Zach

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Lots of good posts from both sides. I agree most with those of you who have mentioned the lack of motivation in students and link this to the home life. I teach at a school where most kids are "economically disadvantaged." Some perform, and many don't. I find that nine times out of ten, it has to do with the environment at home (or wherever they spend the night). Zach

Just for me can we try to maybe keep the quotes of quotes of edited quotes of quotes to a minimum of say 1 or 2 per post. Without a flow chart, it makes following the argument difficult. Zach

Since you guys are taking it on that tangent, in most cases this is because of their actions and not because of their complexion (though there is racism to some degree in every part of American society because it is made up of human beings, who are good, bad, and ugly). Zach

why can't you accept that, if they were white, they wouldn't be discriminated against. (look to your prisons) Fallacious. Maybe not intentionally on your part, but I would argue that most people in prison earned their spot, no matter their ethnicity. Zach and i would argue that, if whites (who are just as criminal) were incarcerated at the same rate as blacks then an awful lot more of them would be in prison. There was a whole thread on this topic I think, so I'm not going to take this one too far off on a tangent (not that its really traveling a straight line anyway). I will hold to my asertion that the "look at your prisons" argument is fallacious though, due to your oversimplification of the matter. Also, I'm white, and being "just as criminal" (whatever that means) I think I should be in prison too... but for the fact that I don't commit crimes. Zach

why can't you accept that, if they were white, they wouldn't be discriminated against. (look to your prisons) Fallacious. Maybe not intentionally on your part, but I would argue that most people in prison earned their spot, no matter their ethnicity. Zach

I meant I didn't know enough about the carbon neutral thing, not the Walmart thing. I'm pretty clear on that one. I would have just bought a tent from a company that I respect. Zach

Because I don't know enough about the issue to say whether what he is saying is possible or not, and his ethics as established by "Walmart-gate" don't have any bearing (in my opinion) on his attitude toward the environment. Also, there is the fact that a person can, in general, be a complete douche and still perform good deeds (although I'm not saying that this is or is not the case here, just making a point). Zach

Where can I fill out an application? With regards to the carbon neutral part, I think that's bad ass. I wish more people had that attitude toward the environment. I'm a fly fisherman and I would love to visit to New Zealand and have a go. I'm not educated on the possiblities of a carbon neutral drop zone, but whether it is possible or not (and I'll take you at your word that it is), I think it's awesome that you're doing it. Zach

I was just asking a few questions bro. Zach

I know this isn't what you asked for in response, but wouldn't you feel better just not shopping at Walmart if you dislike the company so much. Why not purchase the products you want from a company you respect? Isn't that the way the free market is supposed to work? Unless your goal was never to actually purchase anything from the get go. Did you actually want or need the product(s) you purchased or did you only buy something so you could get it dirty and take it back? Zach

I teach in a school which is 99% African American (not "Negro" by the way), and any student that doesn't graduate on time or drops out is making that decision. We could discuss issues that they face, but in the end, they decide what they are going to do. Zach

It's possible to be right about something and still be a douche. Weak. Zach

Why? AFAIK access to CHL is only restricted by your actions, and it is not restricted just because you're black, you're poor or you believe in socialism. The probability for someone starting nuclear war in modern world is very unlikely, so I wouldn't consider it a possibility. Especially in the proxy case, as the country being attacked can (and likely will) retaliate. Yes, this is one of good points. I can add a few more. A terrorist group which gets nuclear technologies becomes too dangerous for everyone around, so it guarantees pretty extreme manhunt and termination from any country. As in your example, Iran giving terrorists access to nuclear arsenal (a ballistic rocket with nuclear warhead is not something really transportable in a trunk), so if they decide to launch it, the retaliation strike will obviously hit Iran, and nobody will care (or have time for that) whether the strike was authorized by Iran government or by some terrorist group. 1) I never mentioned anything about black people, poor people, or socialists when I commented about CHLs. 2) I never mentioned anyone starting a nuclear war... I was referring to a country providing a terrorist group with a (most likely) small yield, relatively easily transportable nuclear device, but it could just as easily be some sort of dirty bomb. The idea being that this country and the terrorist group would both have issue with some third party, and the country providing the weapon could enjoy the benefits of its use without being the one to actually pull the trigger, as it were. And 3) When I mentioned Iran giving a terrorist group access to a nuclear WEAPON, not the their entire nuclear ARSENAL, I again was referring, not to a ballistic missile, but to a small device capable of being delivered in a car say, or a cargo container. I was intentionally not trying to be too specific, but thought I was being clearer than I apparently was. 3b) When you say "pretty extreme manhunt," do you mean more or less extreme than the one for Bin Laden? (Kind of rhetorical question) I guess I don't have the skills many on this site do, to be able to clearly state my point, because you seem to be misinterpreting some of what I'm saying. For that reason, and because I'm going to be enjoying my second amendment rights long after this thread is forgotten, I give up. Merry Christmas, Zach

Seems to be the same with countries, they do not typically share their nuclear technologies - even though it indeed happened in past (USSR/China). But when everyone has access to the weapons, why would they ever need that? I see your point, but everyone does NOT have access to a CHL. As to why they would need or want to do that: I would think it would be the same reason anyone fights a war by proxy, so they can achieve ends favorable to their goals, without technically being directly involved. I could be wrong about my inferences though. Then why didn't it happen already? There are terrorist groups in Pakistan and India, there are (or were?) such groups in Russia and Japan, even France had its share - and all those countries maintain nuclear arsenal. Your question is kind of silly. Just because something has yet to happen doesn't mean that it can't or won't. But I'll address it anyway. Could be because I'm wrong, or maybe the "right" circumstances haven't come into play. The goals of the group with the weapon would have to coincide with the goals of the group that they give the weapon to. I never said that BECAUSE a country has wmds that it would follow that they WOULD supply them to others. If I was unclear I apologize, but I meant it as a possibility, given certain circumstances. For example, if western-hating Iran acquired nuclear weapons, I would be less worried about them using them directly, as I would that they would give access to them to any number of western-hating terrorist groups. If they used them directly, they would certainly understand that there would be a good possibility that they would cease to exist by the end of the day. Zach

Quote But WMDs are! Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them? Quote I'm certainly no expert on the subject (it doesn't appear you need to be in this thread) but another difference between an "average," law abiding conceal/carrier and some of the countries mentioned might also be that a CHL holder will be highly unlikely to supply his/her firearm to a third party, with which they might then do harm to others. I would argue that the most dangerous aspect of certain countries having nuclear/chemical/biological weapons is that they may be willing to supply others with those weapons (terrorist groups) who might enjoy the chance to use them. My scenario may be a bit Clancy-ish, but hopefully my point is reasonably clear. Zach

Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach

Good point Bill. Right or wrong though we send messages everyday to potential employers, clients, or students in the way we walk, talk, dress, behave. I don't think of myself as a person who follows trends because its the socially acceptable thing, but right or wrong (and these are obviously two seperate issues that are being discussed simultaneously -institutional racism/choices people make) sometimes you have to go along to get along (I really hope no one takes that rediculcously out of context and starts quoting shit about how people went along in Nazi Germany, Rawanda, etc. Obviously that's not what I'm talking about or how I mean the phrase to be taken). Dreamdancer, I never disagreed with you. I still don't. I'm just saying you're viewpoint seems (to me) one sided. I just think that there are many other things to take into account IN ADDITION TO institutional racism. Zach

Your point has some validity, but so does this guy's: "I believe that if he belts his pants up over his ass, studies hard in school, and stays off drugs, he can become president of the United States. Institution versus personal responsibility. Who sounds racist here? You make the call." I would agree that there still exist institutional racism, just like there still exists any other kind of racism. However, I don't think it is the huge problem you make it out to be. People will believe what they believe, and behave the way they'll behave. I think that racism is not so much built into the system as it is a part of RACIST PEOPLE'S beliefs. I don't know if I'm making sense, but think of when the Supreme Court outlawed segregation in public schools. Just because it was against the law (i.e. "the system" wasn't stopping black kids from integrating anymore), that didn't stop lots of racist white people from continuing to enforce segregation. These issues, in my opinion, prove to be less pertinent though than the fact that a large part of the population in question continue to make terrible decisions that lead nowhere good, for themselves or society at large. I work with these kids every day, and there are many who are damn near brilliant, and could do or be whatever they want, but choose to do anything except what would be beneficial for themselves. Zach

I couldn't agree more. I teach at a high school in south Dallas, and a major issue with too many kids at my school is the pregnancy rate (which you can obviously see, but the STD rate has to be a factor as well). (I know I'm gonna get lit up for saying this but....)I think that the cultural rejection (maybe not the right word) of abortion as an option is doing many of my kids no good, and is creating a sort of snowball effect. When 14 year old high school students have 2 kids someone has to be there to say, "Hold on, this isn't okay. We are already living below the poverty line. What kind of life is my baby's baby going to have?" Speaking to your point about kids in these types of environments playing the victim, and thinking that things that happen in the neighborhoods they live in is normal, Ras Baraka summed up the problem well when talking to his students: "You living this life like it's normal. It is abnormal to go to school to talk about your friends dying, to not be able to walk home safely from school, to be jumped every other day, to fail everything, to live in squalor, to have people's parents coming outside fighting with them in the middle of the street. This is not normal to be going to the hospital every other week, to be wearing t-shirts that say Rest in Peace, to be writing rest in peace on the wall. This is not normal. It's not normal. And nobody else's children do this." Zach

He is very selective about what things he cites from sources (not that you're going to put something in your book that doesn't support your argument). This selectiveness leads to misrepresentation of what some of these people like S.L.A. Marshall were actually saying. I don't know whether he's an ass or not, but he's a sloppy historian. Zach

I wrote a paper on the book you refer to in graduate school. While Grossman (I think his name is) has a lot of statistics on firing/hit rates from different wars throughout history, I found in doing my research that often he misinterpreted or misrepresented (I'm not accusing him of lying, just being sloppy) his sources. It is an ineresting book, but not super accurate in its conclusions (in my opinion - take it or leave it). Sorry to side track the conversation. I just remember being as interested as you seem to be in the book, until I took it apart, and found it historiographically weak. I can give examples if you're interested (which you're probably not). Cheers Zach

I'm not taking a side (its actually kind of entertaining - you guys should argue using parables and nursery rhymes and shit more often) but aren't there both ants and grasshoppers somewhere in the middle who work hard and still end up disadvantaged? Sorry if my bug-talk isn't as clear as yours. Zach

A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist. Good point, and the most logical thing written on this thread. Zach

Was Amazon getting warned for making fun of Skyrad for being a cook, or for complaining about the "morons" he had to train? (I'm not trying to be funny, I just think I missed something)

Could someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing.