John,

Oh I agree, that statistics like that aren't reliable in a scientific 
sense, but I think it is worthwhile to put it in perspective. Having to 
take our shoes off in airports forever for no real reason is not a rational 
response to the actual threat of terrorism.

Craig


On Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:16:41 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Craig:
> I am not against you, or your opinion in general, but PLEASE: forget about 
> those probability figures. That 1:25million or so chance can be 
> realized right here and right now - as the next case and believe me: if 
> that negligible of all odds happens to you, you will find it MORE than 
> acceptable.
> JM
>
>
>  
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:25:57 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> I really don't know much about the John Birch Society,
>>>
>>  
>>
>> "The John Birch Society has its roots in the 1950s when* it opposed the 
>> U.S.’s affirming the human rights principles of the United Nations*. It 
>> was used as a grassroots corollary to McCarthyism, insisting that imagined 
>> Communists were standing behind every light pole, ready to end the world as 
>> we know it. It still sees itself as fighting Communism, as well as the New 
>> World Order (whatever that is!), big government, the Civil Rights Movement, 
>> feminism, wealth redistribution and more. You are not likely to hear the 
>> John Birch Society using epithets or spewing base language; its values are 
>> more carefully hidden behind flag-waving and obscure and irrelevant legal 
>> principles. Its words are cloaked in concern for the "direction of the 
>> nation."
>>
>> John Birchers *opposed the **1964 Civil Rights 
>> Act*,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act>saying it violates 
>> the Tenth 
>> Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>to
>>  the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual 
>> states to enact laws regarding civil 
>> rights.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights>On its website, the John 
>> Birch Society complains 
>> that<http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5476-obama-gets-what-thats-right-the-nobel-peace-prize>"President
>>  Obama - the man who got fawning media treatment for no reason, 
>> was elected with a thin resume and exalted without even being a king - has 
>> now been given the Noble Peace Prize." The John Birch Society also opposes 
>> health care reform, gun control, public schools and a host of other 
>> progressive causes.
>>
>> The Right-wing "watch" group, Public Research 
>> Associates,<http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html>notes: "(T)he Birch 
>> society 
>> *pioneered the encoding of implicit cultural forms of ethnocentric White 
>> racism and Christian nationalist antisemitism* rather than relying on 
>> the White supremacist biological determinism and open loathing of Jews that 
>> had typified the old right prior to WWII. Throughout its existence, 
>> however, the Society has promoted open homophobia and sexism."
>>
>> Because it is more "libertarian" than openly racist, anti-Semitic and 
>> sexist, the John Birch Society is often not characterized as a hate group 
>> like the Ku Klux Klan <http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=7>or 
>> the Federation 
>> for American Immigration Reform 
>> (FAIR),<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846>at 
>> least as defined by the Southern 
>> Poverty Law Center. <http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intpro.jsp> One way 
>> the John Birch Society escapes that designation is because it receives 
>> support <http://watch.pair.com/jbs-cnp.html> from prominent politicians 
>> and elected officials. Birchers work hard to mask the anti-human rights 
>> beliefs that underlie their opinions." (from 
>> http://archive.truthout.org/topstories/112909ms1)
>>  
>>
>>   but googling it up, find that it was once falsely accused of being 
>>> racist,
>>> no doubt due to over-zealous liberal hatred of conservatism.
>>>  
>>> The KKK was very racist. As far as I know it's mostly dead. Good.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Hate groups are huge. The KKK is pretty small (about 100 chapters 
>> and 5000 members from the estimate I just saw), but there are many more 
>> Aryan groups, growing fast. As has been pointed out - not all conservatives 
>> are racists, but clearly the overwhelming majority (perhaps all?) racists 
>> are conservative. There are no liberals in any hate groups.
>>  
>>  
>>>   
>>> A greater sin, IMHO is political correctness, supported by Al-qaeda,
>>> which is sending America down the toilet. If you don't see that,
>>> no amount of explaining on my part will enlighten you.
>>>
>>
>> Political correctness certainly can be irritating, but it is also 
>> important to protect groups who are vulnerable from threats that escalate 
>> violence. Anti-American/Anti-Western terrorism around the world is 
>> certainly a threat, but not really a significant one for American citizens. 
>> Certainly nothing on the order of the response, which has amounted to open 
>> surveillance and unrestrained powers of control over the population. There 
>> is a far, far greater chance of being struck by lightning than being 
>> affected by terrorism:
>>
>> "A companion 
>> piece<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html>in
>>  the 
>> *Wall Street Journal* lays out the statistics. Since 2000, the odds of 
>> you dying as a result of a terrorist act aboard a commercial American 
>> airliner is 1 in 25 million. The odds of getting struck by lightning: 1 in 
>> 500,000." 
>> http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/odds_of_dying_in_terrorist_attack_on_airline_1_in_25_million_struck_by_lightning_1_in_500000.php
>>
>> Political correctness has not frozen wages for 35 years. Political 
>> correctness has not outsourced millions of jobs. Political correctness 
>> doesn't evade paying taxes in offshore accounts and lobbying for tax cuts 
>> for the rich. It didn't deregulate the banking industry and make billions 
>> of dollars disappear into a few people's pockets. These are the things that 
>> threaten America. Political correctness? What? Rush Limbaugh is being 
>> hampered in his free expression by liberals? The threat has always been 
>> fascism - from the left or the right. Hate, not politeness. Brutality not 
>> sensitivity.
>>
>> As you say though, if you don't see that already, I can't make you see it.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>    
>>>  
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 9/9/2012 
>>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
>>> so that everything could function."
>>>
>>>  ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2012-09-08, 13:30:43
>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:34:45 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>  because ironically and 
>>>> paradoxically they see the world in terms of race. 
>>>> Conservatives attempt to live by facts. I never 
>>>> saw racism in what what I wrote until you brought 
>>>> the subject up. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you familiar with the KKK? The John Birch Society? Would you call 
>>> those liberal organizations? I don't want to get into a political flame 
>>> war, but just so you know, liberals do not see the world in terms of race, 
>>> but they are prejudiced against conservatives because they see them as 
>>> people who are unaware of their own ignorance of the facts and uncaring of 
>>> the consequences of that ignorance. Of course that may not be the case, but 
>>> any of the hundreds of millions of liberals who might read what you have 
>>> written there will interpret it in precisely that way.
>>>
>>> Personally, my theory is that people generally imitate or contradict the 
>>> political orientation of the first strongly political person they are 
>>> exposed to in their life. Usually a parent or older sibling - if they like 
>>> them, they see the political world through their eyes, if they dislike 
>>> them, they seek to prove themselves unlike them. It's really that simple. 
>>> Very few people research politics methodically and impartially and 
>>> formulate a set of opinions based on 'facts'.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
>>> msg/everything-list/-/VErj_**ANZX8wJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VErj_ANZX8wJ>
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>> googlegroups.com. 
>>>
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>> .
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CZH0mviPLMwJ. 
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/8oRmwuSGqRoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to