behavior. But the practice of homosexuality is still labeled as a "moldering life style of capitalism".</I><BR/><BR/>Which I find amusing in the context of our discussion. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China#Modern_China" REL="nofollow">Continuing</A><BR/><BR/><I>during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when sodomy was decriminalized in 1997, and the new Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses on April 20, 2001.[3] The situation has continued to evolve; magazine "Menbox" [4] is a gay magazine.</I><BR/><BR/>So I guess China is interested in sexual freedom in the way you mean it too.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-86747724655505731342008-06-07T06:51:00.000-07:002008-06-07T06:51:00.000-07:00Steve PerryIf ever another civil war arises here, ...Steve Perry<BR/><BR/><I>If ever another civil war arises here, all those troops who have all those big guns? Some of them are going to take their hardware and turn it around anyhow. You know that tribe triumphs country.</I><BR/><BR/>This would be necessary if they were following Mao's little book.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately you have to turn the "insurgency" in to an Army: Something al Qaida has failed to do, but something Hizbollah is working on.<BR/><BR/>And making progress towards...<BR/><BR/>Dan Moran<BR/><BR/><I>And yet ... there are plenty of people I'd trust with more firepower we presently permit. (For example, almost all of the people in the military who actually have those weapons ...) All I'd want is that they have something approaching the same sorts of checks and balances put upon them that are currently put upon members of law enforcement or the military.</I><BR/><BR/>I have no problem with that. But in exchange I would like a license that is good in all 50 states like a drivers license is.<BR/><BR/>And BTW, I know a firearms instructor whose experience is that most citizens are better with their guns than most law enforcement personnel. <BR/><BR/>I know I'm pretty good with my pistol. I practice at least once a week because the skills are perishable. Most law enforcement qualifies once a year.<BR/><BR/>Military is another story.<BR/><BR/><I>In addition ... I'd be willing to let the NRA offer the courses ... subject to the NRA instructors being trained and approved by the LAPD or similarly (or more) competent LE, the instructors to be regularly recertified.</I><BR/><BR/>Law Enforment instructors are often NRA qualified instructors.<BR/><BR/>And many Law Enforcement people go to civilian-run training. Places like <A HREF="http://www.thunderranchinc.com/" REL="nofollow">Thunder Ranch</A>. I have a co-worker who carries who has been to Thunder Rance on a number of occasions.<BR/><BR/>In my experience, people who have the desire to get a Concealed Carry permit usually also are serious about acquiring and maintaining their combat skills.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-6721961783399375332008-06-07T06:23:00.000-07:002008-06-07T06:23:00.000-07:00I want to deal with a few related comments first.D...I want to deal with a few related comments first.<BR/><BR/>Dan says:<BR/><BR/><I>In neither case was the United States' survival ever in question. Had it been, the U.S. would have done to both countries what it did to Germany and Japan.</I><BR/><BR/>And Ethiopian Infidel said<BR/><BR/><I>Regarding Gun Control: The concept of armed private citizens checking federal power is anachronistic in the Nuclear Age. For the foreseeable future, the Feds have unmatched power by virtue of nuclear arms and other high-priced, high yield weapons and can vaporize would-be Green Mountain Boys.</I><BR/><BR/>First these solutions are true IF and only IF you want to vaporize the enemy. If someone was trying to put down an insurgency say, in New York City, doing this would be the definition of a Pyrrhic victory.<BR/><BR/>What good is a country if you completely destroy the infrastructure? If you can isolate your insurgents in some remote countryside then yeah, you might be able to consider carpet bombing or some sort of nuclear option.<BR/><BR/>Two things are being conflated in my mind: One is that the US has spent a lot of time and money, more than any other country, in developing weapons that get the job done while minimizing collateral damage for the specific purpose on not having a country in complete rubble when you are done as was Germany after WWII.<BR/><BR/>And this is because we feel responsible for the aftermath, something also unique in history.<BR/><BR/>The US <I>is</I> most definitely being threatened, but the way to resolve the issue is not to lay waste to the many to get the few. The answer, at least Bush's answer, is to promote an alternative ideology: Liberal representative government and economic freedom. And you can't do that by just killing everyone. You have to go after the infiltrated bad guys and be seen to be protecting the good guys. i.e. winning hearts and minds.<BR/><BR/>So too, if a similar situation occurred here, no matter how evil the central government became, it would be counter-productive to destroy all of the economic centers that feed the government. So a scorched-earth policy could not be a real choice. Armed citizens can be a real pain in the establishment's ass. Re: the American Revolution.<BR/><BR/>And you are all forgetting that an armed population is also useful in a Red Dawn scenario where it is an invading force we are fighting against.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-89940693628217705482008-06-07T06:05:00.000-07:002008-06-07T06:05:00.000-07:00Frank, I'm very glad I asked you what you meant by...Frank, I'm very glad I asked you what you meant by sexual freedom. Now I'm wondering where you got the impression it only means abortion on demand.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I asked on my livejournal whether anyone had seen "sexual freedom" used that way, and no one was sure they had.<BR/><BR/>As for armed population vs. the government, drug dealers have plenty of guns, and they haven't used them to get freedom to sell drugs. Lack of initiative, or a good estimate of the likely outcome? I bet on the latter.<BR/><BR/>In an effort to see whether I was right that in the early days of America, private people were allowed to own ships with cannon, I found <A HREF="http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/a_complete_unde.php" REL="nofollow">this</A>. It looks as though the reason the second amendment doesn't make sense is that it was a political compromise between one side which wanted to limit weapons to militia and another which wanted gun ownership as an individual right.<BR/><BR/>Obama got an Illinois law passed requiring video-taping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases, and he's solidly anti-torture. I value that attitude more than gun rights, though I hope gun rights remain intact.<BR/><BR/>I suspect common gun ownership has a small threshold effect against tyranny, in the same sense that people would much rather collect butterflies than wasps, and I think this would hold even if wasps were prettier.<BR/><BR/>Pagan Topologist, there's another failure mode for education requirements for gun ownership-- that the education required would be so expensive or otherwise difficult to get that it would be much harder for people to get permission to have a gun.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34173029046187284682008-06-06T22:40:00.000-07:002008-06-06T22:40:00.000-07:00Brian Dunbar- You are right, I was wrong to say M...Brian Dunbar-<BR/> You are right, I was wrong to say McCain started the fire on the Forrestal. When I was in the Navy I heard some guy named McCain launched a missile and his Admiral daddy got it called a freak electrical accident. Sea story, I should have checked.<BR/> On wikipedia, McCain may or may not (wiki not sure) have been in a plane HIT BY by the missile. McCain's service record is a LOT more honorable than mine.<BR/> Still think he's a screwup: RINO, immigration, and there ARE better proofs of military merit than getting captured.<BR/> But: you right, me wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-14813631771243367432008-06-06T16:59:00.000-07:002008-06-06T16:59:00.000-07:00Dan,Very interesting position on gun control. Tha...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Very interesting position on gun control. Thanks for sharing.<BR/><BR/>BrianBrian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-81554781731841268102008-06-06T16:03:00.000-07:002008-06-06T16:03:00.000-07:00I have often said more or less the same thing as y...I have often said more or less the same thing as you, Dan, wrt guns. The only difficulty I see with it is that the training might, over time become less and less demanding until it was <I>pro-forma,</I> much like driving tests are today. But, on balance, I think that is the best possible arrangement. <BR/><BR/>Of course, I would not be able to afford a surplus F4 Phantom for my personal arsenal, but that is the way it goes, sometimes.Pagan Topologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611788563582362688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-15190833524487537272008-06-06T14:33:00.000-07:002008-06-06T14:33:00.000-07:00Brian, Nobody likes me on the gun control stuff. P...Brian, <BR/><BR/>Nobody likes me on the gun control stuff. Pretty much everyone would rather have the status quo, no matter how nasty, rather than risk change they might not like.<BR/><BR/>No: I don't trust "you" -- that's most people -- with a rifle because, on average, rifle owners have not been trained to use their weapons safely and accurately under stress. Ditto handgun owners. Ditto most weapons owners. Seriously, I'd take most people's guns away: I Am A Gun Grabber.<BR/><BR/>And yet ... there are <B>plenty</B> of people I'd trust with more firepower we presently permit. (For example, almost all of the people in the military who actually have those weapons ...) All I'd want is that they have something approaching the same sorts of checks and balances put upon them that are currently put upon members of law enforcement or the military.<BR/><BR/>A bare minimum would be the sort of training police officers are required to undergo before being handed a weapon. The LAPD teaches the following:<BR/><BR/>The Firearms Training Sections teaches the following blocks of instruction:<BR/><BR/>▪ Academy Training Program (formerly CPA)<BR/>▪ 37 mm less lethal munitions<BR/>▪ 870 Transition<BR/>▪ Body Armor<BR/>▪ CEDP VIII<BR/>▪ Chemical Agents<BR/>▪ Handgun Instructor Training School<BR/>▪ Glock Instructor School<BR/>▪ Glock Transition School<BR/>▪ Lateral Officers<BR/>▪ Less-lethal (beanbag) Shotgun<BR/>▪ Motor Officer Handgun Training<BR/>▪ Motor Officer Shotgun Training<BR/>▪ Recruit Basic Course<BR/>▪ Reserve Level I<BR/>▪ Reserve Level II<BR/>▪ Reserve Level III<BR/>▪ Reserve Level III, firearms enhancement<BR/>▪ In-service remediations<BR/>▪ Restorations<BR/>▪ Reintegrations<BR/>▪ Rifle Instructor Training School<BR/>▪ Shotgun Instructor Training School<BR/>▪ Tactical Shotgun School<BR/>▪ Tactical Shotgun Day Re-certification<BR/>▪ Tactical Shotgun Night Re-certification<BR/>▪ Urban Police Rifle School<BR/>▪ Urban Police Rifle Day Re-certification<BR/>▪ Urban Police Rifle Night Re-certification<BR/><BR/>In addition ... I'd be willing to let the NRA offer the courses ... subject to the NRA instructors being trained and approved by the LAPD or similarly (or more) competent LE, the instructors to be regularly recertified.<BR/><BR/>I'm OK with citizens having SWAT gear. But they better be able to pass the SWAT tests and stay on top of their training and recertification. Most people wouldn't.<BR/><BR/>This is a "compromise" that has horrified both my NRA friends and my abolish handgun friends. "Let people have machine guns?!!?" "Take away the average person's guns?!!?" And yet I'm pretty sure it would work out better for everyone than the current circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Some while back the NRA had a campaign going here in California telling kids that if they found a gun, to leave it there and call an adult -- for most kids, that's the adult who left it there. It was part of a campaign to prove how socially responsible the NRA was. So I posed this question to an NRA friend:<BR/><BR/>How about, instead of "call an adult," we substitute "call 911." Almost all kids past the age of 5 or 6 can pick up a phone and call 911 in a pinch. Of course, this results in the negligent gun-owning adult going to jail ...<BR/><BR/>NRA friend didn't like that idea. So much for the safety of children....Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24970807538676677962008-06-06T13:37:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:37:00.000-07:00Hurray for Abortion on Demand, which should be ens...Hurray for Abortion on Demand, which should be enshrined as a inviolable Human Right! I'm a Feminist in the classic political sense. If men had wombs, State intrusion in their management, in EITHER the Fundamentalist Christian or Chinese Communist sense, would be regarded as tantamount to slavery and recognized as just cause for war!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34286802755308198392008-06-06T13:11:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:11:00.000-07:00Dan MoranI'm not personally willing to go the rout...Dan Moran<BR/><I>I'm not personally willing to go the route of permitting individual ownership of stinger missiles. </I><BR/><BR/>Some people will take away all the fun. I need my anti-air missile system to hunt ducks. Granted there isn't much left _to_ the duck but that's not the point.<BR/><BR/>But seriously - if you can trust me not to take my rifle out to the playground and start potting at children, you can trust that I won't take my anti-air missile to the airport and shoot at airplanes.Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-10382006103324538122008-06-06T12:55:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:55:00.000-07:00I'm beginning to think I don't know what you folks...<EM>I'm beginning to think I don't know what you folks mean by "sexual freedom". To me, this has always been a code phrase for abortion on demand, which China clearly supports. For free.</EM><BR/><BR/>Wow. It never occurred to me to translate "sexual freedom" as a code phrase for "abortion on demand." Even when it comes to abortion alone, I don't see why having a government that wants you to get that abortion would be freer than having a government that wants you not to get that abortion.<BR/><BR/>I'd see "sexual freedom" as having two meanings.<BR/><BR/>1) The ability of consenting adults to make their own decisions on a wide range of sexual and reproductive choices without government interference. Examples:<BR/><BR/>a) Sodomy laws = less sexual freedom. No sodomy laws = more sexual freedom. (Similar for laws against fornication, unmarried cohabitation, and the like.)<BR/><BR/>b) Being able to read Lady Chatterley's Lover = more sexual freedom. Having the book censored = less sexual freedom.<BR/><BR/>c) Having access to birth control = more sexual freedom. Being sterilized without your consent = less sexual freedom.<BR/><BR/>2) The ability of consenting adults to make a wide range of sexual choices without people shaming them.<BR/><BR/>a) Purity balls = less sexual freedom.<BR/><BR/>b) Gay men feeling obliged to be closeted = less sexual freedom.<BR/><BR/>c) Disapproval of one night stands = less sexual freedom.<BR/><BR/>and the whole range in between.<BR/><BR/>Now, though "freedom" sounds good, I don't find the concept of "sexual freedom" completely unproblematic, particularly in sense 2) - get too attached to the idea that people have a <EM>right</EM>, darn it, to have whatever sort of sex they please without anyone judging them, and you can undercut values that are pretty important to me, such as the one that says fathers should stand by their children. If the sex life you're actually having is resulting in your walking away from your children, you deserve to be shamed for it. Still, I do tend to think that the <EM>government</EM> should leave people alone here as much as possible, and that such influencing as people's sexual decisions need is best left to the judgment of people who actually know them.<BR/><BR/>In neither sense of the word does China strike me as an unusually sexually free country. Homosexuality, for example, was persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, sodomy wasn't decriminalized till 1997, the heavy Internet filtering includes filtering out of sexual content (and also, of course, of a whole lot else), HIV patients have been detained by police for trying to talk to a government official (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/18/china.aids), etc.Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-57024950812035931252008-06-06T12:43:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:43:00.000-07:00"If the U.S. government were fighting for its surv..."If the U.S. government were fighting for its survival on its home ground, you'd see a response the world hasn't seen in 60 years. And handguns and rifles and shotguns wouldn't stop it."<BR/><BR/>I think this would depend on how much support/opposition that government had from its citizenry. Getting the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to open up on Billy-Bob and the gun-toting survivalists down in the swamps by Bogalusa is one thing: Wholesale slaughter of children and grannies might be harder to manage, and there isn't enough military to occupy a country the size of the U.S. Can't be done.<BR/><BR/>If the Posse Commitatus boys try to storm the White House, sure, they get vaporized. If a two-man Army patrol wanders too far away from support, they can easily be knocked over. If there were a half a million U.S. soldiers in Iraq, there'd just be more targets for IED's. You can't win against religious fanatics who think being a martyr gets them a good seat next to their god. They don't care if you kill them, and if they can take a few of you with them to hold open the gate to Paradise, so much the the better. <BR/><BR/>Organized resistance doesn't need to take the field like British troops in lock-step formation<BR/><BR/>And against the mountain boys, the Brits had superior firepower, better troops and supplies -- if lousier strategy and tactics. <BR/><BR/>The North won against the South, but lost twice as many men doing it, and were outfought most of the way by smaller numbers who were less well-armed and supplied. (There were a couple crux points where it might gone the other way, even so.)<BR/><BR/>Failure of political will works as well as military victory if you are on the winning side ...<BR/><BR/>If the Chinese Army comes over the hill, my handgun isn't going to be enough. If the U.S. Army comes into town with tanks and pocket nukes, it won't, either, but that's a science fiction scenario and unlikely. Partially because the kind of people who enacted the 2nd, and who grew up in Cowboyland comprise the military, the government, and the vox populi. Our Zeitgiest at the moment doesn't want to let go of that rugged individualist self-image. In that regard, I think that Americans are as fanatic as any culture. We see ourselves as Rocky (the first movie), and never-say-die is bred to the bone. <BR/><BR/>If ever another civil war arises here, all those troops who have all those big guns? Some of them are going to take their hardware and turn it around anyhow. You know that tribe triumphs country.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-38742792690539063612008-06-06T11:44:00.000-07:002008-06-06T11:44:00.000-07:00Regarding Gun Control: The concept of armed privat...Regarding Gun Control: The concept of armed private citizens checking federal power is anachronistic in the Nuclear Age. For the foreseeable future, the Feds have unmatched power by virtue of nuclear arms and other high-priced, high yield weapons and can vaporize would-be Green Mountain Boys. I do grant that private gun ownership provides a great source of psychological empowerment, however illusory the military actuality. Who wouldn't feel empowered hefting lethal steel and grated a literal license to kill? Does sharing lethal power establish a symbolic Blood Compact compact between Citizen and State that bespeaks trust inviolable by creeping encroachments and corruption?<BR/><BR/>Regarding talking with adversaries. The main faux problem here, that Steve's alluded to, is that popular psych has equated talking with reconciliation (relatedly, Christianity's conflated understanding with sympathy). A statesperson or general advocate with rhetorical skill and psychological insight can adeptly craft conversation for their purpose, to conciliate, heal or destroy as necessity demands. To choose among scores of examples: Recall how Hitler mollified, duped and blindsided his would-be negotiators, softening them for the attack and probably inflicting humiliation and damage psychologically that in some cases surpassed that inflicted militarily. Since we've corrected to the popular misconception regarding talking, I say, by all means, be prepared to meet with and talk to adversaries of whatever nature and danger. Figuratively be willing to enter Bin Laden's cave and chat with him around the fire. He'll probably think you're come to appease, whereas you're really playing the Siren, dashing his mad dreams upon the rocks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-72983365140094986722008-06-06T10:39:00.000-07:002008-06-06T10:39:00.000-07:00Steve Perry,Sure, a man with a gun can cause consi...Steve Perry,<BR/><BR/>Sure, a man with a gun can cause considerable damage, sure. But the failure of the U.S. Army in Iraq and in Viet Nam was a failure of political will, not military capability. In neither case was the United States' survival ever in question. Had it been, the U.S. would have done to both countries what it did to Germany and Japan. Were the United States' survival at stake, we'd have half a million boots on the ground in Iraq, or a million ... not a surge force that peaked at around 150K.<BR/><BR/>If the U.S. government were fighting for its survival on its home ground, you'd see a response the world hasn't seen in 60 years. And handguns and rifles and shotguns wouldn't stop it.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-4608983244379102452008-06-06T10:28:00.000-07:002008-06-06T10:28:00.000-07:00Marty,Sure, you can prove most anything you want w...Marty,<BR/><BR/>Sure, you can prove most anything you want with stats. No argument. And you and I aren't going to agree on the PIPA study, and I'm skeptical anyone else on this blog cares, so I'll move on.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.com