Subjects I hate to get involved in

[HawkerHurricane]

I have strong opinions on things; most of which my fellow DUers agree with, but some...
I am rapidly reaching the point of not wanting to get involved.
So, as an effort to clear the air, I type away at the subjects of conflict...

Gun Control:
I truly think both sides are full of it. The pro side forgets the 2nd amendment says 'the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed', the anti side forgets that it also says 'a well regulated militia'. What are gun control laws but regulations on the militia? I neither want to see guns banned, nor do I want to see them unregulated. The arguements used by both sides are infantile; I only comment on such threads to correct mis statements. I have been accused of being both pro and anti gun for this. It's fun, but getting flamed for correcting someone's error is irratating. Most recently, I commented on someones use of the movie 'Starship Troopers' by pointing out that it was quite different from the book and recommended reading the book. For this, I was flamed for bringing up untrue arguements... Now, all I said was that the book was different from the movie. It's a true statement. The director of the movie said as much. The book is often used as a example of Facism; it isn't. It's about duty to one's country and species (in the book, one and the same). It describes a system of government that requires for full citizenship service to the government. This service included non-military jobs along with military ones. It pointed out, quite bluntly, that the ultimate power of a democracy is the right to vote; in the novel the right to wield that power was given after you took the ultimate responsibilty: risking your life for the benefit of the state.
Bah. Those who have read and not understood would call that fascism. Those who haven't read it will too.

Then, there is Isreal.
Isreal and it's neighbors have been fighting a war since before Isreal's founding. They have fought this war with barbaric means. Both sides are wrong. Both sides deserve censure. The difference between a suicide bomber blowing up a bus and a F-16 pilot blowing up a building holding 'suspected terrorists' is that the F-16 pilot can do it again. Both are semi-random acts of criminal violence; I condemn both. I would suggest that to solve the problem, we give one of the two parties a piece of land, but that's how this one started... we gave one a piece of land and the other objected.
Bah. The blind defenders of Isreal will make excuses. So will the blind defenders of the Palastinieans, but I haven't met any yet.

Then there's Venezuala.
I have family in Venezuala. My wife is from there. I have visited there before and after Hugo Chavez came to power. My relatives living there are mostly in medicine (2 doctors, 1 biochemist, one nurse)... they all say the same thing: the quality of medical care has dropped in Venezuala. They are forced to provide thier own instruments in the hospitals; anything the hospitals have that is portable is stolen. They tell me that Hugo Chavez's party has re-written the constitution to allow Chavez to serve multiple terms (the old law was no consecutive terms as President). How would you feel if Bush and his party re-wrote the constitution to allow Bush to serve 3+ terms? The country is still bankrupt. Unemployment is at a all time high (20%!). Crime, especially violent crime, is up. Just as we blame Bush for our bad economy, they blame Chavez. They would like to vote against him in the election. IF THERE IS ONE. My wife, who was a poli sci major once, says that it used to be a 5 year term for president... He was elected in 1998. Do the math. My reading says it is currently a 6 year term. We'll see if they even hold elections. And I predict, if they hold elections both sides will accuse the other of fraud. My family is trying to decide on whether to stay or go. They are fleeing crime that appears to be targeting them as opposition to Chavez. Yes, how dare they speak thier minds in public about the great Chavez! How dare they point out rising unemployment and crime and corruption when everyone knows that Chavez is a great leader! They deserve to be mugged, and assaulted, and raped! After all, they must be part of the hated Oligarcha, the wealthy that ran Venezuala... except they aren't. They are professionals; they are doctors who work in public health clinics to pay off thier government provided student loans. Yes, they also have private practices... but is that to condemn them? All I have is family; I don't have a cause to believe in Venezuala... I want my family safe. And I will point out what they have seen; just as I point out what my father has seen in our national parks... No one accused my father of being a fascist when I relayed information on the Yellowstone volcano based on what he had seen personally.
Bah. Believe what you will, I will believe my family.

I would title this 'on the Deck', but that's about the Navy and this isn't.
But I still remain
Hawker Hurricane.

[H2O Man]

1. People have strong feelings about...

... a lot of subjects, and thus have emotional reactions. I think that you could use abortion as one example. It is possible for good and decent people to sincerely hold a wide range of views on these topics. It should be possible to discuss them rationaly, without anger at those holding different or even opposing points of view. Yet we see that even on d.u., there is too often intolerance. I am reminded that Gandhi said that intolerance shows a want of faith in ones' cause. I used to teach dispute resolution to inmates in a local county jail. Those same basic rules could be applied beneficially here on d.u. Remember, folks, if two people think just alike, only one person is thinking.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. You are correct that the Venezuelan elite do not like Chavez

Neither does the US regime. In Venezeula, as in its properties in other parts of the globe, the US prefers native overseers who will facilitate US access to its oil in a way that is most beneficial to US business interests.

Chavez does not enjoy the support of even 90% of the population, and those 88% or so who do support him are for the most part, poor, illiterate indigenous people who put their own selfish concerns above those of American oil companies.

Venezuela is an excellent example of why the US must act pre-emptively to impose its will and prevent native insurgents from attempting to steal American oil.

Like the Iraqis, with the exception of a few pro-Americans who appreciate superior western values, Venezuelans are simple, child-like people who in their hearts know that Uncle Sam knows what is best for them and appreciate a firm hand.

The good pro-American Venezuelans really tried hard. A few years ago many of them even made the sacrifice of taking most of the country's money out of the country to keep it safe in American banks from the primitive people who today support Chavez, and as you can see, while America appreciates their valiant effort, the terrorist Indians do not.

[HawkerHurricane]

10. Nice sarcasm.

Going to try backing in up?

Are you going to prove that my relatives are part of the pro-American elite that only numbers 12% of the population? Or perhaps they're part of the more numerous, middle class professionals that are suffering under Chavez as the wealthy are NOT.

Will Venezuala hold elections this year, as they should have LAST year?

[JanMichael]

12. I can't give any details but, in my job, I've been in meetings with...

...funds that are buying land for RE development in Florida that are 100% flying Venezualan capital.

They've come in with US planning company reps (Usually architects and engineers), and English speaking Venezualan nationals, who have actually SAID that they are funneling money out of Venezuela due to Chavez.

I kid you not.

Take that for what it's worth.

[HawkerHurricane]

14. The question becomes 'why'.

Are they doing it because they fear Chavez will seize it?
Are they doing because the economy is in the crapper?
Are they doing it to hurt Chavez? Dodging taxes? Because they want to move to Florida when they retire?

[JanMichael]

15. I'm not making any qualitative judgements.

Other than the fact that I did some research on the "investors" and found their website linked to those involved in the very undemocratic, US sponsered, coup. No shit. It was on their business card which I still have. I believe that I may have posted a thread on it last summer.

I will leave it at that.

This is probably the only issue that you and I have a real disagreement on and I almost regret posting on this thread. Needless to say I understand your wife's concerns, as well as yours, and also the opposing view.

It's not my fight, I will now back off and let those more involved discuss this complicated issue without my interferance.

[Beaker]

3. the yellowstone volcano-

"No one accused my father of being a fascist when I relayed information on the Yellowstone volcano based on what he had seen personally..."

i missed that one- what was the info?

BTW- thanks fo the info on Chavez, i hadn't heard a lot of it before, and had generally come down on the side hugo...now it looks as if I need to do a little more homework on the subject.

I also try to see both sides of the gun issue...and just like gays have in the past used the chant: "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!", guns are here too, they aren't going to go away, and we might as well get used to it. until a technology is developed that makes guns obsolete, we'll have to find a way to live with them.

ditto for drugs.

but mostly right now...i'm interested in that yellowstone stuff...?

[HawkerHurricane]

11. Yellowstone Volcano...

Several misleading articles and such have appeared on the internet. It goes something like "Yellowstone is an active volcano (true, that's why there are geysers) that is showing increasing activity (false) which leads us (yellow journalists) to believe that it is going to erupt and cause enormous harm to the US, and the Government is hiding this information to avoid a panic."

Now, my dad is a geologist with the national park service (ranger) who spends his summers in Yellowstone at the geyser basin... there is no increase in activity; there are no 'rivers and lakes full of dead fish'; there are not 'enormous areas of the park suddenly off limits'; nor is the asphault melting on the roads. It's a non issue. The first sign of increased volcanic activity in the park will bring a horde of geology professors and students looking for disertion material. Until that happens, I wouldn't worry.

[asthmaticeog]

4. On gun control

I'm with you 100%. I take the second amendment as seriously as the first, esp. w/r/t Thomas Jefferson's statement that that amendment was there to ensure that the masses would be armed against govt. tyranny.

Some regulation is obviously appropriate, though. Take waiting periods. If someone HAS to have a gun RIGHT NOW, that's fishy as hell. Specific durations of appropriate waiting periods could be argued to death, but I'll leave that to others. I consider a waiting period an appropriate federal gun regulation.

Bans on specific weapons, however, don't work for me on the fed level, or even on the state level. Dig: I'm from Ohio. We have large cities here, like Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinatti. All three cities are becoming increasingly cash-strapped, as are their residents. Population density plus poverty equals crime, so I'd never object to those cities banning assault weapons (for example) within city limits, for public safety reasons. OTOH, much of Ohio is rural. Parts of Tuscarawas and its neighbor counties, for example, aren't too terribly unlike West Virginia, to which they're very close geographically. If someone there wants a very durable, very accurate, very powerful rifle to hunt for food with, who the hell am I to say s/he can't have it if s/he can afford it?

Gun control absolutism is not only wrong, it's one of the biggest reasons the Democratic Party consistently loses in rural areas - the GOP can always speciously claim that "the Dems wanna take your guns," and it'll always ring true until we wise the hell up.

Edit: spelling

[KingofSwords]

7. I disagree...

The argument that Democrats want to take away guns is right-wing propaganda and we should fight it rather than go the other direction and oppose every gun control measure. As far as winning rural and Southern states, our biggest help in winning those states are African-American voters.

Even in rural and Southern states blacks are the biggest advocate of gun control, so opposing gun control would actually alienate those voters. The reason Democrats lost in the South in 2000 is probably because the party tried to appeal to the conservative white Southerners and in doing so completely ignored African-American Southerners.

Gearing our campaign to people with Confederate flags flying from their pick-up trucks will actually lose the South again. Dean meant well by this but unfortunately it'd alienate our strength in the South, African-American voters.

I'm not saying we should pay lip service to blacks and use them. We should actually open up the party to them and promote issues important to them.

[asthmaticeog]

8. Whoa - a little excluded middle, there

I didn't say the Dems should oppose every gun control measure. I meant that if our candidates would adopt and champion sensible, non-absolutist views on gun laws, that'd be the magic bullet to stop the GOP propaganda. Is a single candidate even talking about gun laws, other than Dean for a minute a few months ago? It's a big issue among some single-issue voters, and if the Dems don't talk about it, the perception that they want to ban 'em all will continue to work. And continuing to refer to gun owners as "people with Confederate flags flying from their pick-up trucks" isn't going to help matters either. Plenty of southern gun owners are suburbanites with sedans, read: potential swing voters. That kind of rhetoric is alienating, too.

[KingofSwords]

9. yeah but...

Most of the Southern gunowners who actually buy into the "Dems want to take your guns" argument are more than likely the same Southerners who fly the Confederate flag. However, not all gunowners believe Dems want to take their guns. I do personally feel gun ownership is pointless but don't want them taken away(except assault weapons, etc).

[newyawker99]

21. Hi KingofSwords!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KingofSwords]

5. more Palestinian are blind supporters of their "cause" than Israelis...

Most Israelis want to get out of the West Bank. However most Palestinians think Arafat is too moderate and want Israel completely gone.They're not necessarily supporters of genocide of Jews but would like control of Israel's government.

This isn't because Israelis are good and Palestinians are bad, it's because government authorities in Arab nations exert greater control over information than in Israel. The Israeli right-wing still has propaganda but Israelis do have access to alternative information services.

I've noticed the U.S. media gives alot of misinformation about Palestinians and Israelis though. I support Israel myself but I'm not a blind supporter by any means, however I haven't been convinced most Palestinians want a liberal democracy.

[HawkerHurricane]

13. Seeing the same thing

"Isreal is moderate, Palastinians are extremists".

Answer me this: is Isreal justified in building a fence on Palastinian land for Isreal's safety?

Terrorism is a crime; it remains a law enforcement problem best solved by police; not soldiers.

[KingofSwords]

17. I'm not sure

Answer me this: is Isreal justified in building a fence on Palastinian land for Isreal's safety?



No and most Israelis don't support this.



Terrorism is a crime; it remains a law enforcement problem best solved by police; not soldiers.


Not when the terrorists are backed by armed militias.

[HawkerHurricane]

18. Then stop with the half measures

Call it an act of war and invade.

Treat the terrorists like criminals or treat them like soldiers. Isreal's 'half and half' solutions aren't going to work.

I am dang near convinced that the current ruling party in Isreal doesn't want the problem solved; that they are using the problem to push thier agenda through...
Sounds familiar.

[KingofSwords]

20. why?

Sometimes police measures work and sometimes military action works.

[Toots]

6. That is why these subjects have their own place in the cellar.

They are just a little bit to much on the hot button side.

[9215]

16. Venezuela is under terrorist attack so

people need to expect problems. The Bush fascists are doing everything they can to oust Chavez and screwing up the economy, instigating violence, are all in line with previous and present Bushista tactics.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. I forgot one.

People who tell me 'my candidate or no one!'.

Dean? He's too conservative.
Clark? He's a general.
Kerry? He's too liberal to be elected and has compromised with conservatives too much.
Sharpton? Much too controversial.
Kucinich? Too liberal and too impractical.
Lieberman? Bush lite.

No, it's clear that only my candidate combines liberal/progressive sensibilities with electablity. Anyone who can't see this is blinded by the media (or perhaps some secret society, or maybe a Republican team manipulating us into choosing the weakest candidate or with someone who will continue Bush's policies even if he wins...)
So, vote for my candidate or you might as well vote for Bush. And if my candidate is not the nominee, that's what I intend to do.

Bah.