Something Random

[Howell]

Merc,
If you kept up with current events then you'ld know that GW has been vindicated with regards to Iraq though that does not address your sub-list. I'm not sure who you think you are going to irritate. The chip on you shoulder results in a prejudice against a strawman. Your boogie-man only exists as an amalgum. An amalgum of the entire population I might add.

 

[ddrueding]

Oh, and Merc...you need to remove the group sex line from the above post...or I ain't buying....

Perhaps I'm not up on the contents of the latest Peoplemagazine, but didn't Arnold admit to doing or seeing a bunch of that stuff while he was a Mr. Universe contestant in the 70s? And wasn't think there a harassment scandal about 2 seconds after he took office?

Anyway, I didn't make the list. It's just one of those things that people E-mail each other. I do think there's a lot of valid points there. 3, 5, 9, 11,13, 16,17, 29, and 31, for instanve.

No, Merc, I'm not denying the allegations; just saying that if you want me to go along with it, group sex and drug use have to be OK.

 

[Mercutio]

Amalgam.

Howell, in what way has george w. been "vindicated" with regard to Iraq? Last I checked, the entirety of all "Weapons of Mass Destruction" found in Iraq consisted of an artillery shell of nerve gas that pre-dated the Kuwait war. Unless I was unconcious for some period of time in excess of a week, I think I would've heard about anything else since then.

Now, with regard for my intense dislike of republicans, let's take a look at some of the planks in the current party platform (I'll be uninstalling and reinstalling firefox after lunch.)

First off, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Your species is talking about making a law preventing a specific class of people from ever having a right they currently don't have!

Even worse, the log cabin republicans couldn't even muster support for a unity plank recognizing the contribution of gays and lesbians to society.

Here's some great language:
"Equality of individuals before the law has always been a cornerstone of our party. We therefore oppose discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin..."

Anyone see anything missing from that list? I sure do. It's just fine to discriminate against gays!

Put together, those three points strongly suggest a party of homophobes.

Here's a fun one:
"When government funds privately-operated social, welfare, or educational programs, it must not discriminate against faith-based organizations..."
Which is really funny given the difficulties non-Protestant xtian groups have had in getting attention, let alone funding, from the current administration. You can marginalize those groups - who cares if a bunch of Wiccans can't get a grant so they can provide food aid for Hurricane victims, right? That's an extremely inconsitent attitude based on the language being used here.

How about opposition to Stem cell research, something that could be used to save the lives of thousands, perhaps millions of people annually? Of course, that research does continue outside the US, which is good, 'cause the current administration doesn't have a whole lot of respect for the concept of scientific progress.

The Republican Party anti-choice plank includes language indicating that it will not support pro-choice judicial nominees (i.e. they can agree with those nominees on EVERY OTHER POINT, but still won't back them). This is the very first year that the party has recognized that there is any other point of view on the issue, although historically the "party of the open door" has a history of not even allowing pro-choice delegates to speak at platform meetings. While I'm at it, they also want ANOTHER constitutional amendment extending the "right to life" to the unborn. Now, I'm pretty much anti-baby to begin with, but it stands to reason that something that can't live on its own isn't exactly "alive". But maybe that's just me. Never mind. These guys want to make changes to the sacred document of our government, to inflict their moral code on others, because they can't get enough support from the public or the judiciary of the US to just write a law banning abortion. Why haven't they gotten the message yet?

Here's another gem:
"We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion."

Why did they feel the need to include that sentence? Is there someone out there who thinks there SHOULD be punitive action against women who have an abortion? Shit, I'd have an abortion just to piss that person off.

"No one should be denied a job, promotion, contract, or chance at higher education because of their race or gender. " This is an anti-affirmative action clause. The overwhelmingly white male protestant party leadership isn't interested in giving others a boost. Go figure. Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes must've said it's OK.

"...we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."

This sticks out to me for the very simple reason that I feel that a federal gun license might encourage gun owners to take responsibility for their DEADLY WEAPONS. If they're really law-abiding, what the hell do they have to hide?

The Republican Party plank includes language to abolish the department of Education and to prevent its functions from being undertaken by any other agency. Kind of scary, that, knowing how well "No Child Left Behind" worked.

"No one should be forced to contribute to a campaign or a candidate, so we will vigorously implement the Supreme Court’s Beck decision to stop the involuntary use of union dues for political purposes. "

Hey, can anyone remember ANY TIME in the last, oh, 50 years when the republican party has done anything that might cause a union to favor or support it? Me neither. Unions in the US are essentially toothless organizations nowadays, and these sorts of rules are the reason why.
"The entire nation has suffered from the administration’s virtual surrender in the war against drugs..."
War on Drugs. Do I really even need to get into this? It's 20 years old. It's cost billions of dollars. It's not working. And which administration surrendered, anyway?

"Meanwhile, under Republican fiscal discipline..."
I just thought this sentence was funny. Lower taxes + increased spending = !fiscal discipline.

The GOP is still talking about Tax Cuts. Which would be great if they'd also curtail spending and maintain important social programs like medicare. Does anyone think that will happen?
There's a funny movement in the Republican party - one that might not be obvious to some of you. There's a certain far-right philosophy that essentially states that it's a great idea to do lots of deficit spending because it will ultimately cause a huge contraction in the New Deal and Great Society social programs that're abhorrent to some people on the right.

"Republicans recognize the importance of having a father and a mother in the home. "

But, again, not two mothers or some other arrangement of loving parents. On the other hand, probably everyone reading this knows one or two families that'd be better off without one or the other parent (like my coworker with the fucking Bush sticker). The welfare of a family isn't something that can have a pre-packaged solution, and it's unrealistic not to recognize that.

I guess I could go on. I don't see anything in that document that I find redeeming, a number of things I find distressing or even sickening, and a large number of things that I feel are sufficient justification for my strong opinion about that group of "people".

If you'd like to read the republican plank (or document of hate, as I call it), you can click here[/ur].

 

[Mercutio]

And yes, I'm fully aware that some of those very same phrases and planks also appear in the Democrat's plank. I don't like them there, either.

 

[jtr1962]

In many ways I've long felt the Republican party would be a lot more palatable to those in the middle or even those somewhat left of middle if they divorced themselves from the religious conservatives. Let's face it, it's not like religious conservatives will suddenly start voting for liberal Democrats if they lost their hold on the Republican party. The majority will still vote Republican, or just not vote. They really would have no place else to go. I find laws banning human cloning or stem cell research asinine to say the least. If these things presented a real danger to society beyond the fact that some religious conservatives find them offensive, then I would say fine, let's ban them. But as of yet they don't, not do I really see how they ever could. If we could ever clone a person's body and enable them to live forever, then I want that option open to me. I don't need somebody saying that I should be forced to live a "normal" lifespan, or worse yet live in a body crippled from an accident, because "it's God's will". And I find this all the more repugnant because I don't share this person's beliefs.

It's also a sad but true fact that religious conservatives enjoy the support (or at least tolerance) that they do because a large number of people still ascribe to religious beliefs of some sort. While we can't outlaw religion, nor should we, I think it should be illegal to teach it in any way, shape, or form until a person is capable of adult rational thought. Teaching religion to children at a young, impressionable age is tantamount to child abuse. They really can't understand exactly what it is they are being taught, and also are particularly vulnerable to belief in other sorts of "magical" thinking at that age, of which religion is only one type. If we set such guidelines, then I have little doubt that within a few generations at most religion would lose all influence, especially from politics. In not, then I feel we'll likely elect a religous, lesbian President before we elect an avowed agnostic or atheist.

 

[Pradeep]

["...we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."

This sticks out to me for the very simple reason that I feel that a federal gun license might encourage gun owners to take responsibility for their DEADLY WEAPONS. If they're really law-abiding, what the hell do they have to hide?

I believe it's something to do with being innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be responsible until you show yourself to be not, i.e. felony conviction/mental problems etc.

People that leave guns in the reach of untrained children/adults shouldn't have guns, but the majority of the population are responsible. It seems that screwing the majority to appease a minority is a Democrat/Liberal trend. You can't legislate common-sense. Apparently the belief is that Gore's seriously anti-gun stance cost him the last election, so we prob won't be hearing too much anti-gun rhetoric from the Dems this time around.

In all countries that have implemented registration of firearms, it has switfly led to banning/confiscation of same. Look at the UK, Australia, and Canada. No wonder people are hesitant. And there is no doubt, looking at the figures, that countries such as the UK and Australia are not safer now than they were before. In fact criminals are happily gunning each other down in Sydney nowadays. Seems like they don't follow laws, and didn't think to hand their handguns in for destruction. Funny that.

BTW there is a Federal Firearms License, called an FFL and it's what gun dealers have.[/code]

 

[Mercutio]

That's funny, cause I remember when I was 19 that I had to take a test and get a license to drive a car. Most people don't get into auto accidents or voluntarily hurt things with their car.

Again, if all you gun owning people out there are so safe and responsible, why is it an issue? We have a rule in our founding document that says we can't take guns away completely. Canada and Britain had no such rule. I know next to nothing about Aussie law, but I'd guess they don't, either.
Personally, I'd just like to know, as a matter of public record, that the guy who lives down the street from me is hoarding semi-automatic weapons and extended-clips for his Glock, but also that he's received appropriate training to own those items and has a further legal obligation to safely store and maintain them.

FWIW, Kerry is pro-gun. He's some kind of sport hunter.

 

[Tea]

This thread started while I ws away, and when I came to it it was already forbiddingly long. But, having no other excuse handy for putting off the trip to the office, I thought I'[d dip into it, starting here, on the 5th page.

Eeek! Iraq, gun control, the usual hardy perennials.

Guess I'll go to the office after all. :-?

 

[ddrueding]

This thread started while I ws away, and when I came to it it was already forbiddingly long. But, having no other excuse handy for putting off the trip to the office, I thought I'[d dip into it, starting here, on the 5th page.

Eeek! Iraq, gun control, the usual hardy perennials.

Guess I'll go to the office after all. :-?

No! Tea! Really! I started this thread as a cool place to dump random musings and the occasional cool bit of information! It worked well in this regard well until -very- recently. I hope to get it back on course (or rather, back off course) once I have more random stuff to stick here.

 

[jtr1962]

We have a rule in our founding document that says we can't take guns away completely.

That's news to me. If so, how come it's next to impossible to get a carry permit in NYC? Even getting a permit to have a shotgun or rifle in the house is a major PITA. And for what it's worth, these highly restrictive laws have made NYC a less safe place to live, at least until Guiliani turned it into a defacto police state. The criminals, who by definition don't care about obeying the law (they're criminals, right?) knew that armed with weapons they were like wolves among sheep. The murder rate peaked at over 2,000 annually in the early 1990s, many hit by stray bullets while these jerks were having their turf wars.

You can't have it both ways. Once it is difficult for ordinary citizens to arm themselves the odds favor the criminal, and crime, especially gun crime, goes way up. You can partially get around this by running things like a police state, but you claim to love freedom so I don't think this is a palatable alternative either. Third choice-let the citizens own firearms, but have stiff penalties for selling them to known criminals or using them in a crime yourself. I don't think even the most diehard members of the NRA are against regulations which prevent selling guns to either convicted criminals or the mentally ill. And it's better for all concerned, except of course the perpetrator and his lawyers, if a would-be rapist or robber ends up in the morgue thanks to one of these armed citizens instead of getting lifetime room and board as a guest of the state.

From what I see most of those who favor strict gun control laws do so because they're uncomfortable with the idea of someone else owning a gun, not because of the realities of the situation. I also think freedom for some in this country only means freedom to do whatever it is they like, but they think it's perfectly OK to restrict whatever it is that annoys them.

The assault weapons ban is sunseting on 9/13. If not for NYCs strict laws, I would considering owning a handgun or two with a >10 shot clip to carry on my person for protection, a few semi-automatic or automatic rifles, including a sniper rifle, for home protection, and maybe a Gatling gun (as in the original Predator movie), for LA riot type situations. :mrgrn: And yes, I would get trained in using them properly, and only in the appropriate situations. As long as you're law abiding you would have absolutely nothing to worry about from me.

 

[Mercutio]

Let's put it this way:
There is an association in my mind between gun owners and some really unsavory things.

In the midwest we have these very unusual things called "Militias". Like the kind Timothy McVeigh belonged to. Now, these guys aren't all out to topple the UN Shadow Government or whatever the hell the OKC bombing guys thought they were doing.

Still, to me these guys are just not paragons of stability. Listening to some of these guys - and I have some of them in my classes - you get the impression that they think the world is going to end tomorrow at just past lunch. And, the weird thing is, these guys go out in the woods and shoot guns and crawl around in the woods on their bellies, but even though some of 'em seriously think that law enforcement or FEMA might call on them in the event of a serious emergency in Northwest Indiana, none of the ones I've talked to know a damned thing about first aid, or radio operation. They just shoot guns. Pardon me if I'm a little mistrustful of that, but knowing that someone who thinks that "an unknown power" is putting secret messages on the backs of the mile markers along our expressways owns four AK47 does not fill me with comfort (I'm not making that up, BTW).

Handguns bother me a lot more than rifles and shotguns. I see that rifles and shotguns might actually be sporting weapons. Fine. They're hard to conceal and have limited stores of ammunition. Handguns can carry a dozen rounds and have limited utility in sport (yes Pradeep, I know: target shooting, but you and I both know that maybe .05% of all handguns are used for that). Frankly the most practical use for a handgun is to harm another person. That bothers me, too. I'm not saying "ban handguns", but I really don't see a problem in making them harder to obtain. Again, I think that's reasonable. If you just can't wait to get a handgun because you need it to protect yourself, there are probably lots of more productive ways to spend your time, and if you're a sport shooter or whatever, what does it matter if it takes you a month to get another weapon.

I also think something needs to be done to make guns a less glamorous part of life. Kids see action movies and their favorite rap performers brandishing handguns and I think that's a start to a dangerous fascination. What's less glamorous than a long, government sponsored credentialling program? Kids don't bring guns to school because they're practical.

I *REALLY* don't buy the whole "we need to be better-armed than the criminal" line. All you're doing there is creating a cycle of escalating violence. An arms race. If you're carrying the gun you need "for your own protection", someone could steal it and commit a crime. Or the very fact that you DO have a gun might make a simple criminal escalate his interaction with you to one involving deadly force. And even if you do one day have the chance to pull out a gun to protect yourself, you're far more likely to be involved in a gun related accident - the number that sticks in my head is 20x more likely.

Whoops. Here we go:
"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
-- Journal of Trauma, 1998

Yeesh.

Obviously there are some social issues involving guns. I'm not saying take them away. I'm just having a little difficulty thinking that with all the problems guns really do create, we might want to take some extra care in ensuring that the people who DO own guns really are the responsible people they need to be. I just don't see that right now.

 

[jtr1962]

If you mean background checks (both for criminal acts and a history of mental illness) by harder to obtain then I can go along with that. I can even go along with successfully completing a training course for the type of firearm you wish to obtain (whether it be a rifle, handgun, machine gun, or even the Gatling gun I mentioned). Nothing wrong with that-you need a license to drive, and in many ways I feel that privilege is given away far too easily. I certainly go along with making guns less glamorous. At the same time we might as well make sex less glamorous as well since that has had more negative effects for society as a whole than glamorizing guns have. I won't go along with any requirements for giving the government your reasons for needing whatever weapons you wish to own, nor with any restrictions on the types of weapons you may own (provided you get the requisite training). In practical terms, a car is probably more likely to kill than a gun, yet we don't ask the driver why they want a license. And I do support some sort of mental competency tests, both for car drivers and potential gun owners. The thought of some of the certifiable types you described owning a firearm is a bit frightening to say the least.

As for the escalating arms race thing, for starters let's make handguns that only fire in the hands of their owner. This is possible by implanting a chip in the user's hand. Make it completely failsafe, and perhaps even have the gun explode if fired by anyone other than the owner. Not enough explosive to harm bystanders, but enough to blow the person's hand off. That eliminates that "fall into the wrong hands" part of your argument. Make these types of guns much easier to obtain than older, "unprotected" ones, and/or perhaps require retrofitting all older guns to comply. Add in a mandatory federal death penalty for using a gun in any crime, whether it is fired or not, and for selling an "unchipped" gun which is used in a crime. By upping the risk to the criminal for "packing", and for trying to steal a weapon for their own use, you've pretty much assured that you won't have more criminals arming themselves in response to more citizens arming themselves. You've also ensured that you won't have unscrupulous gun dealers trying to bypass the law. Net result-the balance of power tips in favor of the legally armed citizen, as it should be.

While arming citizens isn't the last word in crime control, nothing else to date in the kind of society we live in has really been effective unless you're willing to live with myriad restrictions on your freedom. I'd rather live in a society where enough sane, responsible people are armed that a potential criminal simply decides to not even bother attempting a crime because he/she can't arm themselves, and also has a very good chance of being shot to death in the act. You will of course have the odd legal, sane, gun owner who will go loony and try to shoot up a McDonalds, but even here that person will be stopped very quickly by other armed citizens before the death toll reaches the double digits. Nothing has bothered me more than reading about incidents like that where nobody out of 200 people can do anything about an armed loony.

In the end I really wish we could emulate some of those societies where murder and crime were almost unheard of, rather than relying of guns to keep peace. Unfortunately, in many ways such a society is incompatible with our highly competitive, materialistic way of life. Unless we're willing to voluntarily change to a less aggressive society which doesn't create dangerous predators, I don't see that we can get rid of guns entirely. Basically guns came about in response to the propensity of humans to try to control other humans. Get rid of this propensity somehow, and there is no need for them.

 

[Tannin]

i like the site update Tony.

Thanks BW. Guess I should have read this thread earlier!

 

[Pradeep]

That's funny, cause I remember when I was 19 that I had to take a test and get a license to drive a car. Most people don't get into auto accidents or voluntarily hurt things with their car.

Again, if all you gun owning people out there are so safe and responsible, why is it an issue? We have a rule in our founding document that says we can't take guns away completely. Canada and Britain had no such rule. I know next to nothing about Aussie law, but I'd guess they don't, either.
Personally, I'd just like to know, as a matter of public record, that the guy who lives down the street from me is hoarding semi-automatic weapons and extended-clips for his Glock, but also that he's received appropriate training to own those items and has a further legal obligation to safely store and maintain them.

FWIW, Kerry is pro-gun. He's some kind of sport hunter.

OK, you need a drivers license if you are going to be driving on a public road. It's public infrastructure. If all you want to do is drive on private property, you don't need a driver's license. Therefore, when hunting/target shooting etc on private property, the same should apply. No license required. Carrying in public? License is good. You of course know that you are far far more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a stray bullet right?

Most gun owners don't get into gun accidents or voluntarily hurt things. You could argue that hunting is about hurting. Tho I find it hard to imagine that anyone that could buy pre-packed meat from a supermarket could talk to me about the ethics of hunting with a straight face. Yup, I'm sure the cow you have in a packet there commited suicide, it wasn't stuck in a feed lot for months, never walking on a single blade of grass, then herded up, stuck in a truck smelling of death, hit with a stun gun, and it's throat cut.
I dunno about Indiana but I'm pretty sure that in all states, when you try and buy a shotgun or rifle, you will be subject to an instant background check. If you pass (no crimes barring you from owning, no mental probs), you get to take the gun home. Included nowadays, you will get a trigger lock. Hopefully you are responsible and use it, better yet buy a $70 dollar steel cabinet to store your guns in. If they cannot get an instant result, you will have to wait, and call them later to see if the result came in.

Law-abiding procedure: If you wish to get a handgun, most states require you to get some kind of permit. This may involve attending a safety course, or in the case of upstate NY, it means getting 4 references that live in the county you reside, that have known you for 5 years. The police do check them out. Plus getting two or three sets of fingerprints to send to the FBI and mental health. If you are lucky after around 6 months you may be asked to come before a judge, who would then issue or deny you a pistol permit. Now keep in mind that this procedure is required for everyone, whether you only want to own a pistol to target shoot with, or to carry as a concealed weapon. I wouldn't call 6 months a short time. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a CCW permit requires extra scrutiny. But to carry an unloaded pistol in the trunk of a car to a target range?

Criminal procedure: Talk to fellow criminals, meet, buy an illegal pistol out of the back of someone's car. Perhaps a couple of hours. Yay for a safer America.

jtr: It's interesting that you say how hard it is to get a pistol permit for home defense in NYC, in Australia it has always been extremely difficult to have a concealed carry permit. Unless of course you have political connections. There is a rabid anti-gun radio talk show host by the name of John Laws. He has had a permit for years. Sort of like Rosie O'Blob smearing gun owners, yet having a security guard who carries a gun to protect her. It's OK for the "special people" to be protected, but not us ordinary citizens.

Kerry may be pro-gun, but the Democrat party as a whole is not.

JTR, you may not be able to get the pistol but surely on the 13th you could legally get a bunch of high cap mags, just in case they re-introduce the law in future years. I know I will be Tho I disagree with you about the "smart" handgun. Anything of an electro-mechanical nature is going to have a failure rate. What happens when you get the lucky chip that's on the fritz? I guess your family could sue the gun manufacturer. Therefore they are hesitant to do anything that would impair the functionality of their product.

PS. I believe that 20x myth has been debunked already, it ended up coming out around 3x once the fuzzy math was worked out. Amazingly they didn't mention that there were factors with higher risks, such as knowing criminals, renting etc.

 

[Pradeep]

Again, I think that's reasonable. If you just can't wait to get a handgun because you need it to protect yourself, there are probably lots of more productive ways to spend your time, and if you're a sport shooter or whatever, what does it matter if it takes you a month to get another weapon.

We had this same madness in Australia for many years. When you wanted to a buy a gun you had to get a "Permit to Acquire", which would be sent to you 30 days after your application was paid for. You could then take your permit to a gun dealer to pick up a gun of the type listed on the permit. Now this is all well and good for your first gun, a cooling off period if you will. But why on earth for your second and subsequent ones? If you wanted to kill someone in a fit of rage, why wouldn't you use the gun you already have? Why buy another? Completely illogical.

Ah, here is the Kellerman rebuttal:

"One of the most widely quoted statements about guns in the home is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This comes from a study first published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986,i following a six-year review of gunshot deaths in Seattle, Washington, conducted, by DR. Arthur Kellerman, et al. The validity of this study in determining the value and risk of firearms for home protection has been questioned due to its limited focus. The Kellerman study viewed defensive gun uses only as instances in which the criminal intruder was shot and killed. Instances in which intruders or assailants were wounded or frightened away by the use of a firearm were not included. Kellerman admitted that, "Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display fire arm. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require these figures be known."ii Kellerman's approach was not unlike measuring the effectiveness of police officers solely on the basis of the number of criminals they kill.iii

Others argue that when people defend themselves with firearms, they are frequently disarmed by criminals and assaulted. According to findings in a National Crime Survey, less than one percent of defensive gun uses result in the offender's taking the firearm from the victim and then using it against him or her."

http://www.berettausa.com/communities/home_prot/family.htm

 

[ddrueding]

Sorry I haven't been around much guys; my parent's flew my girlfriend to see me as a suprise birthday present. Besides scrambling to clear my shecdule, I've ben showing her most of central california. Everything from San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Jose, Monterey, Carmel, King City, and a drive all the way down Highway 1 to San Simeon (Hearst Castle) and back. Quite a busy 2 days...

Now all I need to do is get the pics off my camera and sort out the ones for personal consumption only...

 

[ddrueding]

This is really cool. I love the concept and the execution is great.

Click on the link below then wait for the web page to load. Pass your mouse repeatedly over the nose of the man in the image, then leave the cursor over the nose.

This web site won first prize in the Phillips Digital Arts Festival.

http://tinyurl.com/368hv

 

[Pradeep]

Looks cool

jtr: Upon further reading NY State has it's own "assault weapon ban" which includes magazines greater than 10 rounds. And sadly, this one has no sunset. So we still can't buy them new. However you can always buy pre-ban ones, and guns for that matter. You just pay hyper-inflated prices. NY is sadly not the most gun friendly state.

 

[jtr1962]

Pradeep, we can only hope one day the Supreme Court finds the kind of extreme gun control laws such as NYC and NYS have to be unconstitutional. I never understood how a handgun with more than 10 rounds suddenly became an assault weapon anyway. IMO states shouldn't be free to enact more extreme gun control measures than the federal government can.

 

[Mercutio]

Merc,
If you kept up with current events then you'ld know that GW has been vindicated with regards to Iraq...

Still waiting for a justification of this statement.

 

[ddrueding]

Merc,
If you kept up with current events then you'ld know that GW has been vindicated with regards to Iraq...

Still waiting for a justification of this statement.

LOL 8)

 

[Mercutio]

I'm sure it will be comedy gold.

 

[Howell]

Merc,
If you kept up with current events then you'ld know that GW has been vindicated with regards to Iraq...

Still waiting for a justification of this statement.

hmm. I posted it... Maybe it was in the wrong thread.

 

[Howell]

I'll look around.

 

[Howell]

Dunno what happened to it, I'll have another go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27981-2004Sep17.html

Duelfer's report is expected to offer findings similar to those reported by his predecessor, David Kay.

Kay presented an interim report to Congress in October. He left the inspector's post in January, saying "we were almost all wrong" about Hussein's weapons programs.

The new analysis, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war -- which portrayed Hussein as a grave threat -- and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/01/iraq-040129-afps01.htm

Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells [senators Jan. 28 after resigning]

...David Kay, who stepped down last week as head of the Iraq Survey Group, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Kay told the senators he has changed his belief – which he pointed out was shared by U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, including those of governments that opposed the war – that Iraq had stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons, and possibly an advanced nuclear-weapons program, before the war began. But he added that he now believes Iraq actually may have been more dangerous than anyone might have believed at the time.

"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein," Kay told the committee. "I think that when we have the complete record, you're going to discover that after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out to be not a fully accurate estimate."

Iraq was in "clear material violation" of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Kay said. The resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with previously mandated disarmament requirements. "They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at some point to resume their programs," Kay told the Senate committee.

Looking back on the evidence, Kay said, he understands the decision to go to war. "I think it's often easy to forget that in the case of Saddam, here's an individual who had invaded two neighboring countries, used chemical weapons against one of those, used them against his own neighbors, and who, by U.N. testimony, had cheated and lied for a decade," he said...

..."In fact," he said, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of an Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war. It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons-of-mass-destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."

In his Senate testimony, Kay said intelligence since the first Gulf War strongly supported the notion of Iraq posing a serious WMD threat.

"All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq," Kay said, "I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than (that) Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD."

Kay said that while he was not a party to the political decision on whether to go to war, he has no doubt what he would have done had it been his decision to make.

"I will just say I'm convinced myself, if I had been there, presented (with) what I have seen as the record of the intelligence estimates, I probably would have come to – not probably – I would have come to the same conclusion that the political leaders did..."

I don't think there is a lot of substantive room left between the position of the Bush administration before the war and Kay's senate testimony. I expect that when the new report comes out it will make meantion of the small scale use of chemical WMD used offensively by insurgents in the streets of Baghdad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894093.stm

Uranium claim: 'Well-founded'

Pre-war assessments that Iraq sought uranium from Niger were "well-founded on intelligence", the Butler report has concluded.

The controversial claims were first made in a dossier compiled by the British intelligence services on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, made public in September 2002.

Nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency had subsequently said some documents supporting the uranium claim were forgeries.

But Lord Butler said the government had intelligence from "several different sources"

"The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it," the report said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/...rror/index.html
Putin: Russia warned U.S. of Iraq terror

Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests...

..."I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said...

I believe due diligence was done. You can only work with the information you have and then make the best decision you can.

Special thanks to tracker on SR.

 

[Mercutio]

How about this one:

"It turned out that we have not found any stockpiles. I think it is unlikely that we will find any stockpiles."

"We have to now go back through and find out why we had a different judgment. What I have found over the last year and several months is that some of the sourcing that was used to give me the basis upon which to bring forward that judgment to the United Nations were flawed, were wrong,"

.

Let's face facts: Iraq didn't have WMD. They WANTED WMD, but then, if your national interests aren't pretty much identical to the West's, you're going to want them anyway, if for no other reason than to assert your right to self-determination. Craft your own simile on the difference between "want" and "have", the fact is that there was an enormous failure of the entire administration, and someone calling attention to the fact that Iraq wanted to someday restart WMD projects in no way vindicates the current administration for its failures and its lies.

 

[Buck]

I went to a seafood disco last week... and pulled a mussel.

 

[Handruin]

How'd it taste?

 

[Buck]

Salty.

 

[ddrueding]

Just got back from another trip to Oregon. Those trips are costing me about $1k each. Worth every penny (except the ones I don't have).

 

[Pradeep]

Finally closed on the house (yes after 10+weeks in closing time).

Weeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to get me a lawnmower.

 

[Buck]

Now to get me a lawnmower.

You have a lawn? pfft All I have is a concrete patio.

 

[Pradeep]

Now to get me a lawnmower.

You have a lawn? pfft All I have is a concrete patio.

Easier to hose off after Tea goes on a bender.

 

[Buck]

:rofl: :jumpin: :rofl:

 

[ddrueding]

Excelent. Congratulations Pradeep.

 

[Fushigi]

Finally closed on the house (yes after 10+weeks in closing time).

Weeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to get me a lawnmower.

Congrats! Welcome to mortgage land!

As to the lawn mower, as long as the engine is a Honda, Briggs & Stratton, or Tecumseh the unit will be fine. Ours is a Toro and is self-propelled, electric start, and can side-throw, mulch, or bag depending on what you want to do. I think it was ~$400 at Home Depot in 2002.

 

[Howell]

Congrats Pradeep.

 

[Handruin]

Congrats Pradeep! I just got a lawn mower a few weeks back. I bought a craftsman 6.75 HP Tecumseh mulch, side, and bagger with self propel. So far no complaints. I would have liked a honda, but they cost a small fortune.

 

[Pradeep]

Thanks everyone.

Yes I've been looking at the Hondas, the 4in1 looks good, tho as you say, disturbingly expensive. Hopefully I can borrow my father-in-law's mower for the rest of this season, get a snow blower and get the Honda mower next year. Maybe a Honda plow.....

Road Runner/HD cable is getting connected on Wednesday

 

[Buck]

Consumer Reports:
Top rated & recommended Snow Blowers

Two-stage Gas:

1. Toro Power Max 828LXE $1,250 28 in./8 hp
2. Yard-Man E5KLF CR Best Buy $1,100 26 in./9.5 hp
3. Troy-Bilt Storm 10030 $1,300 30 in./10 hp
4. Craftsman (Sears) 88790 CR Best Buy $950 28 in./9 hp

Single-stage Gas:

1. Honda Harmony HS520AS HS520A $750 20 in./5 hp
2. Toro CCR 2450 GTS 38515 $540 20 in./5 hp

Single-stage Electric:

1. Toro 1800 Power Curve 38025 $300 18 in./12 amp

------------------------

I should be able to find some information on lawnmowers if you let me know what type you want: Push Mower, Self-Propelled Mower, or Lawn Tractor.

Mowing options range anywhere from $100 manual-reel mowers to tractors that cost $4,000 or more. If you have a small yard, a manual-reel or electric walk-behind mower is probably fine. Gasoline-powered walk-behind mowers are appropriate for most lawns up to about a half-acre. If your lawn is larger than that, you might appreciate the ease and speed of a riding mower or lawn tractor.