GeorgiaDon

Speaking for myself, running for office (at the national level, maybe state) would involve walking away from a career I have spent all my adult life building. I would have to return the grants that fund my research program, dismiss my graduate students (after they have spent years working towards their degrees), let my technicians go, etc. So, people who depend on me in one way or another would be adversely impacted. If I decided after a term or two, or if term limits forced me to retire from public office (this assuming I was elected in the first place), I would likely never be able to resume my research; once you are out of the field for a while there are too many younger fresh hotshots competing for funding to allow room for an out-of-date oldtimer. What would I get in public office? Constant criticism, obstructionism, attacks from people who are mainly interested in their own power, all so I can pass laws to tell other people how they should live their lives? No thanks. While details would differ, almost everybody is in more-or-less the same position: public office means walking away from your present career, so people who like what they do and have invested a lot in building a career will have little incentive to change career paths. Term limits make it worse, in that you'd have to give up everything for what amounts to a temporary job. So, why aren't you running for office? One more thing, I disagree with (actually, resent) your implication that firefighters, police officers, and the military (women do those jobs too) are the only people who "work hard". Doctors don't work hard? Teachers don't work hard? Only people who make similar career choices to the ones you made "work hard"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well of course. That's why it's the "scentific method": if it smells right to him, it must be true. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Only being able to see in black and white might tend to make you racist. The world is a more interesting place in color. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, lets say for sake of discussion that the original claim of MULTIPLE RANCHES ...TAKEN OVER BY LOS ZETAS was true. Would their be any legal justification to consider this a "foreign invasion" requiring a military response? Wouldn't this be a "home invasion" type crime, handled by local/state law enforcement, with backup from federal agencies if relevant laws were violated (such as crossing state lines)? Wouldn't use of military forces violate the Posse Comitatus Act? No doubt Mexico is going to hell in a handbasket over these drug gangs, but the gangs do not represent the Mexican Government any more than American criminals speak for the US Government. There is a difference between a "home invasion" and an "armed insurrection". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep. Sad all around, nobody needed this distraction from the mission, and what a way to end an otherwise excellent career. Whatever possessed then to allow an embedded reporter? I bet that won't happen again anytime soon. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Mike, are you disputing that the Rolling Stone article exists, or that McChrystal and his staff made the comments ascribed to them in the article? Why do you think he was forced to resign? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure the article says that, but the key word here is "implied". That's not the same as saying "everyone who reviewed any aspect of this report agrees completely with the final conclusion", is it? I can understand if the reviewers (or some of them anyway) disagree with the moratorium, but according to the article it seems they weren't asked about the moratorium, they were only asked to review safety procedures. Based on their review, Salazar made a decision that the safety procedures did not provide enough assurance that another accident could not happen, and decided a moratorium was necessary. For some reason (perhaps legitimate) they do not now want to be associated with the moratorium, but the people who would make that implied association are people who do not understand the role of peer reviewers in the process (which admittedly is likely 95% of the population). If you can't accept the possibility that the final policy decision will not be what you would have preferred, you shouldn't agree to participate in the review process I suppose. Are you aware of a specific statement by Salazar that directly states, or implies more directly than just identifying them as reviewers, that these scientists approved of the moratorium? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Off on a tangent a bit but, I would find it hard to cope if I had to do what this young man did regardless of his age. His age would seem to me to make it even harder to live with even though the man is still alive. Why? I doubt he feels anything but "pride" in protecting his family...Plus he must either be lucky, or a good shot, to only wound someone with an assualt rifle! keep in mnd, this is the son of a cop, he deals with the pocibilty pf death eveyrr day...I seriously doubt it bothered him at all! I agree I that he should feel pride in what he did. does not change my point however Seriously, I am trying to understand your point..thats all! why should he feel bad in any way? I am sorry but, for me, even if someone truly has is coming, shooting them and causing serious injury and pain would be something that would bother me for the rest of my life. Life and others (even those I do not know) mean that much to me. Maybe it is my bad thinking it would be the same for many others No Marc, it's not your bad. It's a defining virtue of humans to have some empathy for one another. Even when there is no choice but to harm another to save yourself (or your sister), it's normal to feel upset. There is a term for people who can maim or kill without feeling, they're called psychopaths. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

1. The scientists reviewed the safety recommendations. The article does NOT say they made a recommendation one way or another wrt the moratorium. 2. The politicians/appointed administrators made a decision to issue a moratorium. They published a report that covered the safety issues and their justification for the moratorium. 3. The scientists objected that it was not made explicit that they were not the ones who recommended a moratorium, and that they had just reviewed the safety recommendations and didn't say anything one way or the other regarding a moratorium. Personally I think this thing is politically motivated from top to bottom. I peer review articles for publication in scientific journals all the time, I have 3 of them in my "to do" pile right now in fact. I comment on how clearly the hypothesis is described, whether or not the experiments are well designed to test the hypothesis, and whether the conclusions fit the results. I do not decide whether or not to publish the paper, the editor does that based on my review and that of at least two other reviewers. I can whine if I paper I trashed is accepted for publication, and if it happens a lot I can decline to review for that journal (or editor), but I do not ever make the decision to publish or not, I only can comment on the science. Maybe a paper I liked is refused, because 25 even better papers were submitted at the same time and the journal only has room for 12. That is information the editor has that I don't, which is why they get the final call. Similarly, administrators must weigh considerations a scientist/engineer doesn't have to know about or have to consider. The engineer can say there is only a 1% chance the specified design for a blow-out preventor will fail, but the administrator/politician must weigh the economic consequences if a failure does occur, and decide if a 1% failure rate is an acceptable risk. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for reiterating my point exactly. I'm glad to see you agree. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How is this an argument for making drugs legal? If, on the other hand, your thread title is a failed attempt at sarcasm, since when is abuse of a legal product by a few misguided individuals a legitimate reason to ban it for all? The same logic can be used to ban guns because some misuse them; do you support gun bans? Oh, and most of the drugs mentioned in the article are, in fact, perfectly legal for adults to purchase and use, which makes me wonder even more what point you were attempting to make. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

John, I'm sorry to hear of your wife's illness. RonD, once again your "one size fits all" moralizing has managed to offend. If you wish to convince us nonbelievers that your faith leads to a better way, that's not the way to go about it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored. It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There seems to be some disagreement about the process to get the guns returned. Mr. Weinstein and the ACLU felt they had to sue. On the other hand, from the original article: "Mila Schwartzreich, assistant legal counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said her agency had no choice but to keep Weinstein's weapons. She said the Sheriff's Office was not objecting to returning the guns, but needed a court order first." That makes it seem that they needed a court order, more than just a note from the doctor for sure but not the same as having to sue. I wonder where the truth really lies. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That was just an off the cuff comment he made because of the screw-up over the processing of his wife's ashes. He had been trying to get them for three weeks so he could bury her, and he kept getting a run-around. It was an expression of his frustration, and not a serious suicide threat. He just wanted his wife's remains back. Fair enough. Likely that is why the deputy just temporarily removed the guns, rather than having Mr. Weinstein taken for psychiatric evaluation. If I was at the DZ, and someone who I knew had just lost a close family member and was dealing with other issues made an off the cuff comment to the effect that "maybe today I won't bother to pull", I'd suggest (pointedly if necessary) that maybe they shouldn't be jumping today. If a person is determined to commit suicide, they'll find a way. On the other hand, sometimes people are momentarily overwhelmed, and perhaps all it takes is a steadying hand, even from a stranger, to prevent an irrevocable mistake. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just so I have this clear, you are stating an opinion that in a case where someone is threatening suicide, the police should do nothing. Do I have that right? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There's going to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking either way. 2) taken the guns out of the environment and give the guy time to calm down. Hopefully he won't do anything else rash in the meantime. If they're going to get blamed if he commits suicide with a gun, aren't they going to get blamed if he committs suicide by some other mean? Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment. QuoteOK. It's still extremely disruptive. Where I live, there are no psychiatric hospitals in town or nearby, so being taken for evaluation means you're taken to Atlanta, a couple of hours away, and held for several days. In the meantime, if you have pets animal control is called to take them (unless you have someone on the spot who will volunteer to care for them), and if you aren't back to reclaim them within 5 days they are put up for adoption. Bills go unpaid, so you may get to deal with credit issues as a consequence. It's never a simple matter to just disappear for a week. So this guy who has just lost his wife, to whom he was obviously devoted, gets to deal with a bunch of other crap too, most of it probably small potatoes but no doubt hard to cope with on top of the other stuff he has going on. I think the LEO dealt with the situation with compassion and consideration. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words). It seems to me this puts the LEO in a difficult situation. If he left the guns in Mr. Weinstein's possession, and Mr. Weinstein then used them to commit suicide, the sheriff's office could be held liable. An option might have been to have Mr. Weinstein involuntarily committed for psychiatric observation, but that would have had more drastic long-term legal consequences for Mr. Weinstein. Removing the guns (as Mr. Weinstein did not threaten to hang, poison, or stab himself) seems to me to have been a reasonable response to the circumstances. As the sheriff's office stated, though, once the guns were confiscated, a court order is needed for their return. Presumably the court order is to ensure that the initial reason for the removal is no longer an issue. It is a hassle no doubt, and the ACLU was correct in helping him with the process, which Mr. Weinstein may well have not understood. I think the news media is overstating the situation, though, to imply some big constitutional infringement in this case. I don't think it's worth making a separate poll for this, but I am curious what people think the sheriff's office should do in a case where they are confronted with a person who is distraught for an understandable reason, such as the death of a spouse or child, and in the heat of the moment makes an unfortunate comment that they might shoot themselves. Should the deputy have: 1) done nothing. If the old guy kills himself, that's his choice. 2) taken the guns out of the environment and give the guy time to calm down. Hopefully he won't do anything else rash in the meantime. 3) called in the straight-jacket patrol to haul the guy to an institution for evaluation. Of course, then the guy will have on his record that he has been involuntarily committed, so he won't be allowed to own guns any more (this is my understanding, but I'm no expert on gun laws and if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected). 4) something else (fill in the blank). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Wow, is this thread a "blast from the past". Names of posters I haven't seen in years. I wonder if the exchange between Phillykev and Tunaplanet had anything to do with Phillykev not posting any more and Tunaplanet's abrupt disappearance? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure it would cut back on demand. What do you imagine are the chances that will ever happen? If recreational drug users (and I am not one) aren't motivated to stop by the damage to their own health/cognitive abilities/jobs/relationships etc, do you think they will stop "for the good of the country"? Did people stop their demand for alcohol because of Prohibition? How hard is it for obese people to stop eating to excess? "Solutions" that run contrary to human nature are bound to fail. We do want the same things, and especially I'm sure we both want the gangs out of here. I'm just fishing for ideas that might have a chance of working. Have a good weekend, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, of course, Chuck. Just a little hyperbole to make a point. Still, what measures (short of a ridiculous wall such as I described) would suffice to physically "seal the borders"? And, surely you will agree that closing the borders to tourists, legal immigration, and trade will have a pronounced adverse effect on the US? The point is, attractive as the notion is (on a superficial level), "sealing the borders" is not a realistic venture. That's not to say that I think the borders should be wide open, of course we need to control/know who is coming in. I think the danger of "seal the borders" is that it distracts attention from less direct but ultimately more effective and practical courses of action. One you mentioned, penalties for employers who hire illegals, is right at the top of my list. If jobs were not available to illegals, the attraction that draws people here would be dramatically reduced. Gangs are obviously a different sort of problem, and maybe there we could take some lessons from prohibition, where violence related to alcohol smuggling all but disappeared when prohibition was repealed. Of course, another lesson there is that organized crime didn't disappear, they just shifted markets to prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc, and todays gangs would likely do the same. So stepped-up law enforcement will have to be one component of whatever we do. However, thinking of the problem in terms of economics (what is the "demand" the "supply" of illegals is pegged to?)and human motivations is more likely to yield workable, sustainable solutions. They do live in my neighborhood. I'd like to see the problem fixed, I just don't see "seal the borders" (if that is meant literally) to be a constructive element of the discussion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From one of the links near the top of your google search: "If the Source's energy, or the kundalini that was resting at the base of my spine is aroused prematurely, it explodes up the spinal cord, confusing the other six centers and causing disastrous problems. If, however, the seven centers are balanced properly and the Source's energy at the coccyx is aroused at the right time, then instead of exploding up the spine, it will spiral among the other centers and open each in sequence, greatly benefiting the practitioner. This is probably why my teachers had been careful in giving me safe objects for concentration, such as the feeling of my breath in the nose instead of one of the seven connections or centers of energy." Somehow, this reminds me of joke about the guy who had his balls removed because of headaches. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently he feels quite at home there. "We go to these tea parties all over the country," Roper said. "We're looking for the younger, potentially more radical people." So not only is he a teabag member, he knows that teabag rallies are fertile recruiting grounds. If he gets elected, then I'll worry about him. For now he's just another lunatic bigot; I'm just glad he's open about his beliefs so people can see him for what he is, rather than being a stealth bigot who only shows his true nature once in office. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I totally agree with you! Along with that, enforce the laws that penalize (severely) ALL those businesses who hire illegals. I know, too many folks out there want those cheap (HAH!) fruits and vegetables but, I'd rather pay a bit more for produce than to just let anyone and everyone into this country. Especially with the 'element' that is crossing our borders. We DO need to know who is here! chuck I assume you gentlemen would be OK with the rest of the world "sealing their borders" against US citizens as well? I also assume you would be happy to see your tax dollars used to compensate tourism-based industries for lost income? Much of the competitive advantage of the US in science, business, the entertainment industry, etc has relied heavily on the ability to recruit the "best and brightest" from the rest of the world. However I suppose no cost is too great to bear to achieve a little "security". As far as actually "sealing the borders" is concerned, I suggest a double fence, made of titanium (or better yet depleted uranium), about 80 feet high (so no ladders can reach the top) and sunk about 50 feet into solid bedrock (to prevent tunnels). The fences can be topped with hurricane wire, and have an armed guard post every 100 feet or so. We can clear all vegetation etc from between the fences, and anything that moves can then easily be blasted to little bits. Of course, the fences will have to cover absolutely every inch of both borders, the Alaska/Canada border, and all the coasts (to prevent "boat people" from sneaking in). This will involve confiscating all the private property along the borders and the coasts, but that's just a small price to pay for security, especially if it's somebody else's land, right? I'm sure the majesty of Glacier National Park will only be improved by the fences. Florida's white sand beaches, Oregon's rugged coast, every seaport in the country, all "sealed". Of course that will put them off limits to Americans as well, but again "no price is too great", right? "sealing the borders" = "impossible bullshit" agree 100% Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)