Church - A place for quiet reflection ...

[finnbow]

... or packing heat?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/cuccinelli-says-guns-in-churches-are-okay-if-theyre-for-self-defense/2011/04/11/AFvTYPLD_blog.html?hpid=z2

I guess this provides yet another reason to avoid going to church.:cool:

[merrylander]

That man is insane, plain and simply insane.

[d-ray657]

The man plays to his base. It is a very base base.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JonL]

His premise: "Cuccinelli indicates that the 'right of self-defense lies at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.'"

seems to be at odds with the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which seems (despite the NRA) to quite clearly link the carrying of firearms to the protection of the State and not the Self.

[BlueStreak]

Church?

Must be part of the rights desperate desire to make their ideology appear Christ-like.

WWJD? Why pack heat in the Lords House of course. Never know when a brotha might have to jump up and bust a cap in a choir boys ass. Catch an acolyte skimming change out of the offering plate? Ventilate the little f**ers head during communion.......that s**t will never happen again. Hells yeah, dat lil' punk won't nevah disrespect the tithe up in this tip, eveh agin! That's what Glockmaster JC would do!:rolleyes:

Seriously, what makes anyone think they would need to sport iron in the pew?

Really.

Dave

[JJIII]

I'm not going to take sides with either faction here but this may explain why someone would want to protect themselves, even in a house of worship. The gulf between a group that believes one thing and another group that believes the opposite is growing ever wider. Who's to say that what we see in this video would not escalate in bodily harm to the people praying at some point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0oMKGFTyk

[merrylander]

This doctor might have benefitted I suppose;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html

[piece-itpete]

When I was a young teen we had a armed madman take over our church. The police ended up having to gun him down while we listened on the floor. I saw the large red hersheys' kisses of kill shot blood 'drips'.

The pastor tried to head him off at the back door. My dad and another member guarded the front unarmed.

I have no doubt folks there would've been pleased to have one of the deacons armed.

Jon, people didn't think like that, here in the States anyway. The militia existed to protect the people which did include the state, as the state existed to serve the people.

Pete

[merrylander]

Jon, people didn't think like that, here in the States anyway. The militia existed to protect the people which did include the state, as the state existed to serve the people.

Pete

The militia existed because the Framers did not want a standing army after their expeience with the British troops. Unfortunately there was enough squabbling among the states that Madison's militia proved to be no match for the Irish regimant that burned the White House.:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, another quandry hard to solve, be "at all times ready for war" without an army.

But militias did predate the Revolution, as did the right to bear arms.

Pete

[d-ray657]

The title of this thread does remind me of visiting the John Street Church in NYC. It was the first Methodist church built in the United States. It stands in contrast to the commercial district in which it sits - just a block or two from Wall Street. The feeling inside the church is an even more significant contrast than the architecture. I first visited it when I was in New York for some particularly contentious litigation. The sense of peace a visit to the sanctuary provided was unforgettable. :)

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Yeah, another quandry hard to solve, be "at all times ready for war" without an army.

But militias did predate the Revolution, as did the right to bear arms.

Pete

Pete visit Williamsburg sometime, the guns were kept locked up in the armory. Ordinary folks probably had hunting rifles but the big stuff was under lock and key.

[BlueStreak]

Pete visit Williamsburg sometime, the guns were kept locked up in the armory. Ordinary folks probably had hunting rifles but the big stuff was under lock and key.

That's right.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Been there - 3 times ;) Love how they used them for decor.

I don't know anyone with cannons. Everyone then had rifles, even foreigners like Washington. And horror of horrors, they didn't need a license to buy or keep them.

Pete

[finnbow]

Been there - 3 times ;) Love how they used them for decor.

I don't know anyone with cannons. Everyone then had rifles, ...

Actually, nobody had rifles (yet). They had muskets. Rifles extended the range of muskets several hundred percent. I don't think the Founding Fathers saw that one coming. ;)

[piece-itpete]

Ah so. Long things that looked like guns that propelled small objects rapidly :)

The Constitution has this amazing foresighted bit in there - the amendment process ;)

Btw, I probably wouldn't have kept going back although it was very good - my step daughter loved it there.

Pete

[finnbow]

Speaking of Williamsburg, my (now deceased) uncle was a graphics artist employed by Colonial Williamsburg for his entire career. One of his specialties were the period maps you saw in a bunch of the buildings there. His son-in-law (my cousin's husband, also recently deceased) managed all the period musicians who played in the taverns, etc. He played a bunch of period stringed instruments and, in addition to playing in the Colonial Williamsburg venues, travelled widely to cultural and diplomatic meetings where they wanted such entertainment.

Cool place.

[merrylander]

We spent a Christmas there, stayed right in the Inn, quite an experience.

[flacaltenn]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which seems (despite the NRA) to quite clearly link the carrying of firearms to the protection of the State and not the Self

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

[d-ray657]

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

The problem with that analogy is that Kindles are not lethal weapons.

It's interesting that you use the terms "anti 2nd Amendment." It might be more accurate to describe such folks a narrow interpreters of the 2nd Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

Irrelevant. The first amendment does not share the squirrelly sentence structure with a dangling antecedent like the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unreasonable interpretation to assert that the 2nd Amendment has to do with militias, not the individual right to bear arms (regardless of your own personal views of the issue). BTW, I'm a life long gun owner and hunter, but not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.

[BlueStreak]

Actually, nobody had rifles (yet). They had muskets. Rifles extended the range of muskets several hundred percent. I don't think the Founding Fathers saw that one coming. ;)

Wonder what they would think of private citizens possessing AK-47s and 50 caliber sniper rifles?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Finn, the problem is, everything around it is individual rights.

...
Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?

Regards,

D-Ray

The Founders certainly believed that you couldn't keep the latter without the former.

Pete

[flacaltenn]

D-Ray:

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?


Never will I attempt to rank the 1st 10 amendments except that the 10th amendment DOES have a clarifier effect on the "scope" of the other 9.. In fact, the 10th amendment makes it clear that the preceding 9 are a special carve-out zone of freedom and liberty from ANY govt intervention (state, federal, local).

The authors COULD HAVE justified any of the other "rights" with some benefit to the state (such as freedom of the press). In fact, the concept of "a press" has changed just as much as the concept of "arms". While you debate what the founders would have thought about AK-47s, you could propose that they never anticipated the dangerous implications of a "wiki" page or the subversive side-effects of twitter (ask Mubarak about that). So the argument can always be made that in terms of actual solid objects referred to in the original words, there is wiggle room. Except that the amendments are not about the objects, but about the excercise of liberty. And if that excersize changes with the centuries, so be it. We have a standing army, so if you abide by the militia interpretation -- you ARE essentially anti-2nd-amendment since that leaves the whole concept null and void. Simple logic folks. If the dangling proposition (militia) is no longer true, the rest is then irrelevent and unenforceable. Except that the right was granted to virtually every citizen of the time. And it is the exercise of that right of individuals that transcends the military organizational chart. Just like 'freedom of the press' is trancendent of the means or organization of communication.

I'll stay with the corroborating testimony of the guys who wrote the 2nd. Makes it clear enough for the current Supremes to declare it an "individual" right.

My bet is that Ben Franklin would have been a major twitter packer AND assault weapon collector.

[JonL]

I think the founders understood full well the power of the press and the power of free speech. I don't see that things have changed all that much in the electronics age to increase that power, in fact that power may have diminished for practical purposes because of the sheer volume and barrage of information, most of which is mis-information.

On the other hand, I don't think the founders anticipated the technological advances in weaponry. If you want to make the 2nd amendment about the gov't being forbidden to regulate an individual's right to bear arms, why aren't you upset that you can't buy a nuke to keep in your garage "just in case?" Or an Apache helicopter? Or any number of weapon systems.

Furthermore, if you want to make the argument that an armed populace is important to ward off tyranny, I think you ought to realize that things are a bit different in the 21st century. The disparity in military power between civilians and governments is too huge for armed rebellion to be effective. Look at the most successful revolutions in recent times... they've been essentially accomplished without weaponry. East Germany, the Soviet Union, Egypt... It's all about hearts and minds, not about a violent overthrow of a regime. The ones that fall via violence only do so with the assistance of other nations' armies, and it seems to me that the ones that fall via violence wind up being less stable than the peaceful revolutions.

[piece-itpete]

It would still be much much harder to subjucate an armed population then an unarmed one.

Besides, in an oversimplified statement, a ragtag bunch of yokels took out one of the great military powers in the world. There was a great disparity.

Using the judicial system to 'reinterpret' the Constitution undermines all our freedom - and is tyranny.

Pete

[finnbow]

It would still be much much harder to subjucate an armed population then an unarmed one.

Besides, in an oversimplified statement, a ragtag bunch of yokels took out one of the great military powers in the world. There was a great disparity.

Using the judicial system to 'reinterpret' the Constitution undermines all our freedom - and is tyranny.

Pete

It seems to me that eleven fully armed states tried to fight the Federal government 150 years ago. How'd that work out?

I think everyone (probably) agrees that the Constitution allows citizens to own muskets, yet allows the regulation or prohibition of fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers or personal nuclear arsenals. The question is where along this continuum you draw the line.

[piece-itpete]

When in doubt, err on the side the people. But who, outside of perhaps Washington and a handful of others, would walk away from more power.

Pete

[merrylander]

When in doubt, err on the side the people. But who, outside of perhaps Washington and a handful of others, would walk away from more power.

Pete

On the side of which people? So far it seems to be only the wealthy that benefit.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

Sometimes, given our awful foreign policy and bad choices on using the military, I'm sure that Washington doesn't deserve to wield cruise missiles, tanks, bazookas and ESPECIALLY the keys to the nuke locker. We've bombed SIX (muslim) countries this year. Would YOU issue a nuke license to a country like that?

[JonL]

I don't like the fact that ANY governments have the fearsome armaments they do, and I certainly don't agree with US foreign policy more often than not. That really has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want any individual wackos running around with rocket launchers or even assault rifles. All that BS about watering some metaphorical tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots is a nice sound bite. Tell that to the families of Columbine, or Virginia, or the Gifford tragedy, or... on and on and on and on and on. Far more people have and will be killed by psychos with weapons they shouldn't possess than will be killed in any armed struggle that actually results in "freedom." Freedom from what??? Freedom for whom? Freedom these days is a word that really means "We at ACME Mega Corp want to poison your groundwater with hyrdofracking, spill millions of gallons of oil into your waterways, modify the genetics of your crops to force you to use our herbicides (and then sue your ass when your natural crops get contaminated by cross-polinization), invent ridiculously convoluted financial derivatives to steal your money, etc etc... and do it FREE from regulation and FREE from taxation. You think any of this BS about "freedom" has anything to do at all with helping the INDIVIDUAL? Laughable.

[d-ray657]

I don't like the fact that ANY governments have the fearsome armaments they do, and I certainly don't agree with US foreign policy more often than not. That really has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want any individual wackos running around with rocket launchers or even assault rifles. All that BS about watering some metaphorical tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots is a nice sound bite. Tell that to the families of Columbine, or Virginia, or the Gifford tragedy, or... on and on and on and on and on. Far more people have and will be killed by psychos with weapons they shouldn't possess than will be killed in any armed struggle that actually results in "freedom." Freedom from what??? Freedom for whom? Freedom these days is a word that really means "We at ACME Mega Corp want to poison your groundwater with hyrdofracking, spill millions of gallons of oil into your waterways, modify the genetics of your crops to force you to use our herbicides (and then sue your ass when your natural crops get contaminated by cross-polinization), invent ridiculously convoluted financial derivatives to steal your money, etc etc... and do it FREE from regulation and FREE from taxation. You think any of this BS about "freedom" has anything to do at all with helping the INDIVIDUAL? Laughable.

Tell it brother, tell it.!:)

[BlueStreak]

I don't like the fact that ANY governments have the fearsome armaments they do, and I certainly don't agree with US foreign policy more often than not. That really has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want any individual wackos running around with rocket launchers or even assault rifles. All that BS about watering some metaphorical tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots is a nice sound bite. Tell that to the families of Columbine, or Virginia, or the Gifford tragedy, or... on and on and on and on and on. Far more people have and will be killed by psychos with weapons they shouldn't possess than will be killed in any armed struggle that actually results in "freedom." Freedom from what??? Freedom for whom? Freedom these days is a word that really means "We at ACME Mega Corp want to poison your groundwater with hyrdofracking, spill millions of gallons of oil into your waterways, modify the genetics of your crops to force you to use our herbicides (and then sue your ass when your natural crops get contaminated by cross-polinization), invent ridiculously convoluted financial derivatives to steal your money, etc etc... and do it FREE from regulation and FREE from taxation. You think any of this BS about "freedom" has anything to do at all with helping the INDIVIDUAL? Laughable.

WOW!!!!!

Rock on, JonL!!!!!

Dave

[noonereal]

I don't like the fact that ANY governments have the fearsome armaments they do, and I certainly don't agree with US foreign policy more often than not. That really has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want any individual wackos running around with rocket launchers or even assault rifles. All that BS about watering some metaphorical tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots is a nice sound bite. Tell that to the families of Columbine, or Virginia, or the Gifford tragedy, or... on and on and on and on and on. Far more people have and will be killed by psychos with weapons they shouldn't possess than will be killed in any armed struggle that actually results in "freedom." Freedom from what??? Freedom for whom? Freedom these days is a word that really means "We at ACME Mega Corp want to poison your groundwater with hyrdofracking, spill millions of gallons of oil into your waterways, modify the genetics of your crops to force you to use our herbicides (and then sue your ass when your natural crops get contaminated by cross-polinization), invent ridiculously convoluted financial derivatives to steal your money, etc etc... and do it FREE from regulation and FREE from taxation. You think any of this BS about "freedom" has anything to do at all with helping the INDIVIDUAL? Laughable.

you don't understand, guns make us safe :p

[piece-itpete]

Freedom for government control of everything. And there is no doubt that business has a great deal of influence in government. By both parties. So give government - more power?

Let's not zoom in on sound bites. Here is more:

"Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. ..."

The whole letter: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

Pete

[merrylander]

The only part of that diatribe I believed was the last sentence about natural manure. That this nation was born in violence seems to have set the mood.

[piece-itpete]

All nations have been born in violence.

Pete

[noonereal]

All nations have been born in violence.

Pete

not really

[piece-itpete]

No? Some might have changed a bit seemingly peacefully, but if you look back there was always a gun or sword in there.

Pete

[merrylander]

In Canada's case it was a pen, the one that wrote the British North America act.:p

[noonereal]

No? Some might have changed a bit seemingly peacefully, but if you look back there was always a gun or sword in there.

Pete

i admit man is territorial by nature

[merrylander]

I simple cannot understand why people so revere the writings on the subject of freedom by a man who was quite content to own other human beings. There are people who bear my surname up and down the east coast. I have never found any realtionship in my genealogical research nor do I wish to as some were slave owners. I cannot understand nor condone such a practice. I do have planty of cousins west of the Mississippi River.

[piece-itpete]

Noone, t's amazing, you'd think you'd get used to it, but the more I read the more horrible it gets. Faith in mankind is waaaaaay misplaced. Good things are the exception and usually temporary.

Rob, are you sure the history of Canada doesn't have a bit of blood in it somewhere? ;)

Pete

[noonereal]

Faith in mankind is waaaaaay misplaced.

not by me, I have no faith, I try to keep safe and take care of my own

[piece-itpete]

Two smart guys, they both felt smart :D

Pete

[JonL]

Freedom for government control of everything. And there is no doubt that business has a great deal of influence in government. By both parties. So give government - more power?
...
Pete

Corporate influence and the greed of individual politicians have combined to corrupt government. No question, no argument. But without government regulation, powerful (and not so powerful) corporations would be free to cause irreparable harm to people and the environment in the short-sighted chase for profits. That should be quite obvious. Government is the people's only line of protection. The fact that government has become dysfunctional and often more an ally of business than of the people doesn't mean that less government is necessarily the answer. IMO, the answer is to restore our government to being representatives (and leaders) of the people, and not of powerful corporations. Campaign finance reform would be a good place to start.

I'm not sure how I feel about term limits... in one sense it should reduce the corrupting influence that might come along with an extended incumbency, but on the other hand it also artificially removes skilled and effective people from our government. I've spent a tiny bit of time in DC meeting with senate and house staffers, and I can see how the learning curve to becoming effective is very steep. I also think that term limits and automatic spending caps, and other mechanisms like that are the easy way out. People should be involved enough to know when things aren't going the way they like, and vote out the bastards instead of letting some automatic trigger do it for them, for better or for worse. That would of course require a better informed electorate... which should go hand in hand with campaign finance reform.

[finnbow]

I'm not sure how I feel about term limits... in one sense it should reduce the corrupting influence that might come along with an extended incumbency, but on the other hand it also artificially removes skilled and effective people from our government. I've spent a tiny bit of time in DC meeting with senate and house staffers, and I can see how the learning curve to becoming effective is very steep. I also think that term limits and automatic spending caps, and other mechanisms like that are the easy way out. People should be involved enough to know when things aren't going the way they like, and vote out the bastards instead of letting some automatic trigger do it for them, for better or for worse. That would of course require a better informed electorate... which should go hand in hand with campaign finance reform.

Good point here. In many instances, the staffers represent the institutional knowledge (not to mention the grunt work) behind what gets done in Washington. Case in point - Last week's 11th hour budget negotiations were not between Boehner and Reed, but between their respective Chiefs of Staff.

[JonL]

I simple cannot understand why people so revere the writings on the subject of freedom by a man who was quite content to own other human beings. There are people who bear my surname up and down the east coast. I have never found any realtionship in my genealogical research nor do I wish to as some were slave owners. I cannot understand nor condone such a practice. I do have planty of cousins west of the Mississippi River.

The founders of our nation were undoubtedly both smart and flawed. To me, the biggest indication of their wisdom was in knowing that people, the nation, and the constitution were all inherently flawed and so provided means for the constitution to evolve and change with the times. They also made it difficult for those changes to happen quickly as overreactions to short-term events.

I think the founders would find it ludicrous that people use quotes and ideas and ideals that may have been sensible before the industrial revolution to rigidly guide our politics and philosophies today. Learn from their thoughts and writings, of course. Rigidly adhere to the same ideals? Silly.

[BlueStreak]

No? Some might have changed a bit seemingly peacefully, but if you look back there was always a gun or sword in there.

Pete

Of course. There just has to be an act of violence involved or said establishment of a free and independent nation/state loses validity.:rolleyes:

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Jon, I agree with you on term limits. To me, they smack of acknowledgement of citizens' waning ability to govern themselves.

The great experiment was created by them, standing on shoulders. I believe that not using the stated means to modify the Constitution is clear proof that it failed.

My continuing journey into the past shows just how radically peoples' perceptions have changed. Insulated by money and machines, we no longer live side by side with the reality of human nature, we've convinced ourselves that it's different.

It's not. There is the very same will to power, the same will to evil as existed before.

Only the trappings of life have changed. And as the founders had a very good grip on human nature, what they have to say is still valid. They would be pleased to know some still hear them, still listen to what they had learned.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Btw, I think I need to use more compound sentences :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Btw, I think I need to use more compound sentences :)

Pete

Yes, you are woefully lacking in that regard. And this WILL affect your evaluation.

Dave

[finnbow]

Isn't it odd that the party who is always referring to the incredible wisdom and intellect of the Founding Fathers is the very same party to rail against intellectualism? Very odd indeed.

[piece-itpete]

That would be intellectual elitism, for me anyway, and Blue, I promise I'll work harder on that, and hope that, in the future, my evaluation will improve, at least a little bit, because I'm a caring Republican.

:D

Pete

[merrylander]

Noone, t's amazing, you'd think you'd get used to it, but the more I read the more horrible it gets. Faith in mankind is waaaaaay misplaced. Good things are the exception and usually temporary.

Rob, are you sure the history of Canada doesn't have a bit of blood in it somewhere? ;)

Pete

There was the Metis affair, not particularly a proud moment but it had nowt to do with founding the nation.

[finnbow]

That would be intellectual elitism, for me anyway, and Blue, I promise I'll work harder on that, and hope that, in the future, my evaluation will improve, at least a little bit, because I'm a caring Republican.

:D

Pete

Same diff. Don't you think that the Founding Fathers were the intellectual elite of their day? I mean, c'mon. TJ was fluent in five languages, including French.:eek:

[piece-itpete]

Just because they were the elite doesn't mean they were elitists (taps side of nose).

Rob, far be it for me to besmerch Canada! But colonising aside, couldn't the, um, experience the English had with the US have had something to do with their new and improved way of dealing with Canada?

Pete

[finnbow]

Just because they were the elite doesn't mean they were elitists (taps side of nose).

"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern."

Isn't this exactly how the Right views the Founding Fathers (or for that matter, how the Founding Fathers viewed themselves)?

[piece-itpete]

Blue, do I get extra credit for 'besmerch'? :)

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Finn, where'd that come from? Merriam Websters:

Definition of ELITISM
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

So perhaps there's a little to 3, but....

Did they get two votes instead of one? Intellectuals running things has turned out VERY badly for folks in more recent history.

The main players in our glorious revolution were far from snobs and did not keep power for themselves.

Pete

[finnbow]

The main players in our glorious revolution were far from snobs and did not keep power for themselves.

Pete

Say what?

1.George Washington, 1789-1797
2.John Adams, 1797-1801
3.Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
4.James Madison, 1809-1817
5.James Monroe, 1817-1825
6.John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829

[piece-itpete]

8 years
4 years
8 years
8 years
8 years
4 years

FDR: Elected to 16 years.

All those founders stepped down voluntarily.

Pete

[d-ray657]

A look at industrial history shows that growth of government coincided with better health and working conditions for the people. The length of the work days/weeks, the danger faced by workers, discrimination against classes of workers, the impoverished conditions of those too old to work, the financial hardship on injured workers, and the polluted unhealthy living conditions for working families have all diminished in the wake of labor laws, health laws, social security, workers compensation, civil rights laws, safety regulations and environmental regulation.

Those laws and regulations all required a growth in government. The improvements in environment, health and working conditions did not occur by the operation of the profit motive and the "free market." Indeed, unbridled capitalism made virtual slaves of industrial workers - and in many instances reduced them to chattel. Injured workers were damaged goods to be disposed of because they did not create sufficient profit.

The desire of the GOP and their corporate masters is to eliminate the labor protective regulations; to eliminate environmental regulation that stands as a barrier to immeasurable loss of our natural resources; to eliminate health protection for those at greatest risk to disease and injury; to eliminate the ability of workers to join together for mutual aid and protection; to eliminate financial security at the end of a long working life - essentially eliminate any governing that stands in the way of the greatest possible return on capital investment.

I don't like the view of government held by the GOP and its corporate masters.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

8 years
4 years
8 years
8 years
8 years
4 years

FDR: Elected to 16 years.

All those founders stepped down voluntarily.

Pete

thank God FDR was wise enough not to

[noonereal]

A look at industrial history shows that growth of government coincided with better health and working conditions for the people. The length of the work days/weeks, the danger faced by workers, discrimination against classes of workers, the impoverished conditions of those too old to work, the financial hardship on injured workers, and the polluted unhealthy living conditions for working families have all diminished in the wake of labor laws, health laws, social security, workers compensation, civil rights laws, safety regulations and environmental regulation.

Those laws and regulations all required a growth in government. The improvements in environment, health and working conditions did not occur by the operation of the profit motive and the "free market." Indeed, unbridled capitalism made virtual slaves of industrial workers - and in many instances reduced them to chattel. Injured workers were damaged goods to be disposed of because they did not create sufficient profit.

The desire of the GOP and their corporate masters is to eliminate the labor protective regulations; to eliminate environmental regulation that stands as a barrier to immeasurable loss of our natural resources; to eliminate health protection for those at greatest risk to disease and injury; to eliminate the ability of workers to join together for mutual aid and protection; to eliminate financial security at the end of a long working life - essentially eliminate any governing that stands in the way of the greatest possible return on capital investment.

I don't like the view of government held by the GOP and its corporate masters.

Regards,

D-Ray

why confuse the teabaggers with fact? It will only give them a headache.

[piece-itpete]

I see Obama and his not-corporate masters allowed wonderful government regulation to regulate all over the gulf.

So a government by oligarchy is preferred, as we are better off? It's very straightforward to amend the Constitution.

Pete

PS Boy D you're as feisty as I've seen you :)

[noonereal]

I see Obama and his not-corporate masters allowed wonderful government regulation to regulate all over the gulf.

So a government by oligarchy is preferred, as we are better off? It's very straightforward to amend the Constitution.

Pete

PS Boy D you're as feisty as I've seen you :)

obie takes pride in compromise

he can kiss my so*buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey* *buttmonkey**buttmonkey*t butt

we need a man of principle to stand tall against this corporate aggression

[JonL]

A look at industrial history shows that growth of government coincided with better health and working conditions for the people. The length of the work days/weeks, the danger faced by workers, discrimination against classes of workers, the impoverished conditions of those too old to work, the financial hardship on injured workers, and the polluted unhealthy living conditions for working families have all diminished in the wake of labor laws, health laws, social security, workers compensation, civil rights laws, safety regulations and environmental regulation.

Those laws and regulations all required a growth in government. The improvements in environment, health and working conditions did not occur by the operation of the profit motive and the "free market." Indeed, unbridled capitalism made virtual slaves of industrial workers - and in many instances reduced them to chattel. Injured workers were damaged goods to be disposed of because they did not create sufficient profit.

The desire of the GOP and their corporate masters is to eliminate the labor protective regulations; to eliminate environmental regulation that stands as a barrier to immeasurable loss of our natural resources; to eliminate health protection for those at greatest risk to disease and injury; to eliminate the ability of workers to join together for mutual aid and protection; to eliminate financial security at the end of a long working life - essentially eliminate any governing that stands in the way of the greatest possible return on capital investment.

I don't like the view of government held by the GOP and its corporate masters.

Regards,

D-Ray

Bravo.

[noonereal]

what is the difference between serfs and teabaggers?

[JonL]

I see Obama and his not-corporate masters allowed wonderful government regulation to regulate all over the gulf.

So a government by oligarchy is preferred, as we are better off? It's very straightforward to amend the Constitution.

Pete

PS Boy D you're as feisty as I've seen you :)

The system is broken and needs to be repaired.

One can see the dangers of the GOP position without believing that Obama is a reasonable standard for comparison.

Simply crying "Obama!" to refute thoughtful critiques of the GOP/corporatist ideology is a nice diversionary tactic, but it's devoid of any thought.

[piece-itpete]

Crying that the GOP is a tool of their corporate masters is a nice diversionary tactic, but it's devoid of any thought.

Consider that the congressional Dems are a fair bit wealthier than the congressional GOP overall.

And the unions in question are government unions, not private sector. Purchasing agents of the world unite? Doesn't have the same ring to it ;)

Pete

PS - you got me noone. What's the difference? :)

[finnbow]

what is the difference between surfs and teabaggers?

Serfs were smart enough to know they were getting sh*t upon.

[d-ray657]

Are we talking about serfs?

[finnbow]

Are we talking about serfs?

Or maybe smurfs.

http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/z-smurf.jpg

[noonereal]

Crying that the GOP is a tool of their corporate masters is a nice diversionary tactic, but it's devoid of any thought.



pete

you have got to be kidding

yes both parties are but the dEms are passive and the GOP active in rallying support for these robber barons

[noonereal]

Are we talking about serfs?

ok, ok serfs

[d-ray657]

Maybe I am feisty, Pete, but it's because I took some time to think about what the smaller government that the right is seeking will do - or more importantly - will not do.

I'll grant that too many Dems are too deeply into the pocket of the lobbyists, but the Democratic Party is not the party chanting the mantra of smaller government. I won't say that the size of a legislator's bank account is entirely irrelevant, but it is considerably less relevant than the policies the legislator advocates. As a whole, the GOP is much more strident in its advocacy of lassiez faire toward the corporatocracy than are the Democrats. I deeply believe to the point of fiestiness ;) that the regression advocated by the GOP, particularly the Tea Partiers, will result in greater corporate freedom and lesser individual freedom.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Just because they were the elite doesn't mean they were elitists (taps side of nose).

Rob, far be it for me to besmerch Canada! But colonising aside, couldn't the, um, experience the English had with the US have had something to do with their new and improved way of dealing with Canada?

Pete

I don't believe they "dealt" one way or another with each other, all the people who left the US after the rebellion were Empire Loyalists and far happier with the crown than with the confederacy. There was some fighting with the '54/40 or fight' crowd and the Fenians, but it never really amounted to much. The War of 1812 was simply a diversion.:p

[piece-itpete]

Heck D don't unfeist :), spirited is good. I agree that you've got reason from your POV too.

I see that the Dems have done nothing for me. They're going to the mat to protect people who've ridden the gravy train for years, my view. Dems, GOP, Pres, Congress, I haven't gained a single day off from them regardless, only by my own actions & choices.

So I hope my owners make more money. Heck I hope they get filthy rich. Because my raises, my time off, my benifits are far more effected by that than anything else.

There you have it ;)

On a more general note I'd like to see a devolution to the States. Give them the responsibilty, and yep that means higher State taxes, but also a cut in Federal.

Pete

[merrylander]

I guess 'smaller government' is why the Goopers are holding up so many of Obama's appointments.

Yeah we need smaller government, let's shut down the FDA, would you like a side order of E-coli to go with that salad?

[finnbow]

On a more general note I'd like to see a devolution to the States. Give them the responsibilty, and yep that means higher State taxes, but also a cut in Federal.

Pete

On its face, it sounds good. Then again, you're not black living in Mississippi.

[piece-itpete]

So Mississippi would be able to keep them from moving somehow?

Pete

[finnbow]

So Mississippi would be able to keep them from moving somehow?

Pete

To Alabama, Louisiana or Arkansas? Same diff.

[d-ray657]

So Mississippi would be able to keep them from moving somehow?

Pete

"Mississippi, Love it or leave it."

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

"Mississippi, Love it or leave it."

Regards,

D-Ray

It's sometimes difficult to leave when you're hanging by your neck from a tree (historically speaking, of course).:o

[BlueStreak]

Blue, do I get extra credit for 'besmerch'? :)

Pete

No, you spelled it wrong. I'm docking you two days pay.

"besm(i)rch."

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Dang!

Pete

[d-ray657]

Maybe you can make up for it if you use "antidisestablishmentarianism" in a sentence.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Double dang lol.

Pete

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

I know I'm several pages behind. You folks are quick.. But I wanted to make a couple comments about your uniquely anti-freedom screed below...

I don't like the fact that ANY governments have the fearsome armaments they do, and I certainly don't agree with US foreign policy more often than not. That really has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want any individual wackos running around with rocket launchers or even assault rifles. All that BS about watering some metaphorical tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots is a nice sound bite. Tell that to the families of Columbine, or Virginia, or the Gifford tragedy, or... on and on and on and on and on. Far more people have and will be killed by psychos with weapons they shouldn't possess than will be killed in any armed struggle that actually results in "freedom." Freedom from what??? Freedom for whom? Freedom these days is a word that really means "We at ACME Mega Corp want to poison your groundwater with hyrdofracking, spill millions of gallons of oil into your waterways, modify the genetics of your crops to force you to use our herbicides (and then sue your ass when your natural crops get contaminated by cross-polinization), invent ridiculously convoluted financial derivatives to steal your money, etc etc... and do it FREE from regulation and FREE from taxation. You think any of this BS about "freedom" has anything to do at all with helping the INDIVIDUAL? Laughable.


There are far more individuals who have excercized their 2nd Amendments to protect their lives, their family, and their property from the same kind of crazies -- then we lost to the crazy sect at Columbine or Virg. Tech. Those individual stands represent the important basic freedom to provide security for one's own security, life and property. The right to bear arms DISTRIBUTES the protection of freedom and liberty rather than giving sole responsibility for that protection to the concentrated entities that bomb 6 countries in one year and declare us at peace with the world. The expectation that a govt who declares they will no longer respond to private security alerts (many local govts), will arrive at your grannie's home BEFORE she gets knocked out and robbed (or worse) is what is laughable.

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week."

The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

I know --- it's ONE school shooting cut short.. But trust me, I could provide thousands of data points per year where the exercise of 2nd amendment freedoms secured life and property.

In general, my leftist buds have unrealistic expectations for paternal charity and security of govt. They can barely smell freedom when they have their hands on my kids' lunchbox contents, the design of my car, my toilet, and my lightbulbs, my fried chicken. Generally the same people who are fond of gun control -- are they not? No wonder most leftists belittle the concepts of freedom and liberty. It simply stands in the way of dictating every facet of daily life by those who can seize the power to do it.

As far as some your enviromental worries and hallucinations, energy and the enviroment is my favorite topic. It's out of thread context here to pursue.

Except that I WILL mention the recent opposition to fracking is somewhat weak in their proof of actually damage from the practice. Imagine my surprise to find out that the water table below a mineral field that is rich in hydrocarbon soup has detectable "odor" or traces of benzene in it. They are fracking there BECAUSE of the existence of these hydrocarbon components!!!!!!!!!! In one PBS special on fracking, the EPA has delayed 4 years to disclose the results of tests on the water table below a fracking field and PBS EDITED out the specific results. Such is the unbiased, scientifically informed, superior journalism spawned by public funding.. and the absolute security of relying on the EPA for actual science or health.

When folks are complaining that their water smells like distillates,maybe, just maybe, someone should be suggesting we remove the REAL source of their water pollution and pump out the gas... They live on top of frackin' field of petro stew.... Enviro-whacks would NEVER consider that logical possibility.

[BlueStreak]

All one needs to do is look at the environmental disaster we had going on BEFORE the EPA. Which wasn't really all that long ago, to see the truth. I remember seeing oily, iridescent slicks and thousands of dead fish lining the shores of Lake Erie for one small example. We don't trust industry to self govern on environmental issues because they have demonstrated in the past that they will follow the bottom line to disgusting levels of abuse if left to their own recognizance. Something about history, and those who fail to remember...................Do anti-Enviro-whacks ever consider THAT logical conclusion?

Have a good look at what unfettered Capitalists will do to the environment if given half a chance. Have a good look at what they are doing in China, as we speak.

Dave

[flacaltenn]

"Unfettered capitalists"? In China? LOL
Next you're gonna trot out the exemplary enviro record behind the Iron Curtain..

The feds have ALWAYS been in the forefront of enviro destruction.. Most nuclear dumping issues stem from the weapons labs- not the power nuke industry. The wonderful public works dams that screwed up the river courses and bond up the salmon (now the e-whacks want to undo those). Adding MTBE to gasoline for clean air ended up poisoning ground water around the country. Selling the forest resources off for virtually nothing? The creation of all those coal fired plants for the TVA? (govt is slow to fix that one huh?) These BUREAUCRATS don't walk on pristine water my friend.

Ask a few friends whether they want the local forest managed by the Nature Conservancy or the BLM. You might start rethinking the centralized management of a sluggish, chronically under-motivated govt.

[JonL]

JonL:

I know I'm several pages behind. You folks are quick.. But I wanted to make a couple comments about your uniquely anti-freedom screed below...


BIG SNIP


In general, my leftist buds have unrealistic expectations for paternal charity and security of govt. They can barely smell freedom when they have their hands on my kids' lunchbox contents, the design of my car, my toilet, and my lightbulbs, my fried chicken. Generally the same people who are fond of gun control -- are they not? No wonder most leftists belittle the concepts of freedom and liberty. It simply stands in the way of dictating every facet of daily life by those who can seize the power to do it.

"Anti Freedom?" Hardly. I wouldn't oppose sensible regulations on the ownership of weaponry. Unless you feel that it is your constitutional right to own a nuclear weapon, then we agree in principle on this. We might differ on where to draw the line. Where do YOU draw the line? Wherever you draw the line, does that also make you "anti-freedom?"

I also question your statistics regarding the role of guns in the prevention of crime. I don't have time to research this more right now, but from the Brockton Police Dept website (I have no idea where Brockton is) : http://www.brocktonpolice.com/crimeprevent/gunsafety.htm

* There are 200,000,000 privately owned guns in the U.S.

* Every 50 seconds a crime is committed with a gun. (Edit: My math comes up with 630720 gun crimes a year.)

* 1,500 people die each year from gun wounds; 550 of them are children.

Somehow I doubt that gun ownership makes a very significant dent in those statistics - except perhaps to make them worse.

As far as some your enviromental worries and hallucinations, energy and the enviroment is my favorite topic. It's out of thread context here to pursue.

Except that I WILL mention the recent opposition to fracking is somewhat weak in their proof of actually damage from the practice. Imagine my surprise to find out that the water table below a mineral field that is rich in hydrocarbon soup has detectable "odor" or traces of benzene in it. They are fracking there BECAUSE of the existence of these hydrocarbon components!!!!!!!!!! In one PBS special on fracking, the EPA has delayed 4 years to disclose the results of tests on the water table below a fracking field and PBS EDITED out the specific results. Such is the unbiased, scientifically informed, superior journalism spawned by public funding.. and the absolute security of relying on the EPA for actual science or health.

When folks are complaining that their water smells like distillates,maybe, just maybe, someone should be suggesting we remove the REAL source of their water pollution and pump out the gas... They live on top of frackin' field of petro stew.... Enviro-whacks would NEVER consider that logical possibility.



Calm down. No need for name calling.

I'm interested in freedom, and I understand full well that what I want to do with my freedom may well conflict with what you want to do with your freedom, and certainly my desires may conflict a lot with those of ADM, Monsanto, BP, Halliburton, etc. In a modern, populace society with tremendously powerful technologies available, something called "compromise" is required. We all have to give up some of our freedoms and desires in order to peacefully coexist. The restrictions on our freedoms should obviously be minimized. Unfortunately, our government, who's job it is to create reasonable regulations to allow us to peacefully coexist, has been corrupted by very powerful interests. The answer IMO does not lie with ceding all responsibility to the most powerful entities who will run roughshod over us (those being largely the big corporations), the answer is to fix our government, and that requires that individuals become educated and concerned about the world around them.

BTW... from Yahoo news:

The New York Times' Ian Urbina reported over the weekend that, according to a report released by three House Democrats--Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado--natural gas drillers injected hundreds of millions of gallons of 29 known carcinogens into the ground in 13 states while fracking for gas.
Reports Urbina:
Some of the ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many of the ingredients were "extremely toxic," including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.
Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.
In February a congressional investigation found that natural gas drillers injected over 32 million gallons of diesel into the ground in some states during the fracking process.

You know that Cheney got the gas companies exempt from the Clean Water Act, so they are now "free" to do as they please.

Drink up, buddy.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

I just lost my previous response to you, so I'm steaming..

I used to think that the NRA were a bunch of whiners even tho I competed in target shooting matches. But I watched the tortured definitions of assault weapons, saturday night specials, and other total anti-gun nonsense. Including BTW the definition of "child deaths" to extend to 20 year old gang-bangers. So I converted, joined the NRA, and formed an important generalized conclusion. You COMPROMISE on budgets. You COMPROMISE on regulation. But you NEVER compromise on basic principles and rights. Because rights have an eerie way of dissapearing and never swinging back. See the aborted promise of repealing the Patriotic Act, or the acceleration of Imminent Domain law, or the loss of due process due to the War on Drugs.

Seems to me that your principle beef is with evil govt/corp collusion. I heartily agree actually. But leftists and statists in general have cause and effect absolutely backwards on this one.. Corporations don't retain armies of lawyers and lobbyists because they WANT to. They do it because they HAVE TO. THe more that govt buys car companies, defines the content of a turkey sandwich (yes I can quote a hundred pages of Federal turkey meat legislation), and gives the Green Giant an edge over BirdsEye with the definition of a frozen green pea ---- the more corp/govt collusion becomes inevitable and must be regarded as defensive investment from "big business". The solution is to LIMIT the power of govt to define winners and losers thru legislation and regulation and just plain badgering and bullying. The collusion is there BECAUSE we've allowed the feds to increasingly abborate the market.

As to the fracking frackus. I agree that fracking fluids need to be disclosed EVEN IF they are considered proprietary. It's potential dumping of toxics. The public should know. HOWEVER -- most of what you mentioned in terms of chemical pollutants that folks are GUESSING are in the fluids are naturally occuring in the hydrocarbon deposits in huge quantities NATURALLY. People complaining of smelly water living over a nat gas field are usually experiencing methane. Not something that is unexpected at all when you live on top of nat gas field. Those B.T.E.X compounds? They are all hydrocarbon building blocks EXPECTED to be in a nat gas or oil field. So the science of tracing the source of the contamination needs to be allowed to complete before the eco-nuts go and shut down drilling for nat gas for no real reason.

BTW: Geothermal extraction (a sanctioned GREEN alternative) is essentially a mining operation that spews out TONS and lakes full of toxic, and corrosive by products. (Ever wonder about the "circle of death" around a geyser or hot springs?). But yet -- no such panic exists for geothermal energy extraction.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

Here's a link to back up the BTEX "naturally occuring" assertion.. I love energy and enviroment as a topic..


Once released in the environment, BTEX compounds usually evaporate quickly into the air. BTEX can also dissolve in water, and it may be found in surface and groundwater at contaminated sites or in close vicinity to natural oil, coal and gas deposits.

BTEX are naturally‐occurring compounds in crude oil. Benzene for example is found at levels up to 4 g/L in crude petroleum, and can be found in sea water (0.8 ppb) in the vicinity of natural gas and petroleum deposits (IPCS 1993).

BTEX are natural compounds found in crude oil, coal and gas deposits. As such, they may be naturally present at low concentrations in groundwater abstracted from aquifers in the vicinity of these deposits, whether BTEX has been
used in fraccing fluids or not. Hydraulic fracturing may cause a link between BTEX‐rich coal seam and nearby groundwater. The extent and nature of these fractures depend on the depth of the fracturing process and the local geomorphology. After careful modelling and evaluation, the USEPA report concludes that the possible hydraulic connections are unlikely to represent a significant potential threat to drinking water sourced from groundwater
(USEPA 2004).

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coal-seam-gas/pdf/btex-report.pdf


So -- injecting a couple ppb of benzene into a nat gas mine shaft is like tossing an extra chocolate sprinkle on your sundae.

[d-ray657]

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on oil and gas production, but I worked for a pipeline company in another life. The company found an exhausted gas production field that still had great structural integrity. It became a terrific storage facility to level out swings in energy demands. We actually spent a lot of time pumping gas back into the ground.

As I understand it, the reason natural gas accumulates in the first place is that layers of gas impermeable rock are formed above more porous rock, sometimes forming a dome. Where I have a concern with fracking is the potential to interfere with the structural integrity of the geological formations to the extent that gas is able to escape from its confined spaces in an uncontrolled manner. That is what could cause flaming tap water and other compounds seeping into the water and air supply.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Corporations don't retain armies of lawyers and lobbyists because they WANT to. They do it because they HAVE TO.

Hog wash.

They do it to ensure they are free of prison when they make decisions that are immoral and unethical.

[JonL]

JonL:

I just lost my previous response to you, so I'm steaming..

It's happened to me too. I feel your pain.

I used to think that the NRA were a bunch of whiners even tho I competed in target shooting matches. But I watched the tortured definitions of assault weapons, saturday night specials, and other total anti-gun nonsense. Including BTW the definition of "child deaths" to extend to 20 year old gang-bangers. So I converted, joined the NRA, and formed an important generalized conclusion. You COMPROMISE on budgets. You COMPROMISE on regulation. But you NEVER compromise on basic principles and rights. Because rights have an eerie way of dissapearing and never swinging back. See the aborted promise of repealing the Patriotic Act, or the acceleration of Imminent Domain law, or the loss of due process due to the War on Drugs.

You haven't answered my question. Should Joe Blow be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? How about after passing a background check? Should he be able to buy land mines, or cluster bombs, or napalm, or hand grenades? Should he be able to take the Gatling gun off an Apache helicopter, mount it on the hood of his SUV and drive around town? Should an 18 year old high school senior be able to fill up his backpack with hand grenades and go to school? If your answer to any of the above is "no," then you are compromising on your so called basic principles and rights. Hell, the entire constitution of the US (and any other country) is a document that outlines the compromises on basic principles and rights that the framers thought were reasonable and necessary to create a peaceful and enduring society under the rule of law.

I'm far more concerned with the rights we've lost because of the so-called "patriot act" than I am about the restriction of rights created by sensible gun control laws. I'm also concerned about the misuse of eminent domain laws. I'm even more concerned about the super-rights afforded to corporations via the new rulings about campaign contributions.

I think ofttimes liberals and conservatives have more in common than they want to admit. Too bad it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful dialog and reach some consensus because the political parties have more to gain by vilifying each other, and much of the press has more to gain by stirring up controversy than by reporting on the issues and the facts.

Seems to me that your principle beef is with evil govt/corp collusion. I heartily agree actually. But leftists and statists in general have cause and effect absolutely backwards on this one.. Corporations don't retain armies of lawyers and lobbyists because they WANT to. They do it because they HAVE TO. THe more that govt buys car companies, defines the content of a turkey sandwich (yes I can quote a hundred pages of Federal turkey meat legislation), and gives the Green Giant an edge over BirdsEye with the definition of a frozen green pea ---- the more corp/govt collusion becomes inevitable and must be regarded as defensive investment from "big business". The solution is to LIMIT the power of govt to define winners and losers thru legislation and regulation and just plain badgering and bullying. The collusion is there BECAUSE we've allowed the feds to increasingly abborate the market.

Yes, gov't / corporate collusion is a huge problem. The role of regulation has been turned on its head. Government regulation should exist primarily to provide protections for individuals and communities from being unduly exploited or exposed to hazards. The regulations should exist to preserve the individual or community's reasonable freedoms. History has shown over and over (and quite recently) that corporations will not act in the interests of individuals and communities (or of the nation as a whole), and the only backstop is government regulation. The fact that there's a revolving door of lobbyists and legislators (or their staffers), and the overwhelming influence of corporate campaign contributions on legislation is one huge reason behind the regulations that favor industries or individual corporations at the expense of others or of the public. "Regulation" is not inherently a bad thing. It's been bastardized, but it's still necessary. Take your turkey example... If I were to order sliced turkey at the deli counter, I might be thinking of TURKEY. You know, take the bird, slaughter it, clean it, cook it, slice it up, and sell it to me. Nice and simple. Without regulation though, how do I know I'm not getting 51% turkey (including ground up feet, organs, etc, with some other kind of filler, injected with water and some kind of oil to make it juicy, artificial color to make it look good, tons of sodium nitrate to keep it from spoiling for six weeks, tons of antibiotics, MSG to make it taste like something, all molded together and pressed to take on the consistency and texture of real turkey meat, and then wrapped in some skin taken off the birds who died before they were big enough to slaughter. If you don't think the big turkey manufacturers (calling them "farmers" would be a gross insult to the real thing) would do every possible thing they could to maximize their profits while feeding us something barely this side of poison... guess again. I'm glad for the hundred pages.

If the system's broken, fix it. Don't throw it out and expect the corporations to act responsibly towards anything except next quarter's bottom line.

As to the fracking frackus. I agree that fracking fluids need to be disclosed EVEN IF they are considered proprietary. It's potential dumping of toxics. The public should know. HOWEVER -- most of what you mentioned in terms of chemical pollutants that folks are GUESSING are in the fluids are naturally occuring in the hydrocarbon deposits in huge quantities NATURALLY. People complaining of smelly water living over a nat gas field are usually experiencing methane. Not something that is unexpected at all when you live on top of nat gas field. Those B.T.E.X compounds? They are all hydrocarbon building blocks EXPECTED to be in a nat gas or oil field. So the science of tracing the source of the contamination needs to be allowed to complete before the eco-nuts go and shut down drilling for nat gas for no real reason.

BTW: Geothermal extraction (a sanctioned GREEN alternative) is essentially a mining operation that spews out TONS and lakes full of toxic, and corrosive by products. (Ever wonder about the "circle of death" around a geyser or hot springs?). But yet -- no such panic exists for geothermal energy extraction.

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to argue with you intelligently. It does however sound to me like typical industry misinformation and apologist propaganda. Hell, radon is a naturally occurring gas around here. Some people have problems with high radon levels in their basements. It's a significant cause of lung cancer. But it is naturally occurring. Just got a great idea! I'll start renting out my basement to store low-level nuclear waste! What's another bit of radioactivity, after all... there's already SOME there anyway.

More seriously, fracking seems to be yet another example of corporations using technologies that they don't fully understand and can't truly know the short and long term ramifications of. And they use these technologies despite the high likelihood that it can affect the "freedoms" of individuals and communities. They do it out of shortsighted greed, and they get their lobbyists to buy off our government to join them in their collusion to hide the facts from us all.

[BlueStreak]

"Unfettered capitalists"? In China? LOL
Next you're gonna trot out the exemplary enviro record behind the Iron Curtain..



No, the capitalists that bribe corrupt Chinese commie officials to look the other way. Do you really think it's the communist government that's running all of those factories? NO! It's American, European, and Japanese businessmen who know damn well what goes on and don't care. The loose environmental restrictions and non-existent labor laws are why they go there. It's not just to "make inroads into the Chinese market" and we all know it. If it were cheaper to make it here and ship it there, that's what would be happening, but it's not. Is it?:rolleyes:

Pollution was worse before the EPA, because of TVA? Huh? All the mills and factories in this country were owned by the government prior to 1973? Pollution belching vehicles were designed and built by----the government prior to 1973?:confused:

On which smog choked planet does your brain reside?

Dave

[noonereal]

No, the capitalists that bribe corrupt Chinese commie officials to look the other way. Do you really think it's the communist government that's running all of those factories? NO! It's American, European, and Japanese businessmen who know damn well what goes on and don't care. The loose environmental restrictions and non-existent labor laws are why they go there. It's not just to "make inroads into the Chinese market" and we all know it. If it were cheaper to make it here and ship it there, that's what would be happening, but it's not. Is it?:rolleyes:

Pollution was worse before the EPA, because of TVA? Huh? All the mills and factories in this country were owned by the government prior to 1973? Pollution belching vehicles were designed and built by----the government prior to 1973?:confused:

On which smog chocked planet does your brain reside?

Dave

plus one

[merrylander]

"Unfettered capitalists"? In China? LOL
Next you're gonna trot out the exemplary enviro record behind the Iron Curtain..

The feds have ALWAYS been in the forefront of enviro destruction.. Most nuclear dumping issues stem from the weapons labs- not the power nuke industry. The wonderful public works dams that screwed up the river courses and bond up the salmon (now the e-whacks want to undo those). Adding MTBE to gasoline for clean air ended up poisoning ground water around the country. Selling the forest resources off for virtually nothing? The creation of all those coal fired plants for the TVA? (govt is slow to fix that one huh?) These BUREAUCRATS don't walk on pristine water my friend.

Ask a few friends whether they want the local forest managed by the Nature Conservancy or the BLM. You might start rethinking the centralized management of a sluggish, chronically under-motivated govt.

Whoa laddie, the weapons grade nuke stuff was handled, or rather mis-handled - by a lot of private corporations. I can tell you stories about them but then I would have to shoot you. It is only by the grace of God my wife is still alive.

[noonereal]

whoa laddie, the weapons grade nuke stuff was handled, or rather mis-handled - by a lot of private corporations. I can tell you stories about them but then i would have to shoot you. It is only by the grace of god my wife is still alive.

lmao :d

[merrylander]

Some corporations employ legions of lawyers as a business plan. Before the got gobbled up by Alcatel, Lucent had more lawyers on staff than researchers. Their main function was suing everyone and his brother over alleged patent infringement.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

If I were to order sliced turkey at the deli counter, I might be thinking of TURKEY. You know, take the bird, slaughter it, clean it, cook it, slice it up, and sell it to me. Nice and simple. Without regulation though, how do I know I'm not getting 51% turkey (including ground up feet, organs, etc, with some other kind of filler, injected with water and some kind of oil to make it juicy, artificial color to make it look good, tons of sodium nitrate to keep it from spoiling for six weeks, tons of antibiotics, MSG to make it taste like something, all molded together and pressed to take on the consistency and texture of real turkey meat, and then wrapped in some skin taken off the birds who died before they were big enough to slaughter

I hate to have to break this to you, but by neccessity, it is EXACTLY the federal turkey regulations that allow corporations to sell aldulterated, modified meat as "pure turkey". It's by neccessity because we all know what 100% turkey is, THEY (the feds) are defining the MINIMUM standard to be met. So --- read up my friend. The system doesn't do what you imagine it does.. (If you want me to produce some nauseating fed regs on turkey for you -- I'd be glad to)

So if I were you -- I'd start buying Hebrew National because "we answer to a higher authority". Their commercials are spot on for the purpose of this discussion.

“Government regulations say that we can make our Hebrew National hotdogs from frozen
beef. We don’t.
The government says we can use artificial coloring. We don’t.
They say we can add meat by-products. We don’t.
They say we can add non-meat fillers. We can’t.
We’re kosher and have to answer to an even higher authority.

There you go JonL... Market choice in action.. You want an Uncle Sam Hot Dog? Or a purer more "defined" product?

[flacaltenn]

MerryLander (and I hope things are good there)

Whoa laddie, the weapons grade nuke stuff was handled, or rather mis-handled - by a lot of private corporations. I can tell you stories about them but then I would have to shoot you. It is only by the grace of God my wife is still alive.


I probably had the proper tickets, so holster it...

Those Savannah, Hanford, Snake river pollution sites were on FED land, under FED oversight, using FED dollars. The fact that the govt uses private contractors for anything productive doesn't let them skate responsibility now does it? In the case of Apollo, we don't get the spin that Grumman, Hughes, Lockheed and GE got us to the moon now do we?

The FED govt is one of (if not THE) most dangerous polluters in this country.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

You do realize don't you, that a mere 40 years ago, high schools sponsored rifle teams for target shooting on a fairly routine basis. Could have had an incident, but I don't remember any facts relating to high schoolers skirmishing with their school issued match rifles.. Why do you think that was?

I'll answer your question directly.. NO ONE is trusted by me enough to own nukes. Not Obama, not Amadinajob. So those are off the table. I don't need anything swifter than a semi-auto rifle or a handgun in my personal gun locker. HOWEVER -- I'd like to be able to go somewhere and RENT a howitzer for the afternoon. Or maybe actually get a certificate to operate an Abrams Battle Tank during my summer trip to Arizona. How cool would it be to shoot TV sets tuned to MSNBC with a 50 cal wing cannon?

D-Ray:

Yup.. there is a danger that in the nat gas extraction process, you fracture rock and expose the water table to mixing with coal dust or residual petroleum product. But the point is that the eco-whacks are using fracking as the strawdog without understanding the process. Of course, most eco-whack diatribes are short on logic and scientific analysis. You could do the fracking with 100% Perrier water (no fracking fluids) and STILL disturb the water table in some way. Question is -- why are these folks not concerned about the NATURAL risk of living over a huge hydrocarbon vault?

[JonL]

JonL:



I hate to have to break this to you, but by neccessity, it is EXACTLY the federal turkey regulations that allow corporations to sell aldulterated, modified meat as "pure turkey". It's by neccessity because we all know what 100% turkey is, THEY (the feds) are defining the MINIMUM standard to be met. So --- read up my friend. The system doesn't do what you imagine it does.. (If you want me to produce some nauseating fed regs on turkey for you -- I'd be glad to)

So if I were you -- I'd start buying Hebrew National because "we answer to a higher authority". Their commercials are spot on for the purpose of this discussion.



There you go JonL... Market choice in action.. You want an Uncle Sam Hot Dog? Or a purer more "defined" product?

But without federal regulation, there wouldn't even be minimum standards. The federal turkey regulations don't allow corporations to sell adulterated, modified meat as "pure turkey," they restrict the level of adulteration the corporations can include. Without minimum standards, what would "Turkey" be like? Who knows. There would certainly be unscrupulous companies foisting horrible things on the public as "Turkey." Without regulation there would be no need for them to disclose what's inside. The minimum standard is (or should be) intended to ensure that the least common denominator is still safe and that the consumer knows what they are getting. Companies like Hebrew National are still free to exceed that standard. There is still market choice in action. If the regulations and standards are poorly written, they should be improved, and not with the undue influence of the industry.

I've actually been involved with the EPA regulatory process regarding off-highway engine emissions, and I was pretty impressed with the way they went about it. As someone in the business, their regulations were going to increase my costs without a doubt, but as an air-breathing organism, I also recognized the necessity for the regulations and I appreciated the efforts they made to reduce the burden on smaller manufacturers in the process.

You still haven't addressed my question of compromise regarding the personal freedom for individual ownership of highly lethal weaponry.

[piece-itpete]

The gun ownership to crime info would be more useful if it had LEGAL ownership to LEGALLY owned gun crime. I can go buy a illegal gun right now.

I read not that long ago that 50% of businesses in China are owned by the Chinese military.

Pete

[d-ray657]

JonL:

You do realize don't you, that a mere 40 years ago, high schools sponsored rifle teams for target shooting on a fairly routine basis. Could have had an incident, but I don't remember any facts relating to high schoolers skirmishing with their school issued match rifles.. Why do you think that was?

I'll answer your question directly.. NO ONE is trusted by me enough to own nukes. Not Obama, not Amadinajob. So those are off the table. I don't need anything swifter than a semi-auto rifle or a handgun in my personal gun locker. HOWEVER -- I'd like to be able to go somewhere and RENT a howitzer for the afternoon. Or maybe actually get a certificate to operate an Abrams Battle Tank during my summer trip to Arizona.

D-Ray:

Yup.. there is a danger that in the nat gas extraction process, you fracture rock and expose the water table to mixing with coal dust or residual petroleum product. But the point is that the eco-whacks are using fracking as the strawdog without understanding the process. Of course, most eco-whack diatribes are short on logic and scientific analysis. You could do the fracking with 100% Perrier water (no fracking fluids) and STILL disturb the water table in some way. Question is -- why are these folks not concerned about the NATURAL risk of living over a huge hydrocarbon vault?

Maybe it's because, undisturbed by hydraulic pressure, these formations have remained stable containers for thousands of years. That was the point in bringing up my former employer's gas storage facility. The structural integrity of the formation is sufficient to pump millions of cubic of expensive gas feet back into the ground.

I was also mentioning the destruction of the natural containment of the gas to explain the natural gas leaks. That is just another risk aside from exposing ground water to other toxic chemicals. You fracture the rock and put the water table at risk, as you mentioned, and in the process you introduce toxic chemicals. That does not sound like a stable operation to me. Indeed, it sounds unconscionable.

Regards,

D-Ray

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

The gun ownership to crime info would be more useful if it had LEGAL ownership to LEGALLY owned gun crime. I can go buy a illegal gun right now.


what is the damned difference?

the guns are available because of our archaic laws weather they are bough legal or illegal

Good grief:cool:

[flacaltenn]

NoOneReal:

Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn
Corporations don't retain armies of lawyers and lobbyists because they WANT to. They do it because they HAVE TO.

Hog wash.

They do it to ensure they are free of prison when they make decisions that are immoral and unethical.


If you've been damaged --- SUE!!!! There are armies of lawyers taking 100s of Wall Street firms to court EVERY DAY... Unfortunately, you don't hear much about the results because the lawyers suck off so much of the settlements. But I get 3 or 4 notices a month that I've been damaged and if I want to fill out 12 pages of litigation paper, I can recover 7 cents a share...

See -- im the little guy, so when a bond company gets dinged for 128 Million dollars, my damages are in the order of $2.20. I've truly got more financial crisis to solve than that.

[JonL]

JonL:

You do realize don't you, that a mere 40 years ago, high schools sponsored rifle teams for target shooting on a fairly routine basis. Could have had an incident, but I don't remember any facts relating to high schoolers skirmishing with their school issued match rifles.. Why do you think that was?

Neither of us know if there were incidents or not, nor do I see how the controlled use of what were probably bolt action .22 caliber rifles in a target shooting sporting event is even remotely relevant to the situation of unstable people being able to carry arsenals of high capacity automatic weapons around the streets and campuses of our society.

I'll answer your question directly.. NO ONE is trusted by me enough to own nukes. Not Obama, not Amadinajob. So those are off the table. I don't need anything swifter than a semi-auto rifle or a handgun in my personal gun locker. HOWEVER -- I'd like to be able to go somewhere and RENT a howitzer for the afternoon. Or maybe actually get a certificate to operate an Abrams Battle Tank during my summer trip to Arizona.

So, as an "eco-whack" here, I guess it would be fair to describe you as a "gun nut" who just gets their rocks off by making a big noise and blowing something up with a rented howitzer. Strikes me as being more of an unresolved issue regarding feelings of impotence and inadequacy (possibly stemming from childhood), rather than any real concern about "freedom." Thanks for being honest. I'd have no problem with setting up areas where all the psychos and gun nuts can go and rent all the destructive power they want to play GI Joe for the afternoon. Go, have at it, get it out of your system. It'll probably make the world a safer place.

[BlueStreak]

MerryLander (and I hope things are good there)



I probably had the proper tickets, so holster it...

In the case of Apollo, we don't get the spin that Grumman, Hughes, Lockheed and GE got us to the moon now do we?


Ever watch the old clips of people making preparations for the Apollo missions? Corporate logos are everywhere. Rockwell, Lockheed, etc., etc.............
Yes, private corporations did the actual building of hardware, of course they did. And, I don't see that anyone tried to hide that fact. If you didn't notice it, you weren't paying attention.

Dave

[noonereal]

Ever watch the old clips of people making preparations for the Apollo missions? Corporate logos are everywhere. Rockwell, Lockheed, etc., etc.............
Yes, private corporations did the actual building of hardware, of course they did. And, I don't see that anyone tried to hide that fact. If you didn't notice it, you weren't paying attention.

Dave

plus one

but it took government to do it

big expensive government

government that saw the bigger picture

[piece-itpete]

It appears Obama didn't see that particular photo album ;)

Legal vs illegal makes a huge damned difference. I can go to say Chicago and buy a gun illegally, and shot a law abiding citizen with it who I know darn well is unarmed.

Pete

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

But without federal regulation, there wouldn't even be minimum standards. The federal turkey regulations don't allow corporations to sell adulterated, modified meat as "pure turkey," they restrict the level of adulteration the corporations can include. Without minimum standards, what would "Turkey" be like? Who knows. There would certainly be unscrupulous companies foisting horrible things on the public as "Turkey." Without regulation there would be no need for them to disclose what's inside. The minimum standard is (or should be) intended to ensure that the least common denominator is still safe and that the consumer knows what they are getting. Companies like Hebrew National are still free to exceed that standard. There is still market choice in action. If the regulations and standards are poorly written, they should be improved, and not with the undue influence of the industry.


Hate to be a rigorous bore here but your 2nd sentence contradicts itself logically. The truth is federal standards ALLOW the sale of mystery meat and adulteration (not to mention purposefully blurring the concepts of frozen, organic, or natural). Ask any Organic frantic person whether they trust the FEDERAL definition of organic or if they have a 3rd party private certification that they trust more.

Do you trust Underwriters' Labs? Do you trust Consumer Reports? These are all valid alternatives to questionable govt standards that ARE potentially juggled by industry..

And here's the rub. The Feds are NOT experts on every aspect of our daily lives. In fact, I don't want legislation on turkey written without input from the 1000s of experts out there providing the product everyday. So when you say "without undue influence from industry" -- it's trickier than you might think.. Do you really want an energy policy written without input from the big producers? If you do-- we need to live in separate countries..

[merrylander]

MerryLander (and I hope things are good there)



I probably had the proper tickets, so holster it...

Those Savannah, Hanford, Snake river pollution sites were on FED land, under FED oversight, using FED dollars. The fact that the govt uses private contractors for anything productive doesn't let them skate responsibility now does it? In the case of Apollo, we don't get the spin that Grumman, Hughes, Lockheed and GE got us to the moon now do we?

The FED govt is one of (if not THE) most dangerous polluters in this country.

She is fine, they call every so often to see if she is still alive. This was a big private corporation in Ohio who handled radio-active materials as if they thought it was talcum powder.

[BlueStreak]

JonL:



Hate to be a rigorous bore here but your 2nd sentence contradicts itself logically. The truth is federal standards ALLOW the sale of mystery meat and adulteration (not to mention purposefully blurring the concepts of frozen, organic, or natural). Ask any Organic frantic person whether they trust the FEDERAL definition of organic or if they have a 3rd party private certification that they trust more.

Do you trust Underwriters' Labs? Do you trust Consumer Reports? These are all valid alternatives to questionable govt standards that ARE potentially juggled by industry..

And here's the rub. The Feds are NOT experts on every aspect of our daily lives. In fact, I don't want legislation on turkey written without input from the 1000s of experts out there providing the product everyday. So when you say "without undue influence from industry" -- it's trickier than you might think.. Do you really want an energy policy written without input from the big producers? If you do-- we need to live in separate countries..

Perhaps you would rather have your turkey produced, warehoused and delivered to you in the cheapest possible manner? And, no, I don't trust UL or Consumer Reports anymore than I trust government regulators. Are they really any less corruptible? You may think so, but I don't.

I happen to work in the food industry, BTW. So be careful of the claims you make regarding food safety.

Dave

[merrylander]

The gun ownership to crime info would be more useful if it had LEGAL ownership to LEGALLY owned gun crime. I can go buy a illegal gun right now.

I read not that long ago that 50% of businesses in China are owned by the Chinese military.

Pete

You do realize that Congress has told BATF that they are not allowed to keep records of where guns used in the commision of crimes were obtained.

China Govt = Chinese Army = a lot of Chinese coproration.

[JonL]

JonL:



Hate to be a rigorous bore here but your 2nd sentence contradicts itself logically. The truth is federal standards ALLOW the sale of mystery meat and adulteration (not to mention purposefully blurring the concepts of frozen, organic, or natural). Ask any Organic frantic person whether they trust the FEDERAL definition of organic or if they have a 3rd party private certification that they trust more.

Do you trust Underwriters' Labs? Do you trust Consumer Reports? These are all valid alternatives to questionable govt standards that ARE potentially juggled by industry..

And here's the rub. The Feds are NOT experts on every aspect of our daily lives. In fact, I don't want legislation on turkey written without input from the 1000s of experts out there providing the product everyday. So when you say "without undue influence from industry" -- it's trickier than you might think.. Do you really want an energy policy written without input from the big producers? If you do-- we need to live in separate countries..

Maybe my syntax was confusing. I'll try to clarify... without regulation, companies are free to do whatever they damn well please. They could slap a "Turkey" label on anything at all, turkey or not. If they were concerned about lawsuits, they'd put in the bare minimum amount of a turkey product that they thought would optimize their profits balanced by the lawsuits they might lose.

The regulations RESTRICT the amount of adulteration. Maybe not as much as you or I would like, but without the regulations there would be NO control whatsoever.

I'd love to see better written regulations that are more protective of consumer rights than they are of industry profits, and that's a good reason to restrict corporate power over the government. In no way does that mean that organizations such as UL, consumer reports, etc. aren't very valuable as well.

I agree that industry should be consulted in drafting regulations, and that was one of the things that impressed me about the way the EPA went about their regulatory process. I said regulations should be written without UNDUE influence, meaning that the more powerful corporations shouldn't be able to create a self-serving, non-level playing field, nor should the powerful corporations' influence subvert the reasons for the regulations in the first place, which should be to protect the common good and not simply the corporations' interests.

[JJIII]

So, as an "eco-whack" here, I guess it would be fair to describe you as a "gun nut" who just gets their rocks off by making a big noise and blowing something up with a rented howitzer. Strikes me as being more of an unresolved issue regarding feelings of impotence and inadequacy (possibly stemming from childhood), rather than any real concern about "freedom." Thanks for being honest. I'd have no problem with setting up areas where all the psychos and gun nuts can go and rent all the destructive power they want to play GI Joe for the afternoon. Go, have at it, get it out of your system. It'll probably make the world a safer place.

Should we address you as Dr. JonL?:)

[merrylander]

JonL:



And here's the rub. The Feds are NOT experts on every aspect of our daily lives. In fact, I don't want legislation on turkey written without input from the 1000s of experts out there providing the product everyday. So when you say "without undue influence from industry" -- it's trickier than you might think.. Do you really want an energy policy written without input from the big producers? If you do-- we need to live in separate countries..

Then there is no problem because Prince Dickie invited Enron, Exxon, Chevron, et. al. to the White House to write the last energy bill, So how do you like your $4 a gallon gasoline?:D

[Combwork]

I'm not going to take sides with either faction here but this may explain why someone would want to protect themselves, even in a house of worship. The gulf between a group that believes one thing and another group that believes the opposite is growing ever wider. Who's to say that what we see in this video would not escalate in bodily harm to the people praying at some point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0oMKGFTyk

Were the Christians pushing for a confrontation? I can't think of any other reason for them to hold a well organised prayer meeting on the steps of a Church in an area that they knew would attract people opposed to what they were doing. It's an age old practice no matter what the cause. Film it in such a way that the protesters look in the wrong. Prime time TV shows an innocent boy saying his prayers while being spat on by a protestor. Free publicity; all it costs is the price of a blank video tape. Hell, they might even make a profit from broadcast rights.

[JonL]

Should we address you as Dr. JonL?:)

How about Dr. John the Night Tripper? :D

I hope it was obvious that I was (over)reacting to the "eco-whack" moniker. :)

[flacaltenn]

Actually BlueStreak:

Perhaps you would rather have your turkey produced, warehoused and delivered to you in the cheapest possible manner? And, no, I don't trust UL or Consumer Reports anymore than I trust government regulators. Are they really any less corruptible? You may think so, but I don't.


I never buy the cheapest ANYTHING. Learned that from a penny-pinching dad who would buy 12 sponges for a dollar and use one a day because they fell apart. Or who bought the cheaper tires and had them blow out at the rims. That's a choice. Thank God.

If I were king -- I'd have the National Guard blow up every Dollar Store in the country. (Just Kidding.. Seriously,,, just kidding)

And before you accuse me of being insensitive to the realities of poorer folk who can't afford the "better", that's what WalMart is about. (YES FOLKS -- I brought up WalMart in a forum on religion) They will not sacrifice ALL the value in everything they sell. They can't afford to piss-off their clientele. But when it comes to offering the lowest possible price -- they balance their "responsibility" to the customers EQUALLY with the return to the stockholders. Because even tho some of my new buds here won't admit it, you can't offer bundles of returns to the stockholders while you repeatedly rape your customer base..

[flacaltenn]

OK JonL:

Truce.. I reserve the eco-whack moniker for only the hardest cases. I guess when I weigh all the bad effects of govt/corp collusion against a pretty wimpy MINIMAL description of what turkey is --- I'd rather the govt stick to FOOD SAFETY in general and NOT try to define every item I encounter during the day. I have plenty of choices, plenty of 3rd party knowledge and support and somehow I manage to avoid setting myself on fire every day without reading the Federal Register.

Once you allow the FEDS to get to that level of detail, it's IMPOSSIBLE to not invite corporate meddling.

Take energy for example. A little more complicated than a turkey sandwich. Can you define an energy policy (MerryLander you copy?) without knowing what's in the laboratories of all the GIANT corporations around the world? Not an intelligient one.

So you ask for input, fund some development. But now you're already knee-deep in proprietary non-disclosures and preventing the leakage of corporate secrets you might have been asked to keep. How the heck can you NOT expect collusion?

The Fed can cajole, cheerlead, inform, and regulate. They are NOT good at picking market winners/losers or innovation....

[piece-itpete]

...somehow I manage to avoid setting myself on fire every day without reading the Federal Register.
....

ROTFLMAO that's hilarious!!

Pete

[d-ray657]

Actually BlueStreak:



I never buy the cheapest ANYTHING. Learned that from a penny-pinching dad who would buy 12 sponges for a dollar and use one a day because they fell apart. Or who bought the cheaper tires and had them blow out at the rims. That's a choice. Thank God.

If I were king -- I'd have the National Guard blow up every Dollar Store in the country. (Just Kidding.. Seriously,,, just kidding)

And before you accuse me of being insensitive to the realities of poorer folk who can't afford the "better", that's what WalMart is about. (YES FOLKS -- I brought up WalMart in a forum on religion) They will not sacrifice ALL the value in everything they sell. They can't afford to piss-off their clientele. But when it comes to offering the lowest possible price -- they balance their "responsibility" to the customers EQUALLY with the return to the stockholders. Because even tho some of my new buds here won't admit it, you can't offer bundles of returns to the stockholders while you repeatedly rape your customer base..

I think that neither the free marketeers nor the proponents of regulation can expect to be absolutists. There can be no denying that the market influences corporate behavior, but we have seen evidence of the abuses that can occur when there is no regulation.

Accepting that market forces have some influence doesn't mean that keeping the customer satisfied will cure all instances of corporate abuse. I imagine that there was a time when department stores did not want to use African American store clerks because some customers would be offended (I can remember a store manager ditching the application of an African American lady I recommended after I interviewed her). You can be damn sure that Walmart would pay below the minimum wage if they could get away with it. Companies can also keep their customers satisfied by offering lower prices, even if those lower prices result in the community having to ultimately pay the price for environmentally unsound manufacturing methods.

The "invisible hand" just ain't quite strong enough.

Regards,

D-Ray

[flacaltenn]

Piece-ItPete:

Anyone who feels safer because the USDA says that turkey ravioli has to have a minimum of 2% turkey meat, but your frozen turkey dinner has to have a full 2 ounces of turkey meat, needs to worry about spontaneously bursting into flames...

[merrylander]

OK JonL:

Truce.. I reserve the eco-whack moniker for only the hardest cases. I guess when I weigh all the bad effects of govt/corp collusion against a pretty wimpy MINIMAL description of what turkey is --- I'd rather the govt stick to FOOD SAFETY in general and NOT try to define every item I encounter during the day. I have plenty of choices, plenty of 3rd party knowledge and support and somehow I manage to avoid setting myself on fire every day without reading the Federal Register.

Once you allow the FEDS to get to that level of detail, it's IMPOSSIBLE to not invite corporate meddling.

Take energy for example. A little more complicated than a turkey sandwich. Can you define an energy policy (MerryLander you copy?) without knowing what's in the laboratories of all the GIANT corporations around the world? Not an intelligient one.

So you ask for input, fund some development. But now you're already knee-deep in proprietary non-disclosures and preventing the leakage of corporate secrets you might have been asked to keep. How the heck can you NOT expect collusion?

The Fed can cajole, cheerlead, inform, and regulate. They are NOT good at picking market winners/losers or innovation....

I am not suggesting picking winners, so what is sensible about the Fed giving big oil tax breaks for expoiting our oil? You and I (well at least I) kow damn well that lobbyist get to write and re-write legislation to suit the interests of the corporations. Why else does the income tax act have more than twice as many words as the Bible?

We all know, or bloody well should knoe, that when the Supremes legalized bribery we started down the road to hell.

All I know is that where I came from there are regulations designed to protect the public. Energy rates are less than half ours. People have universal healthcare, aged people are looked after and taxes are roughly the same as here. So where did we screw up?

[JJIII]

How about Dr. John the Night Tripper? :D

I hope it was obvious that I was (over)reacting to the "eco-whack" moniker. :)

It's all good. I don't feel impotent or inadequate anymore!:)

[d-ray657]

It's all good. I don't feel impotent or inadequate anymore!:)

But JJ, we've always known that you're a very impotent person.;)

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I'm gonna eat a turkey dinner with 1.8 oz of turkey and play Nugent - 'Spontaneous Combustion', go out with a bang :D

Pete

[noonereal]

I'm gonna eat a turkey dinner with 1.8 oz of turkey and play Nugent - 'Spontaneous Combustion', go out with a bang :D

Pete

isn't he the gun nut?

[piece-itpete]

Yes, the Motor City Madman is a madman :D

I've seen his hunting show - it's a hoot!

Pete

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2009/04/ted-nugent.jpg

[JJIII]

But JJ, we've always known that you're a very impotent person.;)

Regards,

D-Ray

My wife says I'm the most impotent person in her life. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry!:D:(

[noonereal]

My wife says I'm the most impotent person in her life. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry!:D:(

that is really nice

that also gives you a lot of responsibility
;)

[flacaltenn]

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

My argument goes like this. The more detailed the regulation card is played, the more you FORCE industry to "participate". That participation can take a benign form of informing the Feds where they are wrong or mistaken on regs. OR it can be willful attempts to gain market advantage and kill their competition. The left abhors the corporate entity. They treat it as the enemy of the collective. What is the purpose of all this regulation. Is it to PROMOTE efficiency and economic success? Or is to restrain uncontrolled market innovation and growth? Or is it seen simply as just consumer protection? Everyone has a different view of these 3 possibilities. And like I said, I really don't want the reg writers to essentially make law WITHOUT participation from the industry they are regulating..

But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

[BlueStreak]

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

My argument goes like this. The more detailed the regulation card is played, the more you FORCE industry to "participate". That participation can take a benign form of informing the Feds where they are wrong or mistaken on regs. OR it can be willful attempts to gain market advantage and kill their competition. The left abhors the corporate entity. They treat it as the enemy of the collective. What is the purpose of all this regulation. Is it to PROMOTE efficiency and economic success? Or is to restrain uncontrolled market innovation and growth? Or is it seen simply as just consumer protection? Everyone has a different view of these 3 possibilities. And like I said, I really don't want the reg writers to essentially make law WITHOUT participation from the industry they are regulating..

But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

The FDA inspectors are more strict and inspect more frequently than their private counterparts. The FDA doesn't buy any coffee from us, ever, and therefore has nothing to lose in fining us, which they rarely do, because we keep our stuff straight. Our customers, who hire independent inspection firms, do have something to lose, changing suppliers is neither cheap nor easy. The things they find to complain about are very small and easily corrected. Their inspections are always very brief and superficial.

It is a much bigger deal, if we know the FDA inspectors are coming. I see it with my own eyes.

As a consumer; Which model makes you feel safer?

Dave

[flacaltenn]

I'll get back to ya on that question.. Busy day today....

[BlueStreak]

I'll get back to ya on that question.. Busy day today....

I await your predictable answer with baited breath............

Dave

[merrylander]

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

<snip>But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

Having the USDA and Commerce promoting US farm products is corporate welfare, but we can't seem to kill it because of the lobbyists. We shop at specialty food shops because the produce shipped in from CA at the big supermarkets will go rotten if you don't eat it in the parking lot.:p