| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46305 Activity:nil |
4/16 The northwest must be taken seriously as it afflicts the CHIEN
trigram. It suggests that the leaders of the world will be squabbling
and fighting quite a fair bit. It is even likely that a major world
leader could get assassinated in 2007. The quarrelsome star 3 will
cause heated arguments and magnify misunderstandings.
\_ A "major world leader"? Would it be unbecoming to keep my
fingers crossed?
\_ Er... huh? I didn't know you could squeeze that much onto one of
those little fortune cookie papers.
\_ What, you didn't know China invented information compression
thousands of years ago along with everything else?
\_ PhilWongCompress! |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Uncategorized] UID:46307 Activity:nil |
4/16 http://www.msnbc.msn.com (see video link) Student shot in arm says shooter was Asian male, shot 10-15 students in his classroom in engineering building, didn't say anything, then left to shoot more people. Later tried to come back in, shot at door, left again. At least 33 killed and 25+ injured. One 9mm and one .22cal handgun. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Reference/Military] UID:46308 Activity:high |
4/16 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818224/posts freepers unhappy GOP-backed bill defeated - would have allowed those already with a concealed carry permit to bring a firearm to Virginia public universities \_ Which of course might have allowed law-abiding students to kill the shooter before he did so much damage. -emarkp \_ Or shoot someone else trying to shoot the shooter. Or shoot some random person by accident. Or shoot someone 2 weeks from now cause they thought he might be about to shoot someone. Hypotheticals are never as clear cut as you want them to be. \_ That last one is just stupid. \_ I guess. Maybe if law abiding citizens had watched more Steven Siegal movies. \_ What do you mean? Someone who owns a gun and knows how to use it doesn't have to have an action movie choreographer in order to threaten or use force. -emarkp \_ I think he's saying that if they had watched Steven Segal they wouldn't need a gun. \_ I doubt watching SS movies turns people into action heros. \_ Yes, if only everyone on campus were packing, nothing bad would have happened! Because, of course, everyone is well-trained in how to handle firearms, especially when their classroom is unexpectedly turned into a shooting gallery. The idea of concealed-carry permits preventing incidents like this is complete fantasy. -tom \_ So you're a prophet and I'm simply wrong? The shooter was wildly outnumbered by non-shooters, yet there was nothing they could do because no one had a gun to level the playing field. -emarkp \_ I used to hang out with some guys were total gun afficanados. At first it seemed kinda harmless but then I began to realize that most of them dreamed of being in a situation (guy breaking into their home, stopping a rape, whatever) where they could legally blow someone away. Not "I have this for protection" but "I have this cause it would be so cool if I actually got to use it on someone." You know who is the last person I want "defending" me? Some psychopath who just wants to kill someone but has enough sense to wait till it is legal. \_ I bet they didn't say that and you're projecting your own psychoses onto them. \_ No, really there was a significant number of that kept bringing up how they would use x gun in y situation to stop z crime. After hearing that a few times it became really obvious that they had spent way too much time dreaming of exactly when they would get to kill someone in the name of justice. \_ Well, what's wrong with wanting to stop crimes? Were they talking about shooting people who break traffic laws? I bet cops think about these things. Are cops psychos who became cops so they could kill people? \_ The (to be fair few) cops I've known didn't spend hours at a time talking about just how they would go about gunning down someone if x happened. \_ Well the few gun "enthusiasts" or whatever I've known don't do that either. This argument has nowhere to go "I know people who like X and do Y therefore X is bad." \_ You know, I'll bet the 30+ dead people in Virginia wouldn't have minded having a few of these people around. -emarkp \_ You mean at the time he chained the class room doors closed and lined people up to execute them? Nope, no sirree! It would have only added to the chaos and innocent people might have been hurt if they all had guns. \_ As opposed to all of them being shot without defense? How can you claim "it would have only"? One possible outcome is that the execution would have been stopped and fewer people died. -emarkp \_ Assuming that an armed populace would have made things better (an assumption I personally don't believe) do you really think this once every 10-20 years event would make up for the daily statistics as every freak out there goes vigilante? \_ There are already plenty of people who have guns. Why aren't we seeing "every freak out there going viglante" now? -emarkp \_ uh, we are. Look at U.S. murder rates. -tom \_ How many of those are gang related? How many murders are by otherwise law-abiding people suddenly going vigilante versus criminals who can get guns anyway? \_ How does some number of these murders being "gang related" ameliorate the impact on society? \_ Well, at least 33. (For comparison, England and Wales combined had a total of 50 gun homicides last year). -tom \_ Lying with statistics: you're leaving out the murderous Scots. \_ ...who still have half of the murder rate of the U.S. -tom \_ How do you know no one had a gun? -tom \_ Actually, that's a good point. I don't know that. However, guns are explicitly prohibited on campus. I think assuming that no one had a gun is a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. -emarkp \_ OK, I'll also assume that the shooters didn't have guns, then. -tom \_ Oh tom, you're so witty! -tom #1 fan \_ Some assumptions: 1) if it was legal to carry a concealed weapon enough of the students would be carrying at the right place at the right time. 2) If people were armed, instead of a 33 person massacre there wouldn't be 33 more murders spread out over a few years because now everyone is armed when they get angry. \_ If it was legal to carry, still not everyone would carry. People don't kill others just because they get angry. Using a gun on someone is like stabbing them to death with a knife. If you carried a knife around would you use it on people who made you angry? If you are that type of person you will probably wind up dead or in jail regardless of gun laws. \_ I'm pretty sure if the guy at VA Tech had a knife instead of a gun, he wouldn't have killed 31 people. -tom |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Reference/BayArea] UID:46309 Activity:nil |
4/16 Is "Oakeley" a new term referring to the Oakland/Berkeley area? I've
never heard of this term before, but I heard it three times this
morning in traffic news on KCBS AM 740.
\_ Oakley is a city out past pittsburgh that poor damned souls commute
\_ Pittsburg
from, to the bay area, maybe that's what they are referring to. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Media] UID:46310 Activity:kinda low |
4/16 Just a quick question for those who aren't upset about Imus being
fired...If the two reverends who had gotten Imus fired were Robertson
and Fallwell, and talked about "cleaning up the airwaves", would you be
upset? -emarkp
\_ this isn't about "cleaning up the airwaves". imus has said many
horribly offensive things in the past. so have many other radio
hosts. he got fired because this time the story grew legs. the
same reverends you are so upset about have complained about him
before, but it never led to his firing. the story got legs, the
advertisers got worried, they pulled their support, he got fired.
now, if you want to examine why it got legs this time around, that
may be an interesting topic. but tom's right. this is a red
herring. --scotsman
\_ Rather a red herring, don't you think, considering those are both
bigoted assholes who would never call on anyone to be fired for
racist remaks against blacks.
If Imus had instead called the University of Utah basketball
team a bunch of "Mormon white boys screwing their own sisters,"
I think he should have been fired for that, too. -tom
\_ I don't think those two got him fired. I think advertisers
threatening to not advertise with CBS anymore got him fired.
I am curious, do you listen to Imus' show? Are you really
going to defend someone who hired someone just to
write nigger jokes? I had more respect than that for you.
\_ Sharpton and Jackson were in on the board meeting of CBS
before he got fired. They also were publicly calling for
pressure on his advertising. From that I conclude that they
were involved. -emarkp
\_ See tom I see the problem as anyone being able to point at
someone and get him fired. Imus has been making nasty comments
for decades, but this time the Reverends pointed their fingers
and he was gone. I would think that would raise eyebrows here
considering how much antipathy there is on motd for organized
religion. -emarkp
\_ Imus has gotten fired numerous times without Jackson and
Sharpton being involved. And frankly, it is sad that he
wasn't fired immediately by CBS and that it took community
pressure. -tom
\_ He wasn't fired by CBS immediately because he was making
money for them. And has been for years. I've never listened
to him and given his history I wouldn't ever listen to him.
However, I *also* wouldn't call for him to be fired.
-emarkp
\_ Really? Why not? There's nothing stopping him from
spewing his shit somewhere else. If he is going to
to be a well paid moron, he should be tough enough to
face hard economic consequences.
\_ I think freedom is very important, especially
freedom of speech. For instance, I hate smoking but
voted against the massive taxes on smoking (prop 10)
and outlawing it in all buildings. I could never
vote for McCain because of his assault on 1st
amendment (campaign finance). -emarkp
\_ Imus makes money for CBS, therefore it's OK
for him to say what he wants--is that your
position? Well, I think it's also freedom of
speech for the people affected by his bigoted
speech to use *their* free speech rights to
call CBS's advertisers (the ones paying Imus)
and tell them to fire the guy. -tom
\_ No, it's for CBS to decide if he should be
fired. I just wonder why people aren't pointing
out that it's clergy that are calling for the
air to be cleaned up. And as for others using
their speech, I think it would be better for
others to respond to it and stop listening if
they're offended. Wasn't that what people were
saying when Janet Jackson flashed her boob?
-emarkp
\_ Of course when Janet Jackon showed her
boobies THE GOVERNMENT (FCC) was involved
in punitive actions. Do you see the
difference between government action
and private citizens taking action?
Imus managed to fly under most people's
for a long time, went way over the line
and suddenly people noticed "hey, what is
this asshole doing this schtick that makes
CBS many millions a year?" and found
a way to make it clear to CBS that hey,
if they wanted to keep him around it was
going to cost them via private economic
boycotts.
\_ People *are* pointing out it's clergy. You
are. It's completely irrelevant, which is
why no one else is. And are you really
trying to equate insulting people based on
their race, with flashing a nipple? Who
did Janet injure? -tom
\_ My children were injured. Tom, if you
injure my children, I WILL GET YOU. |
| 2007/4/16 [Uncategorized] UID:46311 Activity:nil |
4/16 dans, your brain has been classified as: small. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Uncategorized] UID:46312 Activity:nil |
4/16 that guy who sued Take 2 multiple times for Grand Theft Auto is
already blaming GTA for the Virginia shooting. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46313 Activity:moderate |
4/16 I recently read a book titled "Babyproofing Your Marriage." In the
chapter on sex, they had found many (most?) couples with small children
having sex on the order of once a month. This is amazing to me,
aside from around our children's birth (when you aren't medically
allowed to do it), we have never fallen below about once a week. Is
anyone here that deprived?
\_ How many years have you been together? I've had many relationships
and have had great sex in the first year. Then it drops off
sharply by the 3-4th year, and eventually the girl becomes a
bitch and complains about her salary, her friends' husbands
making more money, having a house, going to Europe, so on
so forth.
\_ Almost everything above applies to my marriage, except that my
wife complains about my salary instead of hers. But she only
lets me work 7hrs a day, so I don't see how she can compare
my salary to the salary of her friend's husbands who work ~10hrs.
-- !OP
\_ I have sex with my life like 3 times a year.
\_ Really. Do you have children? Is your wife just "too tired?"
Do you justuse porn so much you don't care?
\_ I'm not the "op", but I noticed my sex drive is definitely
reduced now that I'm exercising 2-3 hours/day. Though
if I stop exercising for 2 days the libido goes totally
through the roof.
\_ I'm not the op or pp, but I've found the opposite to be
true: the fitter I am, the higher my libido.
\_ 2-3 hrs/day? Maybe you're just plain tired.
\_ Yup. I'm just plain tired.
\_ How long have you been married?
\_ I'll avoid identifing myself too closely, but I've been married
between 1 and 7 years, and have 2 young children.
\_ Big difference between 1 year and 7 years.
\_ Dropped from every other day to every third day after the kid
was born. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46314 Activity:nil |
4/16 emarkp, you said below that you could never vote for McCain because of
his assault on 1st amendment (campaign finance)." Which part of McCain-
Feingold did you consider an assault on 1st amendment rights? --erikred
\_ The part about what can be said X days before an election. -emarkp |
| 2007/4/16 [Uncategorized] UID:46315 Activity:kinda low |
4/16 What kind of stupid name is Tiki Barber?
\_ Most names are stupid. Repeat your own name out loud 10-15 times.
After a while it will become random noise and sound stupid too.
You can play that game with any word or phrase. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46316 Activity:nil |
4/16 Question: Your preference, or fetish for certain types of mate
(brunette, blonde, curly hair, long hair, petite, buttery, etc)...
is it mostly environmental, or is it genetic?
\_ I think it's mostly environmental. But your own genetics become
part of your environment when you look in a mirror or look at your
family.
\_ Likewise, I think Oedipux complex counts as environmental factor
(your eyes see that your mom is brunette/blonde/etc.) rather than
genetic factor (you subcounsiously know that your mom is
brunette/blonde/etc.) |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Health/Men] UID:46317 Activity:nil |
4/16 Hey women, take note of this: Wealthy men cheat WAAAY more than
poor men. "For men with money, infidelity is just another perk.
Among men making more than $300,000 a year, 32 percent report
cheating, compared to 21 percent of men making less than
$35,000 a year."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951664/page/2
\_ But 90% of the women married to the men making more than $300,000
don't give a shit.
\_ 32% is still less than 1/3. "just another perk" is WAAAY overstating
it. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:46318 Activity:nil |
4/16 Why is the tax filing dealine 4/17 not 4/16 this year? (Not that I'm
complaining about that one extra day. :-) )
\_ DC has a holiday today. Boston does too. Since the filing centers
will be closed, the IRS decided to just back it off another day.
\_ What holidays are in DC and Boston that don't fall on 4/16 in
other years?
\_ According to Wikipedia, Emancipation Day is a D.C. holiday
every year on 4/16. Since 4/15 is usually not a Sunday or
a Saturday, this doesn't affect tax filing.
\_ Thanks! |
| 2007/4/16-19 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46319 Activity:nil |
4/16 Abstinence only sex education basically 1.5billion down the shitter:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/04/no_effect.html
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf |
| 2007/4/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:46320 Activity:nil |
4/16 For emarkp: Extensive debunking of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"
http://timlambert.org/guns/lott
\_ Hi troll! Sign your name. Oh, and just by chance, have you looked
for any response to Lambert, and weighed it against the paper? Or
did you just pick the first reference that fit your agenda? -emarkp
\_ Maybe we should do what Lott did, which was to create multiple
accounts in online forums to invent people to support his
ridiculous position. -tom
\_ More on Lott:
"In his published research analysis, John Lott has
claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that
concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired
an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim
allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely
few self-defense uses of handguns are ever
reported. But when scholars began questioning his
survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that
culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed
and he had "lost" all the data. The University of
Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study,
has no record of it being conducted so Lott began
claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no
records) and that he used students to make the survey
calls (though no students have been identified who
participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist
at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about
whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising
serious questions about his ethics and credibility."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott
\_ Wow, so a political group which opposes gun ownership
disagrees? Stunning. -emarkp
\_ So essentially, any document or study which doesn't
support your position, or comes from a group which
doesn't support your position, is inherently
fraudulent? Your job as a scientist in the Bush
Administration is secure!
\_ Sigh. No, I'm not arguing that. My point is that
rather than simply quoting mindlessly from the
proponent and critics is to read them both or search
for a third party. For instance, the National
Acadamy of Science looked into the issue, and while
they say they can't support the conlusion that "more
guns = less crime" they *can* conclude that "more
guns != more crime". Since I've never read the book,
nor was I claiming it was correct, I really don't
care much, except the "debunking" cited above is from
a "lecturer" of CS (particular graphics--and his Java
applet has bugs) whereas Lott has more experience
with statistics. Michelle Malkin has criticized Lott
as well, even though she agrees with him
ideologically. -emarkp
\_ Does that equal sign mean 'logical implication,'
'algebraic equality' or is it the equal sign they
use in structural equation models? -- ilyas |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46321 Activity:nil |
4/16 Pelosi at 53% approval. By way of comparison, Gingrinch maxed out
at 41%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html
\_ Polls re: people we don't vote for: yawn. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:46322 Activity:nil |
4/16 Why are the VT shootings being described as "worst in US history"
by the media? This seems like useless hyperbole where none is needed,
and besides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
\_ well, wikipedia says worst "civilian" shooting in U.S. history
\_ The TV news says it's the worst "school shooting" in US history. |
| 2007/4/16-19 [Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:46323 Activity:nil |
4/16 Hoping to get a recommendation for a friend ...
"I'm looking into setting up a server for some static web pages, a
wiki, a Subversion server, and possibly some other stuff (e.g.
BugZilla). Can you recommend a hosting service? I think I need shell
access, PHP, MySql, and Apache. The bandwidth and storage
requirements will be modest, so a modest price would be nice."
\_ Set up a $200 box on a friend's cable/dsl line. |
| 2007/4/16-19 [Uncategorized] UID:46324 Activity:nil |
4/16 pro concealed-carry advertisement blames Virginia Tech for 32 deaths
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19024-2/feelsafe.jpg
\_ We all need to live in that shining land of civility and peace,
Iraq.
\_ It's amazing how well-oiled the machinery of the ideolouges is.
-tom
\_ PKB.
\_ Nice Kahr |
| 2007/4/16-19 [Reference/Military] UID:46325 Activity:moderate |
4/16 http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007319.htm go down to "A student e-mails" If the students had a gun, they might have been able to stop it. -emarkp \_ And everyone who talks tough when safely at home is to be taken seriously now? \_ If the shooter didn't have a gun, it would have been stopped to begin with. -tom \_ unfortunately laws are there to discourage someone from doing harm to others at the cost of severe punishment but if the person such as this doesn't care about punishment because he doesn't plan to survive (suicide) then laws become meaningless. The deterrent is gone unless there is the fear of being shot by law-abiding armed citizens which there were on that campus not to long ago. The fact that guns are in the 2nd amendment prevents our government from lining up its citizens along the edge of a ditch and machine gunning them down for not following what the facist govermnment wants them to do.. but I take it you didn't believe in the holocaust either.. I believe anyone who listens to tom will one day end up in a line in from a ditch and get gunned down and buried easily. \_ if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then that incident would not have happened last week. you have unreasonable fears about people who CCW that they would shoot each other. Concealed carry people do not pull out their weapons because that is illegal (CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out their gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious who the immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass, do you have a major fear of a bicycle crash with lots of bikes together? it should happen more so since they break the law and pass red lights and they break and attack cars... \_ As much as I agree w/ you, the 2d is not an effective deterrent against federal abuse in this day and age. What use is a handgun against a tank or a ucav? \_ Have you seen Iraq lately? A few tens of million lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of things. lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of things. \_ I had not considered this. I guess if the gov. is reluctant to deploy its full destructive might against the opposing force, then small arms mights be an effective means of resistance. \_ Well, even in Vietnam, where the US did try to deploy full destructive force. \_ No we didn't. Today we bomb, sort of, then we ask them to talk with us a bit, then it doesn't go well so we bomb a bit more in some other unimportant place and whatever you do don't ever bomb too far north. Can't go around actually killing the enemy unfairly. \_ No H-Bombs were used in Vietnam, afaik. \_ if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then that incident would not have happened last week. you have unreasonable fears about people who CCW that they would shoot each other. Concealed carry people do not pull out their weapons because that is illegal (CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out their gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious who the immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass, do you have a major fear of a bicycle crash with lots of bikes together? it should happen more so since they break the law and pass red lights and they break and attack cars... \_ Damned pesky 2nd amendment. -emarkp \_ Actually no. It is entirely unclear that the 2d creates a personal right. Even if it does, the 2d has never been incorporated against the states, therefore the states remain free to regulate arms, provided that there is no state constitutional limit. In this case, Art I Sec. 13 Virginia's State Constitution imposes substantially the same limit as the 2d. If anyone is to "blame," it is the people of Virgina, who adopted this limitation in 1776 and have not seen fit to repeal it since then. I disagree w/ the assertion below that the 2d would not have been placed in the Constitution if the information known today was known to the framers. As the Constitution is derived from Common Law, and this right was recognized at Common Law since the late 1100s, it is likely that the framers would have included it. The life of the law is experience. \_ England is a common law country, yet they've essentially banned gun ownership. -tom \_ Thank god we parted company w/ them. \_ And they're also the most nanny-statish on-camera people on the planet, ever. The less we follow their example the better. \_ yeah, it's much worse to be shot with a camera than with a gun \_ Yes, it is. Shockingly, the founding fathers weren't able to anticipate 100% of the effects the pieces of paper they signed might have 200+ years later. It's farcial to assume that they would write the constitution the same way if they had the information available to us now. -tom \_ of course they would,, having a gun+ammo back then was the only way you could survive, indians, bears, murderers, rapist.. it's the great equalizer... but if only the murderer has the gun then it's a total massacre like yesterday.. somehow.. criminals (those who do not follow the law) will always find weapons and kill off law abiding folks.. It's not about gun laws, not about guns... it's about the stupid way laws are applied to the citizenry.. they are always applied against law abiding citizens.. if some people CCW on that campus then it would have ended sooner but the laws forced those who obey the law to not bring their guns to campus. \_ The shooter was not a criminal until he started shooting. It is almost certain that if he lived in someplace like the U.K., he would not have had the guns and ammo necessary to carry out his rampage. -tom \_ The framers included the 2d for precisely this reasons - they felt less free when the crown could take away their only ultimately effective means of resistance. In their minds the costs imposed on society by the free access to arms - violent crime - was outweighed by the cost imposed by restricting that right - government oppression. I undestand that you feel that this balance is no longer appropriate (or was never appropriate). If you suggest that we should rebalance today, why? Mere change in technology? If so, do you think that we should rebalance the 4th to give the police more or less ability to use things like thermal imagers to look into your house? Do you think that we should rebalance the 1st for things like hate speech, child pr0n on the Internet? The framers seemed to get so many things correct, that, to me, it is foolish to think they got this one wrong. \_ The other amendments are all much more fluid than the second, which has a large, well-funded group \_ The others are not at all fluid. \_ I disagree, the scope of the 1st, 4th, 6th, 14th, &c. have tended to expand and contract over the years. For example, the 4th exclusionary rule is currently on the wane. As is the emphasis on a warrant. The 6th right to assistance of counsel has also been significantly reduced in the last decade. Since the 40s the 14th has almost never been used for economic laws, but its coverage of other rights continues to expand. \- not a challenge but an inquiry: what are the sig changes to 6th amd right to counsel recently? for 4th, assume you mean US v LEON etc. ok tnx \_ Re 6th - I am off on dates but look at KUHLMANN v. WILSON, 477 US 436, holding that 6th requires cops to deliberately elicit stmt from suspect. It was long assumed that the test for interrogation under the 6th was much less or at least equal to interrogation under 5th (MIRANDA) b/c the 6th confers an affirmative right to assistance of counsel whereas 5th merely gets you a warning. Also, TEXAS v. COBB, 532 US 162, holding that 6th doesn't even apply to related offenses - the 5th again is better b/c it is not offense specific. The trend is toward weaker 6th. (and weaker 5th, e.g. DICKERSON v US, 530 US 428 holding only that stmt in violation of MIRANDA can't be used in the DA's case in chief - but DA remains free to use for impeachment, sentencing, &c.) Re 4th - Consider HUDSON v MICHIGAN, 126 S. Ct. 2159, holding that MAPP exclusion not required for a knock notice violation AND holding (in dicta) that as long as the cops could have acted legally (ie got a warrant) the doctrine of inevitable discovery can sanitize a bad actions. Implication of the extension of inevitable discovery is that once cops have probable cause they can always search and arrest w/o a warrant b/c once they have probable they could have got a warrant. \- re: invetiable discovery, i think the BREWER v WILLIAMS cases are pretty interesting. once of those cases where one of those cases where you couldnt write a better screenplay than the real facts. of ideologues defending against any attempt to change it or make it relevant to today's world. The *first* reaction of the President of the Frickin' United States to a gruesome gun massacre was to reassert the right to bear arms. Somehow I don't think that his first reaction to the most egregious violations related to the first or fourth amendments would be to talk about how important free speech is. (And as for the fourth, we already have plenty of evidence that he doesn't care about it at all). -tom \_ To many, the very fact that the courts have treated the other amendments as fluid is itself a problem that, if necessary, may need to be rectified via the rights protected by the 2d. Some would also suggest that the 1st and 4th both have a large, well-funded group of ide- ologues defending them against any attempt to change them or make them relevant to today's world - namely the ACLU. My concern is merely this - if the 2d can be reevaluated b/c of a changed factual predicate what is to stop similar reevaluation of the other amendments. Even under this administra- tion, the 4th continues to limit executive power. But, the executive continues to insist that these limits are outdated and prevent it from acting in ways that are necessary to protect the people. If we accept the arms controller's arguments, then perhaps we should accept the executive's argument as well. This will leave us subject argument as well. This may leave us subject to invasive government conduct w/ no means of of resistance (however ineffective those means may actually be). \_ There's a process to change the constitution put in place by those same founders. If the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is no longer beneficial to our society then let's drop it from the constitution. Other amendments have come and gone, there is nothing so special about this one it can't be changed through the process provided without resorting to bizarre and unjustifiable misinterpretations of the wording. (No, I'm not saying you're doing that but it is common to say the 2nd doesn't say what it says). \_ Unfortunately, attempts to undo the 2nd amendment would be met with much resistance, and those opposed happen to be the same people who are heavily-armed. \_ You're right, that is a problem. It would be much easier to take away people's civil liberties if they didn't have those pesky guns! \_ Didn't you see the recently released e-mail exchange between Bush and Abu Gonzales? BUSHG: Let's spy on people and read their e-mails so we can win the war on terra! GONZALESA: But the people have guns! BUSHG: Shit, never mind, I forgot! \_ Yes! This is it! What we need is a War on Guns! That'll be right up there with the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terrorism, the War on Crime, the War on Smoking, the War on Bad Eating Habits, the War on Drunk Driving, the War on The Growing Digital Divide Between the Rich and the Poor, the and war to end all wars: The War On War Itself! What we need is another War! Woot! \_ Hey, drunk driving is WAY down these days. Yes it is still bad, but it's miles better then it was a generation ago. \_ How are the other 8 or 9 Wars On XYZ going? I suspect Darwin has more to do with any slim decrease in drunk driving deaths than anything else. \_ Drunk driving fatalities have dropped a significant amount, by several thousand deaths a year in the U.S. Smoking is also way down, as are pot and cocaine use among teens. Some of the things you list, such as the War on Terrorism, are foils for political efforts that have nothing to do with their stated goals. And what's your point, anyway...that we shouldn't try to change anything? -tom \_ Since you can't stop him from having a gun, you should let other people have guns. \_ I have this magic wand that will make all guns disappear. Then the same government you trust with your guns will surely stay out of your bedroom, your lifestyle and your wallet. \_ Out of curiosity, how does your right to own a gun prevent the government from intruding into your bedroom, lifestyle, and wallet now? \_ Or to take this thought further: when in the history of the U.S. has private ownership of guns been an effective check on government power? -tom \_ Every day. Look at the British. It could be like that here. \_ Like what? -tom \_ Spying on you everywhere you go for starters. \_ So you think the only thing keeping the U.S. from spying on you everywhere you go is private gun ownership? I'd say the two are completely unrelated. In fact, I think a lot of the gun yahoos are the same guys who want to give the government more power to spy on us. -tom \_ Until the 40s I would say that private ownership of guns had been an effective check on government power. The government hesitates to act against the people, if it believes the people may take to the streets to correct its misdeeds. Since the 40s I would say that if the government decides to truly move against the people, private gun ownership is of no consequence. \_ The government would never move completely against the people anyway. They can usually manipulate and propagandize to get 30-40% of the people to support whatever it is, which is enough to maintain the notion of representative gov't and forestall direct confrontation. At least since the Civil War. (Private ownership of guns didn't stop the feds from pwning the South.) |
| 3/14 |