Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: Conrad on July 08, 2017, 09:34:10 AM
-
http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/)
Many Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows: study
Seven per cent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows, according to a survey conducted by the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy.
Over 1,000 respondents aged 18 and over were interviewed for the survey, which sought to examine people’s views on the role dairy products play in their diet and daily lives.
Extrapolated to the U.S. population, the findings suggest that over 22 million Americans link the milky brown beverage’s source to chocolate-coloured bovines.
The study also found that nearly half of Americans have no idea where chocolate milk comes from. :o
Chocolate milk is in fact white cow’s milk mixed with flavouring and sweeteners, the website of the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy reveals.
In less chuckle-inducing findings, the website also says chocolate milk is not linked to weight gain or hyperactivity in children, contrary to common belief.
The survey was conducted as part of the “Undeniably Dairy” project, “which showcases the joy of dairy in everyday life.”
Respondents were not asked where they thought strawberry milk comes from.
-
beyond the tipping ppint
-
beyond the tipping ppint
I am actually shocked the numbers weren't higher...
-
Yeah, this is why democracy is failing..... because we now have the ability to approach democracy.
In the olden days, the people voted but the candidates were almost always people of privileged and higher social positions and so were generally well educated and knew how to behave long before holding high elected office. Put another way, generally any candidate for high office was acceptable, and the rest of us only had a couple of relatively well groomed people to choose from. Today with Facenovel, Twitting and so forth, things are being done on a much faster and much more 'grass roots' level. Politicians are responding to the masses (or is it 'them asses'?) immediately and this is starting to have an impact on our entire society. The only branch that is so far immune seems to be the Judicial branch, and they just do not have the size, reach or authority to correct all the errors being generated by the other two branches..... and the masses.
Put another way, the 'brown cow / chocolate milk' folk choose all the current leaders and now, for the first time ever, are speaking to those people directly.... and those people are reacting to the noise because they have to.
Fun to watch, not so much to live in the middle of it.
Brian
P.S. We have always been doomed, only the method and the executioner has been negotiable. I think we have now chosen the executioner, and 'he' is 'us'. At least that is what Kirby thinks.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/)
Many Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows: study
Seven per cent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows, according to a survey conducted by the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy.
Over 1,000 respondents aged 18 and over were interviewed for the survey, which sought to examine people’s views on the role dairy products play in their diet and daily lives.
Extrapolated to the U.S. population, the findings suggest that over 22 million Americans link the milky brown beverage’s source to chocolate-coloured bovines.
The study also found that nearly half of Americans have no idea where chocolate milk comes from. :o
Chocolate milk is in fact white cow’s milk mixed with flavouring and sweeteners, the website of the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy reveals.
In less chuckle-inducing findings, the website also says chocolate milk is not linked to weight gain or hyperactivity in children, contrary to common belief.
The survey was conducted as part of the “Undeniably Dairy” project, “which showcases the joy of dairy in everyday life.”
Respondents were not asked where they thought strawberry milk comes from.
-
I think the mid level judiciary is tainted by the political class elected by the brown cow crowd.
-
Yes, absolutely. I meant mid- level and higher judiciary. So far, the lucky contestants for, say, the position of Federal Judge and higher seem to be somewhat protected because again, they have extensive educations and almost universally, a lot of time interacting within a complex system of rules as well as rules of behavior. So by the time they stand for nomination, virtually all of the (searches and searches for fitting, P.C. and non- offensive word..... but cannot find it) have been weeded out.
The same used to be true for almost all House members but no longer applies. The Senate, usually a bastion of decency and at least some honest thought and study, is also sliding. The Executive branch.... well, I will just stop typing here.
The highest of the judiciary branch members, the US Supreme Court, is still a highly intelligent, extremely learned group of people, and they have great sway in our society. Even the ones occupying a position a citizen may not like is almost always a truly able individual; I dare any thinking person to read three opinions of the any one of them, even those on 'the other side', and not come to the conclusion it was written by a thoughtful, intelligent person. I recorded and watched some of Mr. Gorsuch's confirmation hearings and again, a highly intelligent, well spoken and able individual, regardless of his (absolutely good and correct, so far :rotflmao: :rotflmao:) leanings. I personally do not agree with most of Justice Ginsburg's rulings, opinions or it seems, thoughts but I have tremendous RESPECT for her a a human and as a jurist of the highest caliber (she would probably cringe at that statement). And again, these people are NOT elected nor are they subject to the masses' opinions, which is why they still function at a high level I think.
In the late 18th century, the King et al. was not really working for the French so they chucked him. The new system was a group of would- be revolutionaries, holding their meetings in a public gallery, which basically ran things with their screaming, applauding and overall 'studio audience' bad behavior and mindlessness. As bad as the King was, this new 'system' was worse 'cause the CMP (Chocolate Milk People..... let's start a new acronym!) were now in charge and they simply were not equal to the task. That period had a LOT of beheading, which the CMP really, really liked, and was known as The Terror. Starting in 2010, the US entered a new phase when the angry mobs, or CMPs, elected a mid- term group with the simple and foolish mandate to oppose the current administration no matter what. And we 'broke' the gov't. And we continue to maintain it in that broken condition but what is worse is that we are replacing it with a public gallery, screaming, shouting, booing and applauding to steer our whole society. Sort of like an un- moderated (or badly moderated) forum being in charge of something.
I am not usually a pessimist but this ain't a' goin' to good places IMO.
Oh well, at least all the new videos that are being recorded of bad behavior will keep us entertained, if that is any consolation...
Brian
I think the mid level judiciary is tainted by the political class elected by the brown cow crowd.
-
Maybe the Sarge can talk a little sense into the CMP....
http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g (http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g)
-
Now that right there is funny. And I really like those kewel clothes that Jack Webb dressed his actors in for the series.
And I doubt even Joe Friday, working on the night shift, in robbery division (yeah, I remember it), could do much now even if 1) he were alive and 2) he had a FaceTwit account. He would simply be a point of hatred, for a few hours, for the CMP before they, like any other cat, saw something else move and chased that instead of the last thing they were doing.... whatever was.
Sorry, I think we have real social issues that could be dealt with, maybe effectively, with logical, calm and measured application of the abilities we have gained over 400,000 years. Maybe even a statesman or two. But instead we throw ever- increasing levels of 'mob mentality' at them, all the while increasing the ability of the mob to form bigger and louder mobs.
So now I say: CMP's, go forth and multiply. Pollute your own sandbox! Stop all progress, no matter how idiotic! That'll show 'em!
At least now I have a name for the viewers of the 'Crazy Channel' that I can say out-loud, right in front of them. Thank you ZGGTR forum for that, I will use it often! I think I will say 'CMP' but they will hear 'DCM' (Director of Civilian Marksmanship), and nod to whatever I say, and that will be REALLY funny.
Brian
Maybe the Sarge can talk a little sense into the CMP....
http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g (http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g)
-
Maybe the Sarge can talk a little sense into the CMP....
http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g (http://youtu.be/g_T-JcsS33g)
Wow!!!
:hail:
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f134/ck409/chocolate%20milk_zps0vnrzqal.jpg~original)
I can't believe that none of you knew this. (but then this isn't in the ARENA.) yet. :stirpot:
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM#)
-
The average 'Mercan don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'. And doesn't want to.
When I as in the hospital overnight a few years ago for minor surgery, I told the food people that I was a vegetarian and they recommended (and served me) Jell-O. WTF??? You would think medical/dietician type people would know what they are serving, but no.....
https://www.livescience.com/42088-what-is-jello-jell-o.html (https://www.livescience.com/42088-what-is-jello-jell-o.html)
Very few people know what the hell they are actually eating. And with all the processing going on with our food supply, it is increasingly had to tell.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f134/ck409/chocolate%20milk_zps0vnrzqal.jpg~original)
I can't believe that none of you knew this. (but then this isn't in the ARENA.) yet. :stirpot:
I have enjoyed the creativity and humor in these two videos:(<--punctuation pun intended) (a) (https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q) (b) (https://youtu.be/LqL4DRZ2EkA), but now I wonder about the effect they have on the CMP.
At least now I have a name for the viewers of the 'Crazy Channel' that I can say out-loud, right in front of them.
OH, and it will not be long before someone says CMP is racist. Not because CMP is racist, nor was intended to be racist, but because it can be construed that way. So use it with great caution outside of here less you be mistakenly labeled.
-
Now that right there is funny. Not that they served you the wrong food or that you had any difficulty in the hospital but that they gave a vegetarian Jell-O. A long time ago, I read a line that said something to the effect that hospitals have a universal, institutional focus on Jell-O. Probably because they never, ever..... well, at least rarely, have to remove Jell-o from a patient's, er, wherever, and Jell-O cannot be used as a weapon, or at least an effective one.
Brian
The average 'Mercan don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'. And doesn't want to.
When I as in the hospital overnight a few years ago for minor surgery, I told the food people that I was a vegetarian and they recommended (and served me) Jell-O. WTF??? You would think medical/dietician type people would know what they are serving, but no.....
https://www.livescience.com/42088-what-is-jello-jell-o.html (https://www.livescience.com/42088-what-is-jello-jell-o.html)
Very few people know what the hell they are actually eating. And with all the processing going on with our food supply, it is increasingly had to tell.
-
Good point Marty, I never thought of that but yeah, surely someone will take offense to the CMP reference..... in a way not expected to deliver offense. :-) Sort of like a 'shotgun' offensive remark- it catches at least several groups so they can huddle together on the street while carrying their <various> signs.
Aging has a terrible / wonderful consequence, at least in my own experience and the observation of all the old, cranky people around me: I care less and less everyday about such nonsense as P.C.
Brian
I have enjoyed the creativity and humor in these two videos:(<--punctuation pun intended) (a) (https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q) (b) (https://youtu.be/LqL4DRZ2EkA), but now I wonder about the effect they have on the CMP.
OH, and it will not be long before someone says CMP is racist. Not because CMP is racist, nor was intended to be racist, but because it can be construed that way. So use it with great caution outside of here less you be mistakenly labeled.
-
http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3535819/chocolate-milk-brown-cows-survey/)
Many Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows: study
Seven per cent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows, according to a survey conducted by the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy.
Over 1,000 respondents aged 18 and over were interviewed for the survey, which sought to examine people’s views on the role dairy products play in their diet and daily lives.
Extrapolated to the U.S. population, the findings suggest that over 22 million Americans link the milky brown beverage’s source to chocolate-coloured bovines.
The study also found that nearly half of Americans have no idea where chocolate milk comes from. :o
Chocolate milk is in fact white cow’s milk mixed with flavouring and sweeteners, the website of the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy reveals.
In less chuckle-inducing findings, the website also says chocolate milk is not linked to weight gain or hyperactivity in children, contrary to common belief.
The survey was conducted as part of the “Undeniably Dairy” project, “which showcases the joy of dairy in everyday life.”
Respondents were not asked where they thought strawberry milk comes from.
We have the same in the UK, a survey by Asda (Walmart) found the following .........
"The survey commissioned by Asda has revealed that today’s kids lack basic knowledge of where their food comes from.
A whopping 41 per cent didn’t know eggs come from chickens while a quarter thought chicken could only be cooked on a barbecue.
Other shocking statistics included one in ten mistaking leafy kale for a boy’s name, while six out of ten couldn’t name how long it takes to grow a carrot.
Some children in the survey, which quizzed 1,000 under the age eight, believed that carrots can take up to TEN YEARS to grow.
Meanwhile 15 per cent of children believed chocolate and cucumbers are grown on trees.
One in 20 even falsely believed that avocados are laid by animals.
Proving that society is failing to lay down the foundations for basic food knowledge, almost a quarter also thought turkey, CHICKEN WINGS and sirloin steak come from a pig.
At a time of convenience, these findings expose how little children understand the food that’s on the plate."
Another study came up with this....
"There is a similar ignorance about fruit and veg. Five per cent believe strawberries grow inside the fridge, while six per cent think they grow on trees.
Over a quarter, 28 per cent, have no idea that carrots grow underground, with 9 per cent, believing they grow on a bush.
And six in ten admitted they didn't know lettuce grew on the ground while a massive 78 per cent didn't know broccoli grew on a plant.
Sustainable food and farming organisation Linking Environment and Farming (Leaf), which surveyed 1,000 children, is calling on parents and their children to attend their local farm this Sunday (June 7) as part of the organisation's Open Farm Sunday event."
We're on thin ice here guys, but what's the answer???? ::)
-
we also have politicians who think money grows on trees ;)
-
News Flash: everyone has politicians who think money grows on trees. Just the way it is.
Brian
we also have politicians who think money grows on trees ;)
-
I do not know- maybe most of us do not need to know a lot of this stuff anyway? It is not like we are going to be avocado farmers (or is that avocado livestock raisers?) anytime soon anyway.
Besides I think I am in that group: I had children who knew where raisins come from before I knew. I thought they grew on raisin bushes or something. Seriously, absolutely clueless that raisins used to be grapes, or are still grapes gone terribly, terribly wrong.
And now, I am re- thinking that whole chocolate milk thing.....
Brian
<snip>
We're on thin ice here guys, but what's the answer???? ::)
-
We have the same in the UK, a survey by Asda (Walmart) found the following .........
"The survey commissioned by Asda has revealed that today’s kids lack basic knowledge of where their food comes from.
A whopping 41 per cent didn’t know eggs come from chickens while a quarter thought chicken could only be cooked on a barbecue.
Other shocking statistics included one in ten mistaking leafy kale for a boy’s name, while six out of ten couldn’t name how long it takes to grow a carrot.
Some children in the survey, which quizzed 1,000 under the age eight, believed that carrots can take up to TEN YEARS to grow.
Meanwhile 15 per cent of children believed chocolate and cucumbers are grown on trees.
One in 20 even falsely believed that avocados are laid by animals.
Proving that society is failing to lay down the foundations for basic food knowledge, almost a quarter also thought turkey, CHICKEN WINGS and sirloin steak come from a pig.
At a time of convenience, these findings expose how little children understand the food that’s on the plate."
Another study came up with this....
"There is a similar ignorance about fruit and veg. Five per cent believe strawberries grow inside the fridge, while six per cent think they grow on trees.
Over a quarter, 28 per cent, have no idea that carrots grow underground, with 9 per cent, believing they grow on a bush.
And six in ten admitted they didn't know lettuce grew on the ground while a massive 78 per cent didn't know broccoli grew on a plant.
Sustainable food and farming organisation Linking Environment and Farming (Leaf), which surveyed 1,000 children, is calling on parents and their children to attend their local farm this Sunday (June 7) as part of the organisation's Open Farm Sunday event."
We're on thin ice here guys, but what's the answer???? ::)
Thin ice indeed! And with climate change it's getting thinner by the day. :o
-
:deadhorse: :banghead:
-
Ha! I knew that my comment would get someone riled up.
-
8)
-
while six out of ten couldn’t name how long it takes to grow a carrot.
Wait, they expect non-farmers would know how long? That is a bit unrealistic. We all know it takes between a couple and several months, but I doubt I know anyone who knows exactly how long.
-
Wait, they expect non-farmers would know how long? That is a bit unrealistic. We all know it takes between a couple and several months, but I doubt I know anyone who knows exactly how long.
depends on whether you want a long or a short carrot ;)
-
depends on whether you want a long or a short carrot ;)
I suppose that might depend on who's doing the 'picking'. :P
-
...(or is that avocado livestock raisers?)...
Brian
Ooohhhhhh, give me a home
Where the 'cado's do roam,
And we eat guacamole all day
....
....
OK - I got no more...
I had a weird image of little green skinned cowboys with a lumpy skin condition, riding little ponies herding bunches of...
Wow - psychedelic, man... (and I was too young in the 60's to have really experienced the whole "tripping" thing...)
Jamie
-
Yeah, too wide an input on that. Let's narrow it down.... to you. What do you like in carrots, Mike?
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
I remember, not so long ago, when we did not have to resort to things like this to ruin a thread, we did it the old- fashioned way, by mentioning KiPass. :-)
Brian
depends on whether you want a long or a short carrot ;)
-
Years ago a coworker looked out the window and saw the farmer plowing the field and asked what the farmer grew. i told her pork and beans. She didnt believe me but another guy said we would prove it come harvest time.
So about a month before harvest we buried a can of p and b.
When the farmer started his harvest we took her out and dug up the can and showed her. She swallowed it like a bluegill swallows a worm.
-
I remember seeing this video as a kid and having an argument with another kid. He thought it was absolutely true. I couldn't convince him it was a joke.
http://youtu.be/tVo_wkxH9dU (http://youtu.be/tVo_wkxH9dU)
-
So much fun to be had, so little time.
-
Gallagher (the watermelon guy- I used to go see him every year when he was on tour) said that farmers are idiots and do it all wrong. He and his family plant fruits and vegetables in the can and this have a LOT of advantages and no down-side. Want some fresh peas in February? Take a pick and shovel out to the garden and there they are, in single- serving containers, ready to go. No worries about yields, insect damage, drought, the narrow window of harvest and consumption before the items go bad. I tells' ya', his system was flawless IMO.
Many years ago, a friend's wife was commenting on how much more expensive tuna packed in oil was than tuna packed in water and how they were all talking about it at work. Husband explains that the price of oil has skyrocketed (this was during the second oil crunch in the US, maybe 1985 or so?). She understands immediately but man, was she pi$$ed the next day when she came home from work, after explaining to her co- workers why tuna in oil was so expensive.
Last story: I actually got my SIL to leave tuna cans open and sitting on the counter-top to allow the 'excessive amounts' of mercury in tuna to settle to the bottom of the can, and then carefully, and without tipping the can, pick the tuna out with a fork. Fun to watch. Same woman is adamant to this day that we have two 'trash' containers (one 'trash', one recycle materials) just because "they" want to break out chops and get more city workers on two trucks but it all goes into the exact same pile. Seriously, and there is no convincing her.....
And it is stories such as those that prevented me from even considering that a raisin was a dry grape after continued pressure and explanation from my wife and kids. Just like my hero, Homer Simpson, who laughed when told that bacon, ham and pork chops all come from some 'wondrous, magical' animal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BZDZyRaGa8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BZDZyRaGa8)
Brian
Years ago a coworker looked out the window and saw the farmer plowing the field and asked what the farmer grew. i told her pork and beans. She didnt believe me but another guy said we would prove it come harvest time.
So about a month before harvest we buried a can of p and b.
When the farmer started his harvest we took her out and dug up the can and showed her. She swallowed it like a bluegill swallows a worm.
-
You can get all the fun in (Easy Boys!) Jim, you just have to compress it more. Do not just limit your fun interaction to family, friends and, say, this forum. No, no, invite everyone to share in the whimsy that is life. You would not think so but the police, judges, airline personnel, garbage men and even your customers and / or employer are ready..... nay, ANXIOUS to share in good humor.
Why this one time, crossing the US / Can border (into Canada), with two other motorcycles, when the Canuk border control agent asked if I had any drugs or weapons, I answered 'No', then turned around, pointed to the guy right behind me (a gigantic black guy riding a C-14 also) and said 'He has all the weapons and drugs.'. Now that was a double- header because not only did the Canadian agents find it amusing..... after some more discussion and convincing (OK, maybe that was a tactical error but still....) but Maurice (the object of my pointing) sat straight up in his saddle and was blinded in the headlights. Probably thought I had said something inappropriate to the border agents on his behalf, which of course is exactly what I had done. The Agents actually took that pretty well but when Maurice came to the same Agents, and the male asked the same question he also added 'and please do not make any jokes about this Sir', which was even funnier yet.
Now that does not mean there are not limits: my strong suggestion is NOT to run in an airport for any reason whatsoever. Probably best not to reach under the car seat during an active stop by LEO to get a funny item that is there to amuse them. And so forth.
Brian
P.S. I would not try any of those 'funnies' at all at US border control, dem dare peoples have a stick up their collective butts about a mile long. It might be like the old Grouch Marx show where you say the magic word and a jail sentence drops from the ceiling. And while jail (prison actually for a federal crime) <may> be fun, I think some of the other, extra- curricular activities going on make make the entire experience unpleasant, on balance. Then again, if a 'jail house lawyer' is valuable to convicts, perhaps a 'jail house comedian' could get by?
So much fun to be had, so little time.
-
A friend learned the hard way about taling in an airport.
Got to the TSA group grope and was asked to remove his sandals.
He said, "Yeah, right. Like I have a bomb hidden there" and immediately knew he screwed up. Off to the pokey. Missed his flight, no refund, and a fine.
-
A friend learned the hard way about taling in an airport.
Got to the TSA group grope and was asked to remove his sandals.
He said, "Yeah, right. Like I have a bomb hidden there" and immediately knew he screwed up. Off to the pokey. Missed his flight, no refund, and a fine.
Those guys have no sense of humor :o
-
Yeah, there are places where one simply cannot do some things anymore. I am not passing judgement because it is extremely difficult to allow freedoms and at the very same time, try to assure safety for the masses, all while some are desperately trying to inflict damage on those masses. So now, any place people gather is coming under vastly increasing scrutiny and new rules of behavior by all officials (those charged with maintaining order and safety on all levels). Places that are hubs of travel, where people gather very densely (and not the CMP kind of density) are even more highly scrutinized. Of course the ultimate spot for traveling and extremely high numbers of people gathered into a <relatively> small space is an airport.
Some years ago a man on board a plane had a panic attack and had to get off the plane (plane was boarding, doors open). He ran off the plane and some distance in the terminal. Of course some LEO yelled at this man to stop, which he did not do (remember, panic attack: no one behaves 'correctly' in that situation so I cannot blame the man running), and was promptly shot. And I do not blame the LEO because by all accounts, he yelled several times for the man to stop and received no response and so took that next step, the only one available to him, and stopped the man directly.
I believe this transcends all political lines, police enforcement opinions and everything else and was simply an extremely unfortunate event that was virtually impossible to prevent, and yet no one did anything wrong, at least as I read the story.
The really and truly bad part of this is, for all of us (people in the western world where security is tightening rapidly) is that it is going to get worse. More scrutiny, more 'rules', more screening and no doubt, more incidents. No way around it that I can see.
Brian
A friend learned the hard way about taling in an airport.
Got to the TSA group grope and was asked to remove his sandals.
He said, "Yeah, right. Like I have a bomb hidden there" and immediately knew he screwed up. Off to the pokey. Missed his flight, no refund, and a fine.
-
It just slays me that one guy puts a firecracker in his pennyloafers, and everyone has to take off their shoes. >:(
-
It just slays me that one guy puts a firecracker in his pennyloafers, and everyone has to take off their shoes. >:(
Security "theater." It is the ILLUSION of security. We have be forced to give up our rights to privacy, to be free of harassment, to not be tracked, to come and go as we please, to have rapid transport, of keeping our hard-earned money, for the FEELING of being secure. I don't think it is worth it EVEN IF IT WORKED.... but the reality is shown in study after study which shows that airport security does almost nothing to stop actual threats.
One of many examples: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html)
-
Ah, the 'A- team' argument. So what would you have us do Max, nothing more than what was done pre- 911? That is not only political suicide but frankly, reckless.
Would you NOT increase security in our airports? Or would you have the occasional air liner fall out of the sky as a fireball?
Please understand I am not throwing rocks at that position but you have to take responsibility IF that is your position. We have to make a choice, and cannot stand dumb and deaf to reality, so the choices are 1) do something, with all the wrongs and faults of that or 2) do nothing, and allow others to determine the course of our future.
The easy thing is always to complain and find fault in the current situation or others' behavior but what would YOU suggest as an alternative? No scans at US airports? Allowing passengers in the us, or flying to the US, to freely board planes w/out searches or increased security?
If you know of a way to balance security with freedom in a better way, please do not hold it as a secret, share it freely and allow us all to benefit.
So, would you remove airport security? Would you reduce it? Would you 'fall back' to 1960 levels?
Security is as much a pretense as it is a reality. Removing or substantially reducing security in any area is nothing but an invitation for those seeking to do harm to select that [lower / no security] area for attack. England used to be a relatively unarmed country, all the way to law enforcement officers, now they are passing the 30% mark of having their LEO staff armed. Would you stop that and return to non- armed LEOs in England in the name of freedom?
Sorry, but I find the whole issue to be complicated rather than simple. And those with simple answers are the people with answers that will not work. And frankly, while I support thoughtful approach to all problems, I find the thoughtless ranting of the masses to be truly frightening.
So again, I ask you- what is the answer to the balance of freedom and security and how can we move in that direction?
Brian, a BIG believer in the Constitution of the US but who also knows that it is not a suicide pact
Security "theater." It is the ILLUSION of security. We have be forced to give up our rights to privacy, to be free of harassment, to not be tracked, to come and go as we please, to have rapid transport, of keeping our hard-earned money, for the FEELING of being secure. I don't think it is worth it EVEN IF IT WORKED.... but the reality is shown in study after study which shows that airport security does almost nothing to stop actual threats.
One of many examples: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html)
-
It would be a confidence builder if the US security protocols included looking for bad people along with guns, knives and fingernail clippers.
-
Ah, the 'A- team' argument. So what would you have us do Max, nothing more than what was done pre- 911? That is not only political suicide but frankly, reckless.
It would certainly be political suicide, but I am not sure about reckless
Would you NOT increase security in our airports? Or would you have the occasional air liner fall out of the sky as a fireball?
The second portion of that is more like a straw-man argument.... The first part I will address. I would increase security based on actual prevention. All this crap started 9/11 and the main reason? Because the doors on the cockpit were not strong/secure. Yes, it might be an oversimplification, but I think it mostly boils down to that. Restrictions on lighters, toenail clippers, tiny quantities of toiletries, blunt butter knives, baby food, shirts with Arabic writing on them, and micro-nude scans are absurd. Couple that with a "secret" no-fly list that no normal person can query or challenge, and you throw the Constitution right out the window.
Please understand I am not throwing rocks at that position but you have to take responsibility IF that is your position. We have to make a choice, and cannot stand dumb and deaf to reality, so the choices are 1) do something, with all the wrongs and faults of that or 2) do nothing, and allow others to determine the course of our future.
It depends on what people find acceptable. If never having a single plane EVER go down due to security- that is probably just impossible. And if that is the goal, then ridiculous amounts of security- hundreds of times what we do now, will make no difference. It will just make air travel nearly impossible. Ban all carry-on, require everyone to be strip searched and then put on jail uniforms, and be handcuffed to the seats during travel; but what about the plane staff? The maintenance crews? The baggage handlers? The security agents, themselves?
The easy thing is always to complain and find fault in the current situation or others' behavior but what would YOU suggest as an alternative?
It is not as if anyone is going to listen to me, anyway :)
No scans at US airports? Allowing passengers in the us, or flying to the US, to freely board planes w/out searches or increased security?
I think that mostly the levels of security we had before 9-11 were reasonable, just add some fast technology upgrades. You could get through security lines in 5 minutes. Remember, current security which is WAY overkill and invasive has been shown to be 95% ineffective. So, theoretically, if we cut out 95% of what was introduced by 9-11, we will be no worse than before. Being told to arrive TWO HOURS before a flight is just insane! Add that to all the traditional headaches: the drive there, parking, late planes, delays on the runways, missed connections, lost or damaged luggage, and it is no wonder people are avoiding flying as much as possible and the entire industry is hurting badly.
[...]Sorry, but I find the whole issue to be complicated rather than simple. And those with simple answers are the people with answers that will not work. And frankly, while I support thoughtful approach to all problems, I find the thoughtless ranting of the masses to be truly frightening.
It is the thoughtless ranting that brought on the extremely expensive, 95% ineffective, and unacceptable security we have now. "Save the children!!!" We responded emotionally, not rationally, not with science, to the situation. But you are right, it is complicated. I am not a travel security expert, so I don't know exactly what best approaches to use, but what we have now is obviously not the best approach by all kinds of measures including results, timeliness, cost, privacy, and convenience. I have had direct experience with the "new" security theater several times now in airports and, to me (and many others), it is unacceptable- if for no other reason, the slowness. At least some of the most insane security measures were cut back over time, but only after pissing off millions of people for too long. If bombs are the main concern, then focus on rapid chemical detection technology and give all the rest of the stuff a rest!
And the REALLY crazy thing is that all this focus on planes, which only carry a few dozen to a few hundred people- the terrorists can and will just switch to one of a zillion other MUCH easier targets instead. Malls, sporting events, interstate roads, libraries, schools, hospitals, churches, trains, buses... we can't secure everything everywhere due to irrational fear. And when we try, the terrorist have won- they have destroyed freedom and instilled terror.
-
Yep, true enough. And while my base thoughts are to agree with that, there are two things in the way: the US Consittution, which no matter how one reads it, prevents profiling, and the fact that the 'bad people' are not as easily identified as it at first seems.
The first part is easy: read the document, study a very small amount of US judicial law and find the weak spot to pass through. Well, easy in concept, not so easy in practice.
The second part is tougher: say you can identify the 'bad people' and prevent them from flying / walking around freely and so forth. Problem solved..... or is it? If there are any smart 'bad people' and 911 proves there are, then the easy way would be for the 'bad people' to simply stock the ole' grandma' from Duluth, coming back from visiting her newest grandbaby, with a small bomb in her luggage which WILL NOT be searched because she is not one of the 'bad people'. If that is not possible, perhaps loading her car with explosives and sending her off to the nearest mall and then detonating them. See the problem?
As a middle- aged, white, male born and bred in the US of A, and absolutely leaning toward the right, I would love for the solution to be that simple. And to just kinda' nod and wink at the constitution. But is is not and I cannot. The modern world presents a real problem and the response is both complex and not entirely effective.
BTW: I am writing this while waiting for the clock to turn sufficiently for me to go pick up my wife (again I guess, as I 'picked her up' long, long ago :-) ) at the airport. She is flying in from BWI, and I am angry at her having to go through the screening at two airports, and glad for the screening of all the OTHER passengers at the same time. As I said, it is complicated.
Brian
Edited for the post to make sense, such as I am able to make sense in posting anything.
It would be a confidence builder if the US security protocols included looking for bad people along with guns, knives and fingernail clippers.
-
Uh oh, you are getting dangerously close to both the truth and 'national blasphemy', all in one stroke (Easy Boys! I know nothing of Max's strokes nor do I want to).
I do not have time to respond to this properly as I have to pick up my wife at the 'very safe' airport but if this thread is not locked or moved to the arena, will do so tomorrow. But always remember, there are truths that cannot be spoken and absolutely certainly not addressed in any meaningful way. And part of this truth is what some totalerian gov'ts got and get right. But it will not and cannot fly in any modern western country, at least not out in the open.
Brian
It would certainly be political suicide, but I am not sure about reckless
The second portion of that is more like a straw-man argument.... The first part I will address. I would increase security based on actual prevention. All this crap started 9/11 and the main reason? Because the doors on the cockpit were not strong/secure. Yes, it might be an oversimplification, but I think it mostly boils down to that. Restrictions on lighters, toenail clippers, tiny quantities of toiletries, blunt butter knives, baby food, shirts with Arabic writing on them, and micro-nude scans are absurd. Couple that with a "secret" no-fly list that no normal person can query or challenge, and you throw the Constitution right out the window.
It depends on what people find acceptable. If never having a single plane EVER go down due to security- that is probably just impossible. And if that is the goal, then ridiculous amounts of security- hundreds of times what we do now, will make no difference. It will just make air travel nearly impossible. Ban all carry-on, require everyone to be strip searched and then put on jail uniforms, and be handcuffed to the seats during travel; but what about the plane staff? The maintenance crews? The baggage handlers? The security agents, themselves?
It is not as if anyone is going to listen to me, anyway :)
I think that mostly the levels of security we had before 9-11 were reasonable, just add some fast technology upgrades. You could get through security lines in 5 minutes. Remember, current security which is WAY overkill and invasive has been shown to be 95% ineffective. So, theoretically, if we cut out 95% of what was introduced by 9-11, we will be no worse than before. Being told to arrive TWO HOURS before a flight is just insane! Add that to all the traditional headaches: the drive there, parking, late planes, delays on the runways, missed connections, lost or damaged luggage, and it is no wonder people are avoiding flying as much as possible and the entire industry is hurting badly.
It is the thoughtless ranting that brought on the extremely expensive, 95% ineffective, and unacceptable security we have now. "Save the children!!!" We responded emotionally, not rationally, not with science, to the situation. But you are right, it is complicated. I am not a travel security expert, so I don't know exactly what best approaches to use, but what we have now is obviously not the best approach by all kinds of measures including results, timeliness, cost, privacy, and convenience. I have had direct experience with the "new" security theater several times now in airports and, to me (and many others), it is unacceptable- if for no other reason, the slowness. At least some of the most insane security measures were cut back over time, but only after pissing off millions of people for too long. If bombs are the main concern, then focus on rapid chemical detection technology and give all the rest of the stuff a rest!
And the REALLY crazy thing is that all this focus on planes, which only carry a few dozen to a few hundred people- the terrorists can and will just switch to one of a zillion other MUCH easier targets instead. Malls, sporting events, interstate roads, libraries, schools, hospitals, churches, trains, buses... we can't secure everything everywhere due to irrational fear. And when we try, the terrorist have won- they have destroyed freedom and instilled terror.
-
And the REALLY crazy thing is that all this focus on planes, which only carry a few dozen to a few hundred people- the terrorists can and will just switch to one of a zillion other MUCH easier targets instead. Malls, sporting events, interstate roads, libraries, schools, hospitals, churches, trains, buses... we can't secure everything everywhere due to irrational fear. And when we try, the terrorist have won- they have destroyed freedom and instilled terror.
Living in the UK through the 70's & 80's bag searches, rub downs , under/in vehicle searches, scanning of mail etc were (relatively) commonplace when going into many public buildings mainly (but not exclusively) due to the activities of our Irish cousins (and to a smaller degree Welsh Language Activists although they concentrated mainly on burning down holiday cottages in Wales owned by the English or painting cars green).
-
Gotta ask.... Do you Brits feel safer?
Telegraph.co.uk
One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
Britain has a CCTV camera for every 11 people, a security industry report disclosed, as privacy campaigners criticised the growth of the “surveillance state”.
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent6:30PM BST 10 Jul 2013
The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, including 750,000 in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals and care homes.
The survey’s maximum estimate works out at one for every 11 people in the UK, although the BSIA said the most likely figure was 4.9 million cameras in total, or one for every 14 people.
-
Gotta ask.... Do you Brits feel safer?
Telegraph.co.uk
One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
Britain has a CCTV camera for every 11 people, a security industry report disclosed, as privacy campaigners criticised the growth of the “surveillance state”.
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent6:30PM BST 10 Jul 2013
The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, including 750,000 in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals and care homes.
The survey’s maximum estimate works out at one for every 11 people in the UK, although the BSIA said the most likely figure was 4.9 million cameras in total, or one for every 14 people.
Me personally ? Yes I feel less at risk in many ways than I did back in the 70's & 80's
I'd also be more than happy to have a national ID card system , ok maybe a bit biased as ex forces.
Oddly enough (& sort of back to Max's point about moving on to other "targets" as you lock one down) as CCTV has been put into an area crime in that area has gone down in many cases and moved on to places without CCTV thus prompting the growth of CCTV.
The only cameras that bother me are the revenue generators operated by the Police, Highways authorities & councils ;)
-
But I do not believe most of this applies to the US as far as earlier terrorism. The US was <relatively> free of terrorism until the 1990's, and even then rare enough that we basically ignored it. And one of the biggest terrorist act (I believe the biggest ever) was perpetrated by a main- stream, native born American, and it was done out in the open with a 'car bomb', so that did not generate any real increase in security. So your experience with many, smaller, acts of terrorism going back decades do not apply here.
Our entry into the group of countries suffering from targeted, international terrorism came in 2001, and we have over- reacted, really pretty seriously over- reacted.
So I think the comparison thinking between the people of our two countries just does not apply to anything and is incompatible.
Brian
Me personally ? Yes I feel less at risk in many ways than I did back in the 70's & 80's
I'd also be more than happy to have a national ID card system , ok maybe a bit biased as ex forces.
Oddly enough (& sort of back to Max's point about moving on to other "targets" as you lock one down) as CCTV has been put into an area crime in that area has gone down in many cases and moved on to places without CCTV thus prompting the growth of CCTV.
The only cameras that bother me are the revenue generators operated by the Police, Highways authorities & councils ;)
-
True, most of your "domestic" incidents were the work of loners /pairs of nutters rather than organised bodies.
You had the Unabomber sending out letter bombs from the late 70's until the mid 90's followed by the Oklahoma truck bombing also in the mid 90's IIRC closely followed by the Olympic bombing in 96.
Mind you you've also had your fair share of non terrorist race/religion based "troubles" over the years to compensate ;)
But I do not believe most of this applies to the US as far as earlier terrorism. The US was <relatively> free of terrorism until the 1990's, and even then rare enough that we basically ignored it. And one of the biggest terrorist act (I believe the biggest ever) was perpetrated by a main- stream, native born American, and it was done out in the open with a 'car bomb', so that did not generate any real increase in security. So your experience with many, smaller, acts of terrorism going back decades do not apply here.
Our entry into the group of countries suffering from targeted, international terrorism came in 2001, and we have over- reacted, really pretty seriously over- reacted.
So I think the comparison thinking between the people of our two countries just does not apply to anything and is incompatible.
Brian
-
Well, a couple of thoughts in reply:
First, the mechanics and actual implementation, such a list of what is / what is not dangerous is silly because that is what happens when one writes down a list to select items in the first place. But that is just a nuance IMO and does not change the bigger picture, and there really is not a functional way around it. Without an outright definition or list in this case, we end up with "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that" - Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court. Now, do we really want a gazillion TSA agents deciding what is dangerous without a list but simply 'knowing it when they see it'? Not me, I like my rules written down.
I believe your comparison of current security levels vs. pre- 2001 levels and the results are fundamentally flawed because while a very specific method was used on 911 and it would be easy to stop that (we are in agreement here; reinforce the cockpit doors and be done with it), the larger picture is that the entire terrorist world, domestic and international, was schooled on how easy it was to access commercial aircraft for terrorist acts. So the exact plan of 911 is stopped by an armored door but that would just drive someone two steps to the left to commit other terrorist acts, in a slightly different way. So you cannot view a large problem such as terrorism, sight one example, propose a cure for that specific example and claim that overall terrorism would be reduced IMO. Want an example? After hardening access to all planes cockpits, a terrorist could buy / steal / make an airline worker's uniform and hang a library card from a neck band (to serve as an Airlines ID- who looks anyway) and put 50 lbs. of high explosive anywhere on the plane, the easy way being in plain sight as baggage. How about grab a USP truck and uniform, fill it with explosives, and drive it to a terminal as close as possible. The point being that if you have a ship full of rats and find out exactly where they are getting into the ship, closing that port will do not good as the rats will simply use another hole, so a practical approach MUST involve a general ship tightening...... or what we could call general increased security to be effective. The degree of security is negotiable but the underlying principle holds. So addressing the cockpit access would not be sufficient IMO and would do nothing to address the larger problem of airlines and terrorists, merely steer the culprits from one very specific method to the many (infinite?) others available.
The other side of the same coin is to say that if a determined person or persons are going to commit some crime, there is nothing that will stop them, and therefore any security is pointless. So a car or motorcycle model having very high theft rates might as well forego any and all security measures, starting with locking it, because it will not work anyway. It seems logical but is incorrect because the percentage of thefts will increase as security drops off.
Now the final part of your post is the most interesting to me, the most dangerous to speak about and the one that cannot be employed. I believe you are speaking of risk / reward, or cost- benefit ratio. I am a fan of this myself and apply it often but not so much out- loud 'cause of all the incoming bricks, people gathering with torches and pitch forks, etc. It actually starts with indisputable facts that also cannot be stated: if you have aircraft flying around, you are going to have plane crashes. If some of those planes carry people, some of those crashes are going to kill some of the people who fly. It cannot be prevented. This applies to cars, firearms, electricity..... look up bucket drownings for an extreme example. We can reduce the incidents of mishaps and we can reduce the levels of injury on average (seat belts, air bags for example) but we CANNOT eliminate them. But with things such as air safety, we want zero deaths. It ain't gonna' happen but we cannot state it otherwise. Now the tough part: reducing the death rates costs something, and as no one and no entity, no matter how large, has infinite amounts of resources, some amount of deaths must be tolerated, expected, and 'allowed' to occur. We use cars everyday, we have auto deaths everyday and we quietly (because we cannot talk about it.... torches and pitchforks and all) accept it as a cost in the cost to benefit ratio. We have determined that a balance of circa 40,000 auto deaths in the US per year is an acceptable price to pay for the benefit of all of us having the use of cars. But it cannot be stated that way.
The same thing applies to everything but gets even more socially unacceptable to be stated: airlines, for example, and some types of cancer jump to mind. Trying to find an acceptable balance between security and terrorist deaths is readily doable but cannot be implemented because it is distasteful and totally unacceptable as a method to our society. Child cancers are extremely rare and so get a hugely disproportionate amount of money, research, time and effort, along with a hugely poor cost to benefit ratio but who could possibly suggest cutting back on any of this would be promptly burned at the stake. Cancer in children is quite tragic and really pulls at the old heart- strings of just about everyone (myself included) and so we allow emotion to make what are really straightforward, logical decisions. I believe this is not possible to 'fix' and so we will have to live w/in these restrictions forever: Airlines MUST be 100% safe, with all partied, the Gov't, the airlines, the airplane manufacturer, etc. etc. responsible to prevent ANY accidents or other acts that would cause deaths. And when those deaths do occur, as they always will (uh- oh, mob forming outside) we must absolutely pummel, punish, disgrace and basically terrorize anyone / everyone involved with that flight. Same thing with medical mistakes (honest mistakes, not fraud, etc.); we will not accept that they happen, will always happen and so go to excessive lengths to eliminate them, which of course cannot be done.
Brian (in his non- fun, not light or amused mode)
It would certainly be political suicide, but I am not sure about reckless
The second portion of that is more like a straw-man argument.... The first part I will address. I would increase security based on actual prevention. All this crap started 9/11 and the main reason? Because the doors on the cockpit were not strong/secure. Yes, it might be an oversimplification, but I think it mostly boils down to that. Restrictions on lighters, toenail clippers, tiny quantities of toiletries, blunt butter knives, baby food, shirts with Arabic writing on them, and micro-nude scans are absurd. Couple that with a "secret" no-fly list that no normal person can query or challenge, and you throw the Constitution right out the window.
It depends on what people find acceptable. If never having a single plane EVER go down due to security- that is probably just impossible. And if that is the goal, then ridiculous amounts of security- hundreds of times what we do now, will make no difference. It will just make air travel nearly impossible. Ban all carry-on, require everyone to be strip searched and then put on jail uniforms, and be handcuffed to the seats during travel; but what about the plane staff? The maintenance crews? The baggage handlers? The security agents, themselves?
It is not as if anyone is going to listen to me, anyway :)
I think that mostly the levels of security we had before 9-11 were reasonable, just add some fast technology upgrades. You could get through security lines in 5 minutes. Remember, current security which is WAY overkill and invasive has been shown to be 95% ineffective. So, theoretically, if we cut out 95% of what was introduced by 9-11, we will be no worse than before. Being told to arrive TWO HOURS before a flight is just insane! Add that to all the traditional headaches: the drive there, parking, late planes, delays on the runways, missed connections, lost or damaged luggage, and it is no wonder people are avoiding flying as much as possible and the entire industry is hurting badly.
It is the thoughtless ranting that brought on the extremely expensive, 95% ineffective, and unacceptable security we have now. "Save the children!!!" We responded emotionally, not rationally, not with science, to the situation. But you are right, it is complicated. I am not a travel security expert, so I don't know exactly what best approaches to use, but what we have now is obviously not the best approach by all kinds of measures including results, timeliness, cost, privacy, and convenience. I have had direct experience with the "new" security theater several times now in airports and, to me (and many others), it is unacceptable- if for no other reason, the slowness. At least some of the most insane security measures were cut back over time, but only after pissing off millions of people for too long. If bombs are the main concern, then focus on rapid chemical detection technology and give all the rest of the stuff a rest!
And the REALLY crazy thing is that all this focus on planes, which only carry a few dozen to a few hundred people- the terrorists can and will just switch to one of a zillion other MUCH easier targets instead. Malls, sporting events, interstate roads, libraries, schools, hospitals, churches, trains, buses... we can't secure everything everywhere due to irrational fear. And when we try, the terrorist have won- they have destroyed freedom and instilled terror.
-
sad to say but as Brian said (in not so many words) , if somebody wants to do something they will find a way.
It could be argued that he methodology used on 9/11 was predicated by improved security around hold luggage after bombings such as Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 in the mid to late 80's
I was in Toronto at the time of the Air India bomb actually staying in the same hotel that the flight crew had been staying in and flew out myself 2 days later.
-
I believe your comparison of current security levels vs. pre- 2001 levels and the results are fundamentally flawed because while a very specific method was used on 911 and it would be easy to stop that (we are in agreement here; reinforce the cockpit doors and be done with it), the larger picture is that the entire terrorist world, domestic and international, was schooled on how easy it was to access commercial aircraft for terrorist acts.
But they could have and would have before 9-11, too, if there was motivation. I am not saying security should not be improved, but not "improved" in ways that are just plan stupid and slow. Upgrade detectors. Add more detectors. Upgrade software to identify things better. Use better information. Sure! But having people take off belts and shoes and looking for nail clippers is just stupid.
The other side of the same coin is to say that if a determined person or persons are going to commit some crime, there is nothing that will stop them, and therefore any security is pointless.
It is a good thing neither I nor most people would make such an argument :)
Now the final part of your post is the most interesting to me, the most dangerous to speak about and the one that cannot be employed. I believe you are speaking of risk / reward, or cost- benefit ratio. I am a fan of this myself and apply it often but not so much out- loud
You would be correct not only in understanding was I was saying in that part, but also everything you wrote about it. Which also ties in quite nicely to this part I said earlier:
It is not as if anyone is going to listen to me, anyway :)
-
That was my point Mike: I do not believe we (US) had compatible terrorist situations to you (UK) before 2001.
Basically, you seem to have suffered generalized but <relatively> small but constant terrorist events from specific sources (the basic 'Irish problem') while our incidents were fewer, often larger I think but not coming from any particular source. So there was no public- demanded response on our side as I believe there was on yours.
Your examples of some of our 'terrorists' are excellent I think: the Unabomber, while he got a fair amount of ink and lasted a long time as terrorists goes, did not do much damage and none to the general public. The two men who took out the Murrah building in Oklahoma were not mentally deficient, at least not IMO, but determined, focused, cunning and able individuals. It was a one- off event, and not generalized in any way; the target was very specific (US Fed. Gov't, even more specifically the Department of Justice) and the cause was two very specific events caused directly by elements of the DOJ. So again, nothing to focus a lot of national efforts on to stop because no 'theme' or group.
And BTW, as an aside, the perpetrators of two of the three events you mention were all held in one of the most secure prisons in the US, in a special section of that prison colloquially knows as "Bomber's row"; Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) and Terry Nichols (Murrah building bombing, Oklahoma) are still there, serving 8 and 161 consecutive life- sentences respectively. Timothy McVeigh (Murrah building bombing) was serving there until being removed to be executed elsewhere.
Brian
True, most of your "domestic" incidents were the work of loners /pairs of nutters rather than organised bodies.
You had the Unabomber sending out letter bombs from the late 70's until the mid 90's followed by the Oklahoma truck bombing also in the mid 90's IIRC closely followed by the Olympic bombing in 96.
Mind you you've also had your fair share of non terrorist race/religion based "troubles" over the years to compensate ;)
-
Excellent point about increased security from the '80's having a direct link to the methodology used in 2001 and one that I have not heard or considered before. But I think you are right.
Not saying anyone or any change in security is to be blamed at all, just the unintended consequences of certain acts.
Brian
sad to say but as Brian said (in not so many words) , if somebody wants to do something they will find a way.
It could be argued that he methodology used on 9/11 was predicated by improved security around hold luggage after bombings such as Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 in the mid to late 80's
I was in Toronto at the time of the Air India bomb actually staying in the same hotel that the flight crew had been staying in and flew out myself 2 days later.
-
there's also the mindset to consider.
Back in the 70's there were a large number of aircraft hijackings, the big difference is that the people responsible were more generally intent on living than dying. (Operation Entebbe is one that springs to mind plus there were a couple of others involfing German aircraft & the PLO)
You could ask yourself why airlines etc didn't react back then to secure cockpit doors, dare I say (without meaning to offend anyone) that there was a degree of NIMBYism at work that you guys didn't get until 9/11
[NIMBY =Not In My BackYard for those not familiar]
Interesting aside from a Mass Murder-Suicide that took place in California in 1964 (I don't remember that one, I was only born in March that year)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Air_Lines_Flight_773
Aftermath
Civil air regulation amendments became effective on August 6, 1964, that required that doors separating the passenger cabin from the crew compartment on all scheduled air carrier and commercial aircraft must be kept locked in flight.[4] An exception to the rule remains during takeoff and landing on certain aircraft, such as the Fairchild F-27, where the cockpit door leads to an emergency passenger exit. The amendments were passed by the Federal Aviation Administration prior to the crash of Flight 773, but had not yet become effective.
Was that repealed at some point then ?
-
As an American, I agree with you 100% and take no offense at all. And I think you are correct: we did not have to deal with the problem because we did not have the problem, or at least not until we ventured out of our country.
We are all in this boat: we only really react to that which benefits us or cause us misery. Both of our countries are heavily involved in the Middle East, wading through 'their' problems. But not much interest or effort in, say, African countries where there are all kinds of social problems, wars, and so forth. But little- to- no Western country intervention..... because they have nothing of interest to us such as. What has us in the Mideast is one single item: oil. We say we are there in the interests of humanity but the real reason is a smaller slice of humanity, specifically 'us' and that includes you (UK). So we maintain a presence and to a large degree, control over sections of the region.... and the oil flows. BTW: both of my sons served in 'The Sand Box', one in Afghanistan, twice, back in the early, harsher days and the other in Iraq in relative safety of a large compound. Both came home mostly fine (no physical wounds) and functional though not without some lasting damage. And the oil continues to flow.
Man, we're gonna' need a joke or three to lighten up this thread; real life is so often not fun.
Brian
there's also the mindset to consider.
Back in the 70's there were a large number of aircraft hijackings, the big difference is that the people responsible were more generally intent on living than dying. (Operation Entebbe is one that springs to mind plus there were a couple of others involfing German aircraft & the PLO)
You could ask yourself why airlines etc didn't react back then to secure cockpit doors, dare I say (without meaning to offend anyone) that there was a degree of NIMBYism at work that you guys didn't get until 9/11
[NIMBY =Not In My BackYard for those not familiar]
-
Man, we're gonna' need a joke or three to lighten up this thread; real life is so often not fun.
Indeed. Lest someone bring up the concept that if you give in to terrorists or their demands, then you automatically give them power and encourage them to continue to do the same thing. As heartless as it sounds, refusing to negotiate with terrorists denies them power and shows them they can't win.
Ironically, since now certain breeds of terrorists place no value on their OWN life (suicide bombers, etc), we are free to categorize them as irrational and impossible to negotiate with... they are going to kill everyone in their power, anyway. If they have a plane, or a set of hostages, there is no point in trying to negotiate with these types of terrorists, just move to the next step of whatever you have to do to stop them as quickly as possible (like send in the SWAT) just hoping to minimize the inevitable damage.
-
Man, we're gonna' need a joke or three to lighten up this thread; real life is so often not fun.
Well if you believe in the maxim that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter then the entire US of A (since Independence) is founded on terrorism
:D
-
Gotta ask.... Do you Brits feel safer?
Telegraph.co.uk
One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
Britain has a CCTV camera for every 11 people, a security industry report disclosed, as privacy campaigners criticised the growth of the “surveillance state”.
I think the answer to that is...where a person lives....we live in a small village, if we have any trouble it's small stuff like somebody's dog barking. On the other side of the coin, there are some places like Birmingham, London, etc where I would not feel safe.
Both the USA & UK are experiencing some real big problems over the last few years, CCTV has been very helpful at piecing together the run-up to the attacks....but do we feel safe??? I would say yes to a point.
-
Thank you , gentlemen. I appreciate the candor as the question was asked in all seriousness.
-
An extremely important point that is also not politically correct to talk about, at least not in the US. Our (US) murder rate is high but it is extremely isolated in very well defined and very limited areas. Almost every day there are news headlines about murders in Chicago but that is misleading to the point that it is a lie: the high rate of murder occurs in the South side of Chicago, not Chicago. Same exact thing with Los Angeles, New York City (high crime rates are tied to both the boroughs; Queens, The Bronx, Staten Island, Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as specific areas w/in those boroughs. So is New York City safe? It depends entirely on where you are standing and the risk of being injured / robbed or involved or the victim of a crime, especially a violent crime varies from substantial to just about zero. Some time ago, Washington D.C. was the murder capitol of the US.... but not on Embassy row, in front of the White house, on the capitol steps, and in any number of neighborhoods.
And the same goes for our (the US) little bursts of outrageously bad behavior such as Ferguson, MO and several other communities; these events simply do not occur where I live and I do not mean very often, I mean they DO NOT HAPPEN at all. So my risk of getting caught in one of those total breakdowns of order and out- of- control looting, shooting and arson on a city- wide level is zero.
So again, while we (US) have a lot of shootings / murders, come visit me and we can sit outside in lawn chairs and wait for the most exciting things to happen.... and I betcha' you get bored and fall asleep before any such 'event' appears.
Brian
I think the answer to that is...where a person lives....we live in a small village, if we have any trouble it's small stuff like somebody's dog barking. On the other side of the coin, there are some places like Birmingham, London, etc where I would not feel safe.
Both the USA & UK are experiencing some real big problems over the last few years, CCTV has been very helpful at piecing together the run-up to the attacks....but do we feel safe??? I would say yes to a point.
-
So again, while we (US) have a lot of shootings / murders, come visit me and we can sit outside in lawn chairs and wait for the most exciting things to happen.... and I betcha' you get bored and fall asleep before any such 'event' appears.
Brian
Why just a few weekends ago, I was sitting outside in said lawn chair under a beautiful maple tree (no burls unfortunately) watching traffic go by in Southside VA (US 58). I was hoping to see the odd ambulance, fire engine, or police car with lights a blazing go by, but sadly nothing happened. Wait a minute, something did happen! The local porta potty guy came by in his truck. Talked about that for a few minutes, let me tell you! Didn't get a chance to fall asleep with all that excitement.
-
Not sure who you are addressing here Gary, and I assume it is not me but this has been an interesting conversation.
One more thought as something to consider: I do not believe we have even addressed or even identified the real problems in our society and in fact are making some really poor decisions because of that. We are treating the symptoms without even acknowledging the source of the problem. I will give two examples as I see them:
1) We have a crime is some specific areas of the US, almost all that are socio- economically disadvantages. Call them what you want, slums, the 'inner cities', whatever. And of course the two basic problems are a) gangs and b) simply generic bad behavior due to a breakdown or simple lack of the social fabric and mechanism of our society. High school drop- out rates puts a lot of young people on the street. A lack of jobs forces all residents to take low paying jobs (further promoting poverty) and drives people into gangs and drug trafficking. We treat this problem with stronger law enforcement and harsher treatment, along with LOTS of money spent on programs designed to occupy these people, manufacturer jobs and so forth. But the truly disastrous problem is drug trafficing and gang affiliation (and their prime focus is to corner the markets on drug trafficking.... capitalism working exactly as it should). I propose this is not the root cause of the problem at all and is, in fact, a gross miss- identification of the real problem: The real problem is all the middle- class, mostly young, white people who travel to these areas to buy drugs for recreational use, thus fueling the ENTIRE problem with the influx of money. Think about it for one moment: how would inner city kids be able to procure illicit firearms, have the ability to form gangs and so on without a supply of money? And what is that supply, robbing the other, disadvantaged neighbor who is just as poor as the crime's perpetrator? That does not make sense and cannot be the case. Again it is outside (outside the trouble areas), far more affluent areas fueling these problem areas by buying illicit drugs. 1) identify the problem, and it is that flow of money. 2) Do something about it: suppose we start arresting, detaining and punishing the people supplying the money at the lowest level, the casual drug user? Dry up the money supply and the other problems are no longer fueled and either stop or are greatly reduces. I would take credit for this ingenious insight but c'mon, there is no better example on the planet than Prohibition: outlawing alcohol, in one single step, created organized crime in the US.
So lets' review: Certain areas of Chicago have a gun problem. False, certain areas of Chicago procure firearms do to the nature of the business of supplying illicit drugs to the rest of America. Certain areas of Chicago have a violence problem. False, certain areas of Chicago have a high instance of whatever is required to maintain or increase their base business, supplying drugs to America. Stop the flow of money from illegal behavior in Chicago and the major problems disappear. Of course that will not make Chicago problem- free, but it would get the artificial problems out of the way and then we could address the real problems of education, jobs, and provide an workable infrastructure instead of spending all our time and resources trying to stop a problem with one hand while we fuel and encourage it with the other.
Illegal immigration has an even more direct solution and again, we are miss- identifying the base problem. But I will save that one for later
We are trying to 'fix' that which is not a core problem in the first place.
Thank you , gentlemen. I appreciate the candor as the question was asked in all seriousness.
-
Brian, my tongue in cheek take away from that is 1) It's not the Mexican cartels or the Colombian drug lords or the Afgan taliban that supplies the US and the world with drugs. They are just a bunch of opportunists trying to make a buck. Rather, it's anyone who has smoked a joint, packed their nose or missed a vein that's at fault. So if the market is eliminated, killed, imprisoned or lobotimized those murdurous butchers would go back to a peaceful agrarian lifestyle and not be corrupted by an immoral society. 2) Make cash and barter illegal and no one would have a means to procure anything not fedgov approved.
And as far as the splitting hairs about Chiraq. From a downstate point of view there is little distinction whether it's southside, northside, downtown it's all the same problem.
As far as fixing problems that's what the fedgov is for and it's here to help you. Just ask anyone who has been enabled by the gov to remain in a state of poverty and depression for generations.
-
Yeah, I probably expressed myself poorly, and my ideas may well be incorrect.
Brian
Brian, my tongue in cheek take away from that is 1) It's not the Mexican cartels or the Colombian drug lords or the Afgan taliban that supplies the US and the world with drugs. They are just a bunch of opportunists trying to make a buck. Rather, it's anyone who has smoked a joint, packed their nose or missed a vein that's at fault. So if the market is eliminated, killed, imprisoned or lobotimized those murdurous butchers would go back to a peaceful agrarian lifestyle and not be corrupted by an immoral society. 2) Make cash and barter illegal and no one would have a means to procure anything not fedgov approved.
And as far as the splitting hairs about Chiraq. From a downstate point of view there is little distinction whether it's southside, northside, downtown it's all the same problem.
As far as fixing problems that's what the fedgov is for and it's here to help you. Just ask anyone who has been enabled by the gov to remain in a state of poverty and depression for generations.
-
apologies for almost going back to the original subject matter ;)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDw6dQpmgos#)
-
Why just a few weekends ago, I was sitting outside in said lawn chair under a beautiful maple tree (no burls unfortunately) watching traffic go by in Southside VA (US 58). I was hoping to see the odd ambulance, fire engine, or police car with lights a blazing go by, but sadly nothing happened. Wait a minute, something did happen! The local porta potty guy came by in his truck. Talked about that for a few minutes, let me tell you! Didn't get a chance to fall asleep with all that excitement.
Reminds me of a Python skit :
June the 4th, 1973, was much like any other summer's day in Peterborough, and Ralph Melish, a file clerk at an insurance company, was on his way to work as usual when... (da dum!) Nothing happened! (dum dum da dum) Scarcely able to believe his eyes, Ralph Melish looked down. But one glance confirmed his suspicions. Behind a bush, on the side of the road, there was *no* severed arm. No dismembered trunk of a man in his late fifties. No head in a bag. Nothing. Not a sausage. For Ralph Melish, this was *not* to be the start of any trail of events which would not, in no time at all, involve him in neither a tangled knot of suspicion, nor any web of lies, which would, had he been not uninvolved, surely have led him to no other place, than the central criminal court of the Old Bailey.
But it was not to be (ominous music returns). Ralph Melish reached his office in Dullsells Street in Peterborough, at 9:05 a.m., exactly the same time as he usually got in!
Enid: Morning, Mr. Melish
Ralph: Morning, Enid
Enid, a sharp-eyed, clever young girl, who had been with the firm for only 4 weeks, couldn't help noticing the complete absence of tiny but tell-tale blood stains on Mr. Melish's clothing. Nor did she notice anything strange in Mr. Melish's behaviour that whole morning. Nor the next morning. Nor at any time before or since the entire period she worked for that firm.
Ralph: Have the new paper clips arrived, Enid?
Enid: Yes, they're over there, Mr. Melish.
Ralph: (faintly) Oh...
But for the lack of any untoward circumstances for this young secretary to notice, and the total non-involvement of Mr. Melish in anything illegal, the full weight of the law would have insured that Ralph Auldus Melish would have ended up like all who challenge the fundamental laws of our society. In an iron coffin with spikes on the inside.
Jamie
-
apologies for almost going back to the original subject matter ;)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDw6dQpmgos#)
:rotflmao: You can pick up your replacement gun and some whiskey and have a "fine weekend hunting".
-
Nah, I am still stuck on other subject :)
I don't think it is drug users or suppliers or gangs. People will always want drugs, so they will always be supplied. Gangs are a symptom of the underlying problem. Take drugs out of the picture and they would just shift to gambling or theft, or robbery or extortion, or whatever.
I believe the fundamental problem is the lack of properly raising children. It seems most everything boils down to that. It doesn't matter all that much how much money, where you live, what schools you go to, the color of your skin, it is about having loving, supportive parents who actually participate in the upbringing and imparting moral values to their children while acting as positive role models. Sure, other factors can interfere with the ABILITY to do that, but the total destruction of the "family" (baby momma, baby daddy, welfare bonues) puts kids at such a disadvantage they grow up desperately wanting love, attention, and to "belong" and seek out gangs which provide that. Without any moral compass, they do whatever they want, like animals would- live by instinct. That leads to dropping out of school, crime, that leads to being hurt/killed/arrested, that leads to felonies, that leads to not being able to vote or get a job even if wanted, that leads to further crime and anger.... oh and somewhere in there- having token children; someone to "loooooooove" them and make them feel important and grown-up while getting sympathy and money too, and the cycle is completed.
-
OK, that was a rational statement so I will play along a bit more..... "Alex, I will take 'What is at the root of all things' for one- million dollars..... squared.".
You may well have valid points but again, there are far simpler, base reasons for things and they are never that complex. Why does GM make cars? Well, we could go on about their capital investments in manufacturing lines, or the fact that they really, really like to make cars, or that their parents and grandparents worked for GM and made cars and so forth. But the real reason is because it is profitable. Everything follows that, and it applies to all businesses.
Your point, and I believe Gary's was the same a couple of posts ago about people being fundamentally 'evil', 'improperly socialized' (like bad Doberman dogs ;) ;D , the breakdown of social values, etc., etc. is not the root problem causing the problems we have, especially in some areas of the country. The problem is that the activities they do are profitable, and they then spend a substantial amount of those profits re- investing in their infrastructure, just like GM, except it is in illicit firearms and so forth to maintain their business, again just like GM. Cut off the supply of money and all you would have is bad people (really, bad people for whatever social, economic or any / all other reasons) without any ability to cause widespread harm. Sure they can rob / hurt / kill a few people but they could not build any type of hierarchical structure to cause a LOT of harm to a LOT of people and area. But once fueled with enough money, they can, and do, build that infrastructure (we call them gangs but that is really irrelevant) and they do cause significant damage. And in turn, the rest of society has to respond to this 'living large' bad behavior and spend considerable resources trying to stop it.
History is full of excellent examples if a person can just get past the words: substitute 'gangs' for 'nations' and read up on the Opium Wars: a fascinating example of bad behavior on a national level (two nations actually), resulting in three separate wars, all over an illicit substance (opium) that was being used to stave off national bankruptcy over tea. Seriously, tea.
When a nation- state invades or attacks another nation- state, it is really nothing more than armed robbery and extortion writ large. If there was not a perceived profit in it, no one would do it, and that works all the way to an international level. Cut off the funding and it dries up and blows away.
I never suggested bad behavior was the result of any action by a large group of people and I am not suggesting it now. But what I am saying is that the magnitude of some specific social problems in the US such as truly excessive violence in, for example, specific parts of Chicago (and many other cities) is only a big problem because it is very well funded. Cut off that money and the problem falls down to a manageable level again.
So I will state what I believe is the root cause of our urban violence one more time: it is middle- class Americans purchasing illicit drugs that is funding all of the organized, large scale violence, every single facet of it. Cut off the funding and it will wither on the proverbial vine. Another facet of this overall situation is that removing some or even most of the major 'players' or even damage an entire organization badly and another will simply spring up to fill that same demand and grab those same profits. Again, history has shown us this time and time again; kill Pablo Escobar and disable the Medellin cartel and the Cali cartel steps right in with cocaine trafficking into the US every single step along the way. The only constant is that demand and the potential profits.
And none of this is limited to drugs; the organized violence in the Mideast is fueled by petroleum, African warlords are fueled by 'blood' diamonds and on and on.
Most of us look at the problem(s) on far too small a scale. Start with the big picture and work down from there.
Brian
Nah, I am still stuck on other subject :)
I don't think it is drug users or suppliers or gangs. People will always want drugs, so they will always be supplied. Gangs are a symptom of the underlying problem. Take drugs out of the picture and they would just shift to gambling or theft, or robbery or extortion, or whatever.
I believe the fundamental problem is the lack of properly raising children. It seems most everything boils down to that. It doesn't matter all that much how much money, where you live, what schools you go to, the color of your skin, it is about having loving, supportive parents who actually participate in the upbringing and imparting moral values to their children while acting as positive role models. Sure, other factors can interfere with the ABILITY to do that, but the total destruction of the "family" (baby momma, baby daddy, welfare bonues) puts kids at such a disadvantage they grow up desperately wanting love, attention, and to "belong" and seek out gangs which provide that. Without any moral compass, they do whatever they want, like animals would- live by instinct. That leads to dropping out of school, crime, that leads to being hurt/killed/arrested, that leads to felonies, that leads to not being able to vote or get a job even if wanted, that leads to further crime and anger.... oh and somewhere in there- having token children; someone to "loooooooove" them and make them feel important and grown-up while getting sympathy and money too, and the cycle is completed.
-
Reminds me of a Python skit :
Jamie
:thumbs:
-
Nah, I am still stuck on other subject :)
I don't think it is drug users or suppliers or gangs. People will always want drugs, so they will always be supplied. Gangs are a symptom of the underlying problem. Take drugs out of the picture and they would just shift to gambling or theft, or robbery or extortion, or whatever.
I believe the fundamental problem is the lack of properly raising children. It seems most everything boils down to that. It doesn't matter all that much how much money, where you live, what schools you go to, the color of your skin, it is about having loving, supportive parents who actually participate in the upbringing and imparting moral values to their children while acting as positive role models. Sure, other factors can interfere with the ABILITY to do that, but the total destruction of the "family" (baby momma, baby daddy, welfare bonues) puts kids at such a disadvantage they grow up desperately wanting love, attention, and to "belong" and seek out gangs which provide that. Without any moral compass, they do whatever they want, like animals would- live by instinct. That leads to dropping out of school, crime, that leads to being hurt/killed/arrested, that leads to felonies, that leads to not being able to vote or get a job even if wanted, that leads to further crime and anger.... oh and somewhere in there- having token children; someone to "loooooooove" them and make them feel important and grown-up while getting sympathy and money too, and the cycle is completed.
I agree with Max on this one.
-
Nah, I am still stuck on other subject :)
I don't think it is drug users or suppliers or gangs. People will always want drugs, so they will always be supplied. Gangs are a symptom of the underlying problem. Take drugs out of the picture and they would just shift to gambling or theft, or robbery or extortion, or whatever.
I believe the fundamental problem is the lack of properly raising children. It seems most everything boils down to that. It doesn't matter all that much how much money, where you live, what schools you go to, the color of your skin, it is about having loving, supportive parents who actually participate in the upbringing and imparting moral values to their children while acting as positive role models. Sure, other factors can interfere with the ABILITY to do that, but the total destruction of the "family" (baby momma, baby daddy, welfare bonues) puts kids at such a disadvantage they grow up desperately wanting love, attention, and to "belong" and seek out gangs which provide that. Without any moral compass, they do whatever they want, like animals would- live by instinct. That leads to dropping out of school, crime, that leads to being hurt/killed/arrested, that leads to felonies, that leads to not being able to vote or get a job even if wanted, that leads to further crime and anger.... oh and somewhere in there- having token children; someone to "loooooooove" them and make them feel important and grown-up while getting sympathy and money too, and the cycle is completed.
Well said, Max!
-
Yep, that idea could sell. And then we can set up vast programs to implement the fixes to eliminate those problems. Just like we 'fixed' organized crime during Prohibition.
Still, in the end, it is unfortunate that we have problems of this magnitude at all and do not seem to be making much headway, at least as far as my limited view shows me.
And what trumps it all is the fact that almost none of it is in our neighborhoods (talking about Concours riders) so NIMBY works. There are still turds in the cat box but 1) the box is not in front of the TV and 2) the cat makes an effort to hide them so it is tolerable if not wonderful.
Brian
P.S. No cats were harmed in the typing of this post.
Well said, Max!
-
We should build a big beautiful wall around the cat box.
-
Yep, that idea could sell. And then we can set up vast programs to implement the fixes to eliminate those problems.
I don't think there is any easy fix, certainly not vast government run programs. Less government would probably help a lot, since it is what supports quite a bit of it (through the "war" on drugs and welfare programs that promote not working, promote having babies, penalize marriage, etc).
-
And make the cat pay for it. ;) ::)
Brian
We should build a big beautiful wall around the cat box.
-
On this we are in 100% agreement. Social engineering is complex, difficult and always full of pitfalls such as unintended consequences and similar. On some level, you pays your money and you takes the results, some good, some bad and a lot of surprises.
And again, thanks to all for a civil discussion: it is always a pleasant surprise when discussing thing such as these issues that so often awake really large emotion responses.
Maybe we should turn things upside down and shut down the 'Crazy Channel for 72 hours and force them to read some of the threads on this forum as an example of a discussion rather than a screaming, chest- pounding match.
Brian
I don't think there is any easy fix, certainly not vast government run programs. Less government would probably help a lot, since it is what supports quite a bit of it (through the "war" on drugs and welfare programs that promote not working, promote having babies, penalize marriage, etc).
-
On this we are in 100% agreement. Social engineering is complex, difficult and always full of pitfalls such as unintended consequences and similar. On some level, you pays your money and you takes the results, some good, some bad and a lot of surprises.
And again, thanks to all for a civil discussion: it is always a pleasant surprise when discussing thing such as these issues that so often awake really large emotion responses.
Maybe we should turn things upside down and shut down the 'Crazy Channel for 72 hours and force them to read some of the threads on this forum as an example of a discussion rather than a screaming, chest- pounding match.
Brian
That would be 1) if they can read and 2) not allow them to post.
-
Maybe we should not have all these gummint programs which promote bad behavior.
And with the last post this "civil discussion" is no longer civil.
-
That would be 1) if they can read and 2) not allow them to post.
Not allow who to post?
-
Not allow who to post?
The people from the mystery crazy channel
-
Not allow who to post?
cmp
-
What does CMP mean, really? Cause I still haven't figured it out.
-
Didn't you get your decoder ring?
-
I don't think I need a decoder ring. My sword works quite nicely.
-
The answer to the question is ... brown cows. If you know the question, CMP will become abundantly clear.
-
The answer to the question is ... brown cows. If you know the question, CMP will become abundantly clear.
Brown cows make chocolate milk, of course. Which also means that anorexic cows make skim milk. Fat cows make cream. Slippery cows make butter.
-
Brown cows make chocolate milk, of course. Which also means that anorexic cows make skim milk. Fat cows make cream. Slippery cows make butter.
Does that mean black cows make coal?
-
That is a really unpleasant thought. If I had to read through the garbage they put out I would want my subscription funds back.
Brian
That would be 1) if they can read and 2) not allow them to post.
-
The answer to the question is ... brown cows. If you know the question, CMP will become abundantly clear.
Still don't know...
And yes, Mikey, black cows make coal.
-
sigh...chocolate milk people
-
C'mon Jim, try to keep up.
;D
Brian
What does CMP mean, really? Cause I still haven't figured it out.
-
It's all I can do to keep up with my tv shows...
Ok, thanks, now I know. I'm not much on chocky milk, much prefer vodka or good beer.
-
What does CMP mean, really? Cause I still haven't figured it out.
The answer to the question is ... brown cows. If you know the question, CMP will become abundantly clear.
Still don't know...
sigh...chocolate milk people
Lucy! If the joke has to be 'splained then it ain't funny no more.
-
http://youtu.be/V3FnpaWQJO0 (http://youtu.be/V3FnpaWQJO0)
-
Lucy! If the joke has to be 'splained then it ain't funny no more.
I get that all the time with the punchline to the 2 nuns in a bath joke ;)
-
Don't feel bad Jim, I spent way too much time (like maybe 10 minutes) trying to figure out what CMP means. Now it's one of my favorite acronyms.
-
Yeah, like a modern, stealthy version of Cicero's "The multitude of fools is a protection to the wise.”. He could not say that out- loud, in public but CMP will fly just about anywhere. ;) ;D
Brian (some days the protected, some days the protection)
Don't feel bad Jim, I spent way too much time (like maybe 10 minutes) trying to figure out what CMP means. Now it's one of my favorite acronyms.
-
If anyone needed further evidence that 'we're' doomed.
Google 'Blue Whale Game'. :o
-
It's those damn Russians again. Must be Trump's fault.
-
If anyone needed further evidence that 'we're' doomed.
Google 'Blue Whale Game'. :o
Yeah I saw something about that on facetwit (another Brian term I love!). Man that is screwed up!
-
It's those damn Russians again. Must be Trump's fault.
I suppose that the blue whale game might be a bit more fun than that other Russian game of roulette. Although they both end the same way.
-
It seems that algebra is too difficult for some segments of the community college student population and they're failing these classes left and right.
The solution? Eliminate that math requirement. :o
http://northernpublicradio.org/post/say-goodbye-xy-should-community-colleges-abolish-algebra (http://northernpublicradio.org/post/say-goodbye-xy-should-community-colleges-abolish-algebra)
-
So in the general scheme of life, what is Algebra going to do for me?
-
So in the general scheme of life, what is Algebra going to do for me?
So lets apply algebra to important matters in the form of a word problem:
If a man drinks 3 bottles of beer per day, how much scotch will he need to buy for the weekend?
See if you have the algebra skills to solve this equation, you will know exactly how much scotch to buy instead of just guessing!
-
Well, assuming he will be buying Scotch on both of his standard liquor store trips over one weekend (two days to a weekend, right?), and using a ratio of 4 Beers = 1 Scotch, I would use the following formula:
E = 2*(Sc + 4B) / D * Bu
Where:
B = beer
Sc = Scotch
St = 'Stumbles', or trips to the liquor store
E = 'Enough', which means too much
D = Day, or one haze filled period of too much brightness followed by just enough darkness
Bu = Buffer or multiplier to assure there will be no sobriety in the event of something extending 'D' above such as 1) an arrest, 2) Daylight savings time kicks in, making a D longer than usual, etc.
Let Bu = 2 because there is no need to take any chances of a 'sudden onset of sobriety'
So, in substitution, (Sc + 4B) * 2 becomes 8 Beers and 2 Scotches, divided by 2, which is 4 beers and 1 Scotch and then some more confusing, unnecessary math and we get:
Stumble to liquor store, empty pockets onto counter and say "Me need dis much drink now" and have friendly store staff treat me with respect and dignity, giving me the proper amount of Thunderbird on each day that I regain consciousness.
No need for Algebra at all. In fact, it will yield only frustration and a greater need for alcohol, as well as making one long for the simpler, gentler days when the hard part of a day was figuring out a simple Coriolis problem.
Brian
So lets apply algebra to important matters in the form of a word problem:
If a man drinks 3 bottles of beer per day, how much scotch will he need to buy for the weekend?
See if you have the algebra skills to solve this equation, you will know exactly how much scotch to buy instead of just guessing!
-
So in the general scheme of life, what is Algebra going to do for me?
Cross multiplication, the simplest of algebra. I actually use that very frequently for computing things and it is quite useful. I occasionally need and use geometry too (mostly when building something). What I have never found a use for is calculus. Well, except a few times with limits (as something approaches infinity) but that is barely calculus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-multiplication
-
So lets apply algebra to important matters in the form of a word problem:
If a man drinks 3 bottles of beer per day, how much scotch will he need to buy for the weekend?
See if you have the algebra skills to solve this equation, you will know exactly how much scotch to buy instead of just guessing!
Well, I just had three bottles of beer and have a half bottle of Scotch in the cabinet. So I don't need to buy any. The answer is 0. I also had Saki tonight as a sleeping aid. Didn't need Algebra for that.
This brings up a good point. I have issues with word problems, head games, picking out one cigarette brand out of a whole case, finding a specific brand of cereal in the cereal aisle of the grocery store.. I just don't deal with that sort of thing well. My wife has always thought I was strange in a multitude of ways.
-
Well, I just had three bottles of beer and have a half bottle of Scotch in the cabinet. So I don't need to buy any. The answer is 0. I also had Saki tonight as a sleeping aid. Didn't need Algebra for that.
This brings up a good point. I have issues with word problems, head games, picking out one cigarette brand out of a whole case, finding a specific brand of cereal in the cereal aisle of the grocery store.. I just don't deal with that sort of thing well. My wife has always thought I was strange in a multitude of ways.
How's your wife's algebra skills?
-
Geometry and Trigonometry are probably the most often used types of mathematics for 'real world' needs. Algebra would be last IMO and with about one- gazillion apps and smart phones everywhere, doing any of these by hand is of no advantage whatsoever. In fact, I am a big fan of less mathematics theory taught in schools (all schools, through advanced degrees) and more on how to use the tools we have now.
Calculus. Actually, I think calculus is not only used but needed a lot more often than most people think. But usually it has been used to reduce a problem to a generic formula and most people just use the resultant formulas without ever realizing that they were products of calculus in the first place, and I think that is just the way it should be. But for an example: I do not know of any way to calculate the area of a circle without using calculus. Another example is the energy contained in a moving piece of mass, using the formula 1/2 MV^2 (one- half mass X velocity squared). That is actually the most basic of all integrals.
Brian
Cross multiplication, the simplest of algebra. I actually use that very frequently for computing things and it is quite useful. I occasionally need and use geometry too (mostly when building something). What I have never found a use for is calculus. Well, except a few times with limits (as something approaches infinity) but that is barely calculus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-multiplication
-
I just posted in the 'what are you watching' thread about the movie Dunkirk. Which, of course, got me to thinking about Winnie (as I like to call him ;D, Winston Churchill). A superb human in so very many ways, and one who happened to be at the right time to occupy the correct place (that he correctly and logically ascended to) to be able to put a really large oar in the water and steer world events for the better.
The reason I am posting here is that Winston Churchill is one of many examples, though often there do not seem to be enough, of those who counter the CMP's of the world. Now of course the ratio of 'Winnie's' to CMP is terribly small but that too is OK because the ratio of ability is also scaled accordingly; literally millions of CMP cannot offset the progress made by the likes of Mr. Churchill.
So for those 'up to thier eyeballs' with FaceTwit nonsense, which now rises all the way to.... well, I cannot even say the words.... but for those fearful and actually think we are, as this thread is titled, doomed, may I suggest taking a few moments out of what might be your own FaceTwit time and listen to a few wise, moving and world- shaping words by some able people. In honor of Dunkirk (the event) let's start with a few by a fat man with a mild speech impediment who contributed far more than his fair share.
This was a speech given to the House of Commons, right after he became Prime Minister and the Germans had launched their offensive in the west, 13 May, 1940. I found an audio version: "Blood, tears, toil and sweat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TlkN-dcDCk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TlkN-dcDCk)
This speech, again given to the House of Commons, 4 June 1940, right after a crushing defeat of European forces, including virtually all of Britain's land forces available to that area, by the Germans:
"We shall fight on the beaches" (I think my favorite)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc)
And finally, a speech given also to the House of Commons on 18 June 1940 after the avoidance of what would have absolutely become a true disaster, about events at Dunkirk:
"This was their finest hour"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4BVzYGeF0M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4BVzYGeF0M)
Brian
-
How's your wife's algebra skills?
I think my math book learning is somewhat ahead of her math skills, however she is way smarter than me in all sorts of ways. I don't know how I would have made out in life without her.
-
Well, assuming he will be buying Scotch on both of his standard liquor store trips over one weekend (two days to a weekend, right?), and using a ratio of 4 Beers = 1 Scotch, I would use the following formula:
E = 2*(Sc + 4B) / D * Bu
Where:
B = beer
Sc = Scotch
St = 'Stumbles', or trips to the liquor store
E = 'Enough', which means too much
D = Day, or one haze filled period of too much brightness followed by just enough darkness
Bu = Buffer or multiplier to assure there will be no sobriety in the event of something extending 'D' above such as 1) an arrest, 2) Daylight savings time kicks in, making a D longer than usual, etc.
Let Bu = 2 because there is no need to take any chances of a 'sudden onset of sobriety'
So, in substitution, (Sc + 4B) * 2 becomes 8 Beers and 2 Scotches, divided by 2, which is 4 beers and 1 Scotch and then some more confusing, unnecessary math and we get:
Stumble to liquor store, empty pockets onto counter and say "Me need dis much drink now" and have friendly store staff treat me with respect and dignity, giving me the proper amount of Thunderbird on each day that I regain consciousness.
No need for Algebra at all. In fact, it will yield only frustration and a greater need for alcohol, as well as making one long for the simpler, gentler days when the hard part of a day was figuring out a simple Coriolis problem.
Brian
:rotflmao: Ok, another great Brian acronym. For me, SOS no longer means Save Our Souls, instead it now means Sudden Onset Sobriety. Doctor! This man is suffering from SOS! 1 liter IV Kettle One STAT!
-
More evidence.....and people are ok with this.... http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/ (http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/)
-
Yeah but at least that is voluntary. The most recent one that gave me a jolt was this one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-just-expanded-scary-231122065.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-just-expanded-scary-231122065.html)
Absolutely unbelievable IMO. Seizing assets not only without due process but BEFORE any defined accusation is even made! The Constitution is so short I would think anyone and everyone should have found the time to read the thing before growing hair everywhere, and have contemplated what it means to all individuals before that first big speeding ticket.
And while it would be easy enough to teach it in school, I have serious doubts that that could even happen anymore, at least anywhere near correctly.
Brian
More evidence.....and people are ok with this.... http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/ (http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/)
-
More evidence.....and people are ok with this.... http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/ (http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/)
Cool, hook it up to KIPASS ;)
-
Thanks but just calling it like I see it. Anything amusing is just a beneficial byproduct.... ;)
Brian
:rotflmao: Ok, another great Brian acronym. For me, SOS no longer means Save Our Souls, instead it now means Sudden Onset Sobriety. Doctor! This man is suffering from SOS! 1 liter IV Kettle One STAT!
-
Yeah but at least that is voluntary. The most recent one that gave me a jolt was this one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-just-expanded-scary-231122065.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-just-expanded-scary-231122065.html)
Absolutely unbelievable IMO. Seizing assets not only without due process but BEFORE any defined accusation is even made! The Constitution is so short I would think anyone and everyone should have found the time to read the thing before growing hair everywhere, and have contemplated what it means to all individuals before that first big speeding ticket.
And while it would be easy enough to teach it in school, I have serious doubts that that could even happen anymore, at least anywhere near correctly.
Brian
I expect the totalitarian crap from an overreaching government but people actually making a conscious choice to be chipped like a dog is scary.
-
I expect the totalitarian crap from an overreaching government but people actually making a conscious choice to be chipped like a dog is scary.
Big business can be just as scary as government sometimes. I have seen policies and requirements that are way beyond what I would call reasonable. For example, I heard that the big medical conglomerate here that controls most ALL the hospitals and healthcare delivery put out some draconian edict that employees couldn't use nicotine, at all (in ANY FORM).... not at lunch on break, at home, ANYWHERE. And they screen and TEST people! I mean, it is one thing to say what people can do at the job, but something legal when not on the clock??? And exactly what is the purpose? And what is next? No drinking alcohol when not at work? No caffeine? No junk food? No riding a motorcycle? I was shocked. And most local healthcare workers can't just elect to "work somewhere else" when one company controls 90% of those markets in a 2 million-person, 6-city area.
Back to the article.... "Optional" things like the chipping in the article, isn't necessarily "optional" if you are labeled a non "team-player" and such.
-
Now on this I agree 100%. Things such as this are simply outright violations of our most fundamental laws, rights and legal history, and the fact that anyone, let along what appears to be the entire society, represents to me that our 'system' has already failed.
I used to think some of the more extreme facets of American political / cultural elements were.... well, nut- bags. Truth be told, I still think that but can picture myself standing in the line of them now; how does it go- 'third from the left, recognized only by his mother, just another spear carrier'? Nut bags maybe but nut bags standing behind a line that says they will not yield to one or more outright unjust and more importantly, illegal actions.
We are rapidly trading our fundamental and most basic freedoms for safety or perceived safety and it is not and never, ever will be worthwhile. Not here anyway.
Brian
I expect the totalitarian crap from an overreaching government but people actually making a conscious choice to be chipped like a dog is scary.
-
More evidence.....and people are ok with this.... http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/ (http://kstp.com/news/wisconsin-company-to-implant-microchips-in-employees-three-square-market/4549459/)
Um... oh hell no. The company I work for has their own app that allows employees to order lunch or anything from the cafeteria. But to use the app you have to allow the company to install their own security software and basically control your phone. I said oh hell no to that as well. So even though I help design the damn phone, I'm one of the luddites that has to go to a separate kiosk to buy lunch because I don't allow them to own my phone. Chimp implant would be right out.
-
And your example is just 'them' 'watching' you.
Potential foster parents are being questioned, searched, and to varying degrees being denied either being foster parenting or firearms. Check out this little gem:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/19/lawsuit-alleges-michigan-agency-told-grandfather-hed-have-to-give-up-gun-rights-to-foster-his-grandson.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/19/lawsuit-alleges-michigan-agency-told-grandfather-hed-have-to-give-up-gun-rights-to-foster-his-grandson.html)
Now that is from Fox news, not the most neutral information source in the world. But the lawsuit is in the public domain and can be seen here: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MICHIGAN-1-Complaint.pdf (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MICHIGAN-1-Complaint.pdf)
And by the way, these people who are trying to be foster parents.... as the child's grandparents. To be approved to foster a child, even a blood- relative, the people applying will be fingerprinted, have access to their own firearms strictly limited, effectively be banned from lawful firearm carry even though the potential foster holds a valid carry permit, and have ALL of his (their) firearms documented with the state. Let us call it what it is: gun registration.
Interestingly enough, LEO personnel are exempt from these regulations.
This is an excerpt from the article at Fox news:
"Caseworkers from MDHHS and a county judge told William Johnson of Ontonagon, Mich., that he had to choose between his Second Amendment rights and fostering his grandson, according to a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The 54-year-old Johnson is a retired, disabled Marine with a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. He and his wife were asked by the state of Michigan to foster their grandson. According to Johnson's suit, however, the issues began as soon as he arrived at MDHHS to pick up the child.
Johnson said he was searched for a firearm and, although he was not carrying a gun, officials demanded to see his concealed carry license. He was then told he would need to give MDHHS the serial numbers of all of his firearms, including rifles and shotguns, and register them with the agency. After questioning why he would have to register his firearms in order to foster his grandson, Johnson said he was told by one caseworker, "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights." When he objected, he was told there would not be a "power struggle" and MDHHS "would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home" if he didn't comply with their requests."
Yep, to foster, even one's own grandchildren one must only give up some Constitutional rights. And which rights and how many, will be determined by the state child welfare officials who hold no public office, are not elected officials and are not answerable to the public at large.
FUBAR and the shame of it is that we, the collective 'we', are tolerating it. Hell, tolerating it, we are funding it!
Brian
Um... oh hell no. The company I work for has their own app that allows employees to order lunch or anything from the cafeteria. But to use the app you have to allow the company to install their own security software and basically control your phone. I said oh hell no to that as well. So even though I help design the damn phone, I'm one of the luddites that has to go to a separate kiosk to buy lunch because I don't allow them to own my phone. Chimp implant would be right out.
-
It's all an illusion.... https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf (https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf)
-
I saw an interesting thing a few weeks back. On the way to an appointment on a Thurs. afternoon, I happen to see a large, crew cab pickup truck pulling a large trailer. The truck and trailer were both new. The windows on the truck were tinted so dark that nothing could be seen inside (this was in full daylight). No markings whatsoever on either vehicle and no registration plate on the trailer. Following the vehicle down a local, secondary road, when it got to an intersection, both vehicles 'lit up' with blue, flashing LEDs, all over both vehicles. The truck pulled a tight U- turn and went back the way it had come. A few minutes later, I saw another set of the identical vehicles, coming from another direction and when they reached the next intersection, they did the exact same thing (lights, U-turn, back the same way). I did a little checking with some local folk (official folk who I believe were training with the folk in those trucks and trailers) and was told they belonged to a local city PD as part of the K-9 unit. Aha, sure. Big dogs and lots of them I guess.
Without any knowledge at all, this is what I suspect and why: those vehicles were new and at least two sets of them matched. No city or town around here has resources to buy such vehicles as they are still using Ford Police Interceptors from what, 7 years ago? Same thing for the state level, I believe those resources are just out of reach. That leaves the Fec., and at a truly WAG, I would suspect something like Homeland Security. Training with our local gendarmes. It was announced that there were going to be some joint exercises, concentrating on forced point entry.
Is there really much of a threat in the middle of southern New England that would warrant such tactics? Large groups of bunk'ered, International terrorists preparing to.... to.... to what? And to do that what, where?
Brian
It's all an illusion.... https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf (https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf)
-
....large groups of disillusioned, fed-up citizens with guns are an authoritarian government's worst nightmare. Venezuela is about to find out how many firearms were hidden from the gov.
-
Maybe. But only if the population has some organization and common goal; a bunch of loose people resisting "the Government" is not going to get very far. Then again, that organization of the people is SUPPOSED to BE the government in the first place.
I think in the US, accountability is a very important key to success. Just read this:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/26/Mississippi-cops-kill-man-when-they-go-to-wrong-address-on-arrest-warrant/2221501051117/ (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/26/Mississippi-cops-kill-man-when-they-go-to-wrong-address-on-arrest-warrant/2221501051117/)
and I have a number of questions: first, I would like to see some form of independent, non biased third party investigate this although that is probably impossible really. Second, there should be a line of accountability from the judge who signed the warrant, through the prosecutor's office and the police dept. to identify exactly who did what that ended up with what appears to be a citizen with no wants, warrants, or accusations dead in his home, shot by the police. I do not expect any agency to be exempt or free from mistakes but I do expect accountability and responsibility up to, and including IF WARRANTED, dismissal and criminal charges applied to any / all involved who did something sufficiently incorrect. We do not accept these types of things from other individuals (John knocked on Sam's door by mistake and ended up killing Sam but he is sorry so all is well..... yep, that does not fly) and I do not think we should accept them from gov't agencies either.
Brian
....large groups of disillusioned, fed-up citizens with guns are an authoritarian government's worst nightmare. Venezuela is about to find out how many firearms were hidden from the gov.