[cpbell0033944]

That's interesting, Lingster: whilst I knew of Louisiana being French originally (I presume New Orleans was once called Nouveau Orleans with an acute accent over the "e" in "Orleans"), I didn't know that its state law is still based on that past.  I do know that there was much criticism of the state and city authorities, and the fact that you say that they opposed a modern protection system in the '60s does baffle me.  I agree that the notion of living in an area that prone to flooding without having an inflatable boat seems foolish; oddly, much of the part of England of which I am a born-and-bred native is vulnerable to flooding; although the little bit of Norfolk in which I live is around 70 feet above sea level, there is a large area of drained and managed wetlands-turned-rich arable farmland 25-30 miles to the west (the Fens), with vulnerable coastline to the north and man-made peat diggings which in the 19th Century were made into a network of lakes connected by already-existing rivers (the Norfolk Broads) about 15 miles to the east.  If I lived in one of those parts of the county I would take more precautions, but flooding here is vastly unlikely, thankfully.

By the way, I have definetly heard at least one American describe the US as being the only genuine democracy in the world (or was it that they claimed that the US is the greatest democracy in the world?)  Whichever, I recall thinking that it sounded like just so much hyperbole, so I'm glad to hear that most people wouldn't claim it to be the case.  My question is this, though: if the President wasn't required to do any more than he did post-Katrina (you say that I'm blaming the failures on him when they actually lay at state level), then what exactly is his purpose?  Does the buck always stop at a lower level than him, or of course, her, as it may well soon be?  If he or she sees a state making a mess of an admittedly very severe and unlucky situation, shouldn't he or she step in and "kick some butt"?  And shouldn't he or she not claim to have been badly briefed on what was happening when video recordings exist that suggest otherwise?

As far as the "Americans expect their fellow citizens to fend for themselves, hence fathers take their children (mostly male children, though, right?) out hunting" philosophy, how are Americans in big cities expected to do this in the event of either a huge natural disaster or complete breakdown of government, law and order etc.?  What about people with disabilities such as myself?  It smacks of not being able to escape the romance and macho image of the frontiersman fighting a whole Native tribe by himself with just a rifle and winning.   It also reminds me of English toffs' arguments as to why they should have been allowed to continue foxhunting; these included the idea that fox numbers needed to be controlled (ironically, given the nature of this debate, controlled shooting by marksmen is felt to be superior).  These arguments mostly were to obscure the fact that hunt members enjoyed the "thrill of the chase", and that many got a perverse kick out of their hounds killing a fox with their teeth.  They even used to smear young, first-time hunt member's faces with blood to introduce them to the fold.  Of corse, the number of foxes being killed hasn't dropped post-ban. >:(  All it was was human's hunter-gatherer instincts being given indulgent free reign – these people never ate the foxes they hunted, and I'd suggest neither do huntsmen in the US – I just wish that people would cut the hypocriscy (not you, Lingster) and admit that they get a kick out of it.  Being a mealy-mouthed liberal fop, I find it distasteful, but I'd respect both US huntsmen and English fox-hunters a lot more if they were more honest with themselves and us.

By the way, I can't understand why the UK isn't referred-to as is Japan, as a "constitutional monarchy with parliamentary government", as I always think that "constitutional monarchy" must make some people think that we're like pre-revolutionary France. ???  I suppose there must be some dry academic definition that forebades this, but it doesn't really do justice to a parliamentary system that was already well-established by the time that the founding fathers were writing the draft US Constitution.

Addendum – I agree with Tigersan that a more rigorous system should help reduce the probability of this sort of thing happening.  I recently read that the founding fathers allowed armed militias because the weaponry at the time was primitive and fairly ineffective even by the standards of what this deranged South Korean had, let alone the weaponry of the Columbine killers.  If they had been able to foresee such technology, would they have done anything differently?  I must argue with the writer's assertion that Britain's gun-free experiment is failing disasterously.  Firstly, I feel that to call it an "experiment" makes it sound like it's based on a political whim and not the two tragedies already mentioned, and two, whilst gun crime in the inner cities is rising, it's easily over-hyped, and if the government of Mr Blair had a bit of backbone, they'd give the police the resources to use the law to get the situation under control.  The law is fine – it's just the implementation that's poor in certain small neighnourhoods in certain cities.  Knife crime is by far more prevalent, but that's much harder to combat, although recent knife amnesties have taken large numbers of fearsome weapons off the streets.

And yes, Lingster, people do have the right to defend themselves, and there was support for the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin when he shot burglars who broke into his farmhouse about ten years ago.  It was right that he was only jailed for manslaughter and ot murder as was originally going to be the case, but even he was a bit paranoid, and a healthy debate then occurred with the rights of the individual to self-protection being re-examined by society.  Unfortunately, our wonderful ( ::)) politicians didn't see fit to tighten-up the definition of "reasonable" in the term "reasonable self-defence".

[Lingster]

The duties of the President of the United States are defined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  His basic function is to conduct foreign policy, command the armed forces and appoint officials to federal positions.  This has grown over time as the bureaucracy has grown, and he's expected to perform a lot of ceremonial head-of-state functions, as well.  But there are fifty governors with far greater manpower resources on-site in their states than the federal government has.

It is a very serious matter for a U.S. President to act forcibly in a state without a governor's permission.  I think it's only happened once in living memory, during the 1950s following the Brown vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court decision.  President Eisenhower was forced to federalize the Arkansas National Guard, exercising his constitutional authority to take control of a state militia, against the wishes of the Governor of Arkansas.  (Arkansas was also once part of French Louisiana, but is not nearly as much of a political clusterfuck.)

We don't widely hunt foxes in the U.S.  There are social aspects to it but the hoped-for outcome is usually to bring home food for your table.

In the U.S. we would have given Tony Martin a medal, not a prison term.

[Tigersan]

You don't think that every human being has the right (and responsibility) of self-defense?  A free society can only last as long as people are able to defend their freedom, because it's socially hygienic for political elites to fear the people they govern.

Defend against who? If the weapons wouldnt be as easy to get there would be less crime.
and Police would manage to guard us better. Than you wouldnt need weapons. You know its a closed circle.

[cpbell0033944]

The duties of the President of the United States are defined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  His basic function is to conduct foreign policy, command the armed forces and appoint officials to federal positions.  This has grown over time as the bureaucracy has grown, and he's expected to perform a lot of ceremonial head-of-state functions, as well.  But there are fifty governors with far greater manpower resources on-site in their states than the federal government has.

It is a very serious matter for a U.S. President to act forcibly in a state without a governor's permission.  I think it's only happened once in living memory, during the 1950s following the Brown vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court decision.  President Eisenhower was forced to federalize the Arkansas National Guard, exercising his constitutional authority to take control of a state militia, against the wishes of the Governor of Arkansas.  (Arkansas was also once part of French Louisiana, but is not nearly as much of a political clusterfuck.)

We don't widely hunt foxes in the U.S.  There are social aspects to it but the hoped-for outcome is usually to bring home food for your table.

In the U.S. we would have given Tony Martin a medal, not a prison term.

This is very eye opening for me, because, in the UK we seem to think that the President does as much micromanagement as the Prime Minister, when really he's supposed to be seemingly more of a macro-policy-decider and figurehead.  You're making him sound as irrelevant on a day-to-day policy level as the Queen! ;D
 
So US huntsmen regularly eat what they shoot?  Interesting; tends to reinforce my "yearning for pioneering days" theory.  I'll have to read about the Eisenhower/ Arkansas situation, sounds fascinatting (really).  Anyway, can you explain why Arkansas is pronounced "Arkensaw", rather than "Arkansas"?  That one's always confused me. ::)  Then again, I'm easily confused. ;D  Also, what does "clusterf***" mean? 😮

Oh, and Tigersan, I agree.  Perhaps the phrase "virtuous circle" is apt here?

[Lingster]

Defend against who? If the weapons wouldnt be as easy to get there would be less crime.
and Police would manage to guard us better. Than you wouldnt need weapons. You know its a closed circle.

OK, the ship on firearms has sailed.  There are 300 million functioning firearms in the U.S., and maybe a couple billion more in the rest of the world.  We don't live in a world where weapons are hard to get and we never will, so any speculation about that is utopian fantasy.

Also, there's plenty of research showing that putting concealed weapons in the hands of citizens greatly reduces crime.  Dr. John Lott is the major authority on this subject.  For those of you who aren't aware, there's been a huge increase in crime in Britain since most firearm ownership was criminalized.  At this point, Manchester makes Manhattan look like Mayberry, in terms of petty crimes, burglaries, muggings and violent crime.  See these results and this article.

In terms of individual quality of life being adversely affected by crime, the United States sits well behind most of Europe – people in England and Wales are almost twice as likely as Americans to be the victim of a violent crime.  The murder rate is high in America, that's true, but it's a marginal number either way, with a murder rate of 0.042802 per 1000 people in the U.S., and 0.0140633 per 1000 in the United Kingdom.  So yes, the murder rate in the U.S. is three times the U.K. murder rate, but three times "practically zero" is still not a big number.  For example, the U.K.'s rate is three times the murder rate in Japan – so does the U.K. have a murder problem, too?

[Lingster]

This is worth watching, on the topic of British press bias:
[html][/html]

[Lingster]

One more thing about the duties of the president: his Constitutional veto power and the fact that the president is usually the leader of his political party give him a larger role in the national political life than his positive duties do.  The Congress must take his wishes at least into consideration to pass legislation, because he can sink most of it after it's passed and would otherwise become law.  And as the leader of the party he wields considerable power over other office holders and leaders within his party.

[Michael Pouliot]

Defend against who? If the weapons wouldnt be as easy to get there would be less crime.
and Police would manage to guard us better. Than you wouldnt need weapons. You know its a closed circle.

Police do not exist to "guard us".  They exist to catch criminals.  If they happen to be in the right place at the right time to prevent a crime, then that is either the result of good information or sheer good fortune.  But police aren't a prevention mechanism.  They can't be.  Ever.  Because they simply can't be everywhere.

The most fundamental right of any individual is the right to self-defense.  An individual shouldn't have to rely on good fortune to protect them.  They shouldn't have to rely on an emergency phone call and a 10 minute response time, particularly when there is an intruder in their house.

[cpbell0033944]

Firstly, the Sweet Liberty link is very much out-of-date.  There is a lot of confusion in the UK between official crime rates and the recorded rates, and it needs to be cleared-up, because one set of figures gives one picture, whereas the other set tells a different story.  I'm not so sure that the switch from final disposition, as mentioned in the NewsMax article, is such a good idea; OK in murder cases, where you know that a crime has happened, but in cases of alledged assult, rape etc., would every allegation be counted as a crime, because if it would be, then the resultant data is no more useful than a chocolate saucepan.

Secondly, in more recent times BOTH sets of figures have shown that every type of crime barring violent crime has been reduced substantially, and even violent crime isn't as bad as many make it out to be.  Lingster says that:

At this point, Manchester makes Manhattan look like Mayberry, in terms of petty crimes, burglaries, muggings and violent crime.

however, that's only certain small areas of Manchester (Greater Manchester is a huge area), NOT the whole city.  Gun crime is worrying, especially amongst African-Caribbean communities in inner-city, poverty-ridden areas (especially in London), and it's something that Gordon Brown, or, in a year or so's time, David Cameron, will have to get a grip of.  However, move out of these small boroughs, and the problem all but disappears.  It seems to me that, of the crimes that take-place in the US, a large proportion are murders, whereas here there tends to be a more even spread in terms of murder, manslaughter, violent crime, theft, vehicle crime etc.  To be blunt about it, though, if I must be a victim of crime, I'd rather have my lights punched-out for my mobile phone or the contents of my wallet rather than have a couple of bullets through my heart.     

I'm still sceptical about the link between gun control laws and increased murder rates, as just saying that the rates increased around the same time as gun-contol laws were introduced does not demonstrate a causal relationship.  I don't know the relevant statistics, but, based on recollection of murders in the East Anglia region as reported on local news programmes and in newspapers, most don't involve guns anyway – knives are a bigger problem.

As for that YouTube video, well, where do I start?  Can you say 'sensationalistic'?  Ohnoes, some naughty BBC journos have a cartoon of Bush as Hitler on the newsroom wall!  Well, did they draw it?  Or did it come from one of those evil newspapers?  Well, I recently saw a collection of British newspaper cartoons of Tony Blair to commemorate his decade in office, and whilst there were none of him as Hitler, I can assure you that several could be felt to be pretty offensive.  I don't claim that the BBC hasn't got a liberal bias, and I'll agree that it really shouldn't, but in an increasingly illiberal world, don't we need a voice from somewhere left of centre?  I'm not saying that this voice should be the BBC, but the video's contempt for the Guardian newspaper, using language not unlike that used to describe the recruitment of suicide bombers from poverty-stricken areas by inserting extremist clerics in local mosques, is very misrepresentative.  Anyway, the Guardian isn't the most left-wing British newspaper, as I believe that the Socialist Labour party (which basically consists of the extreme left-wingers from the Labour party of the 1970s) has it's own paper, which would make the Guardian soundlike Mussolini's campaign manifesto. 

The Guardian is lefty, but mostly in a sandal-wearing, wholegrain muesli way.  Yes, they did encourage readers to write to voters in one key Ohio county (if my memory serves me), but it was mainly done as an experiment to see if the views of British people had any effect on the voting patterns of floating voters in the US.  I seem to recall that the letters received (as one might expect) a range of reactions, but that the majority were either just not bothered one way or the other about receiving them, or were pleased that people overseas were taking an interest in US politics.  Only a minority seemed offended.  I know that if I were chosen to get a letter from someone in the States in the run-up to our next General Election, I would not be offended by their advocacy of one party leader over the other AS LONG AS THE LETTER WAS NOT OFFENSIVE IN ITS TONE.

Finally, I feel I must respectfully disagree with "i-am-not-herbert" (great name, by the way!) when he says that:

But police aren't a prevention mechanism.  They can't be

I agree that they cannot prevent every crime, but one of the key principles being discussed by politicians at the moment in the UK is the idea of reducing thepolice's load of paperwork so that more officers can be 'on the beat', which is Britishese for patrolling a neighbourhood.  It's been a key part of their job ever since Robert Peel founded an organised police force in the early 19th Century; it embodies the idea that crime is not prevented just when a police officer happens to come upon a crime in progress, but that the fact that patrols are happening in an area helps dissuade potential criminals.

[Lingster]

however, that's only certain small areas of Manchester (Greater Manchester is a huge area), NOT the whole city.  Gun crime is worrying, especially amongst African-Caribbean communities in inner-city, poverty-ridden areas (especially in London), and it's something that Gordon Brown, or, in a year or so's time, David Cameron, will have to get a grip of.  However, move out of these small boroughs, and the problem all but disappears.  It seems to me that, of the crimes that take-place in the US, a large proportion are murders, whereas here there tends to be a more even spread in terms of murder, manslaughter, violent crime, theft, vehicle crime etc.  To be blunt about it, though, if I must be a victim of crime, I'd rather have my lights punched-out for my mobile phone or the contents of my wallet rather than have a couple of bullets through my heart.

Do you really think it's different here in the U.S.?  The homicide rate for black males in the U.S. is almost seven times that of white males, and most of those homicides occur in inner cities.  If you just look at the suburbs and rural areas, there's probably almost no difference between the homicide rates in Europe and the U.S., despite the fact that rural and suburban zones in the U.S. are probably some of the most heavily armed areas on the planet.

[Author]

Posts