Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 01:39pm PT
|
White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-charleston_n_7654720.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
The real problem is not just the guns, it's the Anti-Government, Racist, homophobic Right Wingers that are enabled and supported by the Right Wing Conservative Republicans and other Christian Patriot Groups.
We need to talk about the Republican Presidential candidates not being able to talk about the inherent problem with Republican Party being a far Right Wing extremist group itself. They either keep silent, or fan the flames so they won't upset their Base Voters.
They talk about having a civil war or a revolution on every issue they are wrong about.
The latest is Gay Marriage, they would rather fight to the death than surrender to the times.
The education needed is to expose these groups as a hate group and shut them down as terrorist thugs.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 01:49pm PT
|
Slavery’s Long Shadow
JUNE 22, 2015
Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/opinion/paul-krugman-slaverys-long-shadow.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&_r=0
America is a much less racist nation than it used to be, and I’m not just talking about the still remarkable fact that an African-American occupies the White House. The raw institutional racism that prevailed before the civil rights movement ended Jim Crow is gone, although subtler discrimination persists. Individual attitudes have changed, too, dramatically in some cases. For example, as recently as the 1980s half of Americans opposed interracial marriage, a position now held by only a tiny minority.
Yet racial hatred is still a potent force in our society, as we’ve just been reminded to our horror. And I’m sorry to say this, but the racial divide is still a defining feature of our political economy, the reason America is unique among advanced nations in its harsh treatment of the less fortunate and its willingness to tolerate unnecessary suffering among its citizens.
Of course, saying this brings angry denials from many conservatives, so let me try to be cool and careful here, and cite some of the overwhelming evidence for the continuing centrality of race in our national politics.
My own understanding of the role of race in U.S. exceptionalism was largely shaped by two academic papers.
The first, by the political scientist Larry Bartels, analyzed the move of the white working class away from Democrats, a move made famous in Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Mr. Frank argued that working-class whites were being induced to vote against their own interests by the right’s exploitation of cultural issues. But Mr. Bartels showed that the working-class turn against Democrats wasn’t a national phenomenon — it was entirely restricted to the South, where whites turned overwhelmingly Republican after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon’s adoption of the so-called Southern strategy.
And this party-switching, in turn, was what drove the rightward swing of American politics after 1980. Race made Reaganism possible. And to this day Southern whites overwhelmingly vote Republican, to the tune of 85 or even 90 percent in the deep South.
The second paper, by the economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, was titled “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-style Welfare State?” Its authors — who are not, by the way, especially liberal — explored a number of hypotheses, but eventually concluded that race is central, because in America programs that help the needy are all too often seen as programs that help Those People: “Within the United States, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”
Now, that paper was published in 2001, and you might wonder if things have changed since then. Unfortunately, the answer is that they haven’t, as you can see by looking at how states are implementing — or refusing to implement — Obamacare.
For those who haven’t been following this issue, in 2012 the Supreme Court gave individual states the option, if they so chose, of blocking the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, a key part of the plan to provide health insurance to lower-income Americans. But why would any state choose to exercise that option? After all, states were being offered a federally-funded program that would provide major benefits to millions of their citizens, pour billions into their economies, and help support their health-care providers. Who would turn down such an offer?
The answer is, 22 states at this point, although some may eventually change their minds. And what do these states have in common? Mainly, a history of slaveholding: Only one former member of the Confederacy has expanded Medicaid, and while a few Northern states are also part of the movement, more than 80 percent of the population in Medicaid-refusing America lives in states that practiced slavery before the Civil War.
And it’s not just health reform: a history of slavery is a strong predictor of everything from gun control (or rather its absence), to low minimum wages and hostility to unions, to tax policy.
So will it always be thus? Is America doomed to live forever politically in the shadow of slavery?
I’d like to think not. For one thing, our country is growing more ethnically diverse, and the old black-white polarity is slowly becoming outdated. For another, as I said, we really have become much less racist, and in general a much more tolerant society on many fronts. Over time, we should expect to see the influence of dog-whistle politics decline.
But that hasn’t happened yet. Every once in a while you hear a chorus of voices declaring that race is no longer a problem in America. That’s wishful thinking; we are still haunted by our nation’s original sin.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 01:52pm PT
|
But if she voluntarily chose to sell her car yesterday she wouldn't have nearly hit you with it this morning,.. sounds like that would be a good recommendation to her anyway.
Agreed! But that's a different argument. You didn't ask for gun owners to give up ALL their guns. You said "voluntary reduction," which implies that they keep one or more of their otherwise (as some have called it) "huge stockpile."
If you're advocating that gun owners voluntarily give up ALL their guns, that would indeed be like you advocating that this texting woman give up her (only) car. No guns: no shooting anything; no cars: no (irresponsible) driving.
But, of course, THAT's not gonna happen!
So, we're back to "reduction" being a red herring.
The problem is that the people that most need to have guns/cars taken away from them will still manage to get them. Make any object illegal for which there is a robust market, and you only serve to create a black market for that object.
You might succeed in making that object more expensive, but you won't "reduce" its availability. And the darkness of the market, coupled with the increased expense, then in turn fuels gangland activities and vast amounts of surrounding/related crime, including property crime and robbery to feed the increased costs.
We now have plenty of historical evidence across every type of society and political structure (from Communist USSR to the USA) to know how this game works.
And thank you for the expression of concern. Seriously, incidents like this remind me how quickly a "normal" and "safe" drive to the office can very suddenly get ugly and even live-changing (or ending).
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2015 - 01:57pm PT
|
Canada's gun laws are far from perfect; however, hand guns are extremely closely restricted.
To he best of my knowledge, there are NO concealed carry permits for civilians. Also, the last time I checked, we aren't under the jackboot heel of an unelected dictator - although I've got to admit that our constipated stoat of a Prime Minister does indeed have delusions of grandeur.
Not surprisingly, he's the Canadian equivalent of a Republican.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 01:59pm PT
|
Ron said
what about the pure fact that with increased gun ownership in the USA, the murder rates have gone down? A true fact on it's own. However very misleading as the rate of all serious crimes have fallen in the same period.
And fallen faster than the gun death rate!
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
and
The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981. I have known 3 people who killed themselves with firearms. The first in 1981. Two of them were friends.
More guns doesn't make anyone safer.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
|
You're just nitpicking me dude.
I really don't think that I am. There is an important distinction between "reduce" and "eliminate." You have always seemed to me to be someone not advocating "eliminate," but your talking about the woman not have any car to drive equates to "eliminate." That's not nit-picking. We're really talking about whether or not "reducing" is relevant, and I continue to state that "reducing" the number of vehicles this woman owns (as long as the number remains one or more) has ZERO effect upon whether or not she is a responsible driver.
By the same token, the number of guns owned (as long as each owner has one or more) has ZERO effect on whether that owner is safe and responsible.
And "reducing" the number in circulation "down" to the point that would be "few" enough of them to "reduce" the number that criminals can get will only boost the black market supply and increase cost. Again, we have ample historical evidence to know how this game works.
I enjoined your discussion in the spirit of your request. The 'gun nuts' (for jrig, I quoted that because madbolter1 used the term in the post to which I responded, but please, cry on my sleeve anyway! I need to clean my glasses) CAN work together to reduce the supply of weaponry. They can!
Wait. Now who's getting emotional? You can assert "they CAN" until the cows come home, but the "reduction" argument simply doesn't work (see above).
Take a deep breath, divorce your emotional reaction that you have to defend each and every point, and just ... think... about what I am suggesting.
Right back at ya. I don't think I'm being "emotional," and I'm sure you don't think that you are. I don't find the "reduction" argument plausible in the slightest, for reason (not emotional outbursts) given above.
There are some NRA folk who think the answer is MORE guns. They celebrate the ever increasing ratio of gun ownership and tout, as if in celebration, the ever increasing number of firearms in total.
I'm not among them, nor is anybody with whom I associate. That said, I believe that the NUMBER (increased or reduced) is in itself irrelevant.
Begin to build a restrained approach to the celebration of our 2nd amendment rights!
I LOVE the sound of that, and I sincerely mean that. Of course, the devil's in the details, and the sentence will mean wildly different things to different people.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 02:23pm PT
|
More guns doesn't make anyone safer.
"Less" guns doesn't either.
You either BAN them altogether, or you are right where we are now. People keep telling me that nobody on this thread is advocating an outright ban.
Good, because in this nation, banning won't work.
So, any real-world solutions will have to build in the FACT of broad-scale gun ownership and carrying.
Real-world solutions will have to really study the underlying (not band-aid) causes of violence in general and seek to resolve those problems.
And NO such solutions will save us from the likes of this latest sicko. In a free society, such whack jobs WILL emerge and have their way with us. That is one of the prices we pay to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 02:24pm PT
|
Cheers :)
Cheers indeed. Great day to you.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 03:11pm PT
|
Blue- switch careers to education, preferably at some inter-city disadvantaged neighborhood public institution, then get back to me.
OK I'm back! I don't understand what your intention is that I learn? I've spent atleast 1 day a month in all my daughters classes from K-3 watching and helping the teachers. And I'm pretty sure JTree is amongst the poorest towns not just of Cali, but the whole US? As for bike paths Pffft, we can't even afford sidewalks! Grass for kids to run on. None!
Workbooks for the kids, naw, photocopies from the teachers. Music class, none. Art supplies, parents supply the crayons. PE is twice a week for 30mins. No balls, no sport equip. I actually supplied the only ball for my daughters class.
So I do have a little experience.
And I am taking your advice by taking classes at CC to get my credentials : )
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2015 - 07:42pm PT
|
In the spirit of creating talking points to get rid of the plague of handguns, here's a few suggestions that could at least be considered, and are offered in good faith:
-Possession of unregistered handguns (and any other firearms for that matter) AFTER an amnesty period shall be considered to be a felony.
This amnesty would not apply to firearms already used to commit a felony.
-Possession of registered handguns will continue to be legal.
-After a designated period of time, all concealed carry permits will be revoked.
-A generous buy back program shall be implemented to buy back handguns and any legally owned automatic weapons from their owners.
-The use of firearms to commit a crime will continue to be a crime - a Federal crime.
Perhaps these aren't perfect suggestions for legislation but, if implemented, they would bring U.S. gun laws into a comparable parity with other advanced industrial democracies.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 07:51pm PT
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
Jun 23, 2015 - 02:20pm PT
Dylann Roof is a Devout Conservative Christian
His Manifesto sites that his inspiration is from the Council Of Conservative Citizens, A CONSERVATIVE Christian Group that want America to become a Christian Theocracy
By your logic, all ST posters are big wall climbers.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 08:02pm PT
|
^^^Pfffft. What'cha ya gonna do about the 15 unregistered ones I got buried in the back yard?
I'm a felon. So I don't give a dang about any registering. "Badges, we don't need no stink'in badges!" Lol
If I wanted to kill ya, I could kill ya. You all are just talk'in out the side of your mouths. Lol
I can buy an unregistered gun faster then you can buy a registered one. How you gonna curtail the black market?
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2015 - 08:27pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR: By happily tossing you into Federal prison. There'd be plenty of room there after we freed all the non-violent offenders when we acknowledged the dismal failure of The War on Drugs.
And with the $1 TRILLION dollars that have been saved, there might even be funds available to help you learn that people are on planet Earth for only a short time, and death is forever.
Grow up. Consider the misery unleashed by armed wingnuts upon innocent human beings and hang your head in shame.
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2015 - 09:46pm PT
|
Rdog: Gee.. I guess it depends upon what Tea Party Web Site you're using.
According to the Floria Department of Law Enforcement, the violent death rate actually skyrocketed after they enacted the "hold your ground" laws.
The "y" axis in your graph was upside down, you bloody fool.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 09:46pm PT
|
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice the add banner?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 09:59pm PT
|
There'd be plenty of room there after we freed all the non-violent offenders when we acknowledged the dismal failure of The War on Drugs.
SWEET! So we abandon the "dismal failure of the War on Drugs" after having abandoned a dismal failure of the War on Hard Liquor, only to follow it all up with a brand new War on Guns!
SWEET! Double SWEET!
I predict more gangs and a fresh black market on unregistered firearms. Oh, and a dismal failure of the War on Guns.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 10:01pm PT
|
Well Stewart I gave you a for instance of what's real and you just walk away.
Do you really think your restrictions are gonna curtail the thugs in LA from getting weapons?
They don't have to down to Big5 and register for a gun. Alot of them don't even have ID. No, there's lots of exvet militaristic rebels out there who have been buying guns and grinding off the numbers to sell for profit. And those stockpiles will last for a long time.
Sorry bud your not gonna make a peaceful society by writing more laws.
What's your next guess?
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2015 - 10:42pm PT
|
madbolter & BLUEBLOCR: Well, at least you'd be in jail with them, BLUEBLOCR, so that would be an improvement right there.
Since neither one of you seem to have developed the capacity to actually think, let me repeat what should have been obvious from my earlier post:
I suggested no "War" on anyone who has a legitimate need and/or lawful use for firearms. People can keep their guns if they use them responsibly.
My comments were clearly intended to begin a search for a solution to the evil of irresponsible firearm use in the U.S. and there isn't a word that I'm aware of of posting that doesn't fall squarely in line with laws that (to my knowledge) exist in EVERY other advanced industrialized democracy on planet Earth.
When it comes to responsible use of firearms among these nations, the U.S. comes in last.
On the other hand, the U.S. leads in the way it abuses visible minorities and the poor in general.
Perhaps if you pinheads would agree that a few more social programs for the needy might be a good idea, then those gangs in L.A. and elsewhere might not be as quick on the trigger. Maybe, maybe not - but I suspect a significant percentage would consider a generous cash reward for surrendering their guns to be an attractive prospect.
If I WAS going to suggest a declaration of war on any group of people, the suppliers of illegal firearms would be at the top of the list, and the jail terms would be draconian.
Tax the rich fairly if you need more money. Once upon a time those parasites actually paid a relatively fair share of their income.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 11:11pm PT
|
Blueblocr
That adage was started by people no longer able to do the physical work demanded within their industry.
I did not know that. Honestly, thanks.
That written, the adage today is clearly used as an insult. Has been for quite some time. For example, during 2011 teachers' protest in Wisconsin, the adage was thrown around on an offline always in an derogatory manner.
Cheers.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 11:58pm PT
|
^^^ really? When I read his story about having to change professions, I didn't recognize his use as an insult. No biggie. But if he's becoming a teacher why put it down
You seem not so swift at reading either. I never said you put him down reread my post.
As for his meaning, and your meaning, take how you want Negative Nellie : (
Vvvvvvvv v v vvvvvvvv v
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!