NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) Well, there's the problem. These squads aren't being held accountable. The cheifs say "we got bad information, how were we supposed to know it was the wrong address?" Or they make excuses for the guy who's trigger-finger slipped and killed someone. Sure, there are always examples like LAPD's Rampart Division, or CPD's SOS Unit... they clearly need better supervision. I would never argue otherwise.

Oh also, forgot to add... see the link Balta provided recently about new gen solar panels. They are getting much more efficient, much more quickly, now that more people are investing in them.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) Oh I agree, there are certainly some technologies which have shown to be effective and we are fairly certain are beneficial in the near-term as well as the far-term. However, your example of hybrid cars. The technology is far from perfected. The nickel-based battery used in hybrid cars is NOT a good thing. Take a look at this excerpt from an article on the topic: "Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare. “The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper. All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce? Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet. When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis. Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot. http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188 So the point is that we may not even know enough about the technology to determine whether it is actually beneficial in the long-term. It's probably better, for the time being, to buy a conventional vehicle that gets good gas mileage and try to keep your driving to a minimum, and when you do drive, not to speed, etc. As for some of your other examples, most of them are solid. Solar technology is increasing rapidly. Efficiencies in both panels and films are still low, but new nanotechnology has made it possible to increase efficiencies exponentially (this technology was recently used to power NASA's Mars rovers). Higher efficiency appliances are good. Mass Transit is good, but who are we kidding, we are not going to stop driving cars until it becomes economically unfeasible or against the law. The point is that a lot of technologies which we think are good simply are not. And that is often the result of quick fixes, single-mindedness, and not enough research. We need to find the best solutions before we act. And that takes time. The information about the nickel is interesting, though I find this editorial somewhat questionable in its conclusions. I do agree with the overall point though, that many technologies have unintended consequences. But you see, that is yet another reason to get some of them moving - to vet them out and see what needs to be changed. As the hybrids example goes, the newer hybrids are using lithium ion batteries.

You know, for all the negativity in this forum that is aimed at our public officials - rightly in many cases, and certainly myself included - this Presidential race is inspiring to me. There are a number of historically significant and dramatic things going on, not to mention that I actually feel some hope for where the country might go after BushCo skulks out of office. Not that I think everything will be la-la perfect, but that there is a scent on the air that some important things may actually change for the better - no matter which party takes the White House. Call me naive if you'd like. But I see just a little bit of silver lining. This thread highlights one of those things - involvement and voting was very high in Iowa, and appears to be very high in New Hampshire. That, to me, is awesome. I am really happy to see people get more involved in the process. Similarly, the large youth voter turnout trend is good to see. It really started a bit in 2004, more in the 2006 midterms, and now seems (so far) quite big in Iowa and NH. Not everything is so awful.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Now that I agree with. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. Blackwater, a private agency of thugs, scares me. Publically funded and highly legally-restricted police forces do not.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) This trend started out with that shootout with those bank robbers in LA. Since then, more and more towns are getting their own SWAT teams. These units are very expensive, and will be needed rarely, if ever. So, instead of letting the equipment sit around, they're using it in situations that they shouldn't. There's stories like the ones I posted from all over the country -- SWAT teams being used to serve warrants, situation escalates, someone dies. Or they burn down their house and kill their puppy. Or they assault the wrong home, and someone ends up getting shot. Actually, the trend was starting long before the North Hollywood shootout. Many communities had some incident they pointed to for the need. I remember, for example, in the late 80's, there was the whole Laurie Dann thing in Winnetka. I recall being locked into my high school while they looked for her. Anyway, not long after, Winnetka got their first automatic weapons. As for sitting around, most suburban and rural communities share resources for that exact reason. One town may have SWAT, but 10 other towns in the county may buy that SWAT team's services. And I tend to disagree with the idea that using SWAT for, say, warrant service, increases risk of problems. Quite the opposite, in my experience - a more professional, better trained and better equiped group will be more likely to execute a warrant with less risk of bad situations (shootings, hostages) than a bunch of regular uniforms. One more thing. Stories of these guys hitting the wrong house or what not are much like stories of DUI's... they are the result of people being stupid. But that doesn't mean you ban cars, or not have tactical police units. It means you train drivers and cops better, and throw the book at people who act stupidly when participating in a privileged activity (driving being a privilege, being on a special police unit the same).

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) So do you think that America's or England's gun laws are being put in place to move to a totalitarian state? No, I think that is highly unlikely. But its not impossible, in my view. I just don't trust my government (or any other) enough to make that sacrifice. Its not that I think its likely we'll end up like Nazi Germany or something - but I think its very possible we are headed generally towards a society that is too controlled by its government.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) I think it prove's that a goverment dosen't need to take away guns to over take it's people. I think it also points out that other factors are invloded in taking over a people, not just taking away their guns. I'm not for taking people's guns away. I'm for people having guns. I just think people in this country over react when talking about gun control. Well, since no one here has said that you NEED to take away a society's guns to control them, it seems to me you are the one overreacting. Taking away a nation's weapons is one tool in the box used by totalitarian regimes, and those who are moving in that direction (even if those moves are slight). There are certainly others - but saying that one oppresive policy is OK because others are not yet in place rings hollow to me.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) On the opposite end of the spectrum, more and more po-dunk city PD's are getting SWAT teams and just can't wait to use them: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/medical_raid http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7583987 http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm If you want to pretend you're some special ops unit, just join the military. Sometimes, the cops need access to the same hardware that the military does. Events occur, in this country, that are on scale with military-like situations. You may not like that, but is the solution to then allow then to run rampant? The funny thing is, many US police departments are adding tactical units for the express purpose of becoming more like departments in Europe or Australia/NZ - where you have specialized tactical units, and the mainline force is less well-armed and more community service-focused. This ultimately helps build a bridge between police forces and the communities they serve.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) It was a completely different situation. Many countries have tough gun laws and aren't trying to take over their people. The Myth of Nazi Gun Control By N. A. Browne A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government. The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].) A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided. The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns. So, if I am reading this correctly... the author thinks that because gun control was partially in place prior to the Nazis, and because other factors were involved in their ascendancy... that taking away their guns didn't have an effect? He doesn't even attempt to point out a correlation. Parallel events don't cancel each other out. The article proves nothing other than to say that other factors were involved, and the Nazis didn't invent the concept. What does that prove?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) Yeah cause that's how Hitler gained power. It was absolutely part of the process.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) Well, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by rushing any alternative energy solutions, that's for certain. The problem with the "Green" or Environmental Movement, in large part, is that so much of it is reactionary. We knew so little, and were so unaccustomed as a society to even caring, that often times we set in place solutions that on their face looked helpful, but actually made things worse. Both environmentally, and economically. Time is certainly running a bit short, but rushing to conclusions which are unsound and ill-informed only makes things worse, and there is absolutely no point in doing something simply to do something. We've done this countless times in our efforts to fix problems we have created, be it in our wildlife preservation strategies, or our attempts to use alternate cleaning solutions in industrial and commercial uses, etc., often times we simply make things worse. Spend the money, take the time, and get things right. Don't compound the problem by rushing into quick fixes. Like corn-based ethanol, for example? There are some things that there simply is little to fear, and which we can undertake now with a very high probability of avoiding those pitfalls. Solar energy and improving its efficiency, for example. Hybrid cars. Higher efficiency appliances. More mass transit. Encouraging and incenting the creation and protection of green space. Plenty can be done right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) And since I'll have all the guns... I disagree with you vehemently on this issue Balta, but... that was nicely played.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) So no one has seen 'There Will Be Blood' yet? Not yet, but its currently #1 on my list. Hope to see it soon. Looks fantastic.

Dixville Notch's 12:01am vote count... McCain 4 Romney 2 Giuliani 1

QUOTE(TheSoxSchwab @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) EXACTLY! at this point, the best acquisition for the Sox is a starting pitcher. Welcome aboard!

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) news from the NH front - look for some interesting results tomorrow night... that's all i'm gonna say. Well, he's down about 20 points in most polls. Anything he does other than finish a distant third would be "interesting". But I still think that unless he manages an upset and comes in 2nd, or unless Hillary drops out of the race... Edwards is toast. That said, I have to admit - I watched the rest of the debate from the other day, and even though I think Edwards' message is thin on details, he did come off rather well. He seemed genuinely inspired.

Not that national polls are great at this stage, but, the trend is interesting - and its indicative of what might happen on Super Tuesday. Two new national polls are out - Rasmussen's daily tracking poll started, and USA Today ran a poll... Rasmussen 4-Day Tracking Poll (for 1/3-6)... Clinton: 33% Obama: 29% Edwards: 20% Keep in mind that the Rasmussen lead just a week or two ago was almost 20 points for Clinton. USA Today (1/4-6)... Obama, Clinton: 33% Edwards: 20% Things have changed a bit.

Well, with SC seemingly in hand, assuming Obama wins NH, I would be curious to see what NV looks like. No new polls there lately that I can find.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 04:17 PM) You'd have a large base of support from Soxtalk. QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) Heck with the promise of the right cabinet post, I'd even vote for you! I'll remember you both said that. So... who wants to run FEMA?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) We can agree on that one. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but I'm thinking that won't matter for me.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) I agree completely. Even if it was genuine (and I tend to think it was--even if it was mostly because of frustration as opposed to hopefulness or optimism) crying is the WORST thing she could do. She's f***ed either way. I'm not even going to get into a gender debate here, but I think that plays a huge role for Hillary. I just don't think America is ready for a female head of state yet. I think the problem with Hillary is that she is, fundamentally, an intellectual. (I feel entitled to say this because I am surrounded by those rat bastards all day.) She lacks the ability to really seem compassionate. I think her ideas are good. She's articulate. But she has no charisma and/or people skills. Here's my question: why the fudge would anyone WANT to be president? You have to be pretty messed up, imo, to want it in the first place. I would agree that the crying thing gets her screwed, and probably unfairly. Sexism is, in my view, a more prevalent and more damaging factor in current American society than racism. QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) Oh absolutely, it's not about politics and qualifications and policy. It's about personality and charisma (and let's be honest--looks). Well, I wouldn't say its entirely about personality, charisma and looks. There is some political policy still involved, to varying degrees, depending on the target audience. But in the modern age, those three factors have certainly rocketed to the top of the list.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) No, she would have had to marry or else she would have been answering the lesbian questions constantly. CONSTANTLY. She probably just should have picked someone not in politics. I also think the Monica, Gennifer and Paula thing really hurt the way Hillary is viewed. Without a doubt. Those are not my concerns, but I am sure they effect some peoples' views. And my guy had been Richardson, but he's not really a viable candidate, and he doesn't have the face or the voice for a TV-era Presidency anyway. Policy-wise, I think he's got some of the best ideas out there, and I'd take his resume over any other candidate in either party.

On the topic of Hillary Clinton... the Trib has this little tidbit. She is seen in a video (which can be seen in the article) appearing to get a little misty-eyed about her run for President. Let the accusations fly - was it staged, or was it just a momentary break-down? I think this highlights one of the many interesting dynamics in the current primary season. Its been one of the longest, hardest trails in a long time, according to the candidates, pundits and reporters. If you saw the debates the other night on CNN, it was clear the toll it was taking. Obama is losing his voice, Edwards looked like he could barely keep his eyes open, and Hillary had little control over her anger. Richardson looked constipated, but that's no different than usual. As for Clinton's "moment"... I just don't know. Her words after it were just so perfectly crafted as a hit on Obama, that you have to wonder. But I would not dismiss the idea that this could happen to anyone at this point in such an exhaustive process. Ultimately, I don't think it helps her - as bad as it sounds, I think some people will see this arduous process as part of the vetting for candidates, and being seen as collapsing under the pressure will not help anyone.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) That is the thing that has always baffled me about people's reactions to her. I read a bio about her a couple of years ago and she had huge fears that marriage would basically screw up her career. But she did tons of work especially for chilren's advocacy or children's rights. To be 100% honest, I think that had she not married Bill and stayed in DC or IL, she would have had a much better career. As for her discounting Edwards' and Obama's experience, honestly, I don't know much about what Obama did before the senate. And from what I gather about Edwards he seemed to be more involved in malpractice and that kind of law than actual advocacy and policy type stuff. Maybe she would have been better off on her own - I wouldn't dismiss that thought. I don't really know. From what I recall: Obama finished law school... interned with a major law firm where he met his wife... I think he worked as a PD or some other public sector legal practice... worked on the ground with campaigns of various sorts, during and after law school... then served in the Illinois Senate... before being elected to the US Senate. I am a bit fuzzy on the period after interning and before Illinois Senate, though. I am sure Wikipedia or what not have more complete info on that period, or even his website.