Barack Obama gave a stirring speech in Berlin today, what did he accomplish?
There is much tongue clucking amongst the mainstream media gurus in the aftermath of Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin. Was it hubris? Arrogance? Too much from a United States senator, who is a presidential candidate, but not yet (or perhaps never) President of the United States? I say no. …
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - Baritone
First Dave,
You are just wrong. The major western European countries have similar legal systems to our own.
That they place greater emphasis on planetary stewardship is lauditory.
All of the numbers you cite relate to monetary and material aspects of life. I suggest to you that by and large Europeans are far happier. They work less hours per week and less days per year. They are less apt to be overweight, less apt to die early from heart disease, suffer far less from high blood pressure and stress disorders, and generally have a far superior quality of life than we do - not measured in dollars and cents or the number of electronic toys one accumulates. And, they don't shoot each other as we are so apt to do owing to our stupid love affair with domestic weaponry.
We use a different measuring stick. I like mine better.
B
127 - Dave Nalle
You are just wrong. The major western European countries have similar legal systems to our own.
When did they adopt them because the last time I checked Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy all used systems which are variations of the napoleonic code with some roman law thrown in, with tribunals of judges and no presumption of innocence. And I just looked them up again, and that appears to still be the case. And the EU courts follow that model.
That they place greater emphasis on planetary stewardship is lauditory.
Wildflowers?
All of the numbers you cite relate to monetary and material aspects of life.
I didn't cite numbers. I talked exclusively about rights, except for mentioning standard of living in a vague way.
I suggest to you that by and large Europeans are far happier. They work less hours per week and less days per year. They are less apt to be overweight, less apt to die early from heart disease, suffer far less from high blood pressure and stress disorders, and generally have a far superior quality of life than we do - not measured in dollars and cents or the number of electronic toys one accumulates. And, they don't shoot each other as we are so apt to do owing to our stupid love affair with domestic weaponry.
Statistics certainly don't bear out all of that wonderfulness. And speaking for my European relatives (mostly now dead) they didn't feel all that happy when their medical systems failed them and they died prematurely or lived in chronic pain for decades. And the most heavily armed societies in Europe have the lowest crime rates, so there's no causal relationship between gun ownership and crime.
Dave
128 - Baritone
Bullshit!
Your European relatives offer no more than anecdotal evidence. Perhaps just bad genes.
No relationship between guns and crime? Again, bullshit. Violent crime is nowhere near as rampant in most of western Europe as it is here.
How many people are failed by our health system? Forty million uninsured people could probably offer more than anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, wildflowers!
Are European jails overflowing with innocent people who were railroaded by their respective legal systems? Our jail systems are pressed to and beyond their intended limits owing to our idiotic "war on drugs." And the prison populations are inordinately black, putting the efficacy of our system in serious doubt.
B
129 - Dave Nalle
No relationship between guns and crime? Again, bullshit. Violent crime is nowhere near as rampant in most of western Europe as it is here.
Sorry, B-tone. Your call of bullshit is not supported by any evidence of a causal relationship between guns and crime. In the US we have high crime AND guns, not high crime because of guns. In Europe they have low crime whether they have guns or not, because some of the lowest crime countries like Sweden and Switzerland have very widespread gun ownership.
That suggests no relationship between gun ownership and crime.
How many people are failed by our health system? Forty million uninsured people could probably offer more than anecdotal evidence.
Yet if they get desperate and go to a hospital they WILL get treated and excellently. As opposed to Europeans who go to a hospital with chest pains, get fobbed off with some beta-blockers and scheduled for a heart specialist in 2 months and the next time they show up there it's at the morgue 3 days later.
Are European jails overflowing with innocent people who were railroaded by their respective legal systems? Our jail systems are pressed to and beyond their intended limits owing to our idiotic "war on drugs." And the prison populations are inordinately black, putting the efficacy of our system in serious doubt.
These are not flaws in the legal system, but almost entirely products of the war on drugs. Fix the bad laws and the problem goes away. Europeans have to deal with a different kind of bad lawmaking that may not put them in prison, but interferes with their freedom in many other ways.
Dave
130 - Clavos
"Some would. Some would not. Are we "collectively" doing so much better here than those in western Europe? Overall, I don't think so."
I have scores of relatives (mostly cousins) in Sweden, whom I visit often. Though my cousins are charming, affable individuals who are warm and friendly, I find their culture as a whole rigid, unbending and far too authoritarian, with little room for individuality and going against the grain.
Sure, the buses run punctually (to the minute, in fact), but their obsession with regulation and rules is extremely offputting to the American (and especially the Mexican) in me. There's no way I would voluntarily live in Sweden, or in Germany, where my wife has a lot of family, and which I find even more rigid and authoritarian than Sweden.
My favorites, and which I consider countries where individualism is not trampled (at least, not as much), are Italy, Spain and Portugal, and to a lesser degree, France. I especially admire and enjoy the Italians.
The Netherlands, of course, is probably the least authoritarian nation in all of Europe, and I enjoyed my one visit there thoroughly.
131 - bliffle
Dave is concerned about being arrested in Europe for picking wildflowers, but seems unconcerned about being snatched off the streets of Austin by the CIA and whisked away to a secret prison, perhaps Gitmo, and held without bail, without habeas corpus, without end and without hope.
132 - Cindy D
Dan,
There seems to be a discrepancy between your two sources at #125, Mr. Sowell says:
"it is clear that racial differences in SAT scores, for example, are much smaller at Harvard (95 points) than at Duke (184 points) or Rice (271 points)."
In fact, there almost seems to be a linear correlation between test scores and dropout rates, in that dropout rates between races are negligable when test scores are negligable.
But your other source, (at #109) JBHE, says Duke ranked as the top school for black integration including graduation rates.
"Clearly one explanation for the strong performance of Duke in so many categories is the sincere commitment of President Nan Keohane to racial diversity."
Although the incidence of these conditions seem plausable, and the occasional occurence, perhaps assured, any data that would account for the magnitude of the disparity would need to be viewed critically.
I propose all data should always be viewed critically--from any study. But, first I suggest the data would have to be viewed at all.
Why not read Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White, as Tim Wise suggested @ 116.
I recommend you view the data Dan instead of using rhetoric to attempt to discredit it without even looking at it.
133 - Dave Nalle
Dave is concerned about being arrested in Europe for picking wildflowers, but seems unconcerned about being snatched off the streets of Austin by the CIA and whisked away to a secret prison, perhaps Gitmo, and held without bail, without habeas corpus, without end and without hope.
Bliffle, this would be because there's a very real chance of the first actually happening to people and virtually no chance of the last happening to me or anyone else.
And keep in mind that ALL criminal suspects in most European nations are held without bail and without habeas corpus.
Dave
134 - Dr Dreadful
Doc's wife IS an American, I think, although she may be a Californian.
As Mrs Dreadful's legal representative, I hereby enter a guilty plea on both counts...
As a resident alien myself, I find Americans tend to be the least adept at doublespeak of all the English-speaking peoples. (Except maybe for your northern neighbours.) Not for nothing have you always valued 'plain speaking'. You say what you mean and expect (most unreasonably, in my view!) the same in return. Sublety is as a closed book to most of you folks.
That's why it astonishes me that you bought Bush the Elder with his 'read my lips: no new taxes'. If the cameras had zoomed in just a little bit closer, everyone would have been able to see that there was no such phrase tattooed to the Patriarch's labial appendages.
135 - Baritone
I have spent several weeks in Germany and a week in Vienna. During our stays we found the majority of people generally affable and open. Granted, most were younger, closer to my son's age, around 30 or so. However, other than a brief encounter with a skinhead in Berlin, we never had any sense of being unwelcome. In short most everyone we encountered were friendly and comfortably casual with us. My son has lived there for around 5 years and has become very comfortable in his life there.
Now, just a few numbers. I knew Dave would not be able leave it alone, so I found some data of my own.
First: Gun violence.
According to the Centers for Disease Control during 2006 firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5285 in the United States.
A study published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the following figures were reported:
In the U.S. the overall homicide rate was listed at 7.52 per 100000 of the population. Of those 39% were killed with firearms.
The same figures in England & Wales were 1.57 per 100000 pop. with 8% firearms related.
Spain: 1.49 per 100000 pop/ 16.4% by firearms.
Ireland: 1.33 per 100000 pop/ 24% by firearms.
Germany: 1.63 per 100000 pop/ 28.5% by firearms.
The U.S. figures were more in line with Uruguay and Costa Rica.
Also, for the record another similar report included % of households with guns. The U.S. proudly tops the list (of those countries reporting) at 39%. The two counrties Dave cited as having widespread gun ownership, Sweden and Switzerland reported 27.2% and 15.1% gun ownership.
According to the CIA World Factbook (2007)it is interesting to note that while the differences are not dramatic, virtually all western European countries manage an average life expectancy higher for both men and women than the U.S. The average life expectancy for men and women combined in the U.S. is around 78.2 years while western European contries go as high as just over 80 years. In fact the U.S. rates 29th amongst UN member nations and only 45th amongst all nations of the world (reporting.) If one wishes to max out their life expectancy the place to be is apparently Andorra with an average combined expectancy of 83.52 years.
136 - Baritone
I hit "publish" before I meant to. I won't belabor this any further. Suffice to say, though, that the above life expectancy figures do say something about different nations' respective health care system.
Also, the figures regarding gun related homicides DO in fact illustrate a relationship between the accessability of firearms and the number of homocides.
B-tone
137 - Baritone
Yeah, yeah, I know. I misspelled homicide. I'm just so anxious to get this vital information out to ya'll, that I just couldn't wait to hit publish.
B
138 - Dr Dreadful
It surely says something that I looked at your figure for Great Britain of 19 children killed by guns and immediately thought, "That many?!"
The other oddity for me in those numbers is Switzerland only reporting 15.1% gun ownership by household. By law, all adult Swiss males under 30 are required to own and maintain a firearm at home as part of their militia obligations. So unless only 15% of Swiss households contain young men, something's cockeyed with that figure, I reckon.
139 - Baritone
The reference to "children" includes anyone under the age of 18, and I believe in some cases, under the age of 21. That would likely include gang activity which I believe does exist in GB at some level.
140 - Baronius
California and Texas are the largest purchasers of textbooks. California's preferences tend to be on the liberal side as often as Texas's are conservative. The problem is not that textbooks are written to pass one state's or the other's boards of education, which would be arguably acceptable. Textbooks are written to pass both states'. The result is something that can find approval in ole Miss, ole Mass, and everywhere else. Completely uncontroversial, uninspiring textbooks that don't take a position on anything, don't even imply that there is a position to be taken on questions of the arts, sciences, humanities, or anything else.
141 - bliffle
Gee, I actually picked wildflowers in Europe and lived to tell about it!
In fact, I saw gangs of children happily picking wildflowers for bouquets for the house, and they seemed totally unconcerned.
The poor dears didn't seem at all aware of the dangers awaiting them.
142 - Cindy D
Dr.D,
How gracious of you to acknowledge that Americans actually speak English :-)!
However, my experience with Brits has led me to conclude that they aren't as "nice" as everyone thinks!
While on one two-week trip to Cornwall. I stayed with a family--the husband informed me (when I said how lovely they sounded) that American accents sound like a saw grating against a rock.
The wife said that if you looked up "check" in their dictionary, it would be spelled cheque, and she doubted Americans even speak English. I told her that if you looked up "cheque" in an American dictionary it would say: archaic. She had more respect for me after that.
They also thought Australians sounded more like Americans than they do Brits. Clearly they wanted nothing to do with any of us and if they didn't need the money, would have happily kicked us out.
The only thing that saved us was that I agreed to make "pumpkin pie" out of marrow. We got to see Guy Fawkes toasted and ate bangers and mustard during the fireworks in exchange.
On another trip we saw many business people. None of whom seemed the least bit shy about telling jokes (I think Americans call that sort of joke a put-down) at our expense.
We adore England just the same. We only met one rude person in France though, and he was the desk clerk at a hotel across from the Louvre. What nerve :-)
Conclusion: Brits are far ruder than the French, albeit the less bright won't be able to tell they are the butt of British wit.
143 - Baritone
I understand that many European countries are deploying undercover sniper teams to take out such offending little tykes on the spot. That way the courts don't even get involved.
Bar,
Of course, you are correct. I'd forgotten about California's role. It's just that the book spent most of its attention on the Texas scenario.
I took an American history class as a freshman at IU back in the spring term in 1965. The class convened at 7:30AM in a modestly large auditorium in an old building. I had some 250 class mates. The room was invariably super hot with its steam heat.
The professor, a woman who had, as it happened, written the textbook we were to use entered the room invariably about 2 minutes late, opened her book on the podium and began reading after nary a "Good morning" or any other salutation. She read for all but the last couple of minutes wherein she closed the book and left without a word, handing the reigns over to one of her TAs who would make any necessary announcements concerning assignments, tests, etc.
While she read - in a scintillatingly slow monotone, by the way - her team of TAs would circulate around the room using wooden yardsticks to poke students awake. It should go without saying that I learned a great deal of history during that term.
B
144 - Cindy D
Did I say Cornwall, I meant Cambridge. It was a long time ago.
145 - Baronius
Well, Bar, that's hardly a trivial ommission. Is that the way you play the game? The Reagan administration declared catsup a vegetable. So did Clinton, but I guess that's not worth mentioning either.
146 - Baritone
I wasn't playing any game. How does my "omission" change anything? History texbooks have been and continue to be empty of any real controversy offering up innocuous pablum (or pabulum, if you prefer) in the guise of history. I was essentially agreeing with you, but I guess you just couldn't deal with that.
B
147 - Dr Dreadful
Lucky for you it wasn't Cornwall, Cindy. You probably wouldn't have understood a word. Lovely as the Cornish accent is, it's also very strange.
They even have their own language down there - closely related to Welsh - although the last person who spoke it as her first language died over 200 years ago! There's a vigorous revival movement and thousands of people can now speak at least some Cornish.
Now Cambridge you would have had an easier time in. Your biggest worry, I suspect, was being silently mown down by students on bicycles every time you crossed the street.
148 - Baritone
Doc,
My son's girl friend is studying in Canterbury. He has visited her there a # of times and really likes it.
He likes London as well, but it's so expensive to eat or do anything other than stroll about sightseeing that they only spend the day there without overnighting.
B
149 - Dave Nalle
Also, the figures regarding gun related homicides DO in fact illustrate a relationship between the accessability of firearms and the number of homocides.
Your figures clearly show no relationship between gun ownership and the level of gun homicides. You also neglect to provide the homicide rate or the gun homicide rate for Sweden or Switzerland.
All your figures bear out is that the US is more violent than other countries, not that guns have any causal relationship with homicide.
And to reinforce that truth, here are the actual figures for Sweden and Switzerland. Oh and your total gun ownership rates for the two countries were backward.
Sweden:
15.1% Gun Ownership
1.3 Homicides/100,000
14% are by firearm
Switzerland
27.2% Gun Ownership
1.32 Homicides/100,000
39% are by firearm
and let me add
New Zealand
22.3% Gun Ownership
1.47 Homicides/100,000
12% are by firearm
Canada
29.1% Gun Ownership
2.16 Homicides/100,000
35% are by firearm
And the real nail in the coffin of this myth:
Norway
32% Gun Ownership
.97 Homicides/100,000
31% are by firearm
So it's absolutely indisputable that there is zero relationship between the availability of firearms and the rate of homicide. Norway has almost as many guns per capita as the US and one of the lowest rates of homicide in the world.
The rate of homicide by firearm also fluctuates wildly, but those cultures where guns are most popular seem to have about the same 30-40% rate of firearm homicide. Yet their overall rates of homicide do not appear to increase because of the availability of firearms. Plus there are notable exceptions like Sweden and New Zealand.
So if guns are available they are used to kill about a third of the time, but they do NOT increase the likelihood of homicide in any appreciable way.
There's only one possible conclusion. It is other cultural or situational factors in the US which cause a high rate of homicide, not the presence of a lot of guns.
Dave
150 - Baronius
Baritone, I inferred some gamesmanship. I read your statement as "Democrats and Republicans are wrong; for example, the Republicans". It's rare to have an honest discussion about the problems in our educational system, and it's only tougher when one side calls the other "anti-science".
151 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, you waver with your hammer over the nail, but fail to hit it on the head.
Your figures show only that there is a lack or correlation between gun availability and homicide globally, not specifically in the US.
There most certainly are cultural/situational factors in the US which contribute to the homicide rate, and I would suggest that one of the most significant of these, thanks to Hollywood, is the perceived power of the gun as a settler of conflicts.
P.S. Thanks for the correction to B-tone's numbers for Sweden and Switzerland. The Swiss figure makes more sense now.
152 - Dan Miller
I don't have the foggiest idea how such statistics are collected, but do have a nagging suspicion that illegally acquired guns are not included in the count. Imagine going into a high crime neighborhood and asking "Excuse me, Sir (or Madam, as the case may be) do you happen to own a firearm, legal or otherwise?" Subject to correction, I will therefore assume that illegally acquired firearms are not included in the count.
I also have a nagging suspicion that the statistics on gun related homicides suffer from a similar flaw. Do they, perhaps, include homicides involving illegally acquired firearms? How about lawful homicides, such as self defense?
It would be fascinating to see what the correlation might be between lawfully acquired firearms and unlawful homicides.
Dan
153 - Baritone
Dave,
I don't follow your logic at all. Consider, what is the easiest way to kill? What means do we have at hand that offers us the opportunity to kill? Is there anything quicker, more efficient, requiring less skill and affording the relative comfort of distance than a gun? Just pick it up and pop!
So my numbers prove nothing? Your's are definitive? As to Sweden and Switzerland, I transposed those numbers (sorry about that.) But of all the numbers the two of us cited, only Switzerland measures up to the U.S. in the percentage of firearm homicides. So the figures from England/Wales, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Sweden and New Zealand tell us nothing, but the figures from Switzerland, Norway and Canada represent the true picture? Nail in the coffin indeed! You manage to perform a strange brand of math. You did more cherry picking than I did.
What is it about Americans, more than any other people in the developed countries that makes guns so attractive? Why do people go into near apoplexy in their defense?
I'm not sure how Dan's query regarding illegally acquired guns would affect any of the above numbers. I don't think it matters, though, whether a gun used in a homicide was or was not legal. The results remain the same. Someone is lying dead with one or more bullet wounds in his or her body.
Here in Indy, we have had a rash of murders over the last few weeks. The best figures I can come up with total 16 murders over the last 3 weeks or so. Of those, all but 2 or around 12% were accomplished with firearms. There have been around 50 homicides in Indianapolis/Marion County since January 1 of this year. All but 7 of those were gun killings. One of the 7 was a man beaten to death. The main suspect in that beating shot a pursuing police officer in the head and chest. The officer remains in an induced semi-coma with the likelihood of a long rehabilitation, assuming he survives.
A couple of days ago, a man entered his estranged wife's home, shot and killed her current boyfriend, took his ex-wife and step-daughter in his car, shot his ex-wife and then shot himself in front of his step-daughter.
Then, if we slide down to Tennessee, we have 2 dead and, what, 5 others wounded by a nutcase with a shotgun in a church. Could he have accomplished that with a broad sword, or a bow and arrow? Maybe. Probably not. I suppose he could have stopped by a local drugstore and picked up some seren gas. That'd do the trick.
B
154 - Dr Dreadful
To be fair, B-tone, it was a Unitarian Church and the guy's stated motive was that he hated liberals. So I guess that makes it OK.
;-/
155 - Dave Nalle
Ok, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough.
To make the argument that guns are somehow a causative factor in homicides or even in gun deaths, you need to demonstrate that some sort of correlation between the presence of guns in a society and the number of deaths.
Yet the evidence clearly does not support this.
The US has a high number of gun owners, a high homicide rate and a high rate of gun violence.
For the premise to be true then you would expect to see elevated levels of homicide and of gun violence in other societies with high levels of gun ownership.
Yet, as demonstrated by all of the top gun-owning countries except for the US, all of them have a ratio of gun-ownership to homicides or to gun deaths enormously lower than the US does.
Therefore something else must be the causative factor - something which is much more prevalent in the US than in other countries other than guns.
I'm open to arguments as to what that influence might be. It could be economic disparity if you like - just to make the left happy. Or it could be the crappy quality of our educational system. Or it could be the lack of mandatory military service or required gun education. Or it could just be a cowboy mentality. Take your pick.
Oh and as to the anecdotal examples, you could easily kill your family with an axe or by crashing your car - the car crash is probably easier than shooting them. And you could burn down a church and kill more people more dramatically than by shooting them. The point being that these people are crazy and will find a way to express it. The gun didn't make them crazier or make killing people any easier.
Dave
156 - Baritone
Dave,
As to your last point, I disagree. The accessability and ease of use of guns make them the first choice of the overwhelming majority of people who kill in the U.S. Matches are plentiful, but it takes some planning and even skill to set an effective fire. The fellow in Tennessee could have attempted to drive his car into the church, but success would have been far more doubtful. The much easier choice was a shotgun.
I still don't buy your argument regarding gun use. However, you do introduce another factor which should be taken into consideration here in the U.S.
If the Swiss and Canadians can be trusted with high numbers of guns, why can't Americans? Apparently, Americans are just not mature enough to be afforded the privilege of gun ownership. Even Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine" points out the high level of gun ownership in Canada yet the huge disparity in homicides and especially gun deaths.
So, the most responsible thing for us to do would be to hand over all of our guns to the Canadians, for a while at least. Americans just can't be trusted with them. We need a "timeout" for a few years. "No guns for you young man, until you learn how to play nice with your toys designed for the sole purpose of killing somebody!"
As I see it, that is more damning, far more disturbing and more embarrassing than any other explanation.
B
157 - Baronius
Dave, you've got to figure that guns make killing at least somewhat easier.
Apparently, in liberated Samaria, everyone carries guns and people kill each other with bulldozers, so where there's a will there's a way. And in the US, if you're the sort of person who escalates things into violence, you've probably got a gun already. But at that exact moment when things are going from bad to worse, a gun has got to increase the likelihood of the incident turning fatal. No?
158 - Dan Miller
Baritone says, Comment #153,
True, a dead person is dead whether killed with a legal or an illegal firearm -- or, for matter, an axe. If illegal firearms were included in the referenced statistics, my guess is that the gun ownership percentage in the U.S. would be significantly higher than it is. And, if illegally owned firearms were to be taken out of circulation, I suspect that the death rate from firearms in the U.S. would be lower than it is.The only difference that these things makes has to do with gun control laws, and with restricting the lawful ownership of firearms based on the use of unlawful firearms. It strikes me as quite likely that folks who acquire guns unlawfully are rather more likely to use them unlawfully than those who acquire them lawfully. That's why I presented the query.
You ask, "Why do people [in the U.S.] go into near apoplexy in their defense [of the right to bear arms]?" Most likely it has something to do with the U.S. Constitution. I do not belong to the NRA, don't own a gun, never have, and don't want one. However, I do become, if not apoplectic, then at least indignant when that or any other right expressed in the Constitution is sought to be infringed.
Dan
159 - Lumpy
To throw nore fuel on the fire, if u look at gun homicide stats in the US broken down by race u find that anglo americans have similar stats as a group to canadians. All the gun violance that raises our overall numbers comes from waithin the minority communities. How do u deal with that?
160 - Baritone
The economic reality of course is that minorities as a group tend to be at the lower end of the economic scale; also lower in overall education. In short, their lives are more desparate. Guns, legal or otherwise become a far greater part of their lives.
However, it should be noted that poor whites have a pretty dismal record of gun violence as well.
As to the Constitution, I must say that I heartily disagree with the Supreme Court.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The entire amendment consists of 27 words. The Court, in one fell swoop dispensed with 13 of them. There is no other rationale cited in the amendment. It boggles the mind how they managed that particular slight of hand with a straight face. They simply ignored the subordinate clause of the sentence and then essentially imagined that the founders had other justifications in mind. They just pulled that right out of their asses. Those five wild and crazy jurists sure have actively creative minds!
It's difficult for me to imagine that the millions of people of all stripes who own one or more guns in this country in any way constitute a "well regulated militia." Talk about courts legislating from the bench!
B-tone
161 - Cindy D
B,
You don't even want to imagine what they look like when they do look like something one might call a "well regulated militia".
The Militia Movement
Now if we look at the actual spirit of the times, we might argue that militia had a very specific meaning in colonial times. We might also argue that there was a need for militias that clearly no longer exists.
In other words, you might need a militia to defend your town from hostile forces in colonial times, chiefly because a) you came into a land and basically took it over from its inhabitants, thereby creating some hostility with your new neighbors, and b) because the British were coming, and c) if you didn't have a militia, you couldn't just ring for the police or the national guard, or the air force and have them fly in.
"Militia existed in the colonies long before the American Revolution. With the exception of Pennsylvania, colonies required most able-bodied men to own weapons, to be willing to be called for periodic training, and to defend their communities from attack, primarily by Indians. This was the colonial militia."
So, having an actual armed force (with helicopters and planes and stuff that let's them get around in case of Indian attack), let alone a state and local police force system that puts help within minutes of wherever the Indians DO decide to attack, might make the need for militias non-existent.
162 - troll
I suggest that you take a look at US Code - Title 10 - Subtitle A - Part I - Chapter 13 - Section 311 and ponder
163 - Clavos
Cindy,
What if the "Indians" ARE the police?
Waco? Eldorado?
164 - Cindy D
troll,
That is where the militia named the "Unorganized Militia" came from. In the article I linked to above entitled The Militia Movement. Of course, the leader of the militia group that spawned the Unorganized Militia claimed the government had no power over his militia.
Well, anyway, it's all rather problematic for my argument--reading that. I mean there it sits in black and white--despite what militias were actually needed for or used for--we have those words that state the law.
Clav,
That is an interesting point. In reading the above article on the militia movement, it says that the whole movement resulted from events like Waco and Ruby Ridge. I have to take some time to read about it though. I don't have time today, but I will check it out.
165 - Baritone
Clav,
I don't see how Waco and other incidents further the case for any kind of a separately organized "militia." As it is, each state maintains an arm of the National Guard which comes the closest to actually being an organized (and localized) militia, and which, under the direction of the respective governors come to the aid and protection of the state's citizens when needed.
Most so called "militia" groups now in existence are generally made up of extremist crazies (right or left) who most of us would NOT want to see in action.
What would have happened if say some form of Texas militia had taken it upon itself to fight against the government presence at Waco? As bad as it turned out there, such a move would have likely resulted in far more carnage and a level of chaos which could have spread much further than central Texas. It would have established a precedent, perhaps giving license to other such groups fomenting a lynch mob mentality elsewhere around the country.
And, in the particular circumstance at Waco, it has become popular to lay all the blame for the results on the government, whereas, as I see it, David Koresh deserves at least half the blame. Had he truly been concerned for the people under his charge - especially the children - he would have allowed them, or perhaps even demanded that they leave the compound for their own safety. All this has been bandied about ad nauseam, but as I stated above, this and other incidents like Ruby Ridge do not in any way make a case for any kind of militia.
Just the idea of an organized militia, is in this day and age, ludicrous.
B
166 - Clavos
You can assign Koresh half the blame if you like, but he didn't instigate the government attack; if the government hadn't been attacking (and that's the right word) its own citizens, his lack of judgment would not have come into play.
Ruby Ridge was more of the same; and though not an attack, the raid on Eldorado was also an unwarranted intrusion by an overwhelming government armed force on a group of citizens who presented no threat to anyone, including each other, as the court later determined.
Increasingly, we are beginning to resemble a South American dictatorship.
167 - The Obnoxious American
Cindy D,
While you were furiously typing away responses to my posts, and while others were giving you kudos and general props for your apparently reasoned postings, I was on a boat in the LI Sound with a beer in hand, getting a good dose of brewers yeast, vitamin D and the occassional light jelly fish sting. Hence I couldn't respond until now.
And of course, rather than actually debate my points, you went down that tired road of attacking me rather than my ideas. By your telling, I am a racist, bent on continuing white rule in America, no, the world! Reality time. I think Affirmative action had it's place, back when racism was rampant and institutionalized. You know, like 40 years ago. In this day and age, it's time is passed.
Your post is a case in point to my comments about affirmative action setting race relations back. You are so obsessed with the past division and the prior lack of equality of this country, that the current state of things does not factor into your formula at all. Whites at one time got unfair benefits that they did not earn, and thus, now, in this day when racism is illegal, where institutional racism can bring massive fines and class action settlements against the defendents, we need to tilt the scales in the other direction? This is absolutely not how you heal racial wounds.
White people of today do not reap such benefits any longer (as it should be). I am a middle aged white man (Jewish), on the same playing field as blacks, asians, europeans, etc. I've worked for a black woman, and an a asian woman in my past, and would have no problem doing it again. Given that by law and evolution, we no longer (for the most part) have institutionalized racism, why would we need affirmative action? The playing field is leveled at that point. Enforcing the same inequality in the other direction is akin to once again, unleveling the playing field. Two wrongs don't make a right Ms Cindy D.
As far as AA being bad for blacks, just look at some of the more revolting questions about Barack Obama - did he get into Harvard because of his race versus his aptitude? Personally, I don't believe that's the case at all. And clearly someone like Obama doesn't need Affirmative Action to be successful in life (a different testament to it's friviolity that I will get into next). But you can be sure that this idea that Barack got an edge that he might not have deserved is in the minds of some. Thus, Affirmative action continues to divide us, and keeps the wounds of racial inequality fresh and raw.
Moreover, on the point I made about Affirmative Action being pedantic, after the contentuous history of racism in America, I don't think African Americans want favoritism. They want equality. Who is this white woman, walking around saying that black Americans need some artificial assistance in order to make something of themselves? Why would your white guilt addled mind be so condescending as to suggest that a black man can't obtain the same heights as any white without some legislative crutch?
I don't care what Tim Wise or anyone else says, it should be enough, it is enough, to ensure that there is a level playing field. Anything more than that, no matter how well intentioned, and you are engaging in the same wrong behaviors as of the past.
168 - Baritone
Ob,
But, and according to Tim Wise and others, it is NOT a level playing field. Just given Wise's description of the "points" awarded to applicants to UofM for living in the U-P, or attending particular schools and/or for taking particular classes all largely unavailable to minorities. AND, what about the hundreds of apparently less qualified WHITE students who obtained admission in the particular case cited in the debate? How is that more or less an issue than the 70 or 80 blacks who were accepted?
Just as you condemn Cindy for being a white woman concerned with the opportunities afforded to blacks, the very same can be said of you: How can a middle class white guy have the hubris to pronounce the need for affirmative action as ended? What renders you any authority on the matter? We are all no more than a bunch of white assed computer jockeys rendering our generally uninformed opinions regarding an issue of which we have NO first hand experience. Why is it that most minorities stand in disagreement with you on this? Could it be that you are wrong? Perish the thought.
B
169 - The Obnoxious American
B-Tone,
To your first point, if the playing field isn't level somewhere, then let's level it. Let's fix the problem, not introduce new ones. I can't argue against what you describe, but it sounds just as wrong as Affirmative Action to me.
In terms of me being an authority, I would never make such a claim. I do however live and work in the NY Tri State area, which is very racially integrated. We have all kinds of people from every spectrum. I work side by side with all manner of different folks, as well as with people all over the world. And, as cliche'd as this may sounds, I grew up with friends of all different races and nationalities. My first best friend was from chile, the second was from Jamaica.
I can tell you that none of the people I work with, regardless of their race, background, religion, etc, don't want an artificial edge. They don't need it. They just want to be equal.
If I ever suggested to one of my black friends that he gets preferential treatment because of his color, I'd probably get decked. In a society where race truly doesn't matter, stacking the deck in any way is bad.
Perhaps some minorities are in favor of Affirmative Action. Not any that I know. They'd be insulted at the suggestion. Besides, just because some people want something doesn't make them right or make it good for them. I know lots of fat people that are in favor of cake. Does that mean that proper diet and excersize are not what they really need?
170 - Cindy D
Obnoxious,
I hardly know what to say. You must not have actually read my post. You seem to have hit the button that posts some standard reply.
There isn't a level playing field. I provided current day evidence for that. So, unless you want to argue with something I said. Repeating yourself, ad nauseum, doesn't further the discussion.
One more thing I disagree with you about. You said:
I think...
I disagree. Judging from your reply, I don't believe you do. It appears more that simply reiterate your biases, with no evidence whatsoever.
Repeating yourself doesn't make what you said any more valid than the first time you said it.
By the way, if you followed any of the argument, you may have understood that wealth plays into the need for affirmative action. You wouldn't be asking about why Obama didn't require help from affirmative action if you understood that.
171 - Baritone
Cindy,
BTW, I have watched the "Where The Hell Is Matt" video about a gazillion times. Thanks a bunch for providing the link. The joy in the faces of the people, young and old, letting loose, just being silly for a few seconds is great to behold.
I love the song and have even attempted to sing along in Bengali - not too successfully as yet. It was the first song I down loaded onto an Ipod that my son and wife gave me for my 62nd b-day.
The whole story around the "Dancing" videos is interesting. For anyone else who missed it and might be interested it can be found here.
Thanks again.
B
172 - Baritone
I guess I didn't do that link right, did I? See, that's another reason why I wouldn't have made a good BC editor. Well, you can copy and paste the damn thing, I guess.
B
173 - Cindy D
B,
I know what you mean. That video made me cry about a million times so far.
My favorite part is when he is dancing with the kids in Rwanda. It is in the Dancing Outtakes. (The forth down on the right on the home page.) He has about three bits with the Rwanda kids.
From his FAQ:
Q. How did you get those kids in Rwanda to dance with you?
A. I just started dancing. There was no prior discussion or explanation. They thought it looked like a fun thing to be doing and joined in. They also really dug seeing themselves on the camera's playback screen.
-----
I'm so happy you liked it as much as me :-)
C
174 - Baritone
I have in a way fallen for a number of the people in the video, the crazy long haired guy in Paris, the kind of a goofy guy on the left I think in Munich(?), the girl with the red skirt in Poland, and the kids; all the kids.
Its just a moment of goofy joy. We don't often get or take many of those.
I've shown some people the video and they kind of stare at it and say something like - I don't get it. None of them can dance. That guy's kinda fat. Why did he go to all those countries to do that? Did he get paid to do that? How much? I don't get it.
I've read down to some of the other things as well, and watched his previous videos. The newest one, is IMO the best.
It's been a nice diversion watching it. Thanks again, again.
B
175 - Cindy D
Obnoxious,
I have found a link for you. If you would like you can discover why what you believe about affirmative action is a myth.
This is not my opinion Obnoxious. This is what studies and data say about your opinion.
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action
Here is Myth #8
"Myth 8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.
Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994)."