Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

A Rationalist (culturally Lockean) play would have shown a women beaten by a vicious husband, and made a case for divorce under those circumstances.

Locke was not a Rationalist; he was an Empiricist. Empiricism is far more consistent with Postmodernism than Rationalism is, and thus Locke is as well.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by ....

But aren't political parties run and populated by people with likeminded ideologies, and therefore what you said was transferable to political parties?

No, political parties are about gaining and holding power. I was talking about ideology. It's like the relation between a building contractor and physics. Obviously, construction must conform to the laws of physics but that doesn't mean the contractor must be conversant with these laws.

This reminds me of a long, ongoing conversation, here:

"Maybe ripping the Democratic base from under them is a good thing. As a conservative don't you want to see your side win? I've been re-thinking my politics. Forgetting about ideology or what's good for the country, I am going to focus on things I want"

Issues aside, for the time being, I would argue (and have argued for some two years now) that this very simple statement is at the very heart of the vast ideological gulf that separates the left from the right. Far from "Forgetting about ideology", this statement is bathing in it: It, and the politics of guilt.

Why must one forget about "what's good for the country" when considering what's best for me, my family, my home, my job, career, maybe even my friends and neighbors?

Two years ago I preached a short sermon on this subject. It was directed personally to the writer of the abovementioned post:

"Admit it Mike, that is why you will never associate your name with conservatism. Liberalism makes you FEEL GOOD!"

And then there was this little gem:

"Does this apply to the right to bear arms? Suppose the government decides to collect all personal weapons (as it is doing in Iraq) as part of Homeland Security. Would this meet with your approval?"

Cute question. I would think liberals would rather ponder why a totalitarian like Saddam, let his people have so many guns to begin with (Hitler disarmed his servants). Of course, only Baathist party memebers probably owned guns in Iraq. So what better way to keep the serfs in line, eh?

But to compare post-Saddam Iraq to the U.S.A. is, well, just absurd, imho.

Haven't been around in a while, didn't bother to catch up on the thread. Just thought I'd post this. From Southern Baptists, one of the largest denominations in America.
_______________________________________


6/12/03

WorldView
In age of anxiety, 'Security Mom' rules

By Erich Bridges

RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--See ya, Soccer Mom. Security Mom's in charge now.

That's the word from Time magazine, which reported in its June 2 issue
that personal, family and national security now top all other concerns
for millions of American women. Politicians right and left are
scrambling to adjust to her changing priorities in the run-up to next
year's national elections. Security Mom has replaced Soccer Mom as the
most coveted category of swing voter.

Soccer Mom is still around, mind you. She regularly runs me off the
road in her SUV as she races the kids to their next event while
coordinating family schedules on her cell phone.
But Security Mom has grabbed the wheel of the national agenda.

Security Mom still cares about education, health care and other so-
called women's issues. But in a world filled with real and potential
threats to her family and country, she's more concerned about doing
whatever it takes to secure the perimeter.

We're not talking duct tape and plastic. We're talking laser-guided
missiles abroad and anti-terrorist sweeps at home. And Security Mom is
willing to put up with a temporary reduction in civil liberties to
accomplish it.

"Personally, I think we need to close our borders," 42-year-old Denver
mom Terri Brill told Time. "The threat is out there, it's coming after
us (and) we need to protect ourselves."

Brill's attitude is understandable in a time of terrorism, war and
economic trouble. Defense is the first (libertarians would say the
only) responsibility of national government, and America has multiple
shadowy enemies.

There's been no major domestic attack since September 11. But the
trauma of that event changed everything for Security Mom. The perimeter
was breached, decisively and horribly. Her internal threat radar has
remained on alert ever since.

The stark terror that shattered that day and permeated the days that
followed has settled into a persistent state of generalized anxiety --
which in some ways is worse than outright fear.

"Fear, as opposed to anxiety, has a definite object which can be faced,
analyzed, attacked, endured," wrote theologian Paul Tillich. "But this
is not so with anxiety, because anxiety has no object .... He who is in
anxiety is ... delivered to it without help."

Anxiety clouds the mind and paralyzes the will. It fills the heart with
low-level dread. The danger may not be clear and present, one reasons,
but it's out there. Every new threat, however nebulous or theoretical,
is magnified.

At the macro level, such uncertainty undermines societies and
economies. Worried consumers don't buy things, so companies don't hire
people to make and sell things. Anxious communities treat all outsiders
with suspicion. Fearful institutions hunker down.

Last month, the University of California at Berkeley, supposed bastion
of enlightenment and diversity, banned all -- repeat, all -- summer
students from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Why? Because one
of them might be infected with the SARs virus.

The university modified the policy under critical fire, but the
incident "illustrates how easily fear of SARS can degenerate into a
generalized antipathy toward Asians, even on college campuses," wrote
Chinese-American author Iris Chang in the New York Times.

On the micro level, anxious individuals and families shut their doors
and their hearts to others.

The dynamic plays out much the same way in churches. Anxious Christians
don't welcome strangers. They don't reach out to the needy and the
lost. They don't take mission trips. They don't cross borders. They cut
back on financial support for missions and evangelism, especially when
economic times are uncertain.

In Christian families, women usually set the spiritual tone in the
house, no matter how sincerely their husbands try to fulfill a
leadership role. If she reaches out to others in love, the family will
follow. If she withdraws from the world, the family will withdraw.

In such a time as this, the temptation for Christian mothers to become
Security Moms can be overwhelming at times. But it can be overcome.

"God casts out all fear," says one mother of four who traveled to
minister in a Muslim country near Iraq while the war was still in full
swing. "I wasn't really apprehensive about it at all.

"But my Mom was a wreck!"

Sounds like a pretty good 4T indicator to me.

I agree. This is something to watch.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I would think liberals would rather ponder why a totalitarian like Saddam, let his people have so many guns to begin with (Hitler disarmed his servants). Of course, only Baathist party memebers probably owned guns in Iraq. So what better way to keep the serfs in line, eh?

Since you've decided to re-visit this topic, I should mention that the primary weapons-holders in Iraq (indeed, throughout the Middle East) are the Bedouins, for whom the 'culture of armament' -- if you will -- is both strong and time-tested. Though they were not supporters of his, Saddam likely realized that any attempt to disarm the Bedouins would have met with as much success as a French invasion of Texas. It is my understanding that in no nation in which Bedouin communities are found has there ever been a successful attempt to disarm them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I would think liberals would rather ponder why a totalitarian like Saddam, let his people have so many guns to begin with (Hitler disarmed his servants). Of course, only Baathist party memebers probably owned guns in Iraq. So what better way to keep the serfs in line, eh?

Since you've decided to re-visit this topic, I should mention that the primary weapons-holders in Iraq (indeed, throughout the Middle East) are the Bedouins, for whom the 'culture of armament' -- if you will -- is both strong and time-tested. Though they were not supporters of his, Saddam likely realized that any attempt to disarm the Bedouins would have met with as much success as a French invasion of Texas. It is my understanding that in no nation in which Bedouin communities are found has there ever been a successful attempt to disarm them.

The French invasion of Texas would make a great movie plot! It would be hysterical.

The scenario:
Texas has seceded from the Union after Washington passes a federal law restricting en flagrante delicto homicide. France is having economic problems and their President, Jacques Buisson, decides to divert attention via a "Galtieri Maneuver" and invade Texas. The premise for war would be that Texas is developing a wine industry and France cannot afford to allow another California to threaten their national well-being. They insist that the Lone Star Republic allow UN inspectors into the country to search for and destroy Wine for Mass Distribution (WMD) :o -- and when Texas Governor Mitt "Bull" Mitchell refuses, French forces make an . . . amphibious landing, of course, with their crack Frogmen Corps. traveling up the waterways. You get the picture.

There is plenty of potential there to make fun of both Texas and the French. Loads of fun for the whole family!

Someone pitch it to Mike Judge or Trey Parker. Any suggestions for a title??

Originally Posted by Sean Love

The French invasion of Texas would make a great movie plot! It would be hysterical.

The scenario:
Texas has seceded from the Union after Washington passes a federal law restricting en flagrante delicto homicide. France is having economic problems and their President, Jacques Buisson, decides to divert attention via a "Galtieri Maneuver" and invade Texas. The premise for war would be that Texas is developing a wine industry and France cannot afford to allow another California to threaten their national well-being. They insist that the Lone Star Republic allow UN inspectors into the country to search for and destroy Wine for Mass Distribution (WMD) :o -- and when Texas Governor Mitt "Bull" Mitchell refuses, French forces make an . . . amphibious landing, of course, with their crack Frogmen Corps. traveling up the waterways. You get the picture.

There is plenty of potential there to make fun of both Texas and the French. Loads of fun for the whole family!

Someone pitch it to Mike Judge or Trey Parker. Any suggestions for a title??

Believe it or not, there is a science fiction book entitled "The Texas-Israeli War: 1999" which was published in 1973. My dad (may he rest in peace) gave it to me. It was completely absurd, but not any sillier than this idea.

In case you're interested, here's a link to a review:

http://www.ad-astra.demon.nl/esseff/millennial-7.html

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Sean Love

The French invasion of Texas would make a great movie plot! It would be hysterical.

The scenario:
Texas has seceded from the Union after Washington passes a federal law restricting en flagrante delicto homicide. France is having economic problems and their President, Jacques Buisson, decides to divert attention via a "Galtieri Maneuver" and invade Texas. The premise for war would be that Texas is developing a wine industry and France cannot afford to allow another California to threaten their national well-being. They insist that the Lone Star Republic allow UN inspectors into the country to search for and destroy Wine for Mass Distribution (WMD) :o -- and when Texas Governor Mitt "Bull" Mitchell refuses, French forces make an . . . amphibious landing, of course, with their crack Frogmen Corps. traveling up the waterways. You get the picture.

There is plenty of potential there to make fun of both Texas and the French. Loads of fun for the whole family!

Someone pitch it to Mike Judge or Trey Parker. Any suggestions for a title??

Believe it or not, there is a science fiction book entitled "The Texas-Israeli War: 1999" which was published in 1973. My dad (may he rest in peace) gave it to me. It was completely absurd, but not any sillier than this idea.

In case you're interested, here's a link to a review:

http://www.ad-astra.demon.nl/esseff/millennial-7.html

I've read it, and loved it at the time.

It seems the culture war is still raging on, a 3T Sign prehaps.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz061303.asp

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Though they have actually test fired only to a point just east of Japan, the power that missle type is apparently capable of gives it a much longer potential range.

IIRC, they actually dropped a missile into Alaska somewhere (?). I've heard that existing technology could hit the West Coast (though whether the warhead would be robust enough to survive the trip and still function properly is up to debate...) right now.

Links one way or another, anyone?

Justin,

I found this link in a google search. It describes the missle found in Alaska. Like I said in a previous post, I've not seen any other confimation on this other than the Drudge Report link to this article.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...7272311970.htm

Was set in the aftermath of global biological warfare. The global population has been devestated. Texas seceded, and the U.S. gov't has hired Israeli mercenaries to reconquer the Lone Star Republic.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Was set in the aftermath of global biological warfare. The global population has been devestated. Texas seceded, and the U.S. gov't has hired Israeli mercenaries to reconquer the Lone Star Republic.

Actually, both sides had hired Israeli mercenaries to help fight said war.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Though they have actually test fired only to a point just east of Japan, the power that missle type is apparently capable of gives it a much longer potential range.

IIRC, they actually dropped a missile into Alaska somewhere (?). I've heard that existing technology could hit the West Coast (though whether the warhead would be robust enough to survive the trip and still function properly is up to debate...) right now.

Links one way or another, anyone?

Justin,

I found this link in a google search. It describes the missle found in Alaska. Like I said in a previous post, I've not seen any other confimation on this other than the Drudge Report link to this article.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...7272311970.htm

This confirms my hypothesis. Never mind survive the trip - I want to know if they can hit a specific target. Fortunately, there aren't many compact cities on that coast (beyond Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Honolulu.) Of course, my sister lives in Portland.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

This confirms my hypothesis. Never mind survive the trip - I want to know if they can hit a specific target. Fortunately, there aren't many compact cities on that coast (beyond Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Honolulu.) Of course, my sister lives in Portland.

I think it would be much easier to hit Los Angeles than any of those cities simply because it IS so sprawled out, rather than compact. Even if they miss Downtown by 50 miles they can still take out a couple of million people. Of course, my brother and his family live in Pasadena :-(

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I think it would be much easier to hit Los Angeles than any of those cities simply because it IS so sprawled out, rather than compact. Even if they miss Downtown by 50 miles they can still take out a couple of million people. Of course, my brother and his family live in Pasadena :-(

And I have extended family all over the place in/around San Francisco and Salt Lake City. That is true, though, a miss near Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake, or San Francisco (or Las Vegas to a certain extent) would be as likely to hit something significant as nothing at all. And in Los Angeles, especially, there's no one place to hit.

It's Honolulu I'd really worry about. If North Korea hits Los Angeles, it would lead to ethnic strife that would make 1992 pale in comparison, and I think they know that.

But you never know.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I think it would be much easier to hit Los Angeles than any of those cities simply because it IS so sprawled out, rather than compact. Even if they miss Downtown by 50 miles they can still take out a couple of million people. Of course, my brother and his family live in Pasadena :-(

And I have extended family all over the place in/around San Francisco and Salt Lake City. That is true, though, a miss near Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake, or San Francisco (or Las Vegas to a certain extent) would be as likely to hit something significant as nothing at all. And in Los Angeles, especially, there's no one place to hit.

It's Honolulu I'd really worry about. If North Korea hits Los Angeles, it would lead to ethnic strife that would make 1992 pale in comparison, and I think they know that.

But you never know.

According to some of your more PC types, the best place around Los Angeles for the North Koreans to nuke would probably be Simi Valley.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

This confirms my hypothesis. Never mind survive the trip - I want to know if they can hit a specific target. Fortunately, there aren't many compact cities on that coast (beyond Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Honolulu.) Of course, my sister lives in Portland.

Don't worry too much on your sister's account. Portland is a mid-sized city with delusions of grandeur (I like it that way...). Seattle and San Francisco -- major shipping ports with nearby large military facilities -- make much more appealing targets. For god's sake, Port of Portland was seriously considering selling off its lone large drydock for lack of customers a couple years back.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

If North Korea hits Los Angeles, it would lead to ethnic strife that would make 1992 pale in comparison, and I think they know that.

I disagree. If the NKs hit L.A., and there was anyone left alive afterward, I think you'd see a coming together of diverse groups of people the likes of which Hollyweird has never seen before. Their very concept of what "other" means would be completely altered in the aftermath of a nuclear attack by real foreigners. Think the movie "Independence Day".

Then again, suppose for a moment that you are right, John. If they can kill 2 million people outright by nuking La-La Land, and in doing so dupe another million or so into offing each other in an orgy of racial violence, wouldn't that be more of an incentive to nuke Los Angeles, rather than less? Sort of like buying two oranges, and getting another for free! :lol:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I disagree. If the NKs hit L.A., and there was anyone left alive afterward, I think you'd see a coming together of diverse groups of people the likes of which Hollyweird has never seen before. Their very concept of what "other" means would be completely altered in the aftermath of a nuclear attack by real foreigners. Think the movie "Independence Day".

Then again, suppose for a moment that you are right, John. If they can kill 2 million people outright by nuking La-La Land, and in doing so dupe another million or so into offing each other in an orgy of racial violence, wouldn't that be more of an incentive to nuke Los Angeles, rather than less? Sort of like buying two oranges, and getting another for free! :lol:

I really don't want to envision either scenario. For starters, I have too many friends in LA (and possibly a few relatives.) Until now I'd been hoping LA being so spread out would make it less of a target. That's obviously not the case.

I'd still worry about Honolulu more - something about it being a bit closer.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

This confirms my hypothesis. Never mind survive the trip - I want to know if they can hit a specific target. Fortunately, there aren't many compact cities on that coast (beyond Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Honolulu.) Of course, my sister lives in Portland.

Don't worry too much on your sister's account. Portland is a mid-sized city with delusions of grandeur (I like it that way...). Seattle and San Francisco -- major shipping ports with nearby large military facilities -- make much more appealing targets. For god's sake, Port of Portland was seriously considering selling off its lone large drydock for lack of customers a couple years back.

Wow...I feel better about Portland already! 8)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Portland is a mid-sized city with delusions of grandeur (I like it that way...). Seattle and San Francisco -- major shipping ports with nearby large military facilities -- make much more appealing targets.

I've been to all three (actually, just through Portland) and I know the setup in each place. And I know all too well (something about my in-laws' attitude) about Portland not being comparable (like you'd want it to be anyway.)

The thing that Seattle and San Francisco have going for them is that they are much more of precision targets than Los Angeles. Again, it's Honolulu I'd really worry about. (At least my remaining grandparents moved inland a while ago, to Missoula, Montana of all places.)

Know something? Twenty years ago, when I was watching WarGames, I never thought I'd be having this sort of discussion at any point in my life.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Know something? Twenty years ago, when I was watching WarGames, I never thought I'd be having this sort of discussion at any point in my life.

damn it, john, don't you ever mention how long ago War Games came out again.


TK

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Again, it's Honolulu I'd really worry about.

Perhaps, since it's a bit closer to NK. Then again, if they miss by a few miles the missile would likely land in the Pacific and cause little loss of life. Might have to lay off the mahi-mahi for a few decades though :-)

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Know something? Twenty years ago, when I was watching WarGames, I never thought I'd be having this sort of discussion at any point in my life.

damn it, john, don't you ever mention how long ago War Games came out again.

Sorry about that. While that first came out twenty years ago, I first saw it nineteen years ago. And my father, not long after that, happened to be sitting next to a Stephen Faulken-type once on an airport shuttle, and asked him if NORAD could really be infiltrated like that. The answer was, of course not - but it was a matter of saying the word, and the Soviets' systems would have been so jammed that they wouldn't have been able to launch anything.