patrick.net

HARM Says:

"It’s pretty obvious at this point that neither of us is going to convince the other of the inherent “rightness” of the other’s position on banning private gun ownership"

Harm will have better luck convincing a priest or rabbi that there is no god than convincing a liberal gun hater like Different Sean that guns should be legal since the gun represents some evil force that the left wants to eliminate (even though down deep I have to feel that they know that it will be easier to “eliminate drugs” than "eliminate guns"). Drugs have been illegal for years. Is it hard for a criminal to find drugs? Does any sane person think that an illegal gun will be any harder to find than an illegal dime bag of pot?

Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.1 A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined.4 The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5 times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30 times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993.

Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.8

The number of youth who report that they carry weapons is significant. In 1997, 14 percent, or 1 in 7 male juveniles, reported carrying a gun outside the home in the previous 30-day period.9 In the inner city, the problem is more severe. One study involving 800 inner-city high school students reported that 22 percent said they carried weapons.10 An even greater number of convicted juvenile offenders reported carrying guns -- 88 percent, according to another study.11

Firearms are readily available on the illegal gun market, and those who are most likely to possess guns are drug sellers and gang members -- overwhelmingly young and male.12 More than two-thirds of the respondents in one study of urban arrestees stated that the primary reason for owning and carrying a weapon is self-protection -- a small number also reported using the weapon for drug trafficking or other illegal activities.

Yes, Americans are often shot—and so are many others
Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Gun injury has been labelled a "disease" (American Medical Association, International Red Cross), a "public health emergency" (Centers for Disease Control), an "epidemic" (US Surgeon General), and a "scourge" (UN Secretary General, the Vatican).

In the United States, 4% of the world population possesses 50% of the planet's privately owned firearms1,2; America's gun death rate stands head and shoulders above those of 35 similar high and upper middle income nations.3 Of the 35, 29 suffer less than half the firearm related death rate in the United States.

Despite a recent spike in drug-related shootings in a handful of cities including London, a resident of England or Wales remains 26 times less likely to die by gunshot than an American. In Japan, the risk of gun death is at least 100 times lower than in the United States.

Yet America is far from alone in suffering high rates of firearm related mortality. Close competitors include Mexico, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, and Brazil3,4—nations with whom Americans rarely see themselves in the same league.

The global proliferation of small arms increases both the lethality of violent encounters and the number of victims. With 639 million firearms in circulation worldwide,9 guns increasingly transform minor disputes into shootings and make it easier for children to become killers. In Papua New Guinea, intertribal disputes once settled with bows, arrows, and machetes are now fought out with firearms. Across great swathes of Africa and South Asia, child soldiers are enabled with AK-47s, exploited by adult combatants, their lives ended or distorted, their weapons still available for banditry and domestic violence even if peace does arrive.

No community seems immune from this pandemic of gun violence. It overwhelms health services and undermines personal security, economic development, good governance, and human rights. [Emphasis mine]

The emergency room is no place for geopolitics or for blame. To a trauma surgeon delving into gunshot wounds in Pretoria, London or Islamabad, it matters little if the weapon was fired by a terrorist/freedom fighter, by a mobster, a soldier, or an angry husband. Nor does it matter if the gun was military in appearance or had previously been used only to shoot pigeons. Whether the gunshot is by accident, suicide, crime or conflict, the damage done to the victim, the family, and wider society is remarkably similar.

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
Friday, April 17, 1998
BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

So you're actually ahead of Brazil and Mexico in gun-related death rates - way to go. The main problem seems to be brainwashed people such as yourself living in a culture saturated in violence where you're encouraged not to think too hard.

it's interesting how, despite all the statistics on death rates, accidents, homicides, suicides, easy continual access by criminals, etc, the male protagonists of gun ownership never seem to have a moral or ethical problem with it. i wonder why that is? is it the streak of sociopathy that runs through the average male, given voice in a violent US culture? how many women, 50% of the electorate, are all for easy access to guns if they are presented with real statistics, both domestically and internationally, rather than being browbeaten by their male partners and steadily indoctrinated by their own strange culture?

if i felt that gun ownership actually somehow made a better society, and there was no ethical problem with killing people or threatening to kill people for whatever reason, and that the gun death statistics were not as they are, then i suppose i would be for it. e.g. let's replace handguns with electric shock guns that are keyed to the palmprint of every owner, with annual sanity tests on each owner, and let's assume the owners never get drunk, or depressed, or suicidal, or angry, or jealous, or accidentally misfire. all that sounds highly achievable to me, what do you think?

doesn't the bible say 'thou shalt not kill'? (whatever that distinction between killing and murder is...)

unfortunately, most american politicians are too chickenshit to do anything about it. this is truly 'the tyranny of the majority'...

The problem with country-wide statistics is that meaningful data is "averaged away". In order to compare the US to say "Germany", then you need to do comparative adjustments. In fact, even Germany is too large for gun death data to be relevant, given the huge differences between differing regions and cities.

A good example is Chicago, which has (or had a few years ago) among the toughest handgun restriction laws in the US. The pro-control side was apt to jump on the rapidly shrinking gun-death stats in Chicago in the early-middle 90s as evidence of the success of gun control measures. However, this masked an overall trend of dropping violent crime per capita that occurred throughout that period. It also ignored the dynamic effects of restructuring that was happening simultaneously. Specifically, Chicago was demolishing the West-Side projects, relocating many of those people to the western burbs.

Later, when gun deaths started to rise again rapidly, the pro-gun side reversed the arguments. Again, conveniently ignoring other complicating factors.

The rational conclusion: the gun laws likely had some effect, however, it was small. Much smaller than perceived, reported, or spun by either camp.

Convicted murderers should be hung publicly in the center of town in the area they lived in as a teen ager.

I agree. Public hanging is an effective method. Death penalty should seek to maximize deterrence without inflicting excessive physical pain.

Hang them at noon and let them swing until noon the next day.

That is the idea.

I don’t have a passionate view about gun control. It’s just not something I feel strongly enough about to delve into statistics and argue the point. On a day to day basis I do not feel threatened by violence or particularly worry about being shot. I also know that age, gender and geographical location play a role in how likely I am to be a victim of gun violence.

Guns do not kill, people do. Only education can help us over the long term. On the other hand, the welfare (incentivization) system is probably making the situation worse every day.

I agree that people need help, but the idea is to make them productive again.

i agree, SQT - the whole culture and rates of high ownership, in purely pragmatic terms, mean that the US is too far gone to do much about it...

however, change would be possible over time if there was enough political and social will. similar to the anti-smoking lobby having effect over time, for similar reasons - if smoking wasn't lethal and raised health care costs, it would be tolerated more today. it seems some state govts are passing gun control laws, but there are unfortunately then leakage effects from other states where access to guns is still easy.

some of the problem would also be resistance from a lucrative gun-manufacturing industry, much like the tobacco lobby.

clearly america has grown up around a recreational shooting, gun-owning culture, for various historical reasons, including being a 'frontier society' for a time. it is unusual in the OECD in this regard. south africa under apartheid would perhaps be comparable in terms of need for self-protection.

it's understandable to be fairly indifferent if your own area is safe, and you can't back every cause, but it appears to be a national problem.

japan has cultural problems of its own - a highly chauvinistic society - and very militant and aggressive until recently - that goes back centuries. it is only pacification efforts since WWII that have changed them in that regard. but the chauvinism and various other quirks persist. i never said everywhere else was perfect...

japanese girls are raised to be very much under the thumb, and are not really expected to participate as economic or social equals in that society.

but that's really another cultural issue. once again, the world is not limited to the us and japan. there are different reasons for cultural norms in different societies - you would not be groped too much in Britain, for instance, or any of a host of other countries... perhaps in France... ; )

anyhow, which is better, getting groped or getting killed or maimed by gunshots? although i don't think the choice is a dichotomy between guns and being groped in this world, due to other cultural variables...

what do you think the total healthcare costs in the US economy due to gunshot wounds would be? including surgery, hospital time, rehabilitation, long-term disability, loss of quality of life, etc. either out of medicare/medicaid or health insurance funds...

my point is, we're not living in the 18th century as buckskin-wearing colonials in the backwoods any more with a low population, fighting wars of independence. the old threats are no longer present, and it is not necessary to invent new ones. there is a civic responsibility to 280 million citizens to try to maintain social cohesion and a decent, non-violent social settlement. that can be done through a New Deal arrangement, through cultural change, through confiscation of weapons, etc.

On the other hand, the welfare (incentivization) system is probably making the situation worse every day.

I would have thought good welfare would make the problem better - less incentive for the unemployed to rob and steal with menaces from people, for a start. at least, that's how it's worked out in every other OECD country that has a more benevolent welfare system than the US (which has a tougher system than most comparable countries already - it is always placed last in every list of welfare state features i have seen).

i really don't see how 'welfare' can be associated directly with the problem at all. rampant inequality, on the other hand, has been strongly associated with rising crime rates, as cited above.

remember 'welfare' means to 'fare well'.

what do you think the total healthcare costs in the US economy due to gunshot wounds would be? including surgery, hospital time, rehabilitation, long-term disability, loss of quality of life, etc. either out of medicare/medicaid or health insurance funds…

I would say the number is very high. On the other hand, what is the cost of running the correctional facilities? There is a problem when more money is spent on a inmate than a school child per year. That needs serious reform.

Now imagine a system in which prison-time is totally replaced with community service, caning, and hanging.

After a few gang-bangers get their necks stretched they will have trouble getting new recruits. (add this to you foot notes Sean)

I do think there is some deterence effect from capital punishment. But, unfortunatley, it's not with gang-bangers (at least the *real* gang-thugs). These guys don't generally expect to live to 30 and have already given up on life. Perhaps we should endeavor to figure out why that is while simultaneously punishing those we have now.

Similarly, the death penalty does not deter terrorists or other passionate psychotics. So long as we view most capital punishment circumstances for what they are: a solution to rid ourselves of undesirables, then I'm ok with it. Let's just be sure we get it right because it's not reversable. I lived in Illinios when our attorney general was putting guys on death row for political reasons. He's in jail for that now, but at least one guy is now dead due to withheld evidence, probably others that have yet to come to light.

I would have thought good welfare would make the problem better - less incentive for the unemployed to rob and steal with menaces from people, for a start. at least, that’s how it’s worked out in every other OECD country that has a more benevolent welfare system than the US

What went wrong then? Welfare also disincentivizes production, making a certain portion of the population more dependent on welfare in the future.

IMO, other countries have very different initial conditions that allow them welfare and relative stability at the same time, for now.

So long as we view most capital punishment circumstances for what they are: a solution to rid ourselves of undesirables, then I’m ok with it.

Yes. In addition to being a deterrence, capital punishment is also a way to dispose of "the undesirables".

Let’s just be sure we get it right because it’s not reversable.

Absolutely. The system should demand no less than moral certainty before a person is executed. That said, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Innocent people may still be wrongfully killed. I guess we will just have to live with this fact. Bear in mind that innocent people die every day for various reasons. The possibility of a few wrongful executions is not a sufficient reason to oppose capital punishment.

Convicted murderers should be hung publicly in the center of town in the area they lived in as a teen ager.
I agree. Public hanging is an effective method. Death penalty should seek to maximize deterrence without inflicting excessive physical pain.
Hang them at noon and let them swing until noon the next day.
That is the idea.

That's right, that's the way to create the good society - go back to the Dark Ages. Good to see we've progressed a long way in moral evolution and thinking since then. I wonder why the death penalty has been banned in most OECD countries, and certainly not performed cruelly in the US any more. I would have thought that cruel murders of atonement would morally debase you to the same level as the person you were killing, and completely and hypocritically fails to set an example of good behaviour. I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge? or what is the other purpose of this thinking? and why is it that most people do not commit murders due to their upbringing, obviating the need for grisly public examples? apparently all the stuff in the gospels informing the judeo-christian legal system means naught... such as jesus forgiving the criminals on the cross - which is really rewarding them with a place in heaven, if you follow the logic through...

"Robert-François Damiens (1715-1757) was a Frenchman who attained notoriety by unsuccessfully attempting the assassination of Louis XV of France in 1757. He was the last person to be executed in France with the traditional and gruesome form of death penalty used for regicides.

Damiens was born in a village near Arras in 1715, and early enlisted in the army. After his discharge, he became a menial in the college of the Jesuits in Paris, and was dismissed from this as well as from other employments for misconduct, his conduct earning for him the name of Robert le Diable (Robert the Devil). During the disputes of Pope Clement XI with the parlement of Paris, Damiens' mind seems to have been excited by the ecclesiastical disorganization which followed the refusal of the clergy to grant the sacraments to the Jansenists and Convulsionnaires; and he appears to have thought that peace would be restored by the death of the king. He, however, asserted, perhaps with truth, that he only intended to frighten the king without wounding him severely.

On January 5, 1757, as the king was entering his carriage, Damiens rushed forward and stabbed him with a knife, inflicting only a slight wound. He made no attempt to escape, and was at once seized. He was then tortured so as to have him denounce his accomplices or those who had sent him, to no avail. He was condemned as a regicide by the Parlement of Paris, and sentenced to be torn in pieces by horses in the Place de Grève. He was first tortured with red-hot pincers; his hand, holding the knife used in the attempted murder, was burnt using sulphur; molten wax, lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. Horses were then harnessed to his arms and legs for his dismemberment. Damiens' joints would not break; after some hours, representatives of the Parlement ordered the executioner and his aides to cut Damiens' joints. Damiens was then dismembered, to the applause of the crowd. His trunk, apparently still living, was then burnt at the stake.

After his death his house was razed to the ground, his brothers and sisters were ordered to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter were banished from France."

Sigh, those were the days...

What went wrong then? Welfare also disincentivizes production, making a certain portion of the population more dependent on welfare in the future.

IMO, other countries have very different initial conditions that allow them welfare and relative stability at the same time, for now.

being shot and disabled for life by a desperate penniless thief would also disincentize production i would think. not to mention the costs of producing and selling all the guns out there, the economically unproductive costs of chasing down the criminal and bringing them to justice, etc. see, i can even keep the eco-rat bean-counters happy, with their pure economic arguments divorced from morality and broader social concerns...

what different initial conditions? america is the most affluent (and also the most unequal) country in the world - you just have a problem with decent redistribution of the wealth of the nation - i think it's called greed and disregard for the poor - and cultural fatalism and individualism - witness FEMA and New Orleans...

I believe hanging is a humane method of execution. It is still performed in Singapore. In fact, people were executed there for the possession of certain substances.

I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge?

It really is not about revenge. It is about deterrence and disposal.

what different initial conditions?

How about the amount of natural resources per capita? Most successful welfare countries have abundant natural resources like fishery, foresty, oil, and precious metals and they do not have large populations.

I believe hanging is a humane method of execution. It is still performed in Singapore. In fact, people were executed there for the possession of certain substances.

I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge?

It really is not about revenge. It is about deterrence and disposal.

The execution by hanging in Singapore was decried in Australia as barbaric and extreme, and the guy argues that he did it to raise money for his brother. It's a question of cultural relativities again.

Many people murdered by the state in the US are actually mentally ill. Is that how you treat the sometimes unfortunate outcomes of mental illness?

It is unfortunate.

Doesn’t everyone have rights recognised by the state to safety and security of person, and respect for personhood? People are not carcasses to be disposed of.

Yes, but what if death penalty saves more lives?

What about all the soldiers in Iraq who knowingly killed innocent civilians, either individually or in indiscriminate bombings and shell, mortar and grenade fire?

Different subject. Soldiers are exposed to extraordinary dangers and risks. I seriously doubt they knowingly kill innocent people just for fun. On the other hand, innocent civilians are killed in all wars. I agree that such occurrences should be avoid whenever possible and that maintaining peace should be a top priority.

The execution by hanging in Singapore was decried in Australia as barbaric and extreme, and the guy argues that he did it to raise money for his brother. It’s a question of cultural relativities again.

He may be morally redeemable, but the strict application of capital punishment in Singapore is probably doing more good. Again, this is unfortunate.

And, of course, anyone who is about to be executed should be given the chance to repent (even though they dont give their victoms that chance).

I agree.

We are all wrong-doers at various times. However, punishment is not about revenge. A person can be punished and forgiven at the same time.

wait a minute, bap33, if i kill a good person because i'm mentally ill, or because i don't have enough food and break into their house, or whatever, won't they go straight to heaven to be with god? haven't i done them a favour? why should they continue suffering here on earth with taxes and the wind and rain and everything, when they can be in paradise instead? i should be thanked! in fact, all good people should end their lives promptly to be in paradise! that would be the logic of the new testament (and is, indeed, the logic of the writings of the early christian church...)

to say that it is better to continue living on earth rather than immediately being in heaven in the direct presence of god is a rebuke to god himself! it's saying you place earthly pleasures ahead of heavenly ones!

in fact, the US still has the death penalty in all but 12 states. the rest of the OECD has ended it. so you think 'the libs' have had their way in the US for long enough? heh

bap33, didn't jesus say 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone' when the woman found in adultery was going to be stoned to death, and thus forestalled her death and shamed the villagers? how do you reconcile that with your thirst for capital punishment?

and, peter p, if someone has apparently repented and won't do it again, why do you then still need to punish them? what's the psychological theory of rehabilitation here?

wait a minute, bap33, if i kill a good person because i’m mentally ill, or because i don’t have enough food and break into their house, or whatever, won’t they go straight to heaven to be with god? haven’t i done them a favour?

Hmm... :roll:

After all, going to prison is not humane

This is also one reason why I think capital punishment should be more broadly applied.

Putting criminals behind bars for extended periods of time is cruel and wasteful. The same resources can be used to better educate children, which IMHO will steer them safely away from committing crimes in the future.

wait a minute, it's not illegal to be gay.

(when i lived in tasmania, homosexuality was illegal. while i was there, it was legalised. i left the state before it became compulsory...)

isn't killing and murder both the cessation of human life of another? apart from the legal connotations of 'murder' as unlawful, whereas killing is simply the cessation of life under any means, accidental or wilful, by a human party or otherwise. i suppose you could be killed by a tree falling on you also. so there is killing, homicide, murder, manslaughter, etc...

however, i would define the state's deliberate killing of a citizen as murder, due to intent. unless it was in the defence of another person, in which case it would be justifiable homicide. in wartime, of course, all bets are off, because it suits governments for things to be that way.

an unforeseeable accident caused by another which resulted in a death would be a killing, or manslaughter, but most people would be more diplomatic than to call it that in everyday conversation.

After a few gang-bangers get their necks stretched they will have trouble getting new recruits. (add this to you foot notes Sean)

I do think there is some deterence effect from capital punishment. But, unfortunatley, it’s not with gang-bangers (at least the *real* gang-thugs). These guys don’t generally expect to live to 30 and have already given up on life. Perhaps we should endeavor to figure out why that is while simultaneously punishing those we have now.

so why does the US have this problem where other affluent countries don't? through economic and social indifference, you have allowed a culture of poverty and violence to be created in your own backyard. you have created oases of affluence and ghettos of poverty and lawlessness instead.

When I visited London way back when, I (of course) did the Tower of London tour. There you could imagine how it must have been - when, at the top of this hill, they would hold public beheadings and watch the head roll down the hill. Families would come with their children for the entertainment value. (Sean, I hope I do remember this correctly - it has stuck in my mind ever since).

Yes, of course. Punishments throughout Europe were brutal until about 1850. A lot of welfare reform and new thinking was done from about 1820 onwards, after the Napoleonic Wars. Note that England stopped transporting convicts to Australia in 1850 also.

I would like to think that man was slowly becoming more moral and more 'like the angels' rather than regressing. There are far more people alive today than in those times, and yet they manage to live in much more peace and prosperity than then, and the rise of human rights and citizens' rights comprise a whole new area of thinking. After two punishing and pointless world wars in the 20th century, and the end of the colonial era, I would like to think things were becoming more rational and decent overall. We've seen the creation of the UN in an attempt to give all countries a voice and prevent war. There have been 60 years of peace in western Europe after centuries of immoral, destructive and ultimately fruitless warring, and the creation of the EU promoting peaceful trade and co-operation. With peace comes prosperity. With prosperity would hopefully come sharing, but the US forgot about that bit, and raises up people like Britney Spears instead, who only accidentally makes subject-object agreement in a sentence.

A person can be punished and forgiven at the same time.

It's interesting you say that, because in many US states, a convicted felon can no longer vote, often for life. That doesn't sound like forgiveness to me, that sounds more like conveniently stacking the rolls in favour of Republican voters... and never forgiving or forgetting... not to mention the difficulties many felons have in being barred from various types of work in perpetuity...

the Greatest Country on Earth. The last hope for the planet. America.

more like the Greatest Circus on Earth.

and there are more people outside america than in it that think it is now the most cursed, ignorant and deadly country on earth. cursed by stupidity and tired, unrevised 18th century thinking.

isn't patriotism the last resort of the scoundrel? or is it the first?

bap, i would have said that Jesus was a liberal. Is there anything in the NT where Jesus said he hated everyone, labelled everyone who was down and out a wrongdoer, and insisted that they should all die from capital punishment? and that the rich were being rewarded by god on earth, and that they were righteous because they were rich, and shouldn't do anything for the poor?

are we reading different bibles or something?

unfortunately, condi rice is an ex-texaco oil executive and chronic transparent liar for imperialism and big oil. hilary clinton at least has some intelligence, presence and human decency. she fought for healthcare reforms more in line with the rest of the world to lower costs for the elderly and disadvantaged, and was completely rolled by a money-grubbing, vested interest Republican majority in Congress. Australia offers free universal healthcare and has beaten big pharma by offering citizens the lowest priced pharmaceuticals in the world, paying $3 per script for pensioners (sometimes $0), and no more than $16 for antibiotics at full price. americans pay more for scripts than just about anywhere. america is ranked 37th in the world for overall quality of health care, and is particularly noted for its denial of access to care.

you pray to your god tonight, but i'll tell you now that the person you've been praying to so far has hooves, horns and a pitchfork...

RE: Kill vs. murder

How about war? Consider ourselves fighting a war against crimes.

wot, and bush isn't all about being a puppet, being selected and not elected, rigging polls, doing favours for crony capitalist mates, starting wars on false pretexts, and arranging for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer? 'some people call you the elite. i call you my base'? he always looks so interested listening to the electorate too at public functions, and showed so much resolve and leadership after 9/11 and katrina...

i wouldn't have too much trouble looking hilary in the eye if she sincerely stands for social justice agendas, which is meant to be the domain of the Democrats. i doubt that the clintons, and, indeed, other democrat presidents and candidates, don't possess some faint glimmer of human decency. having said that, the 'left' in american politics is increasingly disappearing, and i've met elected labour party politicians who were right wing pillocks, where the right of labour is worse than the left of the conservatives... maybe hilary is a little too focused on time management and getting bang for her buck to bother hobnobbing with just anyone...

isn't hilary the triumph of issues over personality and substance over style?

decent, self-consistent and coherent policies and playing with a straight bat are more important to me than personalities - there are plenty of prickly left-wingers around with nevertheless an unerring moral compass.

RE: Kill vs. murder

How about war? Consider ourselves fighting a war against crimes.

yes, but the nazis/germans/prussians thought they were doing the right and noble thing too, in their own peculiar way. and there's always an element of 'what's in it for me' when countries go to war, no matter what propaganda they present to their people and soldiers. sometimes there's a strong element of longer term maneuvering in it as well - e.g. the US was engaging in WWII with a wary eye on the USSR, and didn't originally want to engage in 'the European war' at all...

do we have to go into just war theory now?

Just look at the murders that have occured because a Dutch newspaper ran a cartoon depicting Allah.

what would happen in the US if cartoons were published showing Jesus in a mocking light? surely there would be a strident backlash also... There has to be some respect for others sensitivities, rather than provoking them...

why do so many who said they’d leave the country if Bush was elected still live here?

i dunno, emigration is a hassle... where do you go? why do refugees in the sudan still live there?

And why is it considered such a bad thing to be patriotic?

Because every country/nation-state so defined therefore has the right to be patriotic, and hubristic, and claim to be the greatest country on earth. And that inevitably seems to have lead to wars and colonialism and squabbles over resources in the past. And you end up whitewashing all the dirty dealings and pretending they never happened by creating a 'civil religion' of flag-waving and false rhetoric and propaganda.

And further, you will never address any problems or deficiencies if you are supposed to be jingoistic and patriotic all the time - your society may actually have a rotten core. It's just like Orwell's 1984 society of brainwashing and propaganda. And maybe you're not all that great, individually - maybe you're dumbed-down, superficial, materialistic, wasteful of resources, arrogant, acquisitive, uneducated, ignorant, coarse, corrupt, socially regressive, uncompassionate and uncaring of others, who knows? Maybe other countries and societies have a better social settlement and more to offer and lessons to learn?

I think we've already covered the remnants of the death penalty, poor healthcare, poor social capital, ghettoisation, high homicide rates, high levels of violence, imperialism, etc when compared to similar countries...

Lawyer, alleged "feminazi," bestselling author, notoriously wronged woman, working mother, alleged murderer and adulterer, Senator, cookie-baker, First Lady, enemy of cookie-bakers, and quite possibly future president of the United States.

Shortly after the Tammy Wynette quote, the "cookie incident" cemented Clinton's reputation as the woman America loved to hate. For all the seething cauldron of outrage these comments produced in insecure, anger-driven morons like Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell, Clinton's no-nonsense, take-no-crap attitude also established her as a something of a hero to modern working women. Naturally, this was considered a massive political liability for hubby, who already had the modern working woman vote locked up but was polling poorly among insecure, anger-driven morons (i.e., a large chunk of the American electorate).

It would be along the same lines as the outrage and protest aginst Eminem’s anti-gay lyrics. I don’t see the religious right making terrorist threats.

yes, what about religious fundamentalists in the US killing doctors who perform abortions and blowing up clinics? as an example

what if you don't agree with the death penalty? what if you think most americans are belligerent, overly religious meatheads and ignorant? or always blowing smoke up people's proverbials?

other countries see americnas as all sorts of undesirable things - insincere; over religious; hypocritical; money-obsessed; overly commercial; etc...

I happen to know a few Americans who have left and say they don't like the place, as a matter of fact.

there are plenty of places in the affluent first world other than the US to live - English and non-English speaking. It depends what you value, and the culture you grew up in...

If they didn’t we’d be far far more mired down in corruption and violence than we are.

but all the evidence is that you are horribly mired in corruption and violence - jack abramoff, the business-government nexus, etc. and the ol' gun death thing... remember the fbi under hoover declared that the mafia in america didn't exist, because they had some photos of him revealing he was gay... coming to america was the best thing that ever happened to the mafia...

and any leader certain vested interests don't like you assassinate - the Kennedys, who tend to stand for socially progressive values... John Jr was no accident...

Dick Cheney

The Early Years
Cheney voted to protect citizens' constitutional right to own armor-piercing bullets. He voted against the Clean Water Act. In fact, he voted against any bill that even included the words "corporate" and "pollution." He voted to protect the sacred constitutional right of a corporation to keep quiet about which local communities they flooded with toxins that cause cancer and birth defects.

Unlike his constituents' wives, Cheney's baton-twirling spouse Lynne wasn't just sitting around barefoot and pregnant all this time. Under Reagan, Lynne Cheney served as head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, protecting innocent citizens against the depravations of public broadcasting and from potentially confusing "propaganda" content, such as a documentary suggesting Africans might have a few legit gripes about centuries of colonialism, forced slavery and industrial exploitation.

Halliburton
When Bush Sr. was drubbed by Bill Clinton in 1992, Cheney decided it was high time he became a titan of industry. With nothing but insider Washington credentials on his resume, he became chairman and CEO of Halliburton Corp. in 1995. Cheney made millions leading the massive oil industry construction company, while carefully "tweaking" its accounting practices. A 1998 accounting change improved the company's revenues by $234 million over the course of four years.

The practice was further complicated by the fact that Halliburton was severely on the ropes at the time the change was made. In addition to suddenly boosting the company's bottom line just when Halliburton was going to get slaughtered on the stock market, Cheney and crew "neglected" to inform the SEC about the change until more than a year later. When Cheney quit Halliburton to take the vice presidential nomination in 2000, the company offered him a $20 million going-away gift, characterized as a "retirement package" for his many (five) years of service in the private sector. In a concession to public outrage and concerns that Halliburton was buying access to the White House, Cheney selflessly accepted only $13.6 million, indisputably preserving the ethical integrity of the Executive Branch.

During the 2000 elections, Cheney's history of heart troubles raised serious concerns among the electorate. Voters worried that if Cheney died while in office, his running mate George W Bush might be left in charge of the country.

9/11
Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney and his old crony Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defense) began beating the war drums for a new invasion of Iraq, despite a complete absence of any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with September 11 or al Qaeda in general.

Cheney got his way, eventually. After a staged confrontation at the United Nations, where Secretary of State Colin Powell was roped into making the improbable case for an invasion, the Bush administration discarded all hopes of attracting allies (other than faithful lapdog Britain), despite Cheney's last-minute "can't we be friends" tour of Europe. The U.S. went ahead with the invasion in spring 2003.

Halliburton and 9/11
Cheney's enthusiasm for the war wasn't solely driven by philosophy. His old buddies at Halliburton were finally seeing a return on that $13.6 million (and the $1 million a year in "deferred compensation" still being paid to supplement Cheney's measly six-figure government salary). Halliburton's first quarterly earnings report at the end of the short second Gulf War saw profits double from the previous period (more than $20 million), a gain which news reports comically characterized as coming "despite" the war.

Just before the Iraq war started, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton an "emergency" contract for oil fields reconstruction, which was awarded without the usual government bidding process because of said "emergency" (and despite the fact that the invasion wasn't on any particular timetable and the fact it had been in the works for a year and a half).

The deal was authorized for up to $7 billion, but the Army didn't trash the country with sufficient enthusiasm to make the whole amount, and the actual size of the deal is now estimated at $600 million (assuming Halliburton survives the lawsuits from competitors who inexplicably feel that something fishy is going on here).

A disappointment to be sure, but Cheney has four more years to make it up to them. And then there's always Syria... And Iran... And...

Bap33

My problem is that your philosophy does not allow for people like me, who are not religious, in your world view. What would you do with folks like me who have no interest in religion whatsoever, but are deeply ethical, not particularly liberal, and positive contributors to society? All I've heard so far is that there is no place for me in your society. This despite the fact that I am more ethical than many of those self righteous sorts I observe exhibiting hypocrisy on a daily basis. I don't really wish to live in a world/country where I am forced to lie about my own deep personal convictions in order to feel safe from my fellow holy-warrior man.

My issue is that those insistent upon prostelatizing their beliefs to me are rarely interested in hearing what I might have to say. This is fine up until the point where you begin trying to dictate my values for me.

Bap33,

Thanks for your comments. I do not take personal offense even though we disagree on many issues. You are rare, in my experience, in that you are willing to actually discuss these issues. I don't particularly like the overly-broad demonization of "the left". Many of my friends and family are "leftist progressives", and I assure you they are ethical, love this country, and most of them are even virtuous christians. There are also people on the "right" who I regard as hating this country. So for me, all that matters is the person, not the label. Labeling is a lazy way out of doing the hard work of evaluating issues and people on their intrinsic merits. (This is why I despise forums like "the futurist").

I also agree that the bible (implying the judeo-christian bible) is sufficient for many to lead a virtuous life. But I don't agree that it is necessary. Certainly, there were virtuous people before, and apart from the bible. And certainly there are and have been other religious cultures which embodied the same essential truisms about human ethics.

I'll demonstrate an example of the uselessness of "left/right; liberal/conservative" labels. One who is fiscally 'conservative' must favor market 'liberalization' for 'conservative' markets are protectionistic and impeded. Is this person "liberal" or "conservative". It depends upon whether you're talking about politcs or economics. What about the born-again christian farmer in Iowa who wants protection from Dutch factory farmers and globalization? He is politically conservative, but fiscally liberal (even more confusing he is favoring market deliberalization, which is a liberal ideal). See the problem?

If we were in China complaining about it’s government, this blog would either be blocked or taken down.

Only if it is hosted by Microsoft or served by Google. ;)