Frediano

Exacerbated by mankind's tolerance of an added element: forced association. If limited to free association, then at the very least, we've only ourselves to blame for that which we freely associate with. When religion ... and politics ... is limited by the principles of free association, then no such thing as tyranny, inhumanity and war. The enabling characteristic to bring about those is the element of forced association. Example: a gang rape is a pure democracy. The majority votes. Someone is raped. That is forced association. It is also pure democracy. Take away the element of forced association -- that is, the tolerance for forced association, and the balance of the state not tolerating forced association will rush to protect the minority in that instance of pure democracy. It isn't religion by itself, and it isn't democracy by itself and it isn't politics(the art and science of getting what we want from others)that leads to inhumanity. It is the addition of another element: forced association. My theory is that it is our tolerance (and sometimes embrace) of forced association that is at the root of the ills you describe, and that goes well beyond religion. One skin, one driver. On what basis, one skin, other drivers? Individuals freely form societies all the time, and freely leave those societies as well. The difference between a group of folks voluntarily joining and forming a commune in Vermont and advocating those same principles on a national basis based on the ethics of gang rape/pure democracy is the difference between socialism and national socialism. The latter demands forced association, the ethics of a gang rape. We are--were-- a nation of free societies, plural, forming one nation, singular. United We Stand...not United It Stands. America has been indoctrinated into a stupor, ignoring that distinction key to freedom. The reason? Some fringe group of zealots latest really good ideas, freedom be damned.

The analog to a drunk deployed behind the wheel of an automobile not being punished until he injures someone is a drunk firing his .45 randomly and not being punished until he injures someone. Had Rodney King been doing the latter, those same LA cops would have summarily executed him on the spot and received medals for doing so. In real life, Rodney King did the former and was merely spanked for it, ultimately causing the LA Riots when the cops who merely spanked him were found not guilty for merely spanking him. Also in real life, those same LA Riots answered the often asked question, "Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle with high capacity magazine? There is no credible argument that which already happened cannot happen. Where was LA Law enforcement during those riots? They were in a purely defensive crouch, protecting nothing and nobody-- largely on their way out of the courtroom that just acquitted them of spanking poor Rodney, who would someday live to DUI again. Those same cops regularly clean up the pink frothy chunks of victims of DUI on the asphalt in the many instances of drunks who fail to not accidentally hurt somebody else with their forced association behavior. No wonder they spanked Rodney. Possessing the auto is not forced association. Possessing alcohol is not forced association. Deploying the auto is not forced association. Drinking the alcohol is not forced association. Subjecting others to our ability to manage an actually deployed million ft-lbf dynamic event while under the influence of alcohol is exactly the instance of forced association with an absurd belief; the belief that it is reasonable to do so. Drunk while deploying a rolling weapon of mass destruction...

I think I agree. I was thinking how a license to own a gun would compare to drinking out of a paper bag. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, because of the scale. People started drinking out of paper bags because it gave the cops an excuse to focus on the people who were drinking in the open. To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally. Alcohol in Canada is almost three times more expensive than in The States, because of taxes; that just shows what people are willing to tolerate. Thank you to Canada for manufacturing ParaOrdnance high capacity .45s, no matter what their tax structure. And, Yukon Jack, as far as that goes, even though at 100 proof, it goes a bit farther(by 20 proof)in the US than Canada...

A Korean grocer stands in front of his business during the LA Riots, holding an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. The weapon is never fired. The weapon has served its proper design function.

Michael: Re;Then, consider high school. Should an 18-year old be allowed to carry a weapon? Where would that lead? Should a 16 yr old be allowed to wield a rolling weapon of mass destruction? We see where that leads. I lost four friends in HS; they were drunk, in a car, being chased through the night by cops. (I accidentally wasn't with them that night because I was more sensibly chasing pooty tang.) Went over a railroad overpass bridge, lost control of the car, hit a tree, killed all four of them. They were the local few, 'those kids' who sobered the rest of us up just in time for college. That is what adolecents do; they mostly survive adolescence, becuase not all of them do. The ones I worry about are those who don't have close enough examples of 'those kids.' Being the parents of adolescents is doing your best and hoping your kids don't end us as "those kids." Most of us have stories from our adolexcence about "those kids." It is what shocks the rest of us out of our adolescence. Local HS parking lot is full of cars. Local streets are full of adolescents driving cars. Used to be, at least in rural areas, kids -did- take their .22s to schools. They would sit in the cloakrooms until after school, and kids would go plinking on the way home. Post WWII AMerica, awash in surplus guns. You could mail order them out of the back of magazines. One act of mayhem changed that -- Lee Harvey Oswald. It wasn't rare, fringe school shootings back then. But something -did- change in America. JFK's AMerica is a useful 50 yr standback. The number of divorced kids "devastated" (like Adam) by the breakup of his parents. Sure, lots/most by far weather that storm without becoming mass murderers, but we are talinkg about what has changed to drive these fringe few wild at the fringe. Over-normalization. The DSM has exploded. We are at the point where the ability -- the ability -- to concentrate intensely on complex issues is laebeled a form of autism, becuase is it 'abnormal' --- as in, not 'average.' THe Tribes' process of self-policing it's holy Averagness is pushing those who are just 'a little' different towards the fringes, far from the gooey embrace of the Holy Average, and like white blood cells, the Holy Average polices its turf, constantlyu ont he outlook for outliers. Those who are diagnostically/severely different get a bye, because they're not even in the game. (Like my son, with the genetic deletion.) But God help kids that are only 'a little' different these days. DIversity? What we call diversity is some of the most regimented enforced conformity that mankind has ever seen. Between those two cultural epidemics, that is plenty to explain what has changed. We have far more stringent gun control than we did 50 yrs ago, and far more school shootings, even though they are still rare, fringe events in a nation of 320 million people. What has changed at the fringe is not the guns in the basement; what has changed is the above. In Adam's case, consider the alternative universe where those same guns are still in the basement, but Mom and Dad never divorced, and Adam's family was still intact. Adam's father isn't starting a new family with some other woman, and Adam doesn't hate him(and his mother, as well; he shot her in the face, for chrissakes.) In that alternate universe, do we ever even hear about Newtown, CT and the guns in Adam's basement? And so, what is the required element in this tragedy? WIth or without the tribal perseveration on over-normalization, and the intense need to drive the Adams of the world to the looney fringe? regards, Fred

Well, that is how presidents choose cabinet level advisers, I guess that is fair enough. But this is important; are they influential because they are in the cabinet, or are they in the cabinet because they are influential? Said another way, would Kissinger have influenced Nixon whether he was SecState or not? I don't picture many of these paternalistic megalomaniacs being eager power sharers; they might all have considered opinions to a lessor or greater extent, but they also surround themselves with the like minded, insulating themselves in an echo chamber to a lesser or greater extent as well. I think the current POTUS to a greater extent... Obama seems to use his cabinet level positions a little differently. After narrowly defeating Hillary in the 2008 primary, he parked her safely at State where she soldiered on. And looking at the current BenghaziGate whitewash, he also uses those bodies as interference, shielding him from responsibility for his executive policy. He's extended the adage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer; in fact, use their bodies as human shields."

Sec of State is a cabinet level position; the office holder carries the POTUS water overseas, period. Does not set policy, does not make policy. Conveys policy set by the POTUS. That is why there should be little objection to Kerry; Sec of State is not an autonomous position in government. It is all responsibility and no authority; the people who serve as Sec of State actually serve the POTUS, and indirectly, the nation. Hillary did not initiate or implement any policies not initiated/approved by the POTUS, and neither will Kerry. (This current nonsense about firewalling all the blame for Benghazi deep inside the Dept of State is total nonsense; when did the Sec of State become an autonomous position? It is a cabinet level post, serving at the pleasure of and direction by the POTUS, who, although able to freely take advice from same, is ultimately responsible for executive policies carried out by those cabinet level departments.) Kerry's a vet. He came close to being POTUS in 2004. He's for sure qualified to carry the POTUS water as Sec of State, where his politics matter little. The GOP needs to learn where to pick it's battles, because it hasn't won a major one in a long time...and yet, is wearing the blame for every failure of common government.

Selene: I understand Reagan's visceral Cold War hatred of the USSR, and shared it. But it was collapsing on its own; we -knew- they were farming with ox carts in the 80s. Accelerating that sure demise came at the cost of our own. We did not win the Cold War, we ended it... and caught the Cold. We are still coughing up left wing phlegm. That accelerated demise of the USSR -- Reagan's deal with O'Neill for 'a little more guns in exchange for a lot more butter' -- has come at the cost of accelerating our own demise. In the parlance of Big Lie, Up is Down, Left is Right, Black is White DC political speech, they didn't 'save SS' in the 80s, they mutually carved it up for short term goals, in such a way that guaranteed the screwing over of future generations. They added an additional nearly 10% of earnings surcharge on the broad middle class and everyone who paid payroll tax, not to create a 'surplus' in the poorly named Trust Fund, but to raise taxes and subsidize then current spending, period. Instead of leaving that 30 yr period of demographic surplus with a clean credit card and healthy Treasury, we are handing over a busted credit card and a bleeding Treasury. There is no 'fiscal fix' for the current wreck on rails unless it involves a Time Machine, and politicians back then, when this was done, -knew it-. Moynihan, three decades ago, on the floor of the Senate: "God help us when they realize what we did to them." He was talking about us, today, in these bleeding economies. They weren't satisfied with the then current generational surplus(an extra 30 million Boomers at the peak of their earnings and tax paying years.) They spent all of that surplus PLUS borrowed even more from future generations. And Reagan was part of that Grand Bargain, driven by his absolute Cold War loathing of the USSR and his belief that a nation known to be farming with ox carts was going to be a continuing future threat to freedom in the world. 1989: Berlin Wall collapses. USSR is toast. And, so is USA, but the carcass was much bigger. 1991: Not two years after the public failure of centrally planned command and control 'The Economy' running, Carville's 4 word bumper sticker argument cuts through the GOP brain trust like a hot knife through butter: "It's the Economy, Stooopit!" 1992: Nobody much notices when Perot of EDS/Perot Systems/Automated Government Healthcare/Medicare processing systems fame spends 50 million rolling the dice trying to make sure the Clinton's get a shot at implementing National HealthCare. That 50 million investment almost paid off big time. 1992-1994: GOP and Dems afraid to engage in actual debate, the era of full blown clown politics arrives. Clinton levels off Reagan era increased in defense spending...and economies continue to rise, resulting in surplus. If you remember, he campaigned on the absolute need for a 'Stimulus Plan' ... which he didn't get, it didn't pass a Congress with both houses controlled by the Dems! Instead, what was realized was the defense leveling that he initiated-- reduced government spending. And the economies soared... 1994: GOP wins holding skirmish, takes House, has held it ever since. Does this slow down growth of government? Hardly. The National Party has arrived in full force. Comes in choice of two colors, Red and Blue. Jan 1995: Clinton announces "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah" and nation goes to sleep as the National Party ushers in "The Erah Of Really Massive Huge Government." Merely "Big" is so 1984... Was merely accelerating the demise of an already free-falling USSR worth our own demise? Because that, in the end, is Reagan's legacy.

OTOH, it is hard to find any fault with Kerry's qualifications as Sec of State. The position is just not that political -- it is mostly responsibility without authority, carrying out the POTUS policies. Hillary may or may not have agreed with policy, but she was ultimately carrying out Obama's vision as Sec of State. She acted the good soldier in that context, which is why I think it is really weasely for the current meme to be 'State Dept blamed for Bangazhi policies...' That is the Obama Admin slipping another punch, period. Hillary came within a hairs breadth of defeating Obama in 2008 primaries. And then she smiled, and quietly took the thankless job of Sec of State, and soldiered on for the right amount of time. She's left the admin now, in time to prepare for her run in 2016, no matter what she says to the contrary. And if the hapless GOP runs Christie against her, she will wipe him up. I don't agree with much of her politics, but you must admire her as a politician. She is formidable, tough. And, no hope for freedom lovers. The GOP, otoh, is false hope for freedom lovers, and has been for decades. Even Reagan, who traded away a little more guns in exchange for a lot more butter in the 80s, all so he could hasten the demise of a system that was already farming with oxcarts in the 80s...and we knew it. Hastening the demise of the USSR came at the cost of our own. But like all politicians, Reagan is long gone when the piper shows up to be paid for what they once wanted. (I voted for Clark in '80, little good that it did...) Neither wing of the National Party is currently doing anything to avert any fiscal crisis, or even, talking about anything to avert any crisis. I'm not talking about the short term bogus crisis of 'how are we going to keep the gig flying for another 18 months', but the long term real crisis of 'how are we going to avoid becoming overwhelmed by public debt, overtaxed economies flat on their backs, a busted credit card, and politically defined benefits that are sending us on rails to Greece.' They want to glibly 'raise the debt ceiling,' as a 'solution.' Let's make it 'two years' so we don't have to keep being confronted by it. But the former #1 willing holder of US Debt -- the SS Trust Fund -- is no longer that willing lender. When they glibly raise the debt ceiling on its way past 20T, they not only need to find brand new willing debt holders, but at the same time, replace the former #1 debt holder. That painless signature with a pen is fast reaching the end of the line; reality is going to smack us all up the side of the head. All they are doing is making the inevitable worse with every do-nothing one/thousandth measure. Can't even call them 'half measures' they are so lame. We are 30 years past 'half measures.' All that is left is the jockeying for position in the post-crash universe blame game, which is painfully clear is all they are currently doing. Do Dems come out on top of that steaming pile of wreckage? the hapless GOP, who, bereft of ideas for the last 50 years, did more to grow an unchecked federal government than any Democrat? And if neither -- if the growing "a pox on both houses" sentiment grows ever stronger, then who?

The Left's position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is based on the absolute that "rich vs. poor' trumps even KKK sensibilities. As in, Arafat's Uncle Nazi -- Hajj Amin al-Husseini, and his original complaint in BM Palestine in the mid 20's, paraphrased as 'too many Jews buying land in the 'hood.' (Buying land... in the 'hood.) The cause of the strife was the same old same old; newly arriving Jews in BM Palestine were buying land at prices that not even the seller's could afford. Class warfare jealousy and hatred, the very lifeblood of the Left. Literally lifeblood; resulting in the Hebron massacre in '29. We are supposed to believe that there was a Magic Jinn, a kind of 'Maxwell's Demon' (named Max?) on those docks in Europe, sending all the reasonable Jews to the USA and all the baby eating Jews to BM Palestine. Why didn't Jews and Arabs in BM Palestine accomplish what was easily and peacefully done in the USA, which has been, as Americans living side by side? Because America inhibits the underbelly of KKK sensibilities; America diluted those sensibilities( eg, Byrd was just one of 100 Senators, not the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...). And to this day, when we see the pictures of the resorts in Israel next to the squalor of the camps, it is a no brainer which side the Left is going to support, no matter what the self-inflicted KKK origins of their failures. Rich vs. Poor will always trump KKK-- will always trump every consideration with the Left. And from that, Obama's seething hatred of all things Israeli in that still festering 'Rich vs. KKK Poor' conflict is not hard to understand; it is a complete knee-jerk leftwing response.

Whew. For a scary second there, I thought you had misspelled 'Hegel'...

And, they've been at this attack on freedom for at least a hundred years. Read Scott Nearing's "Social Religion" Available free here from Google Books. and especially his "The Next Step: A Plan for World Federation" published in 1922. Available free here from Google Books. Religious zealotry + impatience + existential terror = Progressive Movement: the stealth religion and foundation of the American Theocracy based on "Social Religion." Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...

That proves that the squares are the same shades of grey. I'm not sure at all that the explanation fully explains the -change- in perception. The first time we see that, we see them as different shades of grey. (In fact, some folks are so sure of what they 'see with their own eyes' that they actually get angry at claims that the squares are the same shade of grey.) After seeing the image several times, and understanding that they are the same shade of grey, it becomes -harder- to see them as different shades of grey, just as initially it is hard to see them as the same shade of grey. What in the referenced explanation explains that, and why isn't that precisely relevant to Rand and 'what is' based on what 'we perceive?' regards, Fred

Stephen: Notice in that visual experiment that the -concepts- of 'similar' and 'identical' are at odds in our perception engines, and it is something in our internal weighting of those concepts that results in our perception...which can be subjectively changed with additional information. Objective reality is, they are in fact identical shades of grey...when we weight 'similar greyscale' over other characteristics such as, identical members of a light diagonal rank vs. a dark diagonal rank. But having weighted one metric of 'similarity' over another-- which we do by default, in the wild, when we see this image for the first time without explanation, that weighting actually influences our perception of the lower rated metric(rank over greyscale) and that 'which is.' Is this anecdote, this visual parlor trick, extensible to other areas of perception by analog? And by asking that question, have I introduced onto the following spectrum a new member? "Identity/instance...Identical/class...Derivative/of a derived or base class ... Similar...Analogous...Model of..." And, let me murk up my own post with the following observation; the most positively unique characteristic in that spectrum -- "Identity" -- is not possible without the existence of gradient (the rate of change of something w.r.t. anything else, usually time or space but not restricted to time or space...) It is interesting to ask if Identity is a consequence of gradient, or gradient is a consequence of identity, because they are inexorably lock-stepped. regards, Fred

Stephen: I enjoyed this exchange because a] it provided the link to your 2004 article and b] it resulted in those 12 links above. Thank you. One of the things that struck me from your 2004 paper was the following observation: "When we pick up a ball, our sensory systems measure it in several ways. When we perceive a similarity between two items, according to Rand’s account, we are perceiving some same characteristic(s) they both possess in different measure or degree (1966–67, 13–14; 1969–71, 139–40, 143). They both possess that characteristic in some measure or degree. Items of their class possess that characteristic in some degree, but may possess it in any degree within a range of measure delimiting the class (Rand 1966–67, 11–12, 25, 31–32)." I've posted references to the following easily accessible experiment in human perception using our senses several times in different forums. I offer it not as a contradiction to Rand's concept of 'possess,' but by including Man in the universe of objective things which possess characteristics, to illuminate(no pun intended, once you see the reference)the nature of that which Man does. It is, to me, an objective experiment that reveals the machine inside of Man, and if Man is going to accurately perceive that which is, that must include an understanding of his own means of sense and perception. (This isn't a contradiction of anything Rand ever posited; I think, instead, it is an illumination of what conclusions we can reach from what she posited.) The experiment is the checkerboard illusion. Squares A and B are objectively exactly the same shade of gray, guaranteed. But this illustrates the perception machinery inside of Man. Almost everyone seeing the image below for the first time sees squares A and B as being different shades of grey; the amazing(to me)thing is, that after understanding the image, it soon enough becomes difficult to see the squares as being different shades of grey. That process of change of perception, to me, illustrates the machinery of perception inside of Man, and our ability to re-weight what we 'value' when interpreting the sensory inputs delivered to us. And, understanding that part of Man, as he is, in this universe, is part of understanding that which is. regards, Fred

Good work, Kyle. The unfettered state; imagine what good we could do. Imagine what progress we could make with implementing Jesus' mission here on earth, if only we unleashed the guns of government. Imagine the Social Democrats in 20's Germany, the enabling cheerleaders for "Ein Reich, Ein Volk,..." being brushed aside by the meateaters, saying this is not what we intended on the way to those camps. They thought they were unleashing the Great Volksgemeinschaft. ("People's Community.") What they were unleashing was The Shaft. For everybody and then some. The meateaters(the Nazis/Commies)brushed aside the polite enablers, barely said 'thank-you' for unleashing the unfettered state, and then proceeded with their little Totalitarian Turf War, the Nazi Crips against the Commie Bloods. Which ones weren't the Totalitarian street thugs? Meanwhile, our newly re-elected POTUS is over in Cambodia/Kampuchea breaking bread with the former generals who ran the Khmer Rouge; those wascally Agrarian Marxists who brought us The Killing Fields on the way to "fundamental change" in their version of a People's Paradise. This was right after paying tribute to the strong-armed socialist generals running amok in Burma and murdering their citizens. I guess he wants to learn how it's really done.

The distinction between Individualism and Collectivism is not "I/We;" it is free association vs. forced association. And when that distinction is clearly painted, nobody in their right mind will line up and march behind forced association. So, when is that distinction going to be clearly painted? The sooner the better, for freedom not from societies, plural, but "S"ociety, singular. We should never conflate the concept of 'one nation' with 'one "S"ociety. We are a nation of free societies, formed freely by free people, under rules of free association. And we should never ne duped by histories latest tyrant wannabee into believing we are "ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer"-- no matter what Holy cause has got the latest charismatic nut with his eyes rolled into the back of his head, overwhelmed with the purity of his cause.

I have a question about redistributive Progressive taxation. Suppose I proposed a tax scheme in which the top 1% paid 199 times what the bottom 1% paid; is that Progressive 'enough?' Then, suppose I proposed a second scheme in which the top 20% paid an infinite amount more than the bottom 20% paid; is that Progressive enough? Plan 1] Uniform flat tax applied to population with uniform distribution of incomes. Bottom 1% pays 0.01% of total taxes. Median 1% pays 1% of total taxes. Top 1% pays 1.99% of total taxes(199 times what the bottom 1% pays). Progressives: "Not Progressive enough!" Plan 2] Uniform flat tax applied at marginal rate above uniform exclusion level that exempts bottom 20% of taxpayers. Everyone gets same exemption, everyone pays same marginal rate above exemption, effective tax rate of bottom 20% is ZERO, effective tax rate approaches marginal tax rate as income rises. Progressives: "Not Progressive enough!" Huh? Based on what religious theory?

I've asked my left leaning friends for decades to name even one thing that any of us does as a member of a quintile, decimile, or percentile. After decades of no answers, I'm even willing to accept a totally made-up action, like from a lost episode of Star Trek. Nothing. Nada. The IRS 1040 clearly says INDIVIDUAL at the top of it, not QUINTILE, DECIMILE, or PERCENTILE. We don't vote, we don't meet, we don't spend, we don't plan, we don't marry, we don't buy, we don't sell...we don't do -anything- as a quintile, decimile, or percentile. We don't even remain in the same quintile, decimile or percentile over the course of our lives. If pressed on our own, using our own senses(as opposed to accessing manufactured data from Census), we as individuals would be hard pressed to accurately sense or gauge what quintile, decimile, percentile we were forced association members of. Consider quintile statistics. It's as if, once a year throughout the course of our lives, we were all asked to pile onto one of five freight trains, to have the freight train sum of income added up. But, the freight train never goes anywhere or does anything as a freight train. We get on, we have the freight train income added up, and then we get off. Except for one thing; we don't even get on the freight train once a year; there is no freight train. And yet, those manufactured statistics are the intellectual basis for fully half of modern politics. The theoretical distribution, we are told by religious zealots based on their faith, has some meaning, and it is the proper function of government to show up with guns and bulldozers aimed at -real- individuals, based on their individual income, and via force move the theoretical piles around in those non-existing freight trains. And we accept their arguments based on what? When they can't even come up with a single example of an action by a quintile, decimile, or percentile in our economies, plural? There is no economic actor or actors in our economies that act as quintiles, decimiles, or percentiles; there are no acts identifyable by same, and so, there are no such actors. The Emperors of Redistribution have no clothing. So what, exactly, is the justification for directing state force to redistribute the quintile, decimile, or percentile distribution of -anything-? What is the basis for the left's political embrace of forced association in a free nation?

What Dennis said. America is confused about America, and so, has no prayer of rationally defending itself from theocratic radicals. We have our own internal theocratic radicals to deal with. Scott Nearing "Social Religion" Progressives are theocrats. So are the confused right wing religious conservatives who conflate private and public religion(both guaranteed rights) with political religion(because this is prohibited.) America's internal theocrats come full circle -- the Pregressives from the left, the right wing political religionists from the right, to create the current confused, muddled America. We are not a theocracy, and more important, the fundamental idea of a secular America is a direct threat to theocratic power anywhere in the world for as long as America prospers and is not seen fleeing falling towers and bleeding from its economic a$$. The theocratic political contexts in the world -- primarily radical Islamic theocracies, including defacto theocracies like Bangladesh -- correcltly perceive the idea of America as "It is them or us" from their point of view. And they are right. They cannot maintain political power and continue to control the Muslim Street in their local struggling theocracies for as long as America exists in a postion of world prominence, and so, the now many decades long festering crapfight, a continuation of the Dark Age reaction to modernity. The modern moderates in the Muslim World -- of which there are many -- do not control the Muslim Street. The Old Men in Robes do, and demonstrate that fact constantly. There is an unHoly Holy and uncomfortable alliance between the Old Men in Robes and the Modern-Moderates; the OMIR have substituted "The Great Satan over The Horizon" for "The Rich" in their local carny huckster political play for power over the Muslim Street; the Modern Moderates are relieved of that role... for now. Those may be hovels in Dhaka and Chittagong, but every other one has a satellite dish on it. They -see- how the West lives, and their local OMIR have some 'splainin' to do. So far, through iron fisted control of the culture, the OMIR are winning that PR war. The local misery, squalor, poverty, and even, foul air is all blamed on 'The Great Satan Far Over The Horizon.' They use Hartals -- day long national religious strikes -- to reinforce their defacto power over the nation to the weak civil authorities and even national instruments of defense, who must themselves concede the streets on those days. The Muslim Street is educated from an early age that the West is led by America, and America the state, in writing, is a Godless thing. The most powerful force on earth is thus led by no morality, they claim, and so, is a thing to be feared and loathed. We understand our religious freedom, but we do so in a secular political context; their interpretation of our religious freedom is in their theocratic political context. That is ultimately intractable; either we defend our freedom, literally, or they assert their theocracy. There is no compromise in those positions, only an uneasy standoff. This conflict will rage forever until one or the other context fades. And, America is confused about America, because we are over-run with our own breed of theocrats. Freedom is waging both an external struggle and an internal struggle.

I always thought a crypto-nazi was the guy on the U-boat who operated the Enigma.

Section III Strengthening the Role of Major Groups Pause a moment, read that title, and try not to giggle. I can't help but hear that being spoken with a slight lisp, like, by some earnest freshly scrubbed Ezra Klein cupcake. "Thtrengthening the Role of Major Groupth' Apparently, thomeone woke up one morning and wath overcome with the need to strengthen the "Role of Major Groups." Or as I like to remind myself every morning when I am brushing my teeth, "Fred, don't forget to Think Globally but Act Locally today; it's going to be a hot one out there." In the end, the world was over-run with such ... goo. We can spend too much of our lives wiping our feet these days.

Let's skip right past Drug Control Laws, and create the next failed prohibition black market. Subtract gun deaths associated directly with Drug Control and then let's see what is left in a nation of 330 million people. When I point this out to folks I'm often asked 'Then do you want to legalize drugs?" And the point is, has it made any net positive difference that we we have not? I don't see Anheuser-Busch machine gunning barrels of Miller Lite in our cities. And alcoholism is as lethal and destructive as its ever been. But we don't have a border war with Canada, influenced by Canadian Beer Cartel leaders trafficking in Molson Golden Ale. A ban on guns will not do anything to make the Drug War less lethal; it will create a new lucrative black market period. Are we insane? Maybe if we became more like East Germany and a totalitarian police state, then -maybe- we could put a dent in the War on Drugs. No f'n thank-you, that would be a state worth destroying.

"He knew they would be back. So, he called police to report the burglary, but he also armed himself with his 9 mm pistol and slept in a chair in the front room that night. And when three people broke in about 3 a.m., Whitfield shot one of them, leaving the man dead on the kitchen floor." At that point, he wasn'r confronting burglars; he was confronting robbers. Burglars are smarter than robbers; robbers are stupid as hell, and there is no reason to place your life in their incapable hands. No homeowner has ever woken up and confronted a burglar, by definition. Burglars are never shot by homeowners; only robbers.

Brant: MAD effectively worked; I wasn't criticising it at all. That whole issue was binary: MAD either worked, or nothing else mattered. The experience we have is for two 20 kTon blasts (0.020 MT) We can't even imagine what a 50 Megaton detonation burst would be like over a city. The airtests of the H2 weapons were crippled below maximum yield. What is nearly incomprehensible at a crippled near 60 MT was in theory capable of 100 to 150 MT at full yield. The point I was trying to make was, their factual damage was their theory of politics, which we seem to have been infected with. The hypothetical damage from an exchnage of modern weapons would be beyond imagination even if just a few of the thousands were successful. It is the actual damage from their politics that we are experiencing. The infection lingers. America thinks it is now safe to wax Totalitarian. It's not. We as a nation are no more educated or enlightened than the Germans who succumbed to existentially terrified philosophers from the 1800s. Our pinheads read the same slop. MAD worked because both sides knew it could never be allowed to happen, there would be no winner. The problem with the lower key political confilct has been both sides think their politics is doable, like an inconsequential choice, their vanilla to our chocolate, so take our pick. It's more like a choice between poison and food, or when we endlessly compromise away our freedom, between a little poison in our food and a little more poison in our food, to be repeated because so far we're only sick not dead, and we have poison sellers convinced the reason we're sick is because we haven't swallowed enough poison.. regards, Fred