If the media loves Santorum shouldn't that be a strong warning that he's probably not the right guy to bean Obama?
Sometimes I feel like an article I'm writing is based on an idea so obvious that I'll just be wasting my time telling people something they already know. This is one of those times, but based on the palpitating hearts and trembling knees of a lot of Republicans, I've hit on a simple fact that they ought to see, but are somehow blind to.…
Article comments
76 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
zing brings up a point I didn't notice - were you indeed thinking I said 2 handguns per YEAR? If you'll look at my comment #49, I said two handguns per DAY. In your comment #61, you started saying two handguns per YEAR.
Per DAY, Cannonshop. Per DAY. That's 365.25 times more frequent than you thought it was.
Care to rethink your claims about the TSA? Nah, you wouldn't do that.
(zing - thanks)
77 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos #66 -
For a moment there, I thought you'd had some kind of brain aneurysm....
78 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
You're absolutely right there's things they can do better. I don't like them searching granny or kids or somebody who isn't obviously a threat.
What's probably happening when they do so is that it's a common practice - at least in the military - to decide to search, say, the thirty-fifth in the line. Sometimes there was a specific number, and whenever anyone came back off liberty, they'd have to roll the dice and if their number came up, they'd get patted down.
That is NOT to say that such a practice is either proper or effective when it comes to the duties of the TSA.
So what's the TSA doing to try to be proactive? Something that I think the BC conservatives would love - they're trying the Israeli Airline Security model. Yes, it's only a trial run - but there's one certain thing about the Israeli model that we cannot do: from what I understand, an important part of their model is to change aircraft departure and arrival times without warning, without pattern - this would not work in America.
The program also has its weaknesses since it does rely on cultural profiling. We can all see on one level how that might help...but on another level how it can lead to places where we don't want to go.
79 - Dr Dreadful
zing, I think there are a couple of reasons why the TSA are finding more guns in passengers' carry-on bags, both of which probably have some substance to them.
The first is that they're getting better at it. My personal experience of the TSA is that, whether you like them being there or not, they have become much more professional over the last couple of years, both in their methods and their courtesy.
The second is that people who are in the habit of having guns on them anyway are becoming more blase about traveling with them. I'm getting the same way about my luggage: things I would have worried about having in my carry-on back in 2001-2002... not so much any more. I've forgotten on numerous occasions to take out my little travel-size bottles of toiletries and put them in a ziplock. Never had any problems though.
Terrorism becoming more popular as a hobby is probably NOT a third reason.
80 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh, and Cannonshop -
Honestly, I think the "Proactive" course would've been to require, then fund, training for aircrew and stewards, including the issuing of stun guns, handcuffs, and tasers. (bullets in an aircraft get messy quick).
While you're mulling over the fact that it's two handguns per DAY instead of two handguns per YEAR, consider this - the TSA already has armed air marshals on most major flights (they might be armed with tasers, but IIRC it's low-velocity rounds - you'll have to look it up). The stewards/stewardesses ARE trained what to look for - of course they are! The pilots are allowed to carry guns (if certified to do so), and some are trying to get authority to carry guns outside the cockpit. The door to the pilot's cabin is required by law to be reinforced, and no more kids visiting the cockpit is allowed...
...c'mon, Cannonshop! They're already doing pretty much ALL of what you suggested, and then some! You work for BOEING, guy - and you don't know all this????
But which is better - to gamble that the air marshal MIGHT be able to down a gunman or a bomber before he does something bad? Or to make sure the weapon or the bomb doesn't get on the plane in the FIRST place?
Two guns per DAY, Cannonshop - and in 2010, it was FOUR guns per day. In one week agents found 14 loaded and five unloaded handguns in carry-on luggage!
Okay, guy - your turn.
81 - Zingzing
Doc--getting blasé about shampoo is one thing... Getting blasé about a gun is another. Your shampoo could discharge a full-bodied luxurious shine upon your undies. A gun could discharge a mother fucking BULLET on a mother fucking AIRPLANE (caps for Samuel L. Jackson effect). (that said, I've forgotten a pocket knife in there once. Got three flights into my two-there and two-back itinerary before they made me toss it, but that was several years ago now.)
As I've said before, I wish the TSA could do what they do less invasively, and I think they can, but they have to their job. Given the results and their work load, they've done a pretty good job, if that job is to keep passengers leaving American airports safe. Now if only they could offer peace of mind... There is a "what price will you pay for freedom" question, but an hour of crap now and again doesn't qualify in my book.
As to your point about subways/mass transport/etc, that's an everyday or maybe twice or thrice a day trip for people. Loads of security there would be much more invasive. But the devastation a well-placed bomb at union square or grand central could cause... Frankly, I don't know why anyone would bother with airports when you've got targets like that. I guess it would be quite difficult given the level of surveillance and police, but 9/11 was no simple plan either, and it's been pulled off to some degree in other places.
82 - Clavos
One point about the El Al Israeli security system: El Al is indisputably the world's most secure airline; the last terrorist attempt occurred nearly ten years ago and was foiled. They did have a shootout between their security forces and would be hijackers on the ground at Los Angeles' LAX airport a few years ago. Again, El Al security won.
83 - Zingzing
and so, clavos, when was the last successful hijacking/terrorist attempt from a us-based airport?
84 - Clavos
As you well know, there hasn't been one since 9/11, but that doesn't contradict the fact that El Al is still the most secure airline in the world, despite the fact that they operate from a base in the most dangerous part of the world.
And, come to think of it, no one has ever flown airplanes into their buildings.
85 - Glenn Contrarian
So how about you, Clavos - do you think that two guns per day (or even four guns per day) is reason enough for the TSA to be paranoid?
86 - Dr Dreadful
Can't speak for Clavos, but I don't.
Two million passengers fly every day in the US. One gun per million, when the odds of that one person having malicious intent are extremely slim anyway? Not going to lose any sleep over it.
Not unless you can convince me that two carjackings per 10,000 people per year means I should be paranoid about driving.
87 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc, I refer you back to my comment #54 where I said:
Your statistical comparison is sorta like saying that the chance that the president has of being assassinated with a gun is no more than that of any other citizen being shot to death...but the job of POTUS quite literally has the highest death rate of any job in America (with the exception of our submariners during WWII - their death rate was 22%).
The higher the profile target, the greater the security measures must be to protect that target. If you want to call it paranoia, fine - but to compare it to carjacking doesn't work, because cars are not a high-profile target of bad guys unless inside the car is someone Famous.
And lets' not stop there - you said "one gun per million". But that's not the right statistical comparison since we're dealing with aircraft containing lots of people. Let's say the average number of passengers is 100 per flight. That means that there's one gun for every 10,000 flights. Per day. And there's 14,000 flights per day.
But wait - there's more! When was the last time a Bad Guy tried to hijack a puddle-jumper or propeller-driven commuter plane? It's been a looong time. So between one-third and one-half of the total number of flights can be tossed out of the sample, right? Right. That cuts down the comparison to one gun to as few as 5,000 flights. But maybe this is going too far since we still don't know how many of those guns were found before boarding puddle-jumpers and prop-driven commuter flights.
In any case, it's still one gun per 7,000 flights, 365.25 days a year. Hm, let's see, carry the two, round off to the nearest ideologue...
...and we all know what happens if even one gets through. Even. One.
Is it really paranoia? Or is it simple caution? Ask El Al Airlines.
88 - Glenn Contrarian
And Doc -
You said two carjackings per 10,000 people per YEAR...but we're discussing two guns per 14,000 flights per DAY. Apples to apples, please.
89 - Dr Dreadful
Um - Glenn...
If you toss out short-haul flights because they're not an appealing target to hijackers, then you also have to toss out the discovered guns that would have been carried on board those flights. So you're not shortening your odds at all.
And it's not really apples to oranges, because in both cases we're talking about odds so long that for all practical purposes they're the same.
90 - Dr Dreadful
...and we all know what happens if even one gets through. Even. One.
There are numerous reasons why an airplane passenger might be carrying a gun, and very few of them have anything to do with crime.
In most cases, I suspect that the passenger either was ignorant of the rules (most people fly only rarely) or simply forgot that the gun was in their carry-on.
Which lengthens the odds of any given gun being used for a terrorist attack (or any other kind of criminal act, although I suppose you could argue that using a gun on a plane is terrorism by default).
Now - would you buy insurance against being struck by lightning? Of course not. Your odds against it are around 1 in 500,000. And your odds against being a victim of a terrorist attack on a plane? 1 in 10.4 million.
91 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
If you toss out short-haul flights because they're not an appealing target to hijackers, then you also have to toss out the discovered guns that would have been carried on board those flights. So you're not shortening your odds at all.
I already did identify that flaw and addressed it in #87 - check the end of the largest paragraph. But in any case, you were looking at one carjacking per 10,000 people per YEAR, whereas I was pointing out 2 guns per 7,000 flights per DAY. That comes out to about a 5% chance per year...but we're not talking about a danger to only one person, but to a whole airplane full of people, and to the industry as a whole (and the follow-on damage to the rest of the economy after the airlines take the initial hit).
But there's yet another factor no one here has considered - presence. What do you think, Doc, would happen if the TSA publicly noted that it was going to tone down its inspections? Would people be less likely to bring guns? Or more likely? The latter, of course.
Why? Any cop and anyone in the security industry will tell you one of the most important factors in keeping the crime rate down is presence. If the cops are visible, the crime rate stays lower and it's generally the stupid crooks who try to do something - the smarter ones go elsewhere.
And so it goes with the TSA - sure, the presence of a uniformed cop on each plane might help...but only with someone who's already brought a gun on board, and would help not at all with explosives. However, if there's a robust TSA presence at the entry point, even the idiots tend to think twice - they can see the enforcement right in front of them.
So if you cut down on the robust TSA inspection process, you cut down on the presence, and you WILL get more bad guys bringing bad stuff on board.
Doc, I've got a healthy respect for what's in your braincase, but I think even you would have to agree with me on this one.
92 - Christopher Rose
Doc, like me, clearly doesn't agree with you Glenn, so please stop being like a doorstepping Jehovah's Witness and simply accept that some people have different views to yours.
Doc, unlike me, you have admirable and seemingly endless reserves of patience; if I had a hat I'd doff it.
93 - roger nowosielski
Kinda like saying, agree with me or else, ain't that so, Glenn?
I have no idea whether there's such a thing as the fallacy by "blackmail," but if there is, that would be it.
Since you said you didn't mind "constructive criticism," got a question for you: how does your last paragraph add to the strength of your argument (unless you meant it as an exclamation point)?
94 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Are you referring to the one where I complimented Doc on his brains? That was meant to be taken as face value, because I think he's probably the most skilled of any of us at presenting an argument. Even when he doesn't have as strong a bank of facts to back him up, he's able to present his arguments very effectively and in a manner that usually precludes others from attacking his character.
And yes, that's my jealousy talking...because his diplomatic yet still-effective argumentation is of a level of skill I'll never achieve.
But as to whether it's "fallacy by blackmail", no, that would be an insult...and if it seems that way, then it's due solely to my shortcomings as a writer.
95 - Glenn Contrarian
And for Roger and Chris -
Do either of you really think my point on security presence is wrong? Do either of you really think that if the TSA were to diminish the visibly robust level of inspection they now have, do either of you really think the number of attempts to bring weapons on board would not grow, given the importance of presence in any ongoing security situation from the cop on the beat to the guards standing outside any important installation.
If so, then I invite both of you to bring your arguments.
96 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, when people say they think you are wrong, that is what they really think, so why are you asking if we think you are wrong?
Your argument is absurd because it is always possible to reduce crime by increased security. We could reduce it to zero if everybody was controlled and regulated in every minute of their lives.
That really isn't the issue. The issue is that the costs in terms of reduced freedom and increased state control and expense don't add up.
As Doc D has already shown, the TSA isn't about risk management at all.
97 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
Dodging the question, are we? So what level of "guns being brought to the airport" are you comfortable with? We've got it down to two guns per day...but y'all really don't like all the security - I guess you feel threatened by it (but not so much by the guns).
98 - Glenn Contrarian
For all -
So, how many more guns (and other weapons including bombs) per day are all of you comfortable with on our nation's airlines? Yeah, that's a silly way to put it...
...but let me put it a different way. Air travel is not a RIGHT. It's your CHOICE to go on the airline - and if you're too uncomfortable with the level of security that's enabling 14,000 flights per day to get hundreds of thousands of people from point A to point B safely and securely.
Is it perfect? Of course not - and it never will be. If there's not enough security, not only do a lot of people die unnecessarily, but the industry suffers and the economy takes a hit. BUT if there's enough security to minimize the risk of bad people doing stupid things, what happens? IMO, all I see is a bunch of whining here. "They're wasting a few of my dollars and taking away my freedom!" Ha! Freedom? Air travel is NOT a right, people. Remember that!
All that's happening is that you're being required to go to a few more minutes' trouble in the inspection process, an x-ray that's a bit more revealing than most of us would like, and a few more dollars spent to pay for all this...
...but in return you get a significantly level of security - not only for yourselves, but for every single man, woman, and child in the air.
Sure, we're all looking for that "Goldilocks" level, that happy medium of security versus personal freedom...but there are some things where security IS paramount over personal freedom - and air travel is one of them. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem, not mine - because I have zero problem with waiting a few more minutes in line, having the x-ray, and paying a few more dollars. It gives me a measure of peace of mind about the security of the plane...so now all I have to worry about is the mechanical worthiness of the aircraft and the skill of the crew - and I do. I really don't like to fly - but I do.
Each and every one of you who are carrying on about how offensive the safety measures are...every one of you need a wake-up call to the real world. If those few more minutes, the x-ray, and the few more dollars are SO precious to you, then you're SPOILED with what you think is freedom.
I'm done with ye on this subject - y'all can have the last word.
99 - Zingzing
Doc, how many people do you reckon really don't know you can't carry a gun on a plane? You have a low opinion of humanity...
Most of the people bringing guns on a plane are stupid, I suppose. But it's possible that someone might not be.
100 - Zingzing
So, clavos, if el al air is the most secure in the world, despite flying just a fraction of the flights that the us flies every day, you've got to admit that, for such a big target, us airspace has been pretty safe over the last decade.
I'm not really challenging you on el al's safety record... Just asking why you jizz all over them and then shit all over the TSA for doing the same thing on a much larger scale. Another double standard out of you...
101 - Christopher Rose
I'm not dodging anything, Glenn, not even your increasingly ridiculous argument and its phony premises.
I don't feel threatened by the presence of guns in passengers luggage although I do feel threatened by people like you that make up utterly pointless and stupid debating points.
Now you are arguing that air travel is not a right - and nobody is claiming that it is. Setting aside that I am not in the USA, haven't been there this century and won't go there on principle whilst it is acting more like the Soviet Union than the US of A, I was completely happy with the level of airport security that existed pre 9/11 and don't feel safer with the security levels as they are. Anyone that does has bought into the climate of fear and control that is so out of control in the West generally.
As to the real world, it makes me laugh out loud that a man who believes in magic and miracles is so fucking arrogant as to give lectures on it.
In that actual real world, if the USA had bit the bullet any time in the last 40 years and resolved the Palestinian issue, which would mean getting to grips with Israel, most of the global tensions and violence since then would never have happened.
We are all to blame for this ongoing situation and these troubles will never go away until that festering sore is lanced and the poison washed away.
zingzing - Two points - firstly, US airspace was pretty safe before 9/11 so there is no reason to assume that the TSA is making a difference and secondly, from what I know of what the TSA is doing it is NOT doing the same as the Israelis at all.
102 - roger nowosielski
But zing is just backpedaling as usual, he gives you a bit and then takes it back, always straddling the fence. It's his way of coming across as "objective," or "the brightest light on BC," as Dreadful (in one of his less fortunate moments) had put it. Either way, it doesn't speak well for BC, does it? I suspect it, however, that in zing's case it's more a matter of an impulse than inebriated brain cells, succumbing to the herd instinct, a liberal defending a liberal, that kind of stupid thing. Otherwise, our zingo is just as hopeless.
As to the good Contrarian, he'd surely make a good German, taking his marching orders from Herr Fuhrer, whenever "national security" was at stake.
And that's the "liberal mindset" I'm been harping about, as typified by our Glenn here. In his mind, our government can do no wrong. And whenever faced with criticisms, the Contrarian's blanket response: "no one is perfect.
I don't know 'bout ye all, but to this writer the Contrarian and their ilk do represent an impediment to true democracy, if only because they supports fascism.
Come to think of it, the entire nom de plume is the biggest joke of all. "Contrarian" with respect to whom? An utter conformist is much more like it.
Hitler would have loved you, Glenn.
103 - roger nowosielski
... support ...
104 - zingzing
"zingzing - Two points - firstly, US airspace was pretty safe before 9/11 so there is no reason to assume that the TSA is making a difference and secondly, from what I know of what the TSA is doing it is NOT doing the same as the Israelis at all."
it's true, chris... you can't prove a negative. and i didn't say that the tsa was doing the same thing as the israelis... or at least i didn't mean they were using the same techniques. they're doing a similar job with similar goals is all i meant.
105 - zingzing
roger, can you spend a day without attacking people? just once having a conversation without insulting the person you're talking with? it's incredibly tiresome.
if things haveshades of grey that seems to be a bad thing in your book. why? no room for nuance in there? all black and white?
i like the tsa's results (and even if, as chris would have it, there aren't any results, the reality is still the same), i just don't particularly care for how they are getting those results. if that's wrong of me in your book... i really don't care.
you angry man.
106 - roger nowosielski
So now it's a personal attack, huh? pointing to the man how ridiculous his arguments end up being?
Angry? You must be kidding me! The moment I get angry with Glenn's thinking, I'll be the first to tell you I've had it and am going to hang it up.
But since you at it, zing-o-zing, why don't you include Mr. Rose as well in your phony, see-through protestations. That'd make me feel not such a lone ranger.
As for shades of grey, zing, everything's grey to you. There's another way for it -- no backbone.
And in response to your defense for "a little bit of nuance," I've got Kenny Rogers back at ye:
"Know when to hold 'em. know when to fold 'em!"
It's judgment that you're always short on, zing, not logic. They're not the same, you know!
107 - roger nowosielski
" ..., i just don't particularly care for how they are getting those results."
That's precisely what I mean! A weasel-like statement. You never "just particularly care for (one thing or other)."
Is this really nuance in your book? I call it backpedaling.
108 - zingzing
roger, you didn't counter anyone's arguments, you just cowed them and brought up hitler. congratulations on your accomplishment.
and do you really think "everything" is grey to me? or do you think that's just you making "judgments" you can't possibly back up? give it a little bit of thought, rather than just rushing in with your dick out, waving it around and screaming bullshit at people. "everything" is grey to me, eh? don't be stupid. whatever bit of you that thought that was a good idea should be put to sleep.
"why don't you include Mr. Rose..."
because he's actually discussing things rather than merely insulting people. i know you're capable of the same.
109 - zingzing
"Is this really nuance in your book? I call it backpedaling."
i like chemo's results when it destroys cancer. i don't like how chemo goes about getting those results.
oh my god, i'm such a weasel!
for fuck's sake, roger. you're either playing mr. macho "i have strong feelings about everything!" or you're playing dumb.
110 - Dr Dreadful
But in any case, you were looking at one carjacking per 10,000 people per YEAR, whereas I was pointing out 2 guns per 7,000 flights per DAY.
Exactly. I'm talking about actual criminal acts, whereas you are talking about the potential for them represented by the presence of a firearm.
This being the United States with its 300 million-odd guns, I probably walk or drive past dozens of people every day who are packing heat. Yet in my 10 1/2 years living here, there are only three places I've seen guns in the open: at firing ranges, on the belts of law enforcement officers, and on farms.
As I keep saying, the mere fact that someone has a gun in their carry-on bag does not mean that they intend to use it to hijack the plane. It's overwhelmingly likely that they don't.
That comes out to about a 5% chance per year...but we're not talking about a danger to only one person, but to a whole airplane full of people, and to the industry as a whole (and the follow-on damage to the rest of the economy after the airlines take the initial hit).
Glenn, that has more to do with the climate of fear that exists rather than any actual risk. Air travel already gives enough people the willies without introducing the threat of terrorism.
111 - Dr Dreadful
zing: Doc, how many people do you reckon really don't know you can't carry a gun on a plane? You have a low opinion of humanity...
[raises one eyebrow]
112 - zingzing
hrm. how many people do you figure are ignorant of the law concerning bringing a gun on a plane? it's rather obvious, i think... you don't bring a gun on an airplane, you don't smoke in a hospital, you don't pee on an altar, you don't walk barefoot through a garbage dump, etc.
obviously, there are those people that are just that dumb. but i have a hard time believing that there isn't someone out there who tried to bring a gun on a plane knowing full well that it was illegal.
"Yet in my 10 1/2 years living here, there are only three places I've seen guns in the open..."
consider yourself lucky then... i've seen many guns, even had one pointed at me, and i've heard many shootings, and i've witnessed a shooting during which i watched a person die and another person nearly bleed to death on the sidewalk.
113 - Cannonshop
#102 Godwin's Law, Roger, calm down and cool off a bit, please-calling people Nazis is pretty much an open admission of having lost the debate by going emotional in a really reckless way.
i.e. it cuts into your credibility.
Glenn: Estimated by FBI/ATF/official sources, there are 300,000,000 LEGAL firearms in the United States (that is, the CONTINENTAL U.S.) At any given time of day, there are around 2,000,000 people on aircraft Per the FAA.
EVERY DAY.
So...figure 730 firearms are "Detected" each year by the TSA (based on your 2 guns/day argument).
Now, figure in the percentage of "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits, and let's deduct ALL of them from the two million air travellers AND the rest of all legally owned firearms per FBI/ATF/Official numbers (I don't have it handy, mind), then remove all law enforcement personnel from the pool.
Including Lawyers and Judges.
'cause let's assume a cop NEVER forgets to disarm himself at the airport, of course.
Now, out of what's left-that is, civilians whom don't have a Permit to carry concealed, and aren't police. We'll use THAT as your percentage to deduct your 730 some-odd firearms detected at TSA checkpoints, out of the entire remaining population of air-travellers in the United States (whom we assume are scanned and groped and fingered universally-no random checks here).
Now, figure your man-hours to detect EACH firearm, and run your comparisons...
Yeah, even at 2/day, those are some DAMN spendy firearms-maybe not as expensive as the 16/50 rifles off the USS Missouri (taken individually) but still, damn spendy.
But all that doesn't matter a gnat's ass in a supernova, Glenn, because the real issue is the elephant in the room whose presence you ignore...
At what point, are you safe, Glenn? How much MORE 'Security' do you NEED?? I posit, Mr.Contrarian, that you can't honestly answer that question, because if you answered it honestly, there would be a definite choice you need to make.
'cause as long as "Your guy" is in the White House, I think your answer is basically unending. There IS no limit, just so long as you're allowed to only see it in the theoretical, and esp. if you can find a way to get someone else to pay for it.
It's all about the FEAR, Glenn-you're eaten up with it, you can't see a limit, because you're scared.
114 - Cannonshop
Now, you want something to scare the hell out of you?
You don't need a bomb to drop an airliner, or a gun, or a package of nerve gas. all you need to take an airliner down, is a roll of duct tape and a set of the right coveralls, with a general knowledge (available in public sources NOT published by the FAA) of your target aircraft.
back in the nineties, this happened by accident-a second-owner paintshop resprayed a 757 to fly for a south american carrier. That shop forgot to take the masking tape off some ports on the skin-the plane went down in the Pacific, and it took NTSB investigators WEEKS to figure out what happened.
If you want to...say, put a bomb on a plane, that's not too tough either-go through the fences (that is, people who sell stolen goods) to get an arm on the baggage handlers at most major airports. OR get some of your terrorist friends in good with a drug-and-people smuggling ring south of the border. TSA doesn't check anything once it's on the Tarmac, Glenn, and they don't work with airport security to crack down on either petty theives working the baggage handling, OR smuggling rings working out of the major entry points into and out of the U.S.
But the really fun ideas come from where Government emphasis is-because successful terrorists like to hit you where you aren't anticipating. All your careful planning won't do you a rat's ass of good if the next angle of attack is a gasoline truck with a catalyst in downtown traffic at rush hour, or a B&N train load of anhydrous ammonia and 99% pure chlorine having an "accident" in a metropolitan area at midnight while everyone's home from work.
Or...say, explosives loaded into a scheduled oil-tanker docking in SFO, NY, etc. etc., or a natural-gas tanker with the wrong crewmen.
There's more ways than you can afford to "Defend" against, Glenn-esp. with in-person tactics like TSA. Each incident will create some new "emphasis", each one is designed to CREATE that emphasis, to paralyze or cripple some other part, to create fear, and to "Keep up the Skeer".
Frightened people don't make rational decisions, Glenn. Eventually a successful campaign of terror creates an adaptation to accepting tyranny, after that, it's very easy to change the BRAND of Tyranny, because the target population has already accepted it as "necessary", even "Good".
115 - roger nowosielski
Don't be stretching things, Cannon. It was all couched in the conditional. We're not there yet, but given time ... yes, our Contrarian would make a "good German."
As to your off-the-cuff comment about "loosing the debate," wrong again!
There is no debate with the Contrarian; and if you don't realize that, you're not firing on all four. So no, I don't buy your rationale that engaging the Contrarian in lengthy dialogues serves any purpose at all -- such as "doing it on behalf of other minds," which is why you suggested,. If you want to engage other minds, write an article, for chrissake.
Lastly, I wasn't debating with the Contrarian: mine was only a drive-by comment. So now, you're also misreading.
Guilty on all three counts, Cannon. Not a good day for you, I'd say.
116 - roger nowosielski
... which is what you suggested ...
117 - Igor
#113-Cannon: so when did we get a chance to vote on "Godwins law"? Who says it has any validity at all? Does it apply to rightists as well as leftist arguments? Does Godwin imply that Hitler and Nazis were, somehow, non-partisan or bi-partisan, and not the far right monsters that they, in fact, were?
Is "Godwins Law" just a quasi-subtle way to attempt to allocate responsibility for Hitler and Nazis to the left rather than the right where it belongs?
118 - roger nowosielski
I happen to think that for most users (of the phrase) it's just one of those hip expressions they throw around to show their sophistication (just like the term "meme" or citing Aristotelian logical fallacies), in lieu of combating the argument head on.
And the intent is to shoot down your opponent
119 - roger nowosielski
In short, a shortcut to thinking.
120 - troll
...to me Goodwin's law would make sense only in some alternate reality in which fascism had in fact been defeated
121 - t
Godwin's la
122 - roger nowosielski
@120
Most folks aren't ready for this kind of twist.