Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 9 Oct 2006 14:49 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:03:48 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>> (possibly part of the problem). >> >>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word >>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. > >The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For >the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US >Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people >prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such >"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. > >I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to >snoop on international communications, or even domestic >communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit >murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in >that order. > >The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled >up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. Hardly, John. I suspect you've not really been reading your history much. The concept of privacy as a right abounds within any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution itself, as well as in the Declaration of Independence explicitly, as well as in the debates over ratification, debates raging in the New York Journal of the day, and in the personal letters -- those anyway for which we still have copies of today. But setting aside those details, of which you appear ignorant, there was also quite a deep concern about rights, generally. Some states had specific declarations that prevented gov't from encroaching the rights of minority groups (majority groups don't need protections, as they can pass laws easily to get what they want.) Some states didn't. On early development of the Constitution, there were no Amendments specifically attached. And there was deep concern among many, including Jefferson who wrote about this lack, that there was a specific need to list at least some of the more important ones so that there would be no possibility of mistake in later generations. Hamilton argued fiercely, though, against their inclusion. He argued that they would become our prison bars, as later generations would imagine that having listed any at all, that those were all there were to protect. Like owning 1000 acres of land and putting up a tiny picket fence around only 1 acre about your solitary home, others arriving into the area might very well imagine that you only claimed just one acre, because that is where you put your fence. Jefferson likened putting out explicit rights very much like this picket fence that later generations might imagine, or be convinced to imagine, was the only real province of their rights. When, in fact, quite the opposite was true -- that the listing of some rights should not at all be construed as to mean that others did not also exist and with equal force, too. So we have the 9th Amendment added, to satisfy Hamilton. It's known as "The Hamilton Amendment." The principle guiding the writing of the Constitution of the US is that "All rights reside within the individuals and that individuals cede to gov't only those rights they deem are necessary for the good of the whole and only for so long as that continues to be the case." The presumption here is that gov't has NO RIGHTS at all and that only individuals innately have rights; that individuals choose consciously to cede only some of those rights to gov't for such good purposes as seem appropriate for a time. The point is that the right to privacy was not some silly concoction to satisfy some weird, twisted means to write Roe v. Wade the way it is. The right to privacy is quite real, apart from any of that. Being ignorant of this is excusable. But claiming that the "current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing," isn't excusable. It's not even enough right to be considered wrong. It's just pure ignorance speaking. Jon
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 15:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ugwWg.21154$Ij.704(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:7Nmdna-JXZt14rfYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:D8tWg.12748$6S3.9188(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way >>>> we are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>>> (possibly part of the problem). >>> >>> I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a >>> word from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. >> >> I agree. In the UK we have an assumption of rights which is not seriously >> different from the Iron Age. There have been periods in our history where >> insane governance has removed or rescinded these assumed rights - but >> this is supposed to be an enlightened age. > > And, to get on my high horse for a just a moment longer....this is > *exactly* what our Constitution was designed to do--prevent insane > governance from tossing out peoples' rights because of the > bogeyman-du-jour. (Sorry for the horrendous phrase coinage there.) It's ok - it made sense to me :-) >>> Until recently, the Republicans liked to trumpet about how precious >>> peoples' rights are, because there are millions of people who have >>> fought and died for them. Then, along comes a President who makes a few >>> major-league blunders, and decides the only way to distract from those >>> blunders is to pull a Chicken Little stunt, and hope that people are so >>> afraid that they will fall to their knees worshiping him and his >>> cronies. All of a sudden, the government is demanding that people give >>> up their rights, as part of the attempt to keep the "sky is falling" >>> illusion. I just don't buy it. Either those rights are sacrosanct (I >>> happen to believe they are) or they're not--in which case the government >>> has no right, ever again, to ask people to die to preserve those rights. >>> They can't have it both ways, and as a populace, we're fools to let >>> them! >> >> I agree, and I would add that not only should they never ask people to >> die to defend them, the government should never try to "force" them on to >> other nations. >> >>>> Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does >>>> annoy me. >>> >>> I agree. Thoughout human history, appealing to fear and anger has >>> proven one of the most effective techniques for getting power over other >>> people. >> >> Shamefully so. > > It is, to an extent, human nature. However, that, in fact, was the basis > of Ben Franklin's famous quote. People who hand trade their hard-won > rights for a little security are the worst kind of cowards. > > >>>>Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and >>>>"multicultural." >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand--can you give some examples? I tend to >>> support this sort of thing more than fear-mongering. There is much more >>> mixing of cultures in the world today than ever before. Plus, as was >>> guaranteed to happen at some point, there is for the first time since >>> the Industrial Revolution, a move toward levelling the vastly disparate >>> standards of living across the globe. I think it's simply the way of >>> the world in a highly technological society, and I think it's important >>> to resist the urge to fight it. There will be some pain (maybe a lot of >>> pain), but in the end, it will lead to a better, more peaceful world. >> >> Sorry, I will try to make it clearer. I am not opposed to >> multiculturalism, I think it is the only way for societies to survive and >> expand. >> >> The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading >> towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of >> religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into >> the hands of the fear mongers. > > Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness > reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone > will point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of > people/groups that are too eager to take offense at what someone says. > It's a hard issue, though, because I also feel that everybody has a > responsibility to respect others' thoughts and actions and choices. I > think the answer is that everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive > to the consequences of their own actions and words, including on other > peoples' feelings, while at the same time being a tad less sensitive to > the consequences of others's actions and words. A noble aim to strive > for, at the least. Part of the problem is an apparent "desire" to be seen to be doing the right thing, rather than actually doing it. The MP in question (in my example) stated he felt he could not communicate properly with his constituents if they wore a veil. A veil is not mandated dress in the Koran. If I went in there with a bikers helmet on he would ask me to remove it and no one would bat an eyelid. (As always IMHO) The problem is this fawning to over-sensitive people (they have a choice - remove the veil or vote for some one else....), creates a situation where idiotic rabble rousers (National Front et al) can easily spin this to get the culturally-challenged sections of our society thinking there is a "Muslim Threat." (This thread appears to support this!). I have no issues with external cultures integrating with the UK, but they must integrate. Arriving and demanding the host culture subsume itself to the arrived one is (IMHO) wrong.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 15:20 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:9owWg.21158$Ij.16734(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:3tKdnV9bh7LRH7fYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:452A6228.3D02953D(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> To be honest an apology should be left to the Pentagon in this case. >>> Arguably >>> the captain should have been court-martialled. He had apparently been >>> behaving >>> like a bear with a sore head all the time the Vincennes was stationed in >>> the >>> region. >> >> I am not sure it wasn't the Captains place. > > Maybe, but at the very least, the US as a nation owed Iran an official > apology. I agree. >> Saying they "did it by the book" is far from sufficient. > > And, in fact, implies the need to rewrite the book. To not do so tacitly > implies that it is OK to kill a large number of another nation's civilians > in a time of peace, for no good reason. Let's pray that no other nation > decides to turn those table on us. Oh, wait. They already did. :-) >> If a group of people I was in charge with did something wrong, it would >> be upon me to apologise on their behalf. The President should have _also_ >> apologised on the Nations behalf. >> >> When I was in the Army (at around the same time) it was drummed into >> every single person, at all ranks, that you were responsible for your >> actions. If you were ordered to fire and it was "wrong" you were not to >> fire. It was that clear cut (and has resulted in soldiers going to jail - >> admittedly not many of them). > > I'm surprised. That sounds like a remarkably un-military way of doing > things. I always thought that the chain of command was to be immutable, > for good reason. No, the Geneva Accords of 1948 and the effects of the War Crimes trials ensure that any nation hoping to abide by the laws of armed conflict make their soldiers aware of the need to exhibit judgement before each round is fired. Soldiers are trained to be obedient, but taking someone else's life (especially in peace keeping operations) is a critical action. As far as I know the British Army still hammer this into it's soldiers (I suspect the subject is called something other than Laws of Armed Conflict but they will still be taught). The issue is how much the soldiers take note of the lessons. I know it because part of my role when I was a section commander and platoon sgt was to teach it. There will always be significant parts of any organisation which pay lipservice to a subject.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 9 Oct 2006 15:39 On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:49:27 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: ><snip> >Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. > >Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? No, we don't. At least, I sure hope not. However, Captain Rogers was well informed about this situation before ordering the shoot-down. His exec, Commander Foster, testified later that he had informed Rogers this was an A300 -- the ISAR would have completely imaged the engines and profile quite easily -- especially at close to 10 miles out, which is when the launch order was given. The aircraft was in a climbing attitude, as well, not descending, and was in the commercial flight path. It had never "squawked a military transponder code" as was initially claimed by the Reagan admin. That was determined objectively through an examination of the data files from over 50 French aircraft flying in the area at the time, among other things. This ship was an AEGIS cruiser and was completely in the data loop of other aircraft, including the French planes. They pretty much KNEW what they were doing when Rogers ordered the kill. Frankly, there was no good excuse. And this kind of event should not ever happen. The bottom line is that the US, with the best people and some of the best equipment on one of the more advanced surface vessels (and AEGIS cruiser), with good information on the civilian flight schedules at hand, with an aircraft that was close to "on time" and flying along a proper corridor in a climbing attitude, was still shot down. Certainly, no one should defend it. Rogers had been chasing around some gun boats and had invaded the 12 mile limit around Iran. He had been warned at least twice (recorded on tape) by an Omani vessel (friendly) to leave the area immediately. He was an excessively aggressive Captain, pursuing his own wreckless course, and was probably very much on edge at the time. He made a very bad decision. It's now a standard chapter in a course of studies about how such things can go very wrong. Personally, I have no question (I know, because I talked with some who were on board at the time) that the electronics intelligence folks knew this was an airliner and that this was reported through the exec to Rogers fully two minutes before the order was given. Rogers should not have been where he was, doing what he was doing. He knew he was violating good policy and good judgment and the wreckless result was disasterous and inexcusable. It's not something to defend in any way. Captain Rogers did NOT exemplify proper behavior of a commanding officer in the US Navy. Jon
From: John Fields on 9 Oct 2006 15:42
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:21:25 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On 08 Oct 2006 19:48:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> >> wrote: >> >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> That doesn't mean he's wrong, though. >> > >> >;) He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic? >> >> --- >> Go back and read it again. >> >> As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was >> claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the >> poster and, thus, his claims. >> >> I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically >> preclude also being right. > >I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads, >computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a >pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness. --- Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little better educated in the matter by going to: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415 also, Googling for "Radical Islam western overthrow" yields some interesting hits. As far as mental illness goes, I suggest that your rabid pathological hatred for America and your unrelenting Ameriphobia might be something you'd like to talk about with a psychiatrist. Psychiatric care _is_ free under your system, isn't it? So what've you got to lose except that chip on your shoulder and that ache in your guts? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |