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 > <[email protected]<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, [email protected] >>> 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 [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
