Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Hi All
the key to democracy is transparancy. So in a democratic society there
ought to be no secrets (and no lies)... and hence no 'secret service'.
Does anyone of you live in a democratic country? I think not... because
to my knowledge there is no country with a government without a 'hidden
agenda' or without a 'secret service'.
Whitout press, radio and TV there would not be any transparancy at all.
But in most countries the 'media' are doing a bad job.
Here in Holland radio and TV just give 'entertainment' and talkshows
covering next local elections. TV news is 15 minutes... 10 minutes local
news... 3 minutes for dissasters like volcanos, storms and floading.
2 minutes on war against Iraq and terrorism.
Our newspapers do much better: all facts in 'heise.de/ etcetera' I did
already know.
CNN and CBS can be viewed by satellite... oh boy, what a trash is that.
Not a single critical argument... just 'patriotism' and political
correctness :-(( I stopped viewing these broadcasts but only once a week
I view. Just to see how bad the American people is informed... and how a
new 'anti communist McCarty-ism' is creeping in. Communism is gone, now
the 'anti-moslim-ism = anti-terrorism' is creeping in, smashing legal
and human rights.
** From here it is just a hundred miles to Germany and a few hundred
miles to the UK. About 25 German TV-stations can be viewed and they do
give the background to the world news. The UK hides behind decoders to
prevent the 'continentals' viewing Brittish TV... but BBC radio can be
listened to. The BBC is critical, although a bit biased to US point of
view. To US citysens the BBC could open there eyes. BBC can be found on
the internet, short wave and for Europe on medium wave and long wave
broadcast frequencies too.
** Germany world service 'Deutsche Welle' can also be heard world
wide on short wave (English service is also provided) and has a very
good coverage of the main 'world issues'. An internet service is also
available.
The world can not stop George W, maybe the American people are able to
do it... but they must be well informed.
Regards, Bastiaan
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:40:07 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi All!
> http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/13924/1.html
> run this through babelfish ...
> Isn't there a "human rights for dummies" which somebody can give to W ?
> But would this really help ... see for yourself:
> http://ricsi.priv.at/bushbook.jpg
> And don't forget to chew every bite ...
> CU, Ricsi
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Always be smarter than the people who hire you <=-
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Hi Folks, On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:29:26 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > the key to democracy is transparancy. So in a democratic society there > ought to be no secrets (and no lies)... and hence no 'secret service'. > Does anyone of you live in a democratic country? I think not... because > to my knowledge there is no country with a government without a 'hidden > agenda' or without a 'secret service'. > Whitout press, radio and TV there would not be any transparancy at all. > But in most countries the 'media' are doing a bad job. In Oz we have a similar selection of rubbish, but we also have one almost-unbiased radio network (Australian Broadcasting Commission - ABC), and two almost unbiased TV news services (ABC and SBS), both government funded to a large extent, and both bitterly criticised by governments of all flavours for being biased against them. I figure if all political viewpoints complain, then they must be running close to truth much of the time. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:29:26 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > Hi All > CNN and CBS can be viewed by satellite... oh boy, what a trash is that. > Not a single critical argument... just 'patriotism' and political > correctness :-(( I stopped viewing these broadcasts but only once a week > I view. Just to see how bad the American people is informed... and how a > new 'anti communist McCarty-ism' is creeping in. Communism is gone, now > the 'anti-moslim-ism = anti-terrorism' is creeping in, smashing legal > and human rights. Here in the US CNN and CBS are viewed by almost everyone as having a very liberal, pro-Democratic Party, bias. Fox News presents the conservative, pro-Republican Party side. I don't know if you European folks can pick up Fox News by satelite. I regard the views aired on all of these news networks as being very critical. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:11:11 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > Here in the US CNN and CBS are viewed by almost everyone as having a > very liberal, pro-Democratic Party, bias. Fox News presents the > conservative, pro-Republican Party side. I don't know if you European > folks can pick up Fox News by satelite. I regard the views aired on > all of these news networks as being very critical. I don't think that's accurate at all. CNN and CBS are largely supportive of the American agenda and viewpoint even if they are not partisan cheerleaders for the Republican party. It's rare to see any fundamental criticism of the American system on American telvision. Not everyone shares that American viewpoint, which soon becomes obvious when hearing the news reported from non American sources. Even news reported from close American allies like Canada and Great Britian has a different flavor and viewpoint. Like most large, powerful entities the United States has a very hard time listening to criticism and opposing viewpoints. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On 9 Jan 03 at 20:29, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > Hi All > > ** From here it is just a hundred miles to Germany and a few hundred > miles to the UK. About 25 German TV-stations can be viewed and they do > give the background to the world news. The UK hides behind decoders to > prevent the 'continentals' viewing Brittish TV... but BBC radio can be > listened to. The BBC is critical, although a bit biased to US point of > view. To US citysens the BBC could open there eyes. BBC can be found on > the internet, short wave and for Europe on medium wave and long wave > broadcast frequencies too. > I received the shortwave transmitions of the BBC for almost 20 years (1962- 1982) in english and in spanish, here in Argentina. Our newsbulletings depended in who was in charge of our goverment. We have TV CCN in spanish, very pro American. It wasn't the same with CNN in english. Some time ago I discovered an excellent place to read international news through internet from the BBC. It's only text news, excellent for ARACHNE a LYNX for Dos. Very speedy downloads. Just go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/text_only.stm Free good Sans Serif fonts for MS-DOS at: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/graphics/novafo01.zip http://www.simtel.net/pub/msdos/graphics/novafo01.zip -- Ing. Alejandro Lieber Rosario Argentina lima[at]citynet.net.ar --
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:40:07 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Isn't there a "human rights for dummies" which somebody can give to W ? > But would this really help ... see for yourself: > http://ricsi.priv.at/bushbook.jpg I laughed at loud when I saw this! Never noticed the first time I saw this photo in the news. Of course, old W makes polictical milelage out of his intellectual challenges. At a function with William F. Buckley, the erudite conservative writer, Bush said: "Yes, Mr. Buckley and I have some things in common. We both went to Yale. While he was there he wrote a book. And I read one." Bush did manage to graduate from Yale and later got a MBA from Harvard, so he may not be as stupid as he seems at times. He's obvously dsylexic and struggles with word order and formation when he ad libs--but he's not stupid. Also he's an idealist, doing his level best to defend the United States against a very real threat and danger. But he's not seeing the whole picture accurately. Not seeing the whole picture accurately is the great, naive failure of Americans. And I say that as a patriotic American who wants his country to live up to its ideals. The burden of American economic might and military power is troublesome. It would be easier to be Canadian or Austrian or Finnish and not be expected to act on the world stage. Yet if North Korea or Iraq built an atom bomb and either used it to blackmail Europe or Japan or Austrailia or sold it to terrorists who want to blow up Jakarta the world would demand to know how come we didn't do something about it. I'm not saying that America should invade anyone. But, we do have legitimate concerns that the world expects us to do something about because nobody else can. America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global strength imposes on us. éì-ça Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:53:54 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > 10 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SH> Here in the US CNN and CBS are viewed by almost everyone as having a > SH> very liberal, pro-Democratic Party, bias. > WHAT ?? > Than America's journalism problem is EVEN HUGER than I thought ! > I don't know CBS, but CNN is the biggest pile of bullshit (sorry ... but true) > I have ever seen. > They remind me of russian communist TV ... the only difference is that in > former Russia Journalist were killed if they did not say what the government > wanted them to say, in CNN they shut their mouth up by their own. In the US if a news reporter does not say what the network wants him to say the network will just fire him. Then he can get an equally well-paying job from another network which has a bias which is more amenable to the reporter's own leanings and opinions. > I never in my life have seen such a biased journalism in my life ... > never ever ! > SH> I regard the views aired on all of these news networks as being very > SH> critical. > Joking again ?? No, I am not joking. They are indeed very critical about what is going on in those areas which they choose to report about. The problem is that they are neglecting to report on some events which many news program viewers regard as highly significant. > Ask yourself why you haven't heared about DMCA, TCPA, human rights violations > in the US army, .. before The military has a very strict policy against violating the rights of POW's. When military personnel are caught violating the rights of POW's they are appropriately disciplined and punished. Even the Nazi field marshall Rommel was noted for punishing his own troops for violating the rights of allied POW's. For this and other reasons history treats him in a much less unfavorable manner than it does in the case of most of the other Nazi leaders. POW's have the right to complain about their treatment to representatives and investigators from international organizations such as the International Red Cross. If the international organization finds that their rights were violated, there is a legal process whereby they may receive redress. The persons detained in Guantanamo are not classified as POW's. They are "illegal combatants". There are some very fine points of international law outlining the circumstances under which captured personnel must be classified either as POW's or as "illegal combatants". Those of the latter category are not entitled to the same rights they would otherwise enjoy if they were POW's. I had explained this before. > Sometimes (sorry in advance) americans seem like cattle which blindly follow W > to the butcher, without nowing where they are going, and what consequences this > will have. > Sorry again ... this is only meant as a wakeup call ... Americans are not blindly following him. If you would visit the newsgroups devoted to political discussions you will find that there are many Americans who are severely criticising GW Bush. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:00:26 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Anyways ... another big surprise for me: > Bush administration handles Korea conflict 100 times better than I would have > thought possible. This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. The Bush administration thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly even bought off. Although the North Koreans even admit to having some nukes, we do not believe they have any ideas about actually using them against nearby countries, at least not in the immediate future. Their corner of the world is not anywhere as troubled as the Middle East. I think the North Koreans are producing the nukes not to start a war, but only to increase their bargaining power at the negotiating table when dealing with countries which don't want them to have them. The North Koreans are now in a stronger position than the one they held before they had the nukes. They can offer to stop producing and to dismantle their nukes in exchange for some concessions and better treatment by the countries they don't get along with very well. I think the North Koreans and the rest of the world can work out a peaceable and positive outcome for everyone concerned. Sam Heywood -- positive outcome for themselves -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:25 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > > And the world has changed as well ... > now the UN can do much good ... > Hi Ricsi, Keep in mind that the UN is an organization of national governments. UN membership merely represents the fact that the previous members have agreed by vote to allow newcomers to join. If you recall the former Yugoslavia, you'll probably remember the dialog about the right of members states in the Yugoslavian Confederation to opt for cessation and whether the UN members should recognize the newly declared state. Until Germany and Austria announced that they would recognize Slovenia, the other UN members (including the USA) maintained that Slovenia was a rebel province and everybody agreed to respect the international boundaries of Yugoslavia. Internally, national governments function as they wish (on internal issues). So the world really hasn't changed that much since the Westphalia Treaties. Were it not so, states like Sudan would have been under UN control for many years. What WOULD be a change in global politics is a way to universally recognize the rights of minority groups within nations, without first requiring a destabilizing foreign intervention and change of national leadership. I obviously am not an advocate of a greater UN. I have yet to see a situation where the local people agreed that the UN presence in their homeland was a positive thing. I asked one guy in Kosovo if he could name ONE country where a UN intervention has fixed the problem. I'm still waiting for an answer. Meanwhile, I'll continue with my theme of advocating a completely free and open exchange of information among people as a prerequisite for freedom and peace. And Arachne is a GREAT tool for empowering the little guys for THAT. CU, 2 Butyl Bob - the organic radical - Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Eg. america wants war, but doesn't share information about the iraqi nuclear
> program.
> W often said that he has important information about it, but the UN nuclear
> organization (here in vienna :) has still not received it.
I do not think that even George Bush wants war, although it must seem
that he does want war and that must be frightening. Bush wants peace
and wants America not to be threatened by rogue states with atom
bombs and chemical and biological weapons.
My understanding is that so far the UN inspectors have not found
any evidence of biological, chemical or atomic weapons in Iraq and
Iraq has been cooperating fully with the inspectors. So perhaps
war will be avoided.
Yes, more international cooperation is certainly needed and expected.
And the United States certainly would welcome it, at the UN and with
NATO and the other treaty orgainizations.
I do think that George Bush is more sophisticated than he appears
to be. Certainly others in his administration are capable of a broad
perspective.
And the American President is certainly not free to do whatever he
wants. Congress, the courts and public opinion all act as a moderating
influence--but maybe these forces ae not so apparent overseas.
Absent a real perceived threat Americans will not tolerate for long
the erosion of civil liberties. There is great resistance in the
Federal Appeals Court to treating American citizens as "combatants
without rights". Bush and the Justice department will obey the courts
even if they do not agree with them.
On the whole I am hopeful that democracy and rule of law will prevail
and expand. The alternative is tribal belligerance and continued
small scale fighting of a viscious and persistent nature.
But already the kind of full scale, global war that engulfed Europe
and Asia twice in the last century is unthinkable today. China just
wants to do business. Russia, Germany, England, France, Japan and the
United States are all allies, co-operative and friendly. Who could
have imagined that sixty years ago?
> America has to stop to do "its thing" and take an even stronger part in
> multilateral organizations.
> SE> I'm not saying that America should invade anyone. But, we do
> SE> have legitimate concerns that the world expects us to do something
> SE> about because nobody else can.
> I agree that this is the case.
> But IMO it is more desirable to have an international "army" under a
> multilateral command (with a very strong american aspect)
> More desireable for both sides at the end.
> SE> America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get
> SE> smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global
> SE> strength imposes on us.
> I wholeheartedly agree ...
> But the rest of the world has to change, too.
> We have to think more globally, and we have to emancipate ourself.
> SE> Sam Ewalt
> CU, Ricsi
> PS: apropos Korea (I know ... but I mix up which one is south and which one is
> west :)
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Money makes the world go around <=-
Sam Ewalt
Croswell, Michigan, USA
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Hi Folks, On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:26:07 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:00:26 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) > wrote: >> Anyways ... another big surprise for me: >> Bush administration handles Korea conflict 100 times better than I would have >> thought possible. On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:26:07 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as > being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. The Bush administration > thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly > even bought off. Call me a cynic, but could it just be because North Korea does not have large reserves of very-cheap-to-make oil which could just happen to fall into the control of the benevolent stewardship of US oil companies, in the interests of getting Iraq back onto its feet again of course, in the aftermath of a war of liberation / disarmament / terrorism / aquisition / etc... After all (1), the US oil companies didn't support GW in his election by giving him vast sums of money, did they ? He doesn't owe them anything, does he ? He didn't spend a long time in the oil industry, did he ? After all (2), Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, even if they haven't been found, and when he says there are none, we just know he's lying, don't we ! And if Korea is actually being seen to re-activate its nuke program, that isn't the same thing at all, is it ? And after all (3), the intellect and stability of the North Korean leader / figure-head / god / father / big-brother / etc... is visible to all. I think we are just watching today's version of "The Great Game". Time to put my stirring spoon away. :) Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
I finally got babelfish to translate on the 2nd try [after leaving the
Candian JS site called babelfish.com]. That wasn't news to me, because
I'd watched the news on PBS.
For those of you [in the USA] who would like to be exposed to non-
American, non-networked news programs, I highly recommend that you
check your local PBS station schedule. In addition to the BBC News,
which can be a bit biased, they offer the English language version of DW
News ... I think that's the correct name ... German News program which
is done in a very professional manner with neither finger pointing nor
I-toldja-so nattering. Just a good overview of what happened and most
likely didn't garner 15 seconds on network news in the USA.
For those overseas, you may be able to access the DW News {I wish I were
more sure of the name ... sorry} via cable or ??? where you live. IIRC
something was said a few days ago about that news being put on its own
cable channel or ??? Since they farm it out, it may be accessible in
many other areas.
That said, let's get back to the subject at hand -- the loss of civil
and human rights in the name of National Security. It's a bit scarey
...
If I read (and heard) the court's decisions correctly, US Citizens
living here in the USA could be designated as "hostile combatants" for
swinging a baseball bat at the Presidential Cavalcade as it drove by!
Can you imagine how a non-criminal, non-blind, free thinking, freedom
loving, gun owning American could be classified???
It's not a joke ... it's too damn sick to be a joke.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:40:07 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi All!
> http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/13924/1.html
> run this through babelfish ...
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:00:59 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> I finally got babelfish to translate on the 2nd try [after leaving the
> Candian JS site called babelfish.com]. That wasn't news to me, because
> I'd watched the news on PBS.
What is PBS?
> For those of you [in the USA] who would like to be exposed to non-
> American, non-networked news programs, I highly recommend that you
> check your local PBS station schedule. In addition to the BBC News,
> which can be a bit biased, they offer the English language version of DW
> News ... I think that's the correct name ... German News program which
> is done in a very professional manner with neither finger pointing nor
> I-toldja-so nattering. Just a good overview of what happened and most
> likely didn't garner 15 seconds on network news in the USA.
> For those overseas, you may be able to access the DW News {I wish I were
> more sure of the name ... sorry} via cable or ??? where you live. IIRC
Deutsche Welle = German Wave
> something was said a few days ago about that news being put on its own
> cable channel or ??? Since they farm it out, it may be accessible in
> many other areas.
> That said, let's get back to the subject at hand -- the loss of civil
> and human rights in the name of National Security. It's a bit scarey
>
Very scarey and creeping into the legislation of other western
democracies, slowly... but...
> If I read (and heard) the court's decisions correctly, US Citizens
> living here in the USA could be designated as "hostile combatants" for
> swinging a baseball bat at the Presidential Cavalcade as it drove by!
Just like the laws they have in Zimbabwe
> Can you imagine how a non-criminal, non-blind, free thinking, freedom
> loving, gun owning American could be classified???
In most civilysed countries a gun owner is classified: a criminal
> It's not a joke ... it's too damn sick to be a joke.
>
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:40:07 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
> wrote:
>> Hi All!
>> http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/13924/1.html
>> run this through babelfish ...
> -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Regards, Bastiaan
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > What is PBS? In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:25:18 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: >> What is PBS? > In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial > television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations. To be more exact 88% funding from those sources. 12% funding from our tax dollars. :((( "The corp. for public broadcasting" is a branch of the US federal government. >From http://www.cpb.org/about/ The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private, non-profit corporation created by Congress in 1967 and: receives an annual appropriation from Congress, representing 12% of public broadcasting's revenues -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:00:59 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: >> That said, let's get back to the subject at hand -- the loss of civil >> and human rights in the name of National Security. It's a bit scarey >> > Very scarey and creeping into the legislation of other western > democracies, slowly... but... Benjamin Franklin had expressed a most thoughtful opinion on this subject more than two hundred years ago. He said "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." See http://www.constitutionproject.org/ls/mission.htm Liberty and Security Initiative -- Mission Statement > In most civilysed countries a gun owner is classified: a criminal There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed to own guns. Such citizens are called slaves and their masters are called dictators. There is no society of free men and women who do not have the right to own guns. People who would without reasonable and just cause deny to others this right while retaining it only unto themselves have criminal motives and intentions. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:22:04 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote: >>> What is PBS? >> In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial >> television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations. > To be more exact > 88% funding from those sources. > 12% funding from our tax dollars. :((( Yes, that's right. But that 12% is a very tiny expenditure in the vast scheme of the Federal budget. And only a fraction of what is spent on public broadcasting in Canada and Great Britian. The percentage of funding from private sources has grown tremendously over the years. PBS wouldn't exist viewer support donations. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
- Original Message - From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights > There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed > to own guns. My dictionary defines civilize as "... get rid of barbarous habits..." Whilst I do not want to make any claims as to which country is or is not civilised, the only way I can see that owning guns might get rid of barbarous habits is by the citizens acting as an armed police force. That would only be necessary to control potentially bad citizens. Unfortunately they would also have guns! Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option. John --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM > Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and > the human rights > >> There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed >> to own guns. > > My dictionary defines civilize as "... get rid of barbarous habits..." > Whilst I do not want to make any claims as to which country is or is not > civilised, the only way I can see that owning guns might get rid of > barbarous habits is by the citizens acting as an armed police force. Ordinary citizens should not act as a though they were an armed police force. Such behavior is rightfully condemned as vigilantism. It is illegal for them to take the law into their own hands. They do however have the right to defend themselves from violent assaults and to use whatever force as may be necessary to protect themselves in such a situation. Criminals prefer to perpetrate their violent assaults in states and communities where the citizens are not allowed to go about armed. Statistics show that there is less crime in states and cities which have less restrictive gun laws to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. > That > would only be necessary to control potentially bad citizens. Unfortunately > they would also have guns! > Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was > allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option. Of course! Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote: > Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was > allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option. No ... because fear and hidden agendas could be the reason for persons to not "take up the option." Rather, the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was allowed to, and did, own weapons ... but they had no use other than for sporting events and competitions. I "live in a free country"; that country passed a law which made my 80 year old mother a felon -- because she still had the semi-automatic .22 cal rifle I used to hunt rabbits to feed us many years ago, and it was capable of holding more than 20 rounds of ".22 shorts." I "live in a free country" where a man insane on crystal and hunting for an "enemy" decided to hunt in MY home ... and his attempts to kick in my metal sheathed front door twisted the tongue on the latch so badly we were almost unable to open it after he left. [We slept with a couch in front of the door that night, because we dared not attempt to latch the door back up, and repairs weren't possible until the next day.] At the time, my rifle was in one place, the bolt in a second, and the ammo in a third; a 50+ disabled veteran armed with a cane, and a 17 yo boy with a short bo, would not have survived if the berserker had made it through the door and decided to vent his insanity upon us. I "live in a free country" where acts of, or confessions to, child molestation are protected from "the law" because a church is involved. I "live in a free country" where I must perjure myself as a witness in order for the jury to believe me. [I am not Christian, swearing an oath on The Bible is meaningless to me, but if I "aver" to tell the truth then I suddenly become an untrustworthy weirdo.] I "live in a free country" where I'm allowed to yell FIRE!! in a crowded theater, if there is a fire ... but people don't run because they have decided that they don't want to believe a fire could possible "happen here." Freedom isn't about guns, it's about the NEED for guns. Freedom isn't about politics, it's having the power to control politicians. Freedom isn't about free speech, it's about being able to speak so that others can hear and understand. Democracy -- to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchil -- is a crappy form of government, but so far it's the best one out there. -- If a country is to remain free its citizens must defy unjust laws. The new "anti-terrorism" laws abridge the rights of us all. It is time to keep the snoopers busy; how about a little Carnivore confusion "noise": Allah be PGP arms Anthrax cropduster funds transfer customs Mecca infidel jihad Bush EOT -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:43 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: Thank you very much.. it is now part of my new sign.txt -- If a country is to remain free its citizens must defy unjust laws. The new "anti-terrorism" laws abridge the rights of us all. It is time to keep the snoopers busy; how about a little Carnivore confusion "noise": Allah be PGP arms Anthrax cropduster funds transfer customs Mecca infidel jihad Bush EOT Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:38:37 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:43 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > > Thank you very much.. it is now part of my new sign.txt > -- > If a country is to remain free its citizens must defy unjust laws. The new > "anti-terrorism" laws abridge the rights of us all. It is time to keep the > snoopers busy; how about a little Carnivore confusion "noise": Allah be PGP > arms Anthrax cropduster funds transfer customs Mecca infidel jihad Bush EOT > Glenn > http://arachne.cz/ > http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ > http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm > http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/ That is not confusion. Carnivore can easily recognize it as being just dummy traffic. If you want to succeed at producing some real confusion for Carnivore you should send a sig that looks something like this, but don't send the same sig more than once: -- PRIORITY GQITM MSG NUM DYJ PROWORD CABAL GROUPS 23 SITTR GPUMX EPNTB YEPNT YQLNM QYNKY HROPR PQMAO MWVPO SGTPQ YTPVM PYBNQ QOPXY WCAPM OEOPM PQVID QOMMT GYIIP PXUTR HYLLP HYKMK WUXXX X I AUTHENTICATE TK -- It is impossible for Carnivore to determine whether something like the above is just a random garbage transmission or whether it is a message carrying information or instructions. You cannot analyze it. Maybe it is just garbage. Maybe it is a message containing information and instructions, and maybe there is someone reading this message and to whom I have securely transmitted a one-time pad by which it can be easily decrypted. The only thing I can feel reasonably sure of is that neither you nor Carnivore knows whether the above is just dummy traffic. Even if I were to say that it is just dummy traffic, how would you or Carnivore know for certain that I am telling the truth? Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
How much difference one man can make in American politics has been wonderfully demonstrated by gov Ryan, who is first to break the myth that the American justice system would be infallible. I sure hope this will reach Tx, too. And before a next war starts, because quite similar to the undeserved faith of many Americans in the deterrant effect of capital punishment, their call for the "war on terrorism" is of the same category, ill-based categorical measures with doubtful effect and a high level of cruelty. You may call me a communist if you like (although I prefer "socialist"), but surely this last day decision in Illinois is just a first step back from the point where civilisation ends and vengeance takes over mass sentiments, leaving America itself in the role of murderous oppressor of those going any other than the American way. (Don't get me wrong, just picture the USA as a Microsoft amongst nations, and then try independence for an attitude. Even the North Coreans start making sense if you do.) B At 16:33 11-1-03 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM >> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and >> the human rights > >> >>> There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed >>> to own guns. >> >> My dictionary defines civilize as "... get rid of barbarous habits..." >> Whilst I do not want to make any claims as to which country is or is not >> civilised, the only way I can see that owning guns might get rid of >> barbarous habits is by the citizens acting as an armed police force. > >Ordinary citizens should not act as a though they were an armed >police force. Such behavior is rightfully condemned as vigilantism. >It is illegal for them to take the law into their own hands. They do >however have the right to defend themselves from violent assaults and >to use whatever force as may be necessary to protect themselves in such >a situation. Criminals prefer to perpetrate their violent assaults in >states and communities where the citizens are not allowed to go about >armed. Statistics show that there is less crime in states and cities >which have less restrictive gun laws to infringe on the rights of the >law-abiding. > >> That >> would only be necessary to control potentially bad citizens. Unfortunately >> they would also have guns! > >> Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was >> allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option. > >Of course! > >Sam Heywood >-- >This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: >http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > >
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
- Original Message - From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, John Sparks wrote: > > > > > > There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed > > > to own guns. > > > > My dictionary defines civilize as "... get rid of barbarous habits..." > > Whilst I do not want to make any claims as to which country is or is not > > civilised, the only way I can see that owning guns might get rid of > > barbarous habits is by the citizens acting as an armed police force. That > > would only be necessary to control potentially bad citizens. Unfortunately > > they would also have guns! > > It's a pretty well documented fact that criminals are > deterred by the knowledge that potential victims "might be > armed." > That's kinda what I meant by the citizens acting as an armed police force. One of the roles of the police is to deter crime. What I was implying is that the cure may be worse than the disease. I don't have any stats to back that up, but it seems likely that whilst say robberies might be reduced, more guns means more people are going to get shot whether by criminal acts, accidents or insanity. How many deaths is it worth to prevent how many robberies? You quote some interesting examples. Switzerland may be an exception to my theory, but other factors may be involved John --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
- Original Message - From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:23 PM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote: > > > > Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was > > allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option. > > No ... because fear and hidden agendas could be the reason for persons > to not "take up the option." > In that case they *would want* to take up the option but not be able to do so because of fear or whatever :-) I can, I think, understand your example of coming under attack, though I am lucky enough to not have been seriously threatened myself. I am not trying to pontificate that you should not own a gun no matter what your circumstances. What I am saying is that my personal definition of a truly civilised society would not include widespread ownership of guns. I had a fairly recent experience of a man under the influence of drugs or alcohol gaining entry to my daughters house. The police were called and fortunately I managed to talk him into leaving without serious incident. Had there been a gun handy then it would have been tempting, motivated by fear etc, to grab hold of that and in a stressful situation accidents can happen. John --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Hi Folks, On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:33:05 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > Ordinary citizens should not act as a though they were an armed > police force. Such behavior is rightfully condemned as vigilantism. > It is illegal for them to take the law into their own hands. They do > however have the right to defend themselves from violent assaults and > to use whatever force as may be necessary to protect themselves in such > a situation. I am reminded of one of the Darwin Award nominees, who ran into a shop, pulled a gun and demanded money. Unfortunately for him, and this was what got him the nomination, the shop was a gun shop full of good law-abiding customers, most of whom responded by drawing their own guns and shooting him. It seems to me that "civilisation", along with "democratic", "cultured", "un-biased" and "free press" mean whatever the speakers/writers want them to mean. Note: For those who don't know, the Darwin Awards are given annually to those who have taken themselves out of the gene pool in innovative and spectacularly stupid ways. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership is desirable. I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who owned guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) Exceptions were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings period. Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I still believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. John - Original Message - From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Sparks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:58:50 -, John Sparks wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:20 PM > > Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and > > the human rights > > >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, John Sparks wrote: > > >> > > >> > > There are no civilized countries where the citizens are not allowed > >> > > to own guns. > >> > > >> > My dictionary defines civilize as "... get rid of barbarous habits..." > >> > Whilst I do not want to make any claims as to which country is or is not > >> > civilised, the only way I can see that owning guns might get rid of > >> > barbarous habits is by the citizens acting as an armed police force. > > That > >> > would only be necessary to control potentially bad citizens. > > Unfortunately > >> > they would also have guns! > > >> It's a pretty well documented fact that criminals are > >> deterred by the knowledge that potential victims "might be > >> armed." > > > That's kinda what I meant by the citizens acting as an armed police force. > > One of the roles of the police is to deter crime. > > > What I was implying is that the cure may be worse than the disease. I don't > > have any stats to back that up, but it seems likely that whilst say > > robberies might be reduced, more guns means more people are going to get > > shot whether by criminal acts, accidents or insanity. How many deaths is it > > worth to prevent how many robberies? > > > You quote some interesting examples. Switzerland may be an exception to my > > theory, but other factors may be involved > > You can very easily find many tables of statistics which will show > that shooting deaths decrease in proportion to the increase in the > number of concealed weapons permits issued. Every state that > has adopted a "shall issue" law for concealed weapons permits to all > applicants who are not by law disqualified from owning a firearm has > seen a remarkable decrease in shooting deaths. > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership > is desirable. > I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone > carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who owned > guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) Exceptions > were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my > environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings period. > Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I still > believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as being the answer to preventing crime ? Why not. no knives no clubs no swords no weapons of any kind ??? Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ??? (remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians) Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ? Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to maintain controll over the civilian population ? -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
- Original Message - From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:49 PM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: > > > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership > > is desirable. > > > I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone > > carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who owned > > guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) Exceptions > > were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my > > environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings period. > > > Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I still > > believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. > > Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as > being the answer to preventing crime ? > > Why not. > no knives no clubs no swords no weapons of any kind ??? > > Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ??? > (remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians) > > Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ? > > Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to > maintain controll over the civilian population ? > > As a debating point why not turn the argument round. Give everyone their own personal H-Bomb. Now that *would* be a deterrent against crime and dictators ;-) Of course you'd need to find some way to survive your own blast, darn there's always a snag. John > > -- > Glenn > http://arachne.cz/ > http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ > http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm > http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/ > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Dear friend, Are you suggesting this 18th century constitutional reasoning is tricking you to believe that the US population would stand a chance against the US army if ever...??? Sorry to say but I think you're tragically wrong there. Better look at more recent past (post WW2, or even after the invention of TV, not to mention the internet, to compare the effects of policies on crime. Privately owned guns have done no good against crime in the USA, nor have harsher penalties. What will help are a good social system to improve the position of the poor, equal chances in education for their children and another president because this one would be your dictator if only he had the guts to disobey his father. This may all sound a little hostile, which is not intended. I just hope to make very sure the Americans get to read what's really happening. B At 15:49 12-1-03 -0500, you wrote: >On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: > >> I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership >> is desirable. > >> I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone >> carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who owned >> guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) Exceptions >> were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my >> environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings period. > >> Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I still >> believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. > >Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as >being the answer to preventing crime ? > >Why not. >no knives no clubs no swords no weapons of any kind ??? > >Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ??? >(remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians) > >Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ? > >Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to >maintain controll over the civilian population ? > > > >-- > Glenn > http://arachne.cz/ > http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ > http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm > http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/ > >
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
John, I just realized, as I read through many messages from many people, that I can tell you one good reason to allow people to own firearms and take personal responsibility for the use of those firearms. Recently we had two nuts, with lots of time to plan and top level munitions and accessories, kill less than a dozen people in three weeks time around the Washington, DC area; since their capture, a possible three or four other deaths of chosen targets have been tenatively attached to their "trail of terror." Think of the math: Two people plus guns plus two years time equals less than fifteen chosen [key on that word "chosen"] deaths. Now consider Israel, The Territories, The West Bank. The math there is much different, because the "citizens" aren't allowed to own guns. Take one teenager plus one bomb plus one place filled with strangers plus a one-time-only suicide attack -- which equals five or ten or fifteen people dead, people who were not chosen but simply had the rotten bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suicide attacks are the actions of those who have given up all hope in this world, and have their fingers crossed [pun for the informed] that their religious beliefs are 100% true ... or who don't truly give a damn and want to simply make other people as miserable as they themselves are. Although there are, in this country, incidents referred to as "Suicide By Cop" where the individual doesn't have the balls to do the dirty work all alone and wants/needs the cops to do the job for him/her [and maybe to make the cops feel like snit as a bonus benefit] in ending an otherwise worthless miserable life, you won't see very many suicide bombers around who were raised in this country and had parents who still remember what it was like to live in a free country where individual rights and individual duties walked hand-in-hand. I've already written too much today ... I just hope it sheds a dusty ray of light for someone/anyone somewhere. On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership > is desirable. > I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone > carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who owned > guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) Exceptions > were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my > environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings period. > Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I still > believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. > John -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:49:27 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: >> But I still >> believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. > Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as > being the answer to preventing crime ? > Why not. > no knives no clubs no swords no weapons of any kind ??? > Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ??? > (remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians) > Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ? > Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to > maintain controll over the civilian population ? Where I live we keep guns handy in case they are needed for self-defense against creatures other than fellow humans. There is a four hundred pound male black bear and a female with two cubs that are frequently seen roaming around the neighborhood. They are very nice bears and they haven't threatened anybody so far. Nobody is in favor of shooting them as long as they don't attack anybody. Incidents of black bears attacking humans are rare unless someone should accidently wander between a mama bear and her cubs. The bears are very amusing and they are fun to watch. The only problems that the bears are causing is that they often destroy the wild-bird feeders to rob the birdseed, and we can't keep our garbage cans outside because the bears will smash them open and rummage through them and make a terrible mess. It is illegal to shoot a bear or a human when the creature is only damaging property and not causing any threat to human life. Neither myself nor my neighbors have any feelings of insecurity over the presence of the bears because almost all of us keep a very powerful firearm handy in case we should need to defend ourselves in the unlikely event of an attack. Unprovoked attacks by black bears can and do happen, but such incidents are rare. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership > is desirable. Nope. I don't think so. More guns equals more shootings. It's as simple as that. Here's why: accidents and crimes of passion and stupidity. (Road rage, exhusbands, former spouses and lovers, drunks, children, teenagers and others of impaired judgement) Easy access to guns in the home or in the homes of your neighbors leads to this sort of unthinking and irresponsible use. I'd rather take my chances with a rational criminal than a loaded neighbor who wants to settle a score or whatever. People are nuts! I'm not talking about psychopathic criminals either, but the quiet guy next door who forgot to lock up his legal pistol when he went on vacation and it got stolen by the kid who fed the cat who took it home, showing off and somebody else picked it up and shot that kid who made faces at him on the bus. Stuff like that. Accidents, crimes of passion and stupidity. There's nothing rational about it. More guns will equal more shootings. Maybe they can handle their weapons safely in Switzerland but here in the USA we're not doing so hot. Anybody want to deny that obvious fact? Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Sam Ewalt wrote: > More guns will equal more shootings. Maybe they can handle their weapons > safely in Switzerland but here in the USA we're not doing so hot. > Anybody want to deny that obvious fact? GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw? by Chuck Baldwin "The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired."
Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
No guns would probably not reduce crime... but will sure reduce the number of casualties dramaticaly! Bastiaan On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:30:10 -, John Sparks wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and > the human rights >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote: >> > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun > ownership >> > is desirable. >> > I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone >> > carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who > owned >> > guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition) > Exceptions >> > were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my >> > environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings > period. >> > Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I > still >> > believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs. >> Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as >> being the answer to preventing crime ? >> Why not. >> no knives no clubs no swords no weapons of any kind ??? >> Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ??? >> (remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians) >> Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ? >> Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to >> maintain controll over the civilian population ? > As a debating point why not turn the argument round. Give everyone their own > personal H-Bomb. Now that *would* be a deterrent against crime and dictators > ;-) Of course you'd need to find some way to survive your own blast, darn > there's always a snag. > John >> -- >> Glenn >> http://arachne.cz/ >> http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ >> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm >> http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/ > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
Guns [was Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
>> It's a pretty well documented fact that criminals are >> deterred by the knowledge that potential victims "might be >> armed." > That's kinda what I meant by the citizens acting as an armed police force. > One of the roles of the police is to deter crime. > What I was implying is that the cure may be worse than the disease. I don't > have any stats to back that up, but it seems likely that whilst say > robberies might be reduced, more guns means more people are going to get > shot whether by criminal acts, accidents or insanity. How many deaths is it > worth to prevent how many robberies? > You quote some interesting examples. Switzerland may be an exception to my > theory, but other factors may be involved > John In Europe very few people are being shot. Robbers are often armed but use their fire arms seldom. Why should they if their victems do not fire back? Threading is enough. Accidents are of course seldom. Insanity... less than in the USA but overhere there are people too that fire in a school or something like that. CU, Bastiaan
