All concerned with civil rights, First Amendment separation of Church & State must speak out NOW and let Senators know ? Extremist Judge Samuel Alito must NOT be appointed to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States!Hours remain until the U.S. Senate is expected to hold a full vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.On Monday, January 30 the Senate is likely to vote an end to any filibuster that would stall or prevent a floor vote on the appointment of Judge Alito. Supporters of Alito need just 60 votes to force cloture, and according to Associated Press have 62. That will force a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday, January 31. The latest count indicates that 53 Republicans and three Democrats will vote to confirm Alito, well over the required majority. The White House is moving for a full ?up-or-down? vote on Alito in time for President Bush?s address to the nation on Tuesday night. In his weekly radio address last Saturday, Bush called for immediate Senate confirmation on Alito, describing him as a nominee ?who understands that the role of a judge is to strictly interpret the law.? This is our final opportunity to prevent George W. Bush from ?packing? the Supreme Court and installing a majority that is likely to reverse decades of important decisions affecting all Americans!AMERICAN ATHEISTS is asking all ?Godless Americans? ? Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other nonbelievers to mobilize now and help flood the Senate with phone calls, faxes and e-mails demanding a NO vote on the Alito nomination!* We urge all nonbeliever groups to circulate this Action Alert, and “mobilize your base” of members and supporters to contact the Senate! Alito would assume the post occupied by Justice Sandra Day O?Connor who often (but not always) provided the crucial ?fifth vote? cited by SJC member Sen. Michael Durbin of Illinois. Rather than replace O?Connor with an enlightened, progressive judicial moderate who would offset the strident views of justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Bush catered to his powerful religious-right constituency and instead selected Alito.The vote by the full U.S. Senate will be the last opportunity we have to stop this appointment! Based on the current party rankings, all Democrats must ?hold the line? and vote against Alito ? and moderate Republicans must be persuaded by their constituents back home to ?break ranks? with party leadership, and vote ?No? on this nomination!Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other non believers must join the effort to stop Alito now by helping to flood the Senate with letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes! Tell your Senators that you oppose the Bush-religious right takeover our Supreme Court!What you can do!Contact Senators NOW! Urge them to vote “NO!” on Alito! Your letters, calls and e-mails should be concise, polite but to-the-point (see our tips page.) Be sure to ask for a response from your U.S. Senator on how he/she will vote on the Alito nomination! Share your communications with U.S. Senators. Send us a copy and we will post them at our web site Spread this Action Alert! If you are in an Atheist/freethought group, consider posting this message to your newsletter, web site and e-mail lists. Urge others to circulate this Alert, too! After writing your U.S. Senators, consider sending a letter-to-the-editor of the your local/regional paper and other publications voicing your disapproval of the Alito nomination! This will help inform the public and mobilize opposition to this extremist nominee. Be sure to point out that Samuel Alito is ?bad news? for the constitutional separation of church and state! Be informed! Here are some stories about the Alito nomination. We also encourage you to visit other web sites to gain information, including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way. Related Reading?All Over but the Vote? Alito sails through hearings, some Demos mull filibuster ? what about the new SCOTUS?? 1-18-06 ?New Documents Raise Further Concerns Over Alito & Establishment Clause,? 1-1-06 ?Tipping Point? Alito nomination battle to begin in January, determine possible direction of the Supreme Court ? Free Exercise collides with Separation? 11-22-05 Take Action Now?This may be our last chance to stop this dangerous nomination. If confirmed, Alito will move the court further in the direction of ?accommodating? discriminatory religious practices, allowing blatant proselytizing in the public square by government and religious groups, and even possibly further funding for ?faith-based? social projects. Stop Alito now ? before it?s too late!(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
brock2,
I don’t know if your post was addressed to me – or indeed what message you were trying to insert in there.
I do have one comment about freedom though. I have lived in four countries thus far and I’d rank the US as third in terms of personal freedoms. There are many free societies in the world.
brock2,
One type of freedom I was able to find some stats for – economic freedom. US scored well, 9th equal.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
brock2,
Also, a world freedom index: The US is tumbling down the list to 44th place.
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554
HeatheNZ,
Would you be willing to list in preferential order the 4 countries you lived in and why you chose the order? US was number 3 and having only lived here and merely vacationed in Mexico/Canada I wouldn’t consider myself a world traveler….yet:)
txatheist,
I’d be happy to offer my opinions, but please bear in mind that these are just my personal experiences – and garnered at different times (can’t live in two palces at once). additionally I am only referring to countries where I have lived for at least three years.
#4 would be Cyprus. I was pleasantly surprised to see how high Cyprus ranked in the indexes I read. It has been many years since I lived there and then it was only as a kid on an army base. Shortly after leaving the coutry entered into a civil war between the Turk and Greek Cypriots. it remains to this day athe only Euopean country with a demilitarized zone.
#3 is the US. Having lived here for nine years, I find myself progressively less comfortable with the (increaing?) hegemony of political, social, economic and religous ideology in the US. The ease and effectiveness of tracking its citizenry (mainly through the ubiquitous SSN) intrudes on personal privacy and liberty. Additionally the US is the only country I have lived in that routinely executes its own (and others) citizenry. Also it is the only country that actively operates at least one concentration camp.
#2 UK. The UK is somewhat of a US junior, except that it is forced to deal with the rest of the world (kicking and screaming) as a peer. It seems to me to be more diverse socially, politically, and religiously.
#1 is New Zealand. NZ has the advantage of a small population and no shared borders. It’s govt is comparitively very open (eg. would never countenance pre-screened town hall meetings with the leader). It’s citizenry are relatively free from govt oversight and welcomed in most coutries in the world. Given the travel choice I would always use my NZ passport.
I’m sure i have not done the question justice, but I’d be happy to expand on points and impressions if you have questions.
I was curious to your opinion, that’s all. If you want to elaborate on the UK and NZ liveablity that would be great. I have always wanted to visit Australia but also NZ if I get all the way there. Any recommendations on NZ things to see would be nice.
TX,
I am more qualified to talk to livability in NZ than the UK, so I’ll stick to that in large part.
One aspect that springs to mind is that the general mindset in NZ is more in tune with being one society rather than a society of individuals. I guess that has to do with socia1ised medicine, a benevolent welfare system, and a high quality public education system. Public services offered for minimal or no pay per use, and available to all. I’m not here to defend such institutions but in NZ I do not have to prove who I am, that I have the appropriate insurance or resources to obtain such services.
For some reason divisive issues do not seem to exist in NZ society. There is no big hullabaloo over abortion, firearms control, homosexual marriage, etc. the issues exist, but generally they are viewed in shades of gray rather than black and white.
The political system is more representative, especially to minority opinions, perhaps because NZ did away with a two party monopoly hold on power about 20 years ago. NZ has trans-gender, openly homosexual, and atheist Members of Parliament and even an atheist/agnostic female Prime Minister.
The other major livability factor that I consider is the cultural disposition toward balancing work and non-work life. Holiday and vacation policies, while not to the extent of some EU countries are considerably more generous than those of the US – especially the lower income US. This allows people to slow down and smell the roses … something we often forget to do.
As for places to visit, the tourist spots are a good start. It really depends on what you want to do. The topography is very diverse and offers pretty much any outdoors activity you can think of.
In Australia – I would totally recommend the great barrier reef (snorkel or scuba) and you HAVE to visit a crocodile farm in Queensland. The captured salt water crocs are absolutely breathtaking.
brock2:
You’re all over the place, so forgive me if I address certain points:
& here I go again.
amendment – from answers.com –
“1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: ?Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment? (George G. Coulton).
2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
3.
A. The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
B. A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.”
So effectively, NO amendment is ‘written in stone’. Or have you heard of the Establishment clause for the 1st amendment?
I don’t have to agree w/anything anyone says.
That’s the prerogative of being a free-thinker.
Grizzlies are almost extinct, BTW.
‘Support the right to arm bears!’
(little joke there).
I apologize for what you interpret as ‘character assassination’.
But when you say things like ‘the giant on the beach’, or forbidding women to jog on deserted beaches, or prohibiting kitchen knives in the UK, well, sorry, it’s too easy to take a shot, cheap or no.
Well, hate to say this, but being blunt as I am:
Freedom is indeed about boundaries.
You have thus far inundated us w/examples (sorry, some of them not very good) of what you think freedom is.
For instance, you have freedom of speech.
But if you use that to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, you have violated that principle. Because you have done harm.
Likewise, if someone were to stand up, & incite a group of people to attack & burn a synagogue/church/[institution of your choice here], should that person be held accountable?
In both instances?
Hell yes.
If you want a gun, hey, be my guest.
Go to.
But if a person has a violent track record, assaulted several people in the past, have a drug addiction (either/or here), or are a member of Al-Qaeda?
Please, please just answer this:
Should any of these people have guns?
If you answer yes to ANY of these questions, then you’re either:
A. A better man than I, or
B. More naive, or
C. Both.
So, in short.
Handguns? Sure. W/in sensible precautions.
Machine guns? Ill-advised. Get the permit, background check, etc.
Howitzers? Tanks? MIGs?
How unrealistic. Cost $.
All the other amendments are abstract values, geared towards the purpose of living together peacefully.
The 2nd amendment is geared towards not an ideal, but an object.
& you’ve never answered my query:
Would you or would you not rather live in a world where guns were unnecessary?
Simple yes/no. No rhetoric, no copy’n-paste from the NRA. Just a simple, honest, straight answer.
Chances are, we’re gonna need the damn things around for a while longer. So no ‘blissful unrealistic utopia’ rhetoric, please. I consider myself a pragmatist.
I won’t use it against you. Scout’s honor.
RA
“Would you or would you not rather live in a world where guns were unnecessary?” [Reluctant]
Unrealistic and NO.
HeathenZ; in New Zealand did they ban pit bulls? Or is it that new zealand pit bulls never bite people?
brock2,
Your question amounts to an example of the logical fallacy of bifurcation. If I may ignore the ‘or’, I’ll address it as two questions.
1. Not to my knowledge
2. In New Zealand everyone is issued with a magical anti-pitbull bite potion at birth. It is remarkable effective with only 1.73 reported bites in the last 273 years. Unfortunately immigrants and tourists are not permitted to apply the magic, and over the past 58.657 years on average 70,344 of these folks are mauled daily by roaming packs of pit bulls.
Sad, but true.
Brock2,
Maybe this will help to see why I changed my mind on guns. I grew up in a small town in Illinois. There is no crime. Well, relatively none. My parents leave the door unlocked all the time unless they go on vacation. When I was in high school I left my keys in the car ignition at night so I’d know where they were the next day. Until I joined the military and saw big city America I had no need for a gun and there was no crime that we worried about where we would need a gun. I didn’t know other religions existed besides Christianity. I didn’t know any Jews, Muslims, Hindus or anything. I lived in a bubble and sheltered from the big world. Did the world around me need guns? I was completely unaware of it so I’d say no but I have now changed my mind. My parents would never own a gun to this day, they still live there and have no need and see no need. p.s. I still don’t think guns are evil.:)
brock2:
Hmmmm. Maybe you missed this part of the post:
Chances are, we’re gonna need the damn things around for a while longer.
How come?
RA,
How could someone not rather live in a world where guns are unnecessary? If a gun were to have no utility, the only motive I can think of is some intrisic love of guns for their own sake. I’m no psychiatist, but I’d say that is a little unhealthy.
TXatheist,
I had to chuckle when I read about leaving your car keys in the ignition so you would know where they were. My father, in small-town Illinois also, always kept his trunk key in the trunk lock “so he would know were it was”. We had no house key. The only way to lock our house was with a hook on the inside of the screen door which my mother would use when she sent us kids out to play.
Tx; I know you don’t think guns are evil, but some people do. And I never needed to know why you changed your mind on guns. But I get your drift – thanks, it’s appreciated.
Reluctant;
You are still bashing gun rights. You believe you don’t but you do. http://WWW.FFF.org, NRA.org.
HeathenZ; you can’t be reasoned with and neither can Charlie Schumer, Sarah Brady or a grizzly bear.
brock2,
Au contraire. Your absolute statement is refuted by many entries in this very blog. In fact I enjoy a reasoned argument. I have yet to see you present a cogent argument that is not replete with logical fallacies and irrelevance.
I have no idea who Charlie Schumer is.
Sarah Brady I assume is associated with the Brady (Foundation?). I assume you are disparaging her reasoning abilities based on her position on gun control. You may be right, but i wouldn’t take your word for it. I have no knowledge of her reasoning skills.
Grizzly bears? Not high on the list of entities know for logical argument of abstract concepts.
I have only come face to face once with a bear, and it was not a grizzly. Thankfully it decided I did not look tasty, and wondered off with noone getting hurt. I suspect trying to shoot the beast would have resulted in a worse outcome in this instance. Either dead bear, wounded (and pissed off) bear, a dead or mauled me, or a the same result after a few missed shots. regardless if the bear had wanted to do me harm he’d have been on me before I could have drawn a gun.
Heathen;
“…some intrisic love of guns for their own sake. I’m no psychiatist, but I’d say that is a little unhealthy.” [HZ]
Some Americans were holding a hand-me-down – maybe a civil war pistol or rifle (black powder.) Some owned them from the revolutionary war. Was handed down from previous generations – from a great grandfather civil war veteran maybe; and they were forced to turn them in (because of new gun law). These relics (historic treasures) were then destroyed – they had value – some were priceless – they reminded people of their ancestry – they were a connection to their roots and heritage. This was a moral crime and an attack against the Bill of Rights, an attack against family values, and an attack against small-town values too. Was like a slap in the face to good honest law-abiding Americans.
Teach the next generation (I do) so these mistakes are not made again. You got a moral or historical conscience ? Are you connected to America’s past ? Are you an old-book burner too ? Don’t be one – get it right – that’s all you owe, to get it right.
Who’s to judge those who were not taught these values by their parents – what about those who never had parents ? Just get it right.
brock2,
First, the conversation has been about modern weapons carried for ’self protection’. With relics and memorabilia you are introducing the Red Herring fallacy, unless you advocate carry a muzzle loading, black powder flintlock for self protection.
Second, relics and memorabilia certainly have historical and sentimental value – but not as active weapons. The weapons can be disabled without devaluing these attributes. If the owner is interested in using them in re-enactments, etc – then by all means do so. However I’d warrant that no-one will advocate carrying them for practical self defense – or offense, nor sleeping with them under their pillow.
Third, you state that Americans “were forced to turn them [black powder relics] in (because of new gun law)” I am unaware of this. Can you provide any details, or is this another figment of your imagination (UK knife ban)?
Fourth, You advocate teaching what is ‘right’. Very few things are simply right and wrong. Teaching others your, or my, version of ‘right’ is tantamount to inflicting our youngsters with bigoted dogma.
Much better to teach people to think for themselves, address and understand the issues, debate with others. Advocate critical thought and logical analysis.
Teaching narrow minded dogmas is unlikely to advance any society.
brock2:
How? In what way?
Where do you live? Do you have junkies on your city streets? Drive-by shootings? A high % of crime?
Are you going to hide behind name-calling, everytime some asks a question that touches a point you hadn’t thought of before?
I believe that’s ad hominem circumstantial fallacy?
http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.
Go look it up.
Brock2,
Where do you live(not exactly where)? When I lived in San Diego my truck was attempted to be stolen twice. If I had a gun I wouldn’t shoot someone for attempting to steal it. Other people would. There is a difference in mentalities when it comes to this sort of thing. About 5 years ago in Austin some guy was breaking in to a Suburban. The owner walked up and saw the thief. The thief was walking away when the vehicle owner got the gun out of his Suburban and shot the thief in the back while he was walking away. The Suburban owner was acquitted of all charges.
HeathenZ;
“Third, you state that Americans “were forced to turn them [black powder relics] in (because of new gun law)” I am unaware of this. Can you provide any details, or is this another figment of your imagination (UK knife ban)?” [HZ]
It’s just another figment of my imagination (and apparently yours too). Black powder weapons are regulated and placed under the pillow too. What do you think, black powder weaponry is used for cops and robbers age ten and under ? NRA.org (gun law)
Reluctant;
“The Tyranny of Gun Control” Jacob Hornberger
“The Bias Against Guns” John R. Lott
Where I live the bans and “sensible precautions”, have not stopped the shootings or other attacks, only law-abiding citizens.
brock2:
I see some of your points. There are indeed regulations for muzzle-loaders. Please calm down a tad, would you?
HZ is correct about the ‘imaginary’ thing: you have made some, well, unusual statements recently. Some of which DO lend themselves to ridicule (Giants on a beach is 1 such example).
Let’s try a different angle here.
You ever hear Bill Engvall’s routine, ‘Here’s your sign!”?
Like not using a hair dryer in the shower, items like that?
Folks tend to get more irresponsible over time, is my point. Go look up the ‘Darwin’ awards (sorry, no link, but should be easy to find).
& again: don’t hate guns. Not crazy about ‘em: they are just as prone to misuse as anything else. I actually rather enjoyed going to the shooting range, back in the day.
Here’s a personal anecdote:
I went up w/a bunch of my friends (this was decades ago, BTW) to a levy just down the highway. We were all armed.
We were blasting away at sparrows that flew overhead. This of itself was somewhat irresponsible, in retrospect: we had shotguns & 22’s (& maybe a coupla other calibers, I forget). The SG’s? Hey, short range. But a .22?
Shell falls back to earth (which I think about now EVERY time I see some Wild Western where the cowboys ride into town, shooting into the air w/their Colts).
Someone knocks this poor swallow out of the air, still alive, limping on the ground.
So all these IDIOTS (& I include myself among them) surround this tiny little limping bird, & begin BLASTING away at it.
Luckily, no ricochets hurt or killed anyone.
Not a 1 among us should’ve been armed, I say.
Think about that.
THEN tell me there shouldn’t be some kind of regulation.
What the heck is that rant supposed to mean? I didn’t ask about regulations. I was asking about the confiscations you mentioned.
While I may have an active imagination, I can still put together a sentence that carries some cogent meaning. Please try to express yourself in a rational manner. As RA stated, you’re all over the place.
Tx,
I don’t think I could shoot a thief, but; if someone attempted to do the same to me (steal my vehicle) I probably would tell the thief, at gunpoint, to wait for the police.
The time has come for criminals to not make eye contact with law-abiding citizens; presently it’s the other way around.
When someone shoots another, whether they are police or not, they are going to have to explain it either to the District Attorney or to a Judge.
RA; when I was a teenager I trained with a heavy (11.75 lbs) and highly accurate M-14; not long after I trained with a very liteweight M-16 (it was a difficult transition); later I trained with a .45 cal semi-automatic pistol, a fully automatic .30 caliper and then with an M-65 .50 caliper machine gun. Where I trained we learned more accuracy at 500 meters than at short range. After all that I trained with the best Americans to learn freedom; I’m more accurate when armed with the principles of freedom – I’m reckless with neither.
Can you imagine the day when criminals realize how reckless law-abiding citizens can be when trying to hit their mark, especially an atheist gay female or a poor eye-sighted senior citizen ?
The horror committed by victims against criminals is barely relevant when compared to the horror committed by criminals against defenseless law-abiding citizens.
Where I live trees grow for over three hundred years and become wider than a house, their emanating red aroma is addictive, their height is towering, ‘old growth’ is an understatement. We will always appreciate the noble deeds done by the hippies and rebels that protect them.
I may be being picky, but one is not a criminal until after they have been tried and convicted. The problem I have is that in your scenario you are judging who is the criminal – therefore who is and is not permitted to make eye contact with the ‘up-standing citizen’. Why should anyone subjugate themselves to another private individual’s judgement?
Believe it or not I am (to some extent) with you on criminal/citzen gun posession issues. What I think your equation is missing is the horrors committed by non-criminals against other non-criminals or even against themselves. In my view this is the tragic consequence of excessivly lax gun conrtol that I find disturbing.
Brock2,
I honestly didn’t mean to leave out this detail but the Suburban owner did tell the thief to stay put at which time the guy started to walk away.
Tx;
You can’t commit a greater harm than the harm committed; for any armed citizen to shoot a criminal a serious crime (felony) must have occurred, and you will need to prove it.
If you believe you can shoot a car thief after you have left the window open and the keys in the vehicle, you are mistaken – booby traps for some types of crime are not always a legal defense for shoot first and ask questions later defenses. But if you can prove you have shot the fleeing perpetrator of repetitive felony crimes against yourself it may be a valid defense. None of these complexities are acceptable arguments for gun control – utopian experiments have been tried and failed – the public has had enough of ‘retreating from criminals’ tactics.
Pepper spray, mace and bear spray are common-sense weapons for less severe crimes; the problem with them is that gun bashers have outlawed them. That may be a legal defense for shoot first ask questions later tactics. For me, deadly force will always be a last resort and only when legal. One of the prices to pay for living in a civilized society is that of knowing that most of the time it is always better to walk away from trouble, but none of us need to step off the sidewalk and give way to a vicious pit bull, leashed or not…
I don’t know if the Suburban owner or the thief knew eachother or if the thief had a criminal record. What I know is the criminal attempted to walk away after being caught, was told to stop, didn’t and was shot. The Suburban owner was not charged with a crime. You live in the Northwest? I beg to differ with you if you think you don’t have to step off the sidewalk at midnight in Compton.
Remember when we were all emailing our senators about the vote on Alito?
Well, I just got a response from Elizabeth Dole, thanking me for my concern, and telling me what a great guy and wonderful candidate Alito was.
Wanted to hear from me if there was anything else she could do for me.
Wonder if they actually read my email.