Stonehead

[video:youtube]v=6nf1OgV449g Fast forward to about 2:08 for those of you who don't have 3 minutes of time. The Swiss have a militia system where citizens are armed with military grade firearms. Despite that, the Swiss are not afflicted by a high number of gun shooting deaths and their gun crime rate is so low as to be virtually nonexistent. Granted, Switzerland is a less populous country than the US. It seems to indicate that although guns are contributory they are not the cause of violence. Perhaps there is something else that is endemic to the US that leads to violence. And if you think it’s confined to guns, think again. If you ever been on the receiving end of road rage, you’d know what I mean. [video:youtube]v=2TVooUHN7j4 Of course, this doesn't mean by default that everyone should have access to similar weapons. And, I'm not saying that guns are always the answer. Possessing one is analogous to training in other self defense skills such as martial arts. One doesn't train in order to attack people but to have something to counter the threat to one's being or family.

We'll see what the extent of that control at the state and city level of jurisdiction is after McDonald v. City of Chicago is decided. High court to define reach of gun-control laws

You actually have a more astute understanding about the meaning of that article than anyone else. The content of that article has less to do with evolutionary theory as much as it does with Social Darwinism--two different things. “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell

Politics is widely considered to be the art of manipulating people to a particular goal. My understanding is that the historical process is a juggernaut. Despite our democratic illusions, the majority of us are powerless to influence the means. With this understanding it is fundamental to envision where we are going. William Blake calls for a new Jerusalem arising among the ‘dark satanic mills' (and by Jerusalem I take that to be symbolic of a new center, that perennial metaphor where meaning derives). But, even though Blake’s imagery is evocative, I’d bring it forward to a more current understanding of society formulated in the thought of Lewis Mumford. Technology was the central thought of Mumford’s writing and especially where technology intersects the human dimension. So, the concept of alienation (Marcuse) is brought to the forefront and the primary question is whether all politics can be condensed to a politics of meaning, because it doesn’t truly matter what system exists, if we live in a realm where human value and dignity are reduced to being a cog in the machine. This is where the liberal (pardon me, the progressive) appears disingenuous when he speaks of helping his brothers yet laughs derisively at the ‘folks of Wal-Mart’. Paradise on earth is a political existential vision which in reality is reflective of a situation where earth appears more as a prison or more appropriately could be referred to as hell on earth excepting, of course, those at the pinnacle of the social pyramid. All that altruistic crap is just that—crap. When envisioned in its entirety, the Democratic Party platform follows the prime objective which is the pursuit of power. One could just as well speak the same of the Republicans. And here is what we have: A world where meaning is debased to temporal visceral pleasures, the pursuit of power for its own sake. Ken Wilber spoke of this surrogate gratification where sensual desire is a replacement for real fulfillment by which is meant a meaningful existence that is rooted, not solely in the body but transcends it. Maybe it’s crazy to imagine a third way but if it were possible as reality, one should be able to conceive it mentally then articulate it. All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. T. E. Lawrence, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" [video:youtube]v=SZxgtUANXpU

There may be hope yet. Greenspan speaks... “I hope we can find a way of resurrecting the subprime market,” because it was working well until those mortgages were widely securitized, he said. Greenspan Says Crisis ‘By Far’ Worst, Recovery Uneven--Bloomberg.com

The mistaken assumption is that the restriction was lifted to allow self defense against wild animals. However, my understanding is that the restriction was eased to allow consistency between state laws and federal law. This is especially pertinent in the western states where there is a large percentage of federal land. Federal Lands in the US See map at link for percentage of federal land in each state.

I don't know if I'm correct on this or not, but wasn't the stage set back in the early 90's with the First Gulf War (which BTW also had its provocative "evidence" such as the incubator story), that essentially there was a long stretch of simmering hostilities (no fly zone, etc) so you could almost say the war began then and continued at varying degrees until present?

Didn't Congress give the President a blank check with passage of the Iraqi War Resolution (Oct 16, 2002)? Was there some reason that Congress did not immediately declare war but instead left it to the Executive branch to wage war without a formal declaration? If I understand correctly, select members of Congress were briefed on many of the actions undertaken by the administration. So isn't that body also complicit? Didn't Congress welsh on its responsibility?

I think you misread this article. It's subtly directed at our Second Amendment rights (well, at least those citizens who still take stock in the Bill of Rights). The article starts out serious but then it takes a slight turn with his solution to the problem of regulating potentially dangerous weapons (supposedly the car or airplane). Then read the next paragraph...

I'm pretty sure all he was talkin' bout was puttin sum food on the table. [video:youtube]v=516v4O2kR8M

Should a wave of sovereign debt crises sweep throughout the developed world, it'd be a good time to be uber rich and privileged. [video:youtube]v=0VnIrXmdYhY Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

Who was it, Vonnegut who said smoking was slow suicide?

Don't ya know that once bombs start falling on Iran then everything will be as right as rain. Military Keysianism!! Hell yeah!!!

Tancredo said f'em if they can't pass a literacy test.

Sarah said it's ok, Not demeaning at all. We should really be focusing on bombing Iran.

Unless they can't find a vein.

Don't ya know we're heading into a repeat of the Dalton Minimum? And all hell's gonna break loose when Yellowstone BLOWS!!!!1

But wait, there's more. "Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House."

Wouldn't legally loose arguments tend to, you know, violate the rule of law, which is supposed to 'represent our values and ethics'? You're acting like the SC squeeked this one by 'on a technicality'. A law that denies a non-profit from running a political ad? Hardly a 'nit' issue. When the rule of law violates basic ethics (corporate money swamping out the speech of the people and corrupting pols in this case) there isn't any point in trying to have a legally consistent argument. I could just as well be reading from the same "book" that you are reading, perhaps not on the same page, but essentially the same one regarding fetishism of the law or the elevation of law to a state of near godlike infallibility. The specifics of this case read almost as an academic exercise. I’d wager that perhaps the central issue of today is the public’s loss of faith and trust in role of government to solve problems and that as we proceed into the near future the erosion of trust will continue on both sides of the political spectrum. How to Get Our Democracy Back--Lessig speaks of the issue raised by this case

cascadeclimbers.com----collapsing probability space into the most (un)likely futures

So is the idea of jury nullification just an outdated concept?

SOL. Yeah, just pointing out the irony that the inception of rights is contingent on a legal definition.

Not interested in getting into a pissing match here, but doesn't it seem ironic that the Court has affirmed the 1st amendment rights of corporations such as Planned Parenthood yet does not recognize any such nascent rights to the unborn? I'm certain there are some legal doctrines that have bearing on this of which I'm not aware (as a layperson). One couldn't compare this to the Dred Scott decision or to the recent decision by the Supreme Court in upholding a lower court ruling ( SCOTUS Petition Asks Justices to Review Torture Abuse Case of British Former Guantánamo Detainees a Second Time

I've heard the answers described as varying from noble to mundane, and even to the pathological. I'd have to say that for me when I was more actively involved, it was a mental thing. Not to say that it wasn't a bodily kinetic thing but something about it (maybe the mtn solitude) always brought it back to the inner dialogue. Sometimes I moved immersed in a state of concentration, other times in a slip stream of consciousness. THe word I might use to describe it is: meditative. I'm sure tho there was some physio-chemical aspect that fed the repetition of this activity. It seems to me if I ever figure anything out in this constant but everychanging life (or a bit thereof), then the time spent was well worth it.

Is it Granhog day yet?