skirtcafe.org

Goddammit Carl, this damn forum kicked me off again somewhere in the middle of my writing my post. And no I didn't think I was going to write such a long piece, but it didn't give me any indication I wasn't logged in until I tried to submit it! Is there some kind of time limit on this thing?

signed,

One VERY Unhappy Camper

Suffice it to say:

Tor, I didn't conflate your two mechanisms; you're still conflating popular discontent with the available candidates with discontent with the offices and ignoring the practical problems that would come from having to rerun an election that happened to have 2 candidates that weren't popular enough to beat "None of the Above."

Carl, the facts of this year's election refutes your contentions.

Whoever it was pressing for a Constitutional Convention: that's only one update mechanism in our Constitution. The one that's kept it fresh is the Amendment process that was put into play as soon as the Constitution passed. Remember grade school civics, the first 10 amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights. In fact, 12 were proposed but only 10 were ratified by the states in time.

As far as the Civil War changing our conception of our country from it being a federation of states to a unified whole, the same was said about the War of 1812 (see Six Frigates). The AA on the shoulder flash of the US Army's 82nd Airborne Div. dates back to its organization for WWI. At that time, most of the Army's divisions were organized by the states and mobilized for emergencies. The recruits who compromised the 82nd took as a point of pride that they came from all over the US so they called themselves the "All American" division. During the Depression my father worked all over the South because there was more construction going on there. One night a fellow electrician invited him home for dinner. The other man's daughter looked Dad up and down and told her father, "Daddy he doesn't look any different than anyone else, I thought you told us you bringing a Damn Yankee home for dinner!" My Mother worked in Washington, DC during the Second World War where she met a number of Southern belles who told her they didn't know "Damn Yankee" was 2 word until they moved to Washington. To this day when someone doesn't like a federal law they're likely to holler "State's rights!"

So which crisis was it that unified us as a nation? Permanently? None of the above. This country's a work in progress and always will be.

It may look at times like an oligarchy, it sure did during the Gilded Era. But working the levers of government Theodore Roosevelt put an end to that and yes, he was a Republican and they were as dedicated to maintaining the perogatives of the elite then as they are now.

Carl, the excess power of the current moneyed classes will be curtailed in time because as I said before, dollars don't vote, people do. This year, a critical mass of both Republicans and Democrats are much more than angry with the current situation. The voices for change in both parties have identified "the elite" as the villain.

By November 9 I predict the upstart Republicans backing Trump will succeed in crippling the Grand Old Party. The upstart Democrats have already succeeded in putting their stamp on the platform and I doubt they will leave it at that. The elected officials in between those two poles will have no choice but to get busy addressing the real problems of the country like good jobs, affordable higher education, affordable health care, global warming, etc. rather than finding yet another tax break for the ultra-rich.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Goddammit Carl, this damn forum kicked me off again somewhere in the middle of my writing my post. And no I didn't think I was going to write such a long piece, but it didn't give me any indication I wasn't logged in until I tried to submit it! Is there some kind of time limit on this thing?

Another thing you can do if you're writing a lengthy piece is to use the "preview" button periodically (even if you don't feel the need to); that act resets the auto-logout clock (which is set for an hour I believe). Ditto if you get interrupted while composing; hit "preview", deal with the interruption, and if it takes less than an hour to deal with, reset the logout-clock by hitting "preview" again and continuing with your composition. That won't help if your 'Net connection drops and you get a substantially different IP address (which is entirely likely if you're using a wireless-provider's network) but will protect you from time-outs.

I lost a composition of a few paragraphs a few days ago when I was context-switched into a conversation (more of a reiteration of things I'd written earlier and an argument) that lasted over an hour which flushed what I was working on.

Carl, the facts of this year's election refutes your contentions.

Indeed, Trump is an anomaly, but he's an anomaly that can be dealt with in several different ways so long as he's not given the launch-codes early on in his tenure (which, if he gets "elected" will astound me).

It may look at times like an oligarchy, it sure did during the Gilded Era. But working the levers of government Theodore Roosevelt put an end to that and yes, he was a Republican and they were as dedicated to maintaining the perogatives of the elite then as they are now.

Theodore Roosevelt, at the time, was considered a renegade president by the then-oligarchy and likely still is by today's; the key is that it's important for there to not be any more -- and in a country where getting "elected" takes millions upon millions of dollars guarantees that the economic elites will have a say in who is "running". A good starting point would be the repeal of Citizens United, but that is entirely unlikely to happen as the Supreme Court dislikes overturning its own decisions (not to mention the point that the Court is now a collection if ideologues not an impartial assemblage of jurists).

Carl, the excess power of the current moneyed classes will be curtailed in time because as I said before, dollars don't vote, people do. This year, a critical mass of both Republicans and Democrats are much more than angry with the current situation. The voices for change in both parties have identified "the elite" as the villain.

See above about the role of money in the system. Real change will only happen once to corrupting influence of money is removed from the equation; only then will legislatures and elected officials be able to fairly formulate strategy and policy that actually benefits the entire nation and not just the ruling class. As far as "both parties have identified 'the elite' as the villain" goes, that's theatre. Hillary is guaranteed to jettison all of Sanders' portion of the party platform once "elected" because the legislature, still under control, will not pass one lick of it. Even if she doesn't jettison it the net observable effect of it will be the same -- further concentration of wealth at the top and a more deeply impoverished and diminished middle class (the lower class already having negative wealth).

By November 9 I predict the upstart Republicans backing Trump will succeed in crippling the Grand Old Party.

Certainly the Republican Party has been effectively usurped by the Taleban (the "T" in "T party") who simply want to destroy government as we know it save for the "security" mechanisms ("police", military, and more and ever bigger prisons (which, by the way are great money-makers)). This has led to the more classical elements of the party either departing the party or being left without a voice. This disenfranchisement of "classical Republicans" might be the starting-point for an actually viable third party, as might be the disenfranchisement of the more progressive faction in the Democratic Party.

The upstart Democrats have already succeeded in putting their stamp on the platform and I doubt they will leave it at that. The elected officials in between those two poles will have no choice but to get busy addressing the real problems of the country like good jobs, affordable higher education, affordable health care, global warming, etc. rather than finding yet another tax break for the ultra-rich.

I'll believe that when I see the sun rising in the west.

Dave, the browser you use may have an effect on how much aggravation exceeding your time causes you. The other thing that may help is to (if on an appropriate computer) use the "keep me logged in" option. I've had it happen that I wait too long to reply a few times and I get returned to the reply page with my reply intact, and a message that "the submitted form was invalid". If you've spent time composing a longer reply, do a C-a C-c before submitting. If it fails, return to the reply page, paste your reply back in, and all is well.

By the way, the "keep me logged in" option is cookie based, and I've had it work from different networks with all four octets of IP different - though never trying to post a reply across that. Hmmm... interesting test.

PdxFashionPioneer wrote:...you're still conflating popular discontent with the available candidates with discontent with the offices and ignoring the practical problems that would come from having to rerun an election that happened to have 2 candidates that weren't popular enough to beat "None of the Above."

What about the practical problems in not having a reliable way for voters to indicate that the candidate selection process is so broken that all of the candidates are "useless" to dangerous in office?

As for the Bill of Rights being amendments, that is technically true, the ratification of the Constitution was contingent upon having that Bill of Rights. By the way, you'd best be careful about gutting any of those ten, or you may be breaking the contract upon which the Constitution was ratified, and (technically) invalidating the whole thing.

dillon wrote:[The Constitution] is a trusting document that infers a level of faith in humans to which they seldom prove worthy.

If humans are so untrustworthy that even the Constitution isn't good enough, then how can giving a subset of those humans unworthy of such faith the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?

Tor wrote:As for the Bill of Rights being amendments, that is technically true, the ratification of the Constitution was contingent upon having that Bill of Rights. By the way, you'd best be careful about gutting any of those ten, or you may be breaking the contract upon which the Constitution was ratified, and (technically) invalidating the whole thing.

Too late. The only one of the as-ratified Bill of Rights that has any traction remaining to it is the one regarding the billeting of soldiers in private domiciles.

Amendment 1: Widely ignored. "Hate speech" as crime, certain local restrictions on the free and peaceable assembly of individuals (mainly teenagers), restrictions on certain "unpopular" religions, The Southern Baptist Congress, requiring license or tracking individuals who read certain books (PATRIOT Act.)

Amendment 2: Largely rendered void by a bewildering array of restrictions some varying from municipality to adjoining municipality. No codified reciprocity in licensing between states or municipalities.

Amendment 3: Still in force.

Amendment 4: Laughably ignored. "Stop and Frisk", mainly used against persons of colour, "sobriety checkpoints", random searches of automobiles following a "traffic stop" for something unrelated to anything likely in the car. Deep and invasive surveillance of electronic records. Internet tracking.

Amendment 5: Laughably ignored. Mandatory seizure of personal passwords requiring the accused's disclosure of them coupled with seizure of electronic assets under Amendment 4.

Amendment 6: Void. Ridiculously long waits for trial with the accused imprisoned, double-jeopardy in the secondary use of civil courts when a criminal case could not be proved by the State. Gitmo. Random shoot-to-kill by police with no credible investigation afterwards.

Amendment 7: Largely voided by restrictions requiring mediation/arbitration for things that should at least be civil if not criminally chargeable (product liability; labour law).

Amendment 8: Widely ignored. Demanding ridiculous levels of bail for minor infractions. Holding of suspects who have not even been formally charged for weeks or months until trial is held. Sentences that damage or overtly hinder life beyond then end of said sentence, "sex-offender lists", GPS tracking of those who have completed a sentence. Unreasonable holding of persons who do not threaten public safety or order.

Amendment 9 and 10: Largely irrelevant given the current status of the first 8.

Conclusion. The bill of rights is now a sad and laughable part of the past and might as well be abolished. Having NO law on something is better than having laws that are flaunted.

crfriend wrote: Amendment 4: Laughably ignored. "Stop and Frisk", mainly used against persons of colour

Isn't it standard procedure when entering establishments such as malls, supermarkets, train stations, etc. to perform inspections on ALL people who enter them?

Judah14 wrote:Isn't it standard procedure when entering establishments such as malls, supermarkets, train stations, etc. to perform inspections on ALL people who enter them?

Not in a free country. If malls started frisking people (as in a pat-down or even, perhaps, using metal-detectors) many, if not most, malls would fail within a few weeks. Flying has become so personally intrusive that lots of folks have given up on it unless they cannot avoid it; if the same things happened with rail transport commuting the large distances that we have to in the USA would become impossible for many and involve extreme congestion on the roads. It'd be impossible to perform such acts at supermarkets unless the police presence, which is already bad/excessive, got even worse; moreover, where's the money going to come from, save increasing taxes on those who can least afford them.

In general, scatter-shot approaches as are taken today in the name of "security" are theatre and have little to no effect on somebody who is determined to wreak havoc; it's mainly done to inconvenience the general population and "show them" that "something is being done" when, in fact, it's not. And when you have a gun pointed at your head you tend to behave like a sheep. Ever been held at gun-point? It's not fun. Been there, done that.

crfriend wrote: Not in a free country. If malls started frisking people (as in a pat-down or even, perhaps, using metal-detectors) many, if not most, malls would fail within a few weeks. Flying has become so personally intrusive that lots of folks have given up on it unless they cannot avoid it; if the same things happened with rail transport commuting the large distances that we have to in the USA would become impossible for many and involve extreme congestion on the roads. It'd be impossible to perform such acts at supermarkets unless the police presence, which is already bad/excessive, got even worse; moreover, where's the money going to come from, save increasing taxes on those who can least afford them.

Such inspections are SOP in such establishments around the Philippines and people don't take it as an issue, though this could be a case of cultural dissonance.

Judah14 wrote:Such inspections are SOP in such establishments around the Philippines and people don't take it as an issue, though this could be a case of cultural dissonance.

Wow.

That's highly likely cultural dissonance. If that sort of thing started happening here I would boycott every place that started doing it, and see to it that a list got published on-line to point the practise up -- and I highly suspect I would be in the majority doing that. There will be sheep who will allow themselves to be subjected to that sort of degradation, and over the course of a generation or two it could well become the norm. But most in the USA today simply would not patronise establishments that behaved so and "vote with their wallets" by taking business elsewhere where the practise wasn't followed, or engage in assorted third-party exchanges or even, perhaps a black market.

The pushback in the USA against those sorts of shenanigans would be fast, hard, and furious -- and the folks running businesses would be forced to tell the government to back off because they'd go bankrupt otherwise. We're seeing some of the anger about the way things are going already bubbling up in the form of the folks who are supporting Donald Trump; the support for Trump, mind, is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is elsewhere.

dillon wrote:[The Constitution] is a trusting document that infers a level of faith in humans to which they seldom prove worthy.

If humans are so untrustworthy that even the Constitution isn't good enough, then how can giving a subset of those humans unworthy of such faith the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?[/quote]

I never argued such. What I suggested is that by right and design, Constitutional reform belongs to the people through elected representation, and that failing to exercise this authority is symptomatic of the triumph of human greed, fear and loathing over our better virtues. If you read my remarks, you'd find that I argued exactly the opposite; that the people be heard and inspired to exercise their hearts and minds by following the wishes of the framers. It is your elected representatives who choose to defer Constitutional issues to the Court, not me. That's clearly something to take up with them, but you cannot blame the Judiciary for doing its job when Congress abdicates. The Judiciary doesn't get a free pass to ignore issues of Law and Constitution like Congress does.

Remember, too, at no place does the Constitution specify the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. That number has changed several times in our history, and is controlled by law, specifically the Judiciary Act of 1869 at present. Congress can change that law if they do not feel that nine Justices are capable of deciding important matters or the Constitutionality of laws; they could decide rather than nine, that we have ninety-nine Justices. But the fact is that we do not elect our representatives as bold leaders or innovators; we elect them to squirm and beg and obfuscate the effects of whatever they legislate, all for the success of the most vocal, or best financed, minorities. After all, the empty wagon rattles loudest, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need reform simply to prod our politics closer to public interest, even if by only inches at a time against a distance of miles.

So, IMO, angry conservatives should be bitching-out their own Representatives and Senators for their hypocritical failure, not "dissing" their fellow citizens for being liberal-minded and vice versa. I may be nuts, but I have faith that progressive thought will ultimately prevail over theocracy and stick-in-the-mud conservatism when it comes to popular Constitutional reform. At the very least it will take important issues away from sound-byte politics and perhaps connect with that portion of the populus who normally never expose themselves to anything deeper than the wretched Good Morning America type of giggly, shallow info-tainment pablum, and maybe inspire them to actually think about the shape of the Nation they would like to leave for their children. With luck and blessings, Kim and Kanye won't figure into the process.

I once opposed term limits, but now think Trump might actually be onto something by reviving that quite old idea - remember, it was a popular proposal back in the 80s and not something he invented, although I'm sure he will claim credit for it. I would suggest 2 Senate terms and 6 House terms. This reduces the election-year clout of incumbency. I would further assign committee chairs by seniority of committee members, regardless of party control, knowing that those posts will change frequently as members "term-out". That takes some of those plum posts out of the hands of the Speaker and puts them within the committee. In fact the only officiating post I would allow, under a Constitutional reform, to be completely party-controlled is the post of Speaker of the House.

Also, neither the body of the Constitution nor any Amendment specified the number of Congressional Representatives; that too is by Congressional action - the Apportionment Act of 1911 - and is based on the most inane reasoning one can imagine. At that time it was decided that the House Chamber of the US Capitol had physical room for only 435 members to be seated, so Congress fixed the number of Representatives and began to simply grow their districts as the population grew. That Act rewards the rejuggling of districts to protect a party's Congressmen as they become ever more powerful through seniority.

We now live in an era of instant communication, which can be fairly well-secured by encryption and by developing a dedicated system that does not interface with the greater internet. Therefore, the Apportionment Act is clearly outdated. I think it is time that the House of Representatives be restored to its original intent, which is to effectively represent the population. With Congressional districts likely approaching a million citizens each by the end of this century, I think we should reform it Constitutionally. I suggest that instead of adjusting the district size to a fixed total number of representatives, fix the district to a set population (I suggest 250,000 citizens) and allow the number of Representatives from each state to grow or contract with population. At 320 million Americans, we would have a House of Representatives with 1280 members for ten years, and likely several more added during each following decade. I suggest that a new district be granted when the ten-year census shows that a state's population has grown by at least 60% enough (150,000) new citizens for an additional district of 250,000.

So how does the Capitol accommodate the large number? It doesn't! There is NO GOOD REASON a Representative needs to be in Washington DC every day; in fact I would argue that, aside from taking the oath of office, it is far better for the country that they NOT be there at all. Having all the Representatives concentrated in DC is nothing more than a CONVENIENCE FOR LOBBYISTS to spread around their cash. Instead of sending the government to the lobbyists, make the lobbyists go forth into the real world. We could have each state convene its Congressional delegation from an office in the State Capital but, really, in this day and age, a Congressman never actually needs to leave his District at all. All votes can be cast electronically with a signed (paper) vote attestation delivered later; all committee meetings, debates, etc, can be done by teleconference. That's the "work-from-home" concept applied to politicians, but moreover, it keeps a Representative in touch with those he/she is sworn to represent. It helps keep politics more local and less national. And it forces all that political money to be dispersed more thinly. Imagine the concept of a citizen actually being able to travel only within his district and meet with his Congressman!

This reform doesn't guarantee any less partisanship, of course, but it does mean that the Representative cannot insulate himself as effectively from the advice or displeasure of his constituents, since the margins of election victory will be much smaller. He/she needs to know the minds of every voter he possibly can. It should, therefore, promote local interest, constituent service, and ideological moderation above (the Koch/Rove type of) money-driven legislation. If this is coupled with redistricting rules that keep counties and other municipalities intact whenever possible, we will have done a lot to promote both fairness and the quality of representation; after that the chips can fall where they may, at least until we see what further reforms would improve our democracy.

crfriend wrote: Wow.

That's highly likely cultural dissonance. If that sort of thing started happening here I would boycott every place that started doing it, and see to it that a list got published on-line to point the practise up -- and I highly suspect I would be in the majority doing that. There will be sheep who will allow themselves to be subjected to that sort of degradation, and over the course of a generation or two it could well become the norm. But most in the USA today simply would not patronise establishments that behaved so and "vote with their wallets" by taking business elsewhere where the practise wasn't followed, or engage in assorted third-party exchanges or even, perhaps a black market.

The pushback in the USA against those sorts of shenanigans would be fast, hard, and furious -- and the folks running businesses would be forced to tell the government to back off because they'd go bankrupt otherwise. We're seeing some of the anger about the way things are going already bubbling up in the form of the folks who are supporting Donald Trump; the support for Trump, mind, is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is elsewhere.

People who visit the Philippines do get intimidated by those security measures at first, not to mention that many of the security guards here carry shotguns or rifles:


For the record,the guard in the bottom picture is carrying a USAS-12 automatic (select-fire) shotgun (guards here normally carry the Armscor M30 pump-action shotgun). I bet if guards like these get stationed at malls in the US the number of shoppers visiting them would decrease.

Judah14 wrote:

crfriend wrote: Amendment 4: Laughably ignored. "Stop and Frisk", mainly used against persons of colour

Isn't it standard procedure when entering establishments such as malls, supermarkets, train stations, etc. to perform inspections on ALL people who enter them?

In this case, as in most, the truth doesn't always match the goal or the ideal. Since "Stop and frisk" was suspended in NYC, gun violence has increased, although nowhere near where the city was twenty years ago. Despite what we may think of its constitutionality, or its inherent race-based employment, the sad fact is that it was effective, at least to a small extent, at preventing gun violence. When "stop and frisk" went away, the guns started coming back out. That policy alone, however, has had only a small impact in the historic decline of NYC homicide; better enforcement of other laws, general economic growth, and "gentrification" are far larger causes of the lower violence rates. But the conundrum here is similar to the debate over the 2nd amendment, i.e. how many lives are worth the trade-off with personal liberties and potential racial harassment? I don't have an answer, and don't imagine there is an easy one, but there must be a commonsense compromise somewhere...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/nyreg ... lasio.html

dillon wrote:In this case, as in most, the truth doesn't always match the goal or the ideal. Since "Stop and frisk" was suspended in NYC, gun violence has increased, although nowhere near where the city was twenty years ago. Despite what we may think of its constitutionality, or its inherent race-based employment, the sad fact is that it was effective, at least to a small extent, at preventing gun violence.

I don't deny for an instant that the tactic wasn't effective. The question is whether it was legal or not, or whether the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America had to be tacitly ignored for the policy to be pursued. It's the tacitly ignored (i.e. unenforced) aspect that's troubling. Not enforcing an extant law fosters contempt for law in general. If a law is bad or out of date, repeal it, don't turn a blind eye. This includes, by the way, the Second Amendment (which, in modern practise, is pretty much nullified anyway). Another question is whether "Stop and Frisk" is still in common use even though it's been "suspended". Granted or assumed powers multiply; liberties divide.

In any event, that was only one egregious example I cited, and that policy is highly likely still in force in other jurisdictions, either formally or informally. The Fourth Amendment is largely dead now, simply because it's widely ignored.

Judah14 wrote:

crfriend wrote: Wow.

That's highly likely cultural dissonance. If that sort of thing started happening here I would boycott every place that started doing it, and see to it that a list got published on-line to point the practise up -- and I highly suspect I would be in the majority doing that. There will be sheep who will allow themselves to be subjected to that sort of degradation, and over the course of a generation or two it could well become the norm. But most in the USA today simply would not patronise establishments that behaved so and "vote with their wallets" by taking business elsewhere where the practise wasn't followed, or engage in assorted third-party exchanges or even, perhaps a black market.

The pushback in the USA against those sorts of shenanigans would be fast, hard, and furious -- and the folks running businesses would be forced to tell the government to back off because they'd go bankrupt otherwise. We're seeing some of the anger about the way things are going already bubbling up in the form of the folks who are supporting Donald Trump; the support for Trump, mind, is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is elsewhere.

People who visit the Philippines do get intimidated by those security measures at first, not to mention that many of the security guards here carry shotguns or rifles

Actually, most police cruisers probably have a pump or military-style auto shotgun in the trunk. When my dad was a police officer, his patrol car had one on the center console, a feature added in the mid 1970s and discontinued a few years later.

Rifles are rare among police here though, except for special teams...SWAT or sharpshooters. There is a concern among police about unintended victims of police shooting, so weapons which might fire rounds prone to pass through criminals and strike innocent bystanders are frowned upon, hence the preference for shotguns, and limited velocity ammo in handguns.

Although it is right and appropriate to train police in defense of themselves and other potential victims of crime, it seems they could use more training in de-escalation, restraint and alternatives to shooting. When my dad was a police officer, cops didn't mind "mixing it up" with criminals, and taking their licks in subduing culprits physically. But they also knew when to pursue and when to back off. Two things my dad always said were "You had to know when to let someone get away. We usually had an idea who it was and knew that we would catch him within a day or two" and, upon his retirement after 37 years, "I am most grateful that I never had to take a life in my years of service. I can count on my fingers the number of times I drew my weapon, and I never fired a shot other than a warning shot." True, he retired before the spread of urban gangs into the South, and before the advent of "crack cocaine", but more critically, retired before the country became awash in auto handguns. Criminals typically had "Saturday Night Specials" - cheap, small caliber revolvers, and not high-power autos, and never assault rifles.

When I was teaching agriculture in Ethiopia, it was a little unnerving for the college guard to come into my lodging at night to watch soccer games on the TV while I was up late preparing lessons, and lean his AK47 against the sofa, but, in general, a weapon is only as dangerous as the man holding it. He carried it because it was his job, but he was the nicest man you could imagine, and I was happy to have him outside my residence at night. I worry more about open-carrying and concealed-carrying Americans. Being armed is perhaps something psychological for these people, and there is no psych exam required for these folks to get either a weapon or the permit to carry it concealed. They have only safety training, proof of being able to use the weapon safely and effectively, and legal understanding of the limits of their rights and responsibilities with the weapon. It's scary, especially if you ever hear some of their over-the-top, paranoiac rhetoric, knowing that people with questionable stability are wandering around out there, lawfully armed.

BTW, when the guard used to come in my place, I was often skirted. He never said anything or even seemed to notice. Possibly, he thought it was just house-clothing for American men; I don't know. But I know the young lady I paid to wash my clothes, who spoke mostly either Oromo or Amharic, and not much English, when she brought my clean and folded clothing back and would lay out each piece for my approval, used to smile, giggle, and say "mini-skirt" when she laid one of my skirts out. I always tipped her well.

dillon wrote:Actually, most police cruisers probably have a pump or military-style auto shotgun in the trunk. When my dad was a police officer, his patrol car had one on the center console, a feature added in the mid 1970s and discontinued a few years later.

You must live in a more civilised part of the country than I do. Hereabouts pump-shotguns are commonly very visible in "police" cruisers, and entire teams capable of taking down small developing countries are available on split-second timing by way of a radio call. Full auto-weapons in the hands of local police remain rare, but are immediately available if anybody farts in the wrong direction.

I am vastly more frightened by the might and majesty of the State than I am of any random thug on the street. If a thug manages to get a round into me, likely by accident, he'll be shot dead a few minutes later and a trial be damned. If the para-civilian "police" go wild there will be no accountability whatsoever. "Police" here haven't been a civil force of "peace officers" for about 20 years, hence my use of "para-civilian" meaning not "military" but not "civilian" at the same time. Look at their own rhetoric used to describe encounters with the public to understand what I mean in this. It's disgusting.

Two things my dad always said were "You had to know when to let someone get away. We usually had an idea who it was and knew that we would catch him within a day or two" and, upon his retirement after 37 years, "I am most grateful that I never had to take a life in my years of service. I can count on my fingers the number of times I drew my weapon, and I never fired a shot other than a warning shot."

Those halcyon days when the police in the USA approximated what Sir Robert Peel envisioned as a civilian police force to be are long since a distant memory. Today upon calling 911 one seems to be as likely to be shot dead as not and there is never any accountability. Sir Peel is, no doubt, spinning in his grave.

BTW, when the guard used to come in my place [with his AK-47], I was often skirted. He never said anything or even seemed to notice. Possibly, he thought it was just house-clothing for American men; I don't know. But I know the young lady I paid to wash my clothes, who spoke mostly either Oromo or Amharic, and not much English, when she brought my clean and folded clothing back and would lay out each piece for my approval, used to smile, giggle, and say "mini-skirt" when she laid one of my skirts out. I always tipped her well.

I love this. Yes, any weapon is precisely as dangerous as the individual carrying it is unstable or unaccountable. The overwhelming majority of US citizens who carry so are neither of the two categories above. The "police" one or more. Whom do you you fear more?

The giggle and comment of "mini-skirt" is priceless. Sometimes life really is good, especially if you can spread that feeling around.

crfriend wrote:

I laughed my way through this one. Unfortunately, I don't think any of it can be refuted. Not that the Constitution itself is any more thoroughly observed. Regrettably, the founders failed to institute a suitable punishment clause for violations of the Bill of Rights. I've seen everything up to death by public hanging proposed, and can't say that I'd argue against any of them. Mind, that is for those working for the gummint only.

Yes, any weapon is precisely as dangerous as the individual carrying it is unstable or unaccountable.

It's the latter that I see people forgetting to consider properly. And certainly, the vast majority of people are not unstable, and definitely not unaccountable.

I am vastly more frightened by the might and majesty of the State than I am of any random thug on the street.

Same here. I have yet to find credible reference to a State in the current day where this is reversed.

dillon wrote:If you read my remarks, you'd find that I argued exactly the opposite; that the people be heard and inspired to exercise their hearts and minds by following the wishes of the framers.

And just how is that to be accomplished when the whole apparatus functions as an oligarchy? See in particular the Princeton study Carl linked earlier in this thread.

It is your elected representatives who choose to defer Constitutional issues to the Court, not me. That's clearly something to take up with them...

Who ever said any of those clowns (sorry, real clowns) represent me? In every election I've ever voted in it would be more accurate to say that I cast my vote as self-defence against likely worse future conditions if "my 'choice'" didn't get in.

Whether I may have misconstrued your statement or not, the question stands on its own without reference to any particular country:

If humans are so untrustworthy that they must be watched and controlled, then how can giving a subset of those untrustworthy humans the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?

I haven't yet seen any answers good enough to bolster my faith in any government composed of humans.