Comments by hodgmo
Previous | Page 3 of 15 | Next
Posted on April 10 at 6:32 a.m.
“Once again, like the war on drugs...or gun control, this only deals with the symptoms while the underlying issues are ignored. Tick, tick, tick...”
@BC: Shouldn't the list of ‘wars’ include one targeting drunk driving?
As in all crises, triage-type action is required to suppress the immediately threatening symptoms. Such triage should be followed by longer-term treatment that addresses the “underlying issues.” If a fire threatens your house, you do your best to quickly extinguish the fire (triage). Then, if you’re successful and wise, you change your landscaping (for example) to make it less likely that a fire will threaten your property again. A gang injunction is triage, as are at least some laws addressing drug and alcohol use, and gun control. Short-term triage-type action may be necessary, but alone it won’t solve the associated, underlying, long-term causes of chronic threats.
Posted on April 7 at 8:35 a.m.
@BC: I agree that gun control laws worked here, and helped check a criminal. A felon in possession of guns he stole (presumably) from citizens who owned them legally lost them. And the guns were confiscated and the felon was incarcerated (presumably) before he used the guns in another crime. Isn't this situation akin to catching a drunk driver before damage is done, and using drunk-driving laws to keep at least a few losers off the streets? Who can complain? The system works! Hooray!
Posted on April 6 at 1:32 p.m.
@DrDan: I pretty much agree with your last post except for your labeling Bush a “moron.” Bush and Cheney appear to be amoral, but I don’t think they were or are morons. I suspect they accomplished at least some of their major goals. For example, the wars directly contributed to the significant growth of their and their cronies’ wealth. Similar motives appear to fuel the NRA.
Posted on April 6 at 1:19 p.m.
@Italiansurg: The Botany post I referred to was ambiguous; he subsequently clarified it. There’s a difference between inference and comprehension – check it out. Then please apply the 6th grade reading comprehension you imply having and show me where my post equated or convoluted Obama’s action wrt the constitution with W’s actions. I didn’t and I don’t. I do agree that the buck stops with the Commander in Chief. Can you name any presidents since Ike that didn’t have “a clear agenda and record that is demonstrably not transparent nor in line with the Constitution”? I suspect the list is very short.
Posted on April 5 at 2:24 p.m.
@Botany: I can only read your words, not your mind. I work with soldiers and feel for the hard and unforgiving positions, and harsh outcomes, their orders often lead them to. Thanks for clarifying that you were speaking to policy only. Are you referring to the policy of the ‘traditional’ targeted assassinations of enemies like OBL, or against the neo policy allowing US citizens to join the group in our cross hairs (which I think KV is referring to)?
@KV: Are you suggesting that Obama is guilty of a crime because he targeted OBL, or a US citizen, or both? And do you think his trial should come before or after W. Bush and Cheney’s? FIFO or LIFO?
@BC: I think your question about whether we are more violent today than in the past is a good one. I don’t have an answer but found two interesting sites that might partially inform (I haven’t verified either):
http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2013/0...
http://aneconomicsense.com/2012/12/31...
Another question that has often been asked here and elsewhere, so far without a useful answer, is should there be any limits on firearms that citizens can possess? If so what is the limit, how is it defined?
Posted on April 5 at 12:24 p.m.
Only a wooden heart could think there is no difference between using people versus drones in a combat operation. See if you can stand-your-ground if you assert that shallow thought to a combat veteran or his widow.
Speaking of standing-your-ground, the so-called ‘stand-your-ground’ reason for having guns was debunked in a recent study (from Texas no less). That study reported that the 20 states that have implemented those laws have found that “… the laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.”
Posted on April 2 at 1:58 p.m.
The following may be relevant:
http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-a...
I haven't verified the numbers, but if they're close to true...
Posted on April 2 at 1:48 p.m.
14noscams: Your confusion may be alleviated if you focus your brain waves on cognition. The article about Nagle that you posted a link to is interesting and describes work that may benefit a significant number of disabled people, but it does not describe “action at a distance” mind control, aka telekinesis (per the definition in Wikipedia for example), which is what our subject article describes. Similarly the ieee.tv link describes picking up the small electrical signals that exist on pour skin – ever heard of an EEG? From Wikipedia: “Electroencephalography (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp. EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain.” These signals contain very little energy and broadcast even less. Go back and read the Tam Hunt article: he is talking about “action at a distance” not implanting probes on or in the brains of burning man participants. Telekinesis is currently considered to be parapsychology because there are no scientifically sound, that is published and repeatable, demonstrations of it. But that only means that telekinesis is unlikely. Tam Hunt says he hopes or plans to make more careful measurements, and who knows, maybe he will be part of the first scientific demonstration of the phenomenon. But if I had to bet, I’d bet against that outcome.
Posted on April 2 at 10:20 a.m.
Here's a suitable welcome letter for Cheney, wherever he goes:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/dy...
(you will need to replace "**" with "uc" for the link to work)
The letter pretty much sums up Cheney’s political legacy so would also inform a suitable eulogy. According to Snopes, the letter is authentic
Previous Month
Posted on April 13 at 10:16 a.m.
@pk: Thank you!
On We Need to Talk